Factoids of Assyrian presence in Anatolia: towards a historiography of archaeological interpretation at Kültepe-Kaneš

IF 0.3 1区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
Y. Heffron
{"title":"Factoids of Assyrian presence in Anatolia: towards a historiography of archaeological interpretation at Kültepe-Kaneš","authors":"Y. Heffron","doi":"10.1017/S0066154621000120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article offers a historiographical examination of how 20th-century ideas of assimilation and cultural purity have shaped our understanding of Bronze Age Anatolia, focusing on the canonical narrative of Assyrian presence at the site of Kültepe-Kaneš. According to this narrative, Old Assyrian merchants who lived and conducted business at Kaneš from the early 20th to the late 18th century BC left no trace in the archaeological record except for cuneiform tablets and cylinder seals, assimilating to local culture to such a degree that Kültepe’s archaeological record is entirely of Anatolian character. The accuracy of this view has met increasing circumspection in recent years. What remains to be articulated is why it remained unchallenged for so long, from its initial formulation in 1948 until the late 2000s, during which time it was widely repeated and reiterated. It is proposed here that the persistence and longevity of what is essentially a misconstrued notion of foreign (in)visibility in Kültepe’s material record can be explained by treating it as a ‘factoid’. The article first historicises the factoid’s formulation and subsequent development. This is followed by a critical evaluation of the evidentiary bases of the factoid to show how disciplinary tendencies to privilege certain categories of evidence over others have created artificial gaps in the data. Ultimately, the article seeks to highlight the epistemological implications of how one of the key sites of Bronze Age Anatolia came to represent a perceived rather than an observed case of indigenous cultural purity.","PeriodicalId":45130,"journal":{"name":"Anatolian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatolian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0066154621000120","RegionNum":1,"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

Abstract

Abstract This article offers a historiographical examination of how 20th-century ideas of assimilation and cultural purity have shaped our understanding of Bronze Age Anatolia, focusing on the canonical narrative of Assyrian presence at the site of Kültepe-Kaneš. According to this narrative, Old Assyrian merchants who lived and conducted business at Kaneš from the early 20th to the late 18th century BC left no trace in the archaeological record except for cuneiform tablets and cylinder seals, assimilating to local culture to such a degree that Kültepe’s archaeological record is entirely of Anatolian character. The accuracy of this view has met increasing circumspection in recent years. What remains to be articulated is why it remained unchallenged for so long, from its initial formulation in 1948 until the late 2000s, during which time it was widely repeated and reiterated. It is proposed here that the persistence and longevity of what is essentially a misconstrued notion of foreign (in)visibility in Kültepe’s material record can be explained by treating it as a ‘factoid’. The article first historicises the factoid’s formulation and subsequent development. This is followed by a critical evaluation of the evidentiary bases of the factoid to show how disciplinary tendencies to privilege certain categories of evidence over others have created artificial gaps in the data. Ultimately, the article seeks to highlight the epistemological implications of how one of the key sites of Bronze Age Anatolia came to represent a perceived rather than an observed case of indigenous cultural purity.
亚述人在安纳托利亚的存在:走向Kültepe Kaneš考古解释的史学
本文从史学角度考察了20世纪的同化和文化纯洁性观念如何塑造了我们对青铜时代安纳托利亚的理解,重点关注了亚述人在k ltepe- kanesi遗址的权威叙述。根据这一叙述,公元前20世纪初至18世纪末在卡内什生活和做生意的古亚述商人除了楔形文字碑和圆柱印章外,在考古记录中没有留下任何痕迹,他们与当地文化的同化程度如此之高,以至于k勒特佩的考古记录完全具有安纳托利亚的特征。近年来,这种观点的准确性受到了越来越多的质疑。尚待阐明的是,为什么从1948年最初提出到本世纪头十年末,它在这么长时间里一直没有受到挑战,在此期间,它被广泛重复和重申。本文提出,在k ltepe的材料记录中,本质上是一种被误解的外国(在)可见性概念的持久性和长期性,可以通过将其视为“事实”来解释。本文首先对该因子的形成和后来的发展进行了历史回顾。其次是对事实的证据基础进行批判性评估,以显示学科倾向如何使某些类别的证据优于其他证据,从而在数据中造成人为的空白。最后,本文试图强调认识论的含义,即青铜时代安纳托利亚的一个关键地点如何代表了一种感知而不是观察到的土著文化纯洁性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatolian Studies
Anatolian Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Anatolian Studies contains articles focused on Turkey and the Black Sea littoral in all academic disciplines within the arts, humanities, social sciences and environmental sciences as related to human occupation and history. Articles are in English and are accessible to a wide academic readership. Anatolian Studies is a refereed journal.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信