重新审视中亚和中国的铜镜,探索青铜时代交流网络的复杂性

IF 1.6 2区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL Pub Date : 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1017/s0959774323000343
Rebecca O'Sullivan, Huiqiu Shao
{"title":"重新审视中亚和中国的铜镜,探索青铜时代交流网络的复杂性","authors":"Rebecca O'Sullivan, Huiqiu Shao","doi":"10.1017/s0959774323000343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ever-growing body of research on trans-Eurasian exchange during the third–first millennium bce continues to improve understanding of mechanisms that facilitated the movement of objects, materials, ideas, and even people. However, whether bronze mirrors in Central Asia and China represent the exchange of technological knowledge or movement of the objects themselves remains unresolved, as researchers require extensive knowledge of huge quantities of data generated during the Soviet Central Asia campaigns of the mid twentieth century. The often confusing, impenetrable excavation reports, combined with required knowledge of Chinese, Russian and English, have caused much confusion about dates and contexts. This article presents and compares data published in Russian and Chinese reports. By clarifying the chronology for mirrors in Central Asia and China, we challenge simplistic theories of object diffusion and spread that persist in studies of trans-Eurasian exchange. We argue that the early second-millennium bce appearance of mirrors in western and northwestern China resulted from different exchange mechanisms specific to each local socio-cultural context. This demonstrates not only the complexity of interactions at the group and individual levels, but also how these factors can be integrated with data-driven analyses to explore the role they played in large-scale Bronze Age exchange networks.","PeriodicalId":47164,"journal":{"name":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","volume":"45 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Complexity in Bronze Age Exchange Networks by Revisiting the Bronze Mirrors of Central Asia and China\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca O'Sullivan, Huiqiu Shao\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0959774323000343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ever-growing body of research on trans-Eurasian exchange during the third–first millennium bce continues to improve understanding of mechanisms that facilitated the movement of objects, materials, ideas, and even people. However, whether bronze mirrors in Central Asia and China represent the exchange of technological knowledge or movement of the objects themselves remains unresolved, as researchers require extensive knowledge of huge quantities of data generated during the Soviet Central Asia campaigns of the mid twentieth century. The often confusing, impenetrable excavation reports, combined with required knowledge of Chinese, Russian and English, have caused much confusion about dates and contexts. This article presents and compares data published in Russian and Chinese reports. By clarifying the chronology for mirrors in Central Asia and China, we challenge simplistic theories of object diffusion and spread that persist in studies of trans-Eurasian exchange. We argue that the early second-millennium bce appearance of mirrors in western and northwestern China resulted from different exchange mechanisms specific to each local socio-cultural context. This demonstrates not only the complexity of interactions at the group and individual levels, but also how these factors can be integrated with data-driven analyses to explore the role they played in large-scale Bronze Age exchange networks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"volume\":\"45 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774323000343\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774323000343","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对公元前三千年至公元前一千年跨欧亚交流的研究越来越多,这继续提高了对促进物品、材料、思想甚至人员流动的机制的理解。然而,中亚和中国的铜镜是否代表了技术知识的交流或物体本身的运动仍然没有解决,因为研究人员需要对20世纪中期苏联中亚运动期间产生的大量数据有广泛的了解。通常令人困惑、难以理解的挖掘报告,加上对中文、俄文和英文的要求,造成了很多关于日期和背景的混淆。本文介绍并比较了俄文和中文报告中公布的数据。通过澄清中亚和中国镜子的年代,我们挑战了在跨欧亚交流研究中持续存在的简单的物体扩散和传播理论。我们认为,中国西部和西北部早在公元前2000年就出现了镜子,这是由于当地社会文化背景不同的交换机制造成的。这不仅展示了群体和个人层面互动的复杂性,还展示了这些因素如何与数据驱动的分析相结合,以探索它们在大规模青铜时代交流网络中所扮演的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring Complexity in Bronze Age Exchange Networks by Revisiting the Bronze Mirrors of Central Asia and China
The ever-growing body of research on trans-Eurasian exchange during the third–first millennium bce continues to improve understanding of mechanisms that facilitated the movement of objects, materials, ideas, and even people. However, whether bronze mirrors in Central Asia and China represent the exchange of technological knowledge or movement of the objects themselves remains unresolved, as researchers require extensive knowledge of huge quantities of data generated during the Soviet Central Asia campaigns of the mid twentieth century. The often confusing, impenetrable excavation reports, combined with required knowledge of Chinese, Russian and English, have caused much confusion about dates and contexts. This article presents and compares data published in Russian and Chinese reports. By clarifying the chronology for mirrors in Central Asia and China, we challenge simplistic theories of object diffusion and spread that persist in studies of trans-Eurasian exchange. We argue that the early second-millennium bce appearance of mirrors in western and northwestern China resulted from different exchange mechanisms specific to each local socio-cultural context. This demonstrates not only the complexity of interactions at the group and individual levels, but also how these factors can be integrated with data-driven analyses to explore the role they played in large-scale Bronze Age exchange networks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Archaeological Journal is the leading journal for cognitive and symbolic archaeology. It provides a forum for innovative, descriptive and theoretical archaeological research, paying particular attention to the role and development of human intellectual abilities and symbolic beliefs and practices. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of cultural neurophenomenology for the understanding of Maya religious belief, agency and the individual, new approaches to rock art and shamanism, the significance of prehistoric monuments, ritual behaviour on Pacific Islands, and body metamorphosis in prehistoric boulder artworks. In addition to major articles and shorter notes, the Cambridge Archaeological Journal includes review features on significant recent books.
期刊最新文献
Food and Labour under Imperial Rule: Unravelling the Food Landscape of Transplanted Workers (mitmaqkuna) in the Inka Empire Neighbours of the Apsaros Fort. Local Tribes on the Black Sea Coast during the Principate Textiles and Staple Finance in the Near East and the Southern Levant Beyond Urban Hinterlands. Political Ecology, Urban Metabolism and Extended Urbanization in Medieval England The Maya Ajawtaak and Teotihuacan Hegemony c. 150–600 ce
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1