Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000217
Eva Parga Dans
Abstract As in most European countries and elsewhere, Spanish commercial archaeology is a business model based on the theoretical and technical principles of safeguarding heritage that thrived during the 1990s and 2000s. However, nearly half of the Spanish archaeological companies closed by 2014, stressing the drama associated with the redundancy of its workforce in a mere five-year period and the threat to heritage protection and management. The current context of global crisis has impacted this sector, which is on the brink of extinction. This emphasizes the need for a new paradigm of archaeological heritage management in the 21st century. This breakdown calls into question the extent to which archaeology can generate initiatives of sustainable heritage management. By analysing data derived from an empirical study of Spanish archaeological companies between 2009 and 2017, this paper explores the underlying factors behind the collapse of commercial archaeology. In doing so, it contributes to the current global debate about the future possibilities of heritage management in a post-industrial context.
{"title":"Heritage in danger. The collapse of commercial archaeology in Spain","authors":"Eva Parga Dans","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000217","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As in most European countries and elsewhere, Spanish commercial archaeology is a business model based on the theoretical and technical principles of safeguarding heritage that thrived during the 1990s and 2000s. However, nearly half of the Spanish archaeological companies closed by 2014, stressing the drama associated with the redundancy of its workforce in a mere five-year period and the threat to heritage protection and management. The current context of global crisis has impacted this sector, which is on the brink of extinction. This emphasizes the need for a new paradigm of archaeological heritage management in the 21st century. This breakdown calls into question the extent to which archaeology can generate initiatives of sustainable heritage management. By analysing data derived from an empirical study of Spanish archaeological companies between 2009 and 2017, this paper explores the underlying factors behind the collapse of commercial archaeology. In doing so, it contributes to the current global debate about the future possibilities of heritage management in a post-industrial context.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"111 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000217","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47882784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000035
N. Rauh
King’s thought-provoking paper raises a number of important issues regarding the archaeological record of banditry and rebellion. I will focus my remarks on a particular aspect of the challenges raised by the paper, namely the matter of topography and how close familiarity with it enabled renegades to engage in ‘asymmetrical’ forms of resistance against colonial powers. In King’s discussion, she focused on the reliance by South African herders on habitual refuges in the Maloti– Drakensberg highlands to evade the imposition of sedentary lifestyles by British authorities. In my research a similar dynamic concerns a reliance on the rugged coast of Rough Cilicia by the so-called Cilician pirates to resist Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean world between 139 and 67 B.C. Parallels between the two landscapes are evident, as are the highly mobile lifeways of the rebels in each instance. One of the more challenging questions for the Cilician example, however, concerns the precise role played by agropastoralists of the Cilician mainland in piratical disturbances along the coast. Were the pirates and the Cilician natives one and the same people, or did they represent a merger of interests between two wholly unrelated yet mutually supportive groups? Much like the Maloti–Drakensberg highlands, the rugged, 200-kilometre-long coast of Rough Cilicia (south coastal Turkey directly north of Cyprus) offered limited capacity for agricultural settlement. The shore rises from sea level to 2,000 metres elevation in less than 30 kilometres, with long stretches of the shore forming prohibitive walls of inaccessible coastline. Prior to the Roman era (67 B.C.–250 A.D.) the principal lifeway in Rough Cilicia consisted of transhumant agropastoralism. Remains of necropolis centers in the ‘midlands’ (c.500–900 metres elevation) indicate that tribal entities drove their herds into the highland meadows (c.1,500 metres elevation) during summer and returned them to the shore for slaughter, processing and winter grazing (Matei, Kansa and Rauh 2011). During their time in the highlands the animals would obtain four times the nutrients otherwise available on their trek. These midland ritual centres occupied a halfway point along the arduous route that was traversed twice a year and became logical places for herders to settle the sick and the infirm (Frachetti 2009). Confirmation of this pattern is available not only from the consistent placement of these ritual centres along the midlands, but also from an otherwise visible lack of permanent stone structures throughout the region prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great (c.333 B.C.). From the perspective of built landscapes, the most dominant influence was the Ptolemies of Egypt and Cyprus, who governed this rugged coast from c.301 to 197 B.C., securing the shore with stone-constructed fortresses and signal towers (the largest being the fortress at Korakesion – modern-day Alanya – constructed by Ptolemy I, c.309 B.C.; Rauh, Dillon
金的这篇发人深省的论文提出了一些关于土匪和叛乱的考古记录的重要问题。我将把我的评论集中在论文提出的挑战的一个特定方面，即地形问题，以及对地形的密切熟悉如何使叛徒能够以“不对称”的形式抵抗殖民列强。在金的讨论中，她集中讨论了南非牧民对马洛蒂-德拉肯斯堡高地习惯性避难所的依赖，以逃避英国当局强加的久坐不动的生活方式。在我的研究中，在公元前139年至公元前67年之间，所谓的西里西亚海盗依靠崎岖的糙西里西亚海岸来抵抗罗马在地中海世界的霸权，这两种景观之间的相似之处是显而易见的，就像每个例子中叛军高度流动的生活方式一样。然而，对于西利西亚的例子，一个更具挑战性的问题是，西利西亚大陆的农牧民在沿海海盗骚乱中所扮演的确切角色。海盗和西利西亚土著人是同一个人吗，还是他们代表了两个完全不相关但相互支持的群体之间的利益合并?就像马洛蒂-德拉肯斯堡高地一样，粗糙的基利西亚(土耳其南部海岸，塞浦路斯正北)200公里长的崎岖海岸提供了有限的农业定居能力。在不到30公里的时间里，海岸从海平面上升到海拔2000米，长长的海岸形成了难以接近的海岸线。在罗马时代之前(公元前67年-公元250年)，基利西亚地区的主要生活方式是农牧业。“中部地区”(海拔500 - 900米)墓地中心的遗迹表明，部落实体在夏季将他们的牛群赶到高地草地(海拔1500米)，并将它们送回岸上屠宰、加工和冬季放牧(Matei, Kansa和Rauh 2011)。在高原上，动物们获得的营养是在长途跋涉中获得的营养的四倍。这些中部地区的仪式中心占据了每年两次穿越的艰难路线的中点，成为牧民安置病人和体弱者的合理场所(Frachetti 2009)。这种模式不仅可以从这些仪式中心沿中部地区的一致位置得到证实，而且在亚历山大大帝征服之前(c.333)，整个地区都明显缺乏永久性的石头结构公元前)。从建筑景观的角度来看，最主要的影响是埃及和塞浦路斯的托勒密王朝，他们从公元前301年到公元前197年统治着这片崎岖的海岸，用石头建造的堡垒和信号塔(最大的是在Korakesion的堡垒-现代阿拉尼亚-由托勒密一世于公元前309年建造)来保护海岸公元前;Rauh, Dillon and Rothaus 2013)。当时确实存在的定居点，如Korakesion，都很小，通常只不过是由凸出的海角、天然河口或泻湖河口提供的系泊。需要强调的是，尽管如此，古代地中海海上贸易的性质要求谈判这条令人望而却步的海岸线。虽然古代的货船有能力在地中海的公海上航行，但要求
{"title":"Coastal highlands, the sea and dissident behaviour on the margins of society","authors":"N. Rauh","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000035","url":null,"abstract":"King’s thought-provoking paper raises a number of important issues regarding the archaeological record of banditry and rebellion. I will focus my remarks on a particular aspect of the challenges raised by the paper, namely the matter of topography and how close familiarity with it enabled renegades to engage in ‘asymmetrical’ forms of resistance against colonial powers. In King’s discussion, she focused on the reliance by South African herders on habitual refuges in the Maloti– Drakensberg highlands to evade the imposition of sedentary lifestyles by British authorities. In my research a similar dynamic concerns a reliance on the rugged coast of Rough Cilicia by the so-called Cilician pirates to resist Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean world between 139 and 67 B.C. Parallels between the two landscapes are evident, as are the highly mobile lifeways of the rebels in each instance. One of the more challenging questions for the Cilician example, however, concerns the precise role played by agropastoralists of the Cilician mainland in piratical disturbances along the coast. Were the pirates and the Cilician natives one and the same people, or did they represent a merger of interests between two wholly unrelated yet mutually supportive groups? Much like the Maloti–Drakensberg highlands, the rugged, 200-kilometre-long coast of Rough Cilicia (south coastal Turkey directly north of Cyprus) offered limited capacity for agricultural settlement. The shore rises from sea level to 2,000 metres elevation in less than 30 kilometres, with long stretches of the shore forming prohibitive walls of inaccessible coastline. Prior to the Roman era (67 B.C.–250 A.D.) the principal lifeway in Rough Cilicia consisted of transhumant agropastoralism. Remains of necropolis centers in the ‘midlands’ (c.500–900 metres elevation) indicate that tribal entities drove their herds into the highland meadows (c.1,500 metres elevation) during summer and returned them to the shore for slaughter, processing and winter grazing (Matei, Kansa and Rauh 2011). During their time in the highlands the animals would obtain four times the nutrients otherwise available on their trek. These midland ritual centres occupied a halfway point along the arduous route that was traversed twice a year and became logical places for herders to settle the sick and the infirm (Frachetti 2009). Confirmation of this pattern is available not only from the consistent placement of these ritual centres along the midlands, but also from an otherwise visible lack of permanent stone structures throughout the region prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great (c.333 B.C.). From the perspective of built landscapes, the most dominant influence was the Ptolemies of Egypt and Cyprus, who governed this rugged coast from c.301 to 197 B.C., securing the shore with stone-constructed fortresses and signal towers (the largest being the fortress at Korakesion – modern-day Alanya – constructed by Ptolemy I, c.309 B.C.; Rauh, Dillon","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"45 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000035","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57573958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000072
F. Riede
When first asked to comment upon the contribution of Arponen et al. on environmental determinism in archaeology – a red flag to many – I became excited that the topic is receiving attention again and, not least, that this attention is translating into printed debate. I commend the authors on their effort, also for bringing together multiple voices in their article. All too rarely do theoretical contributions translate into multiple authorship. I cannot in any way disagree with their key conclusions, namely that investigations of deep-time relations between humans and the environment are not just timely but important, and that archaeology should make full use of its rich array of data, cases and dissemination possibilities to investigate them and make them relevant in the present.
{"title":"Environmental determinism and archaeology. Red flag, red herring","authors":"F. Riede","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000072","url":null,"abstract":"When first asked to comment upon the contribution of Arponen et al. on environmental determinism in archaeology – a red flag to many – I became excited that the topic is receiving attention again and, not least, that this attention is translating into printed debate. I commend the authors on their effort, also for bringing together multiple voices in their article. All too rarely do theoretical contributions translate into multiple authorship. I cannot in any way disagree with their key conclusions, namely that investigations of deep-time relations between humans and the environment are not just timely but important, and that archaeology should make full use of its rich array of data, cases and dissemination possibilities to investigate them and make them relevant in the present.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"17 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000072","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48822340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000102
V. Arponen, W. Dörfler, Ingo Feeser, Sonja B. Grimm, Daniel Groß, Martin Hinz, Daniel Knitter, N. Müller‐Scheeßel, K. Ott, Artur Ribeiro
We would like to begin by thanking the journal and the commentators for their time and attention.
首先，我们要感谢该杂志和评论员的时间和关注。
{"title":"Two cultures in the times of interdisciplinary archaeology. A response to commentators","authors":"V. Arponen, W. Dörfler, Ingo Feeser, Sonja B. Grimm, Daniel Groß, Martin Hinz, Daniel Knitter, N. Müller‐Scheeßel, K. Ott, Artur Ribeiro","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000102","url":null,"abstract":"We would like to begin by thanking the journal and the commentators for their time and attention.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"19 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41913490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/s138020381900014x
V. Arponen
V.P.J. Arponen is a post-doctoral researcher in philosophy and archaeological theory at the Kiel University, Germany, at the Scales of Transformation: Human–Environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies collaborative research centre SFB 1266. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, in 2012. He has published on diverse topics from archaeology of inequality to philosophy of the social sciences.
{"title":"List of Contributors","authors":"V. Arponen","doi":"10.1017/s138020381900014x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s138020381900014x","url":null,"abstract":"V.P.J. Arponen is a post-doctoral researcher in philosophy and archaeological theory at the Kiel University, Germany, at the Scales of Transformation: Human–Environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies collaborative research centre SFB 1266. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, in 2012. He has published on diverse topics from archaeology of inequality to philosophy of the social sciences.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"57 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s138020381900014x","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44519877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000096
K. Samuels
The discussion by Arponen et al. inserts itself into long-standing debates about the place of causality and determinism in archaeological interpretation. While some of the discussion might feel like retreading familiar ground in those debates, the authors bring a refreshing clarity of exposition to the problem, and more importantly they propose several promising directions for future research. For example, their exhortation to ‘see the human–environment relationship as always already sociocultural’ (p. 8) should be firmly established by now, but I agree with their assertion that this perspective ‘seems underdeveloped in archaeology’ (p. 8) and that looking to anthropology is one especially productive route for developing such a sensibility. In the following I wish to extend and respond to their arguments by (1) addressing how anthropological approaches might best be incorporated into archaeological research on palaeo-environments and coupled human–environment systems, and (2) highlighting the ethical and moral dimensions of this process as integral to it.
{"title":"From determinism to accountability. Archaeology, anthropology and ethics","authors":"K. Samuels","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000096","url":null,"abstract":"The discussion by Arponen et al. inserts itself into long-standing debates about the place of causality and determinism in archaeological interpretation. While some of the discussion might feel like retreading familiar ground in those debates, the authors bring a refreshing clarity of exposition to the problem, and more importantly they propose several promising directions for future research. For example, their exhortation to ‘see the human–environment relationship as always already sociocultural’ (p. 8) should be firmly established by now, but I agree with their assertion that this perspective ‘seems underdeveloped in archaeology’ (p. 8) and that looking to anthropology is one especially productive route for developing such a sensibility. In the following I wish to extend and respond to their arguments by (1) addressing how anthropological approaches might best be incorporated into archaeological research on palaeo-environments and coupled human–environment systems, and (2) highlighting the ethical and moral dimensions of this process as integral to it.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"14 - 17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000096","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41883885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000011
Artur Ribeiro
Abstract This paper expands upon some of the arguments and issues surrounding object agency that have been discussed in this journal (Lindstrøm 2015; 2017; Ribeiro 2016a; 2016b; Sørensen 2016; 2018). More specifically, it challenges Sørensen’s support of object agency in his latest discussion on the topic (2018). The paper is divided into three parts: first, it questions the relevance of replacing the conventional usage of ‘agency’, generally attached to sociological studies and reserved to describe human action, with one supported by the New Materialists; second, it identifies a series of contradictions in how agency is defined according to the New Materialisms, namely how it can be very labile and scalable yet simultaneously universal and applicable across all cultures and time periods; and lastly, it questions the quality of the philosophical ideas supporting the New Materialist conception of agency, and its disadvantages in light of the current re-emergence and repopularization of processual archaeology.
{"title":"Against object agency 2. Continuing the discussion with Sørensen","authors":"Artur Ribeiro","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper expands upon some of the arguments and issues surrounding object agency that have been discussed in this journal (Lindstrøm 2015; 2017; Ribeiro 2016a; 2016b; Sørensen 2016; 2018). More specifically, it challenges Sørensen’s support of object agency in his latest discussion on the topic (2018). The paper is divided into three parts: first, it questions the relevance of replacing the conventional usage of ‘agency’, generally attached to sociological studies and reserved to describe human action, with one supported by the New Materialists; second, it identifies a series of contradictions in how agency is defined according to the New Materialisms, namely how it can be very labile and scalable yet simultaneously universal and applicable across all cultures and time periods; and lastly, it questions the quality of the philosophical ideas supporting the New Materialist conception of agency, and its disadvantages in light of the current re-emergence and repopularization of processual archaeology.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"39 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47644003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1380203819000023
Y. Hamilakis, Felipe Rojas
On 13 November 2017, Yannis Hamilakis, Felipe Rojas, and several other archaeologists at Brown University engaged in a conversation with Alain Schnapp about his life and career. Hamilakis and Rojas were interested in learning about how Schnapp’s early academic and political interests intersected with the history of Classics and classical archaeology in France, Europe and elsewhere in the world, and also about the origins and current aims of Schnapp’s work on the history of archaeology and antiquarianism and the cross-cultural history of ruins. Schnapp and his interlocutors began by discussing Schnapp’s formative years and the intersections between archaeology and politics in mid-20th-century France. Their conversation turns to the role of individual scholars, specifically classicists and archaeologists, in the momentous social events in Paris in 1968. The final part of the dialogue concerns Schnapp’s contributions to the history of archaeology and the possibilities of engaging in the comparison of antiquarian traditions.
{"title":"A conversation with Alain Schnapp","authors":"Y. Hamilakis, Felipe Rojas","doi":"10.1017/S1380203819000023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000023","url":null,"abstract":"On 13 November 2017, Yannis Hamilakis, Felipe Rojas, and several other archaeologists at Brown University engaged in a conversation with Alain Schnapp about his life and career. Hamilakis and Rojas were interested in learning about how Schnapp’s early academic and political interests intersected with the history of Classics and classical archaeology in France, Europe and elsewhere in the world, and also about the origins and current aims of Schnapp’s work on the history of archaeology and antiquarianism and the cross-cultural history of ruins. Schnapp and his interlocutors began by discussing Schnapp’s formative years and the intersections between archaeology and politics in mid-20th-century France. Their conversation turns to the role of individual scholars, specifically classicists and archaeologists, in the momentous social events in Paris in 1968. The final part of the dialogue concerns Schnapp’s contributions to the history of archaeology and the possibilities of engaging in the comparison of antiquarian traditions.","PeriodicalId":45009,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Dialogues","volume":"26 1","pages":"25 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1380203819000023","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44624572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：