Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology最新文献

英文中文

The Last Phases at Barikot: Urban Cults and Preliminary Chronology: Data from the 2012 Excavation Campaign in Swat 巴里科特的最后阶段:城市邪教和初步年表:来自2012年斯瓦特挖掘运动的数据

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.5.107585

L. Olivieri

引用次数: 11

A Hunnish Kushan-shah 匈奴的贵霜国王

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.301930

Aman ur Rahman, F. Grenet, N. Sims-Williams

引用次数: 6

Dunhuang and the Origins of Zen Printing 敦煌与禅宗印刷术的起源

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.302545

T. Barrett

引用次数: 0

Elena E. Kuz’mina, The Origin of the Indo-Iranians and E. E. Kuzmina, The Prehistory of the Silk Road Elena E. Kuzmina，《印度-伊朗人的起源》和E. E. Kuzmina，《丝绸之路的史前史》

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAA.3.17

Burzine K. Waghmar

引用次数: 0

The Anau Seal and the Questions It Raises 阿瑙封印及其引发的问题

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.302555

Helen Wang, W. Tao

In June 2000 a USA-Turkmen archaeological team excavating at the Anau site in southern Turkmenistan came across a seal, made of jet or lignite, bearing an apparently unknown script.1 The discovery aroused great interest in the Western press, which published special features about this “first word from Asia’s lost civilization” in April and May 2001.2 The seal immediately caught the attention of Chinese academics, and a number of articles swiftly appeared in Zhongguo wenwu bao [China Cultural Relics News].3 The Chinese scholars recognised this as a significant discovery, one that could not be ignored in the study of the origins of seals and writing in China. Additionally, it might throw new light on the early cultural exchanges between China and Central Asia. However, there are a number of unresolved problems regarding the context of the find, its date, and possible interpretations. In this paper, we will re-examine some of the issues. In order to pursue the question further, we will look more broadly at the archaeology of Central Asia and China, and in particular at the development of Chinese seals and at comparable examples from Chinese Central Asia (Xinjiang). The Anau site is located on the plateau north of the Kopet Mountains on the borders between Turkmenistan and Iran. It occupies a strategic location, at the crossroads of the ancient civilizations of Central Asia, Western Asia and India. The site was first discovered by General A.V. Komarov in 1880, and the first excavations, by geologist Raphael Pumpelly (1873-1959) and archaeologist Hubert Schmidt (1864-1933), began in the early twentieth century.4 Archaeologists from the Soviet Union soon became active in this region, working at the Anau site and the related sites of Namazga-depe, Altyn-depe and Kara-depe. The finds from these sites are typically representative of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age civilizations, and include human figures, textiles, ceramics and metalware. These Bronze Age sites have now been classified as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) and the periodization is currently determined according to the evidence of type sites, such as Namazga-depe.5 The early phase of the Anau culture (Anau IA) pre-dates the Chalcolithic, but a small quantity of copper ore has been found at Anau. Namazga-depe Phases I-III are characterised by the combined Bronze and Stone Age (37002500 BCE), and Phases IV-VI by the Bronze Age (2500-1000 BCE). As far as the development of seals is concerned, it is particularly noteworthy that terracotta seals have been found at Karadepe, which belongs to the Namazga-depe Phase III (3000-2500 BCE).6 The designs on the seals resemble a cross, and similar designs have also been found on pots from the site. Seals made of copper and stone have also been found at Shahr-i-Sokhta, a site with a similar date and also in southern Turkmenistan.7 The same cross designs are found on these seals, as well as animal symbols. Once in the Bronze Age, for example a

2000年6月，一支美国-土库曼考古队在土库曼南部的阿瑙遗址挖掘时发现了一个由喷气式飞机或褐煤制成的印章，上面有一个显然未知的文字这一发现引起了西方媒体的极大兴趣，并于2001年4月和5月发表了关于这一“亚洲失落文明的第一个字”的专题报道。这一印章立即引起了中国学术界的注意，《中国文物报》上也迅速出现了一些文章中国学者认为这是一项重要的发现，在研究中国印章和文字的起源时不容忽视。此外，它还可能对中国与中亚早期的文化交流提供新的认识。然而，关于这一发现的背景、日期和可能的解释，还有许多未解决的问题。在本文中，我们将重新审视其中的一些问题。为了进一步探讨这个问题，我们将更广泛地关注中亚和中国的考古学，特别是中国印章的发展和中国中亚(新疆)的类似例子。阿瑙遗址位于土库曼斯坦和伊朗边界上科佩特山脉北部的高原上。它位于中亚、西亚和印度古代文明的交汇处，战略位置优越。这个遗址最初是由A.V.科马罗夫将军于1880年发现的，第一批发掘工作始于20世纪初，由地质学家Raphael Pumpelly(1873-1959)和考古学家Hubert Schmidt(1864-1933)进行来自苏联的考古学家很快就在这个地区活跃起来，在阿瑙遗址和纳马加-德佩、阿尔廷-德佩和卡拉-德佩的相关遗址工作。这些遗址的发现是铜器时代和青铜时代文明的典型代表，包括人物、纺织品、陶瓷和金属器皿。这些青铜器时代的遗址现在被归类为巴克特里亚-马吉安娜考古建筑群(BMAC)，其年代划分目前是根据类型遗址的证据来确定的，比如纳马兹加-迪普阿瑙文化(Anau IA)的早期阶段早于铜石器时代，但在阿瑙发现了少量的铜矿。namazga深度阶段的特征是青铜和石器时代(公元前3700 - 2500年)的结合，而阶段IV-VI则是青铜时代(公元前2500-1000年)。就印章的发展而言，特别值得注意的是，在卡拉德佩发现了兵马俑印章，属于纳马兹加-德普第三阶段(公元前3000-2500年)印章上的图案类似于十字架，在该遗址的陶罐上也发现了类似的图案。在Shahr-i-Sokhta也发现了铜和石头制成的印章，这是一个类似的日期，也是在土库曼斯坦南部。7在这些印章上发现了相同的十字架图案，以及动物符号。例如，在青铜时代的阿尔廷德普遗址，用青铜和其他金属(如银)制成的印章的数量显著增加这些印章上的图案表明它们是沿袭早期印章的。然而，也有一些设计看起来很像原始文字。虽然我们不能绝对肯定，但一些痕迹似乎表明了伊朗高原的青铜文化与印度河流域文明之间的联系这一时期的密封件通常在背面有一个小穿孔的凸台，或者在侧面有一个孔，通过这个孔可以穿线，而背面没有旋钮。在阿富汗也发现了类似的印章。20世纪90年代，随着苏联解体，土库曼斯坦迅速着手与外国考古学家建立联合项目。1995年，美国和土库曼斯坦签署了一份谅解备忘录，在为期五年的时间里共同挖掘阿瑙遗址。这次合作非常成功，并签署了一份新的备忘录，使该项目能够在2002年至2006年期间继续进行。该项目的负责人是宾夕法尼亚大学的Fredrik T. Hiebert和土库曼斯坦文化遗产中心的Kakamurad Kurbansakhatov。11阿瑙印章是在2000年的挖掘过程中出土的。当时，挖掘工作主要集中在该遗址南部的结构遗迹上，这似乎与纳马加-德普文化的第四和第五阶段相对应，时间在公元前2500-1600年之间。喷气式印章是在一个用粘土砖建造的房间的废墟中通过筛选找到的，房间的门是用石头铺成的。相关的发现包括小型石器、陶器和人类雕像的碎片。值得强调的是，考古学家确定这个房间已经被改造过很多次，它有各种各样的功能。它最初可能是一个仓库，后来被用作车间。地板、墙壁和台阶上都有不同使用时期的痕迹。此外，在房子南侧的院子里有一个露天炉，里面发现了大量的圆形粘土块(可能曾经用来封瓮?)碳定年法

{"title":"The Anau Seal and the Questions It Raises","authors":"Helen Wang, W. Tao","doi":"10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.302555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.302555","url":null,"abstract":"In June 2000 a USA-Turkmen archaeological team excavating at the Anau site in southern Turkmenistan came across a seal, made of jet or lignite, bearing an apparently unknown script.1 The discovery aroused great interest in the Western press, which published special features about this “first word from Asia’s lost civilization” in April and May 2001.2 The seal immediately caught the attention of Chinese academics, and a number of articles swiftly appeared in Zhongguo wenwu bao [China Cultural Relics News].3 The Chinese scholars recognised this as a significant discovery, one that could not be ignored in the study of the origins of seals and writing in China. Additionally, it might throw new light on the early cultural exchanges between China and Central Asia. However, there are a number of unresolved problems regarding the context of the find, its date, and possible interpretations. In this paper, we will re-examine some of the issues. In order to pursue the question further, we will look more broadly at the archaeology of Central Asia and China, and in particular at the development of Chinese seals and at comparable examples from Chinese Central Asia (Xinjiang). The Anau site is located on the plateau north of the Kopet Mountains on the borders between Turkmenistan and Iran. It occupies a strategic location, at the crossroads of the ancient civilizations of Central Asia, Western Asia and India. The site was first discovered by General A.V. Komarov in 1880, and the first excavations, by geologist Raphael Pumpelly (1873-1959) and archaeologist Hubert Schmidt (1864-1933), began in the early twentieth century.4 Archaeologists from the Soviet Union soon became active in this region, working at the Anau site and the related sites of Namazga-depe, Altyn-depe and Kara-depe. The finds from these sites are typically representative of Chalcolithic and Bronze Age civilizations, and include human figures, textiles, ceramics and metalware. These Bronze Age sites have now been classified as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) and the periodization is currently determined according to the evidence of type sites, such as Namazga-depe.5 The early phase of the Anau culture (Anau IA) pre-dates the Chalcolithic, but a small quantity of copper ore has been found at Anau. Namazga-depe Phases I-III are characterised by the combined Bronze and Stone Age (37002500 BCE), and Phases IV-VI by the Bronze Age (2500-1000 BCE). As far as the development of seals is concerned, it is particularly noteworthy that terracotta seals have been found at Karadepe, which belongs to the Namazga-depe Phase III (3000-2500 BCE).6 The designs on the seals resemble a cross, and similar designs have also been found on pots from the site. Seals made of copper and stone have also been found at Shahr-i-Sokhta, a site with a similar date and also in southern Turkmenistan.7 The same cross designs are found on these seals, as well as animal symbols. Once in the Bronze Age, for example a","PeriodicalId":227814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115545294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

On the Question of Sasanian Presence in Sogdiana. Recent Results of Excavations at Paykand 论萨珊王朝在粟特尼亚的存在。最近在payland的挖掘结果

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.4.2017005

A. V. Omel’chenko

引用次数: 3

“A Bone Pin From Kazakl’i-Yatkan/Akcha-Khan-Kala, Chorasmia”

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.302541

Fiona. Kidd

引用次数: 1

Some Begram Ivories and the South Indian Narrative Tradition: New Evidence 一些贝尔格拉姆象牙与南印度叙事传统:新证据

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAA.3.5

E. Stone

Many of the Begram ivories rank amongst the finest works of art surviving from ancient India. Despite their profound interest, they are relatively small pieces of ivory and bone made in a wide variety of styles and techniques and probably by a large number of craftsmen from different regions and even at different times. The ivories were used to decorate wooden furniture, the wood having long since disintegrated. Many of them were imported from India and may have arrived in Begram already assembled into furniture while others may have been assembled somewhere near Begram, in eastern Bactria near the border of Gandhara (Map 1). The ivories were found in two sealed rooms, numbers 10 and 13, along with numerous other treasures that included bronzes and plaster casts of metalwork imported from the Greco-Roman world, Alexandrian glass, and lacquer work from China.1 Neither the site of the Begram hoard nor the accumulation of objects contained within it provides us with definitive dates. The hoard is culturally heterogeneous which certainly suggests that it is chronologically heterogeneous. The style of many of the ivories is Indian. Over the years, there has been much controversy as to their place of manufacture, as well as their date. They have been assigned to dates ranging from the first century BCE to the fourth century CE and have been compared to almost every major site of sculptural production within the Indian subcontinent. The reasons for this are intrinsic to the field of Indian art and archaeology. Since only a small percentage of ancient sites have been identified, excavated, and published, we are constantly restudying the same evidence over and over in hopes of somehow “redating” or “reassessing” them. Furthermore, the major regional sculptural schools were connected by trade routes and influenced each other so that styles frequently tended to comingle. Thus, despite the existence of clear regional styles, we often see forms or motifs in different regions at the same time.2 Further complicating the problem, India’s reverence for the past makes it difficult to separate that which is truly old from that which is merely archaizing. To date, none of the theories regarding the ivories are universally accepted, and I do not propose to definitively solve the problems of date and/or provenance in this paper. What I will do is to insist upon the importance of the southern Indian contribution to the style and motifs of the Begram ivories The Begram hoard was first excavated between 1937 and 1939 by Joseph Hackin and his wife Ria, and their initial publication of the hoard in the Mémoires de la Délégation archéologiques française en Afghanistan 9 appeared shortly thereafter.3 With regard to the ivories, Hackin compared some of them to Stupa I at Sanchi, while one very important one, Coffret IX (Fig. 6),4 he placed from the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth century CE.5 His second publication was posthumous, as he and his wife were both

她将象牙分成主题和技术类别，并汇集了大量的解释性信息。虽然她得出了自己的结论，但她慷慨地引用了那些持不同观点的人的观点

{"title":"Some Begram Ivories and the South Indian Narrative Tradition: New Evidence","authors":"E. Stone","doi":"10.1484/J.JIAA.3.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1484/J.JIAA.3.5","url":null,"abstract":"Many of the Begram ivories rank amongst the finest works of art surviving from ancient India. Despite their profound interest, they are relatively small pieces of ivory and bone made in a wide variety of styles and techniques and probably by a large number of craftsmen from different regions and even at different times. The ivories were used to decorate wooden furniture, the wood having long since disintegrated. Many of them were imported from India and may have arrived in Begram already assembled into furniture while others may have been assembled somewhere near Begram, in eastern Bactria near the border of Gandhara (Map 1). The ivories were found in two sealed rooms, numbers 10 and 13, along with numerous other treasures that included bronzes and plaster casts of metalwork imported from the Greco-Roman world, Alexandrian glass, and lacquer work from China.1 Neither the site of the Begram hoard nor the accumulation of objects contained within it provides us with definitive dates. The hoard is culturally heterogeneous which certainly suggests that it is chronologically heterogeneous. The style of many of the ivories is Indian. Over the years, there has been much controversy as to their place of manufacture, as well as their date. They have been assigned to dates ranging from the first century BCE to the fourth century CE and have been compared to almost every major site of sculptural production within the Indian subcontinent. The reasons for this are intrinsic to the field of Indian art and archaeology. Since only a small percentage of ancient sites have been identified, excavated, and published, we are constantly restudying the same evidence over and over in hopes of somehow “redating” or “reassessing” them. Furthermore, the major regional sculptural schools were connected by trade routes and influenced each other so that styles frequently tended to comingle. Thus, despite the existence of clear regional styles, we often see forms or motifs in different regions at the same time.2 Further complicating the problem, India’s reverence for the past makes it difficult to separate that which is truly old from that which is merely archaizing. To date, none of the theories regarding the ivories are universally accepted, and I do not propose to definitively solve the problems of date and/or provenance in this paper. What I will do is to insist upon the importance of the southern Indian contribution to the style and motifs of the Begram ivories The Begram hoard was first excavated between 1937 and 1939 by Joseph Hackin and his wife Ria, and their initial publication of the hoard in the Mémoires de la Délégation archéologiques française en Afghanistan 9 appeared shortly thereafter.3 With regard to the ivories, Hackin compared some of them to Stupa I at Sanchi, while one very important one, Coffret IX (Fig. 6),4 he placed from the end of the third to the beginning of the fourth century CE.5 His second publication was posthumous, as he and his wife were both ","PeriodicalId":227814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124546947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 14

A New Coin Type Of The Khalaj 一种新的哈拉吉硬币类型

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.2.301931

M. Alram, Ciro LoMuzio

引用次数: 1

Yulin Cave 39 and Uygur Patronage: Origin and Transmittal of the Theme of Guanyin with Luohans 榆林39号洞与维吾尔族赞助:罗汉观音主题的起源与传承

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.1484/J.JIAAA.5.107592

M. Gridley

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀