{"title":"中国春秋时期(公元前770-476年)对银和铁的采用轨迹","authors":"Jonathan R. Wood, Yaxiong Liu","doi":"10.1111/arcm.13088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We examine the number of sites with silver objects in China over a period of 3500 years to suggest that technologies that stimulated the indigenous exploitation of silver-bearing ores were innovated during the Spring and Autumn period (c. 770–476 BCE), and that increased centralisation and bureaucratisation from the Warring States period (475–221 BCE) advanced their adoption. This culture of innovation should have extended to other prestige metals used for decorative objects, such as bloomery iron. However, bloomery iron, although rare prior to the 5th century BCE, disappears almost entirely from the archaeological record in China after this time. We recognise that the movement of objects and ideas across the Eurasian Steppe was potentially the impetus for both silver- and bloomery iron-production technologies in China, but that the adoption trajectory of bloomery iron diverged from that of silver because of the introduction of mass-produced cast iron. In effect, we propose that bloomery iron's status and value diminished when iron became recognised as a utilitarian material; that is, the Chinese invention of cast iron stymied the adoption of the bloomery process and effectively signed the death warrant of iron as a prestige metal.</p>","PeriodicalId":8254,"journal":{"name":"Archaeometry","volume":"67 5","pages":"1267-1282"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/arcm.13088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trajectories of adoption for silver and bloomery iron in China from the Spring and Autumn period (c. 770–476 BC)\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan R. Wood, Yaxiong Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/arcm.13088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We examine the number of sites with silver objects in China over a period of 3500 years to suggest that technologies that stimulated the indigenous exploitation of silver-bearing ores were innovated during the Spring and Autumn period (c. 770–476 BCE), and that increased centralisation and bureaucratisation from the Warring States period (475–221 BCE) advanced their adoption. This culture of innovation should have extended to other prestige metals used for decorative objects, such as bloomery iron. However, bloomery iron, although rare prior to the 5th century BCE, disappears almost entirely from the archaeological record in China after this time. We recognise that the movement of objects and ideas across the Eurasian Steppe was potentially the impetus for both silver- and bloomery iron-production technologies in China, but that the adoption trajectory of bloomery iron diverged from that of silver because of the introduction of mass-produced cast iron. In effect, we propose that bloomery iron's status and value diminished when iron became recognised as a utilitarian material; that is, the Chinese invention of cast iron stymied the adoption of the bloomery process and effectively signed the death warrant of iron as a prestige metal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeometry\",\"volume\":\"67 5\",\"pages\":\"1267-1282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/arcm.13088\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.13088\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeometry","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.13088","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Trajectories of adoption for silver and bloomery iron in China from the Spring and Autumn period (c. 770–476 BC)
We examine the number of sites with silver objects in China over a period of 3500 years to suggest that technologies that stimulated the indigenous exploitation of silver-bearing ores were innovated during the Spring and Autumn period (c. 770–476 BCE), and that increased centralisation and bureaucratisation from the Warring States period (475–221 BCE) advanced their adoption. This culture of innovation should have extended to other prestige metals used for decorative objects, such as bloomery iron. However, bloomery iron, although rare prior to the 5th century BCE, disappears almost entirely from the archaeological record in China after this time. We recognise that the movement of objects and ideas across the Eurasian Steppe was potentially the impetus for both silver- and bloomery iron-production technologies in China, but that the adoption trajectory of bloomery iron diverged from that of silver because of the introduction of mass-produced cast iron. In effect, we propose that bloomery iron's status and value diminished when iron became recognised as a utilitarian material; that is, the Chinese invention of cast iron stymied the adoption of the bloomery process and effectively signed the death warrant of iron as a prestige metal.
期刊介绍:
Archaeometry is an international research journal covering the application of the physical and biological sciences to archaeology, anthropology and art history. Topics covered include dating methods, artifact studies, mathematical methods, remote sensing techniques, conservation science, environmental reconstruction, biological anthropology and archaeological theory. Papers are expected to have a clear archaeological, anthropological or art historical context, be of the highest scientific standards, and to present data of international relevance.
The journal is published on behalf of the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, in association with Gesellschaft für Naturwissenschaftliche Archäologie, ARCHAEOMETRIE, the Society for Archaeological Sciences (SAS), and Associazione Italian di Archeometria.