梅斯头像:早期东西方文化互动的重要证据

IF 0.3 Q4 SOCIAL ISSUES
Li Shuicheng
{"title":"梅斯头像:早期东西方文化互动的重要证据","authors":"Li Shuicheng","doi":"10.30884/SEH/2018.02.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The archaeological evidence available so far has revealed that the earliest mace-heads first appeared in the Near East about 10,000 BP. along with the early development and spread of agriculture. After that maceheads began to spread throughout the ancient world: southward to Ancient Egypt Kingdom in North Africa, and northwest to Europe and then to the Eurasian steppe of central Asia and Siberia. Eventually, this movement gradually arrived at the Northwestern region of China. In China, mace-heads were found only in Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai and Western Shaanxi in Northwestern Chine. In fact, the morphology of these objects is quite similar to those found outside China. The author assumes that maces, as they bear special and symbolic functions, are not the original or indigenous cultural trait of Chinese civilization. Instead, they are more likely to be exotic goods coming from out-side. The author argues the reasons can be summarized as follow: first, mace-heads in the Near East significantly predate all counterparts in China. Second, the amounts of mace-heads found in China are relatively limited. Third, mace-head discoveries in China are concentrated only in the northwestern area, a pattern explicitly indicating the Western origin of this type of artifacts. From the very beginning of the modern field of archaeology in China in 1921, the question of the origin of ancient Chinese culture has been a focus of academic discussion. For instance, Dr. J. G. Andersson (Fig. 1) initially considered the Yangshao Culture (4900–3000 BCE) as the earliest stage in the emergence of Chinese civilization (Andersson 1923). Later, under the influence of some western scholars, Anderson accepted the model that found Chinese culture as originating in the West. Subsequently, he focused on the northwestern regions of China in search of evidence related to the earliest stages of Chinese civilization (Andersson 1925). Li Shuicheng / A Significant Evidence of the Early Cultural Interaction 259 Fig. 1. Dr. J. G. Andersson Although the ‘Western origin theory’ of Chinese culture has been challenged and criticized from the beginning, there was not any study for a long time that sufficiently elucidated and pin-pointed the provenance of ancient Chinese culture given the scarcity of evidence. For many Chinese scholars during that time, the “western-origin theory” became a longstanding dilemma. Since the 1950s, numerous archaeological discoveries have rejected the idea of ‘Chinese culture coming from the West’ and Chinese scholars gradually have established the theory of ‘Chinese culture originating indigenously’ – in the main valleys of the Yellow River, also known as the Central Plains. To a certain extent, the dispute has even become a controversial question debated on the philosophical level. In fact, no regional culture has ever been completely isolated in the history of world. Archaeology has shown, irrefutably, that cultural exchange played a crucial role in the development of all ancient civilization even in their earliest of stages. Nonetheless, the ways in which cultural interaction was present may be varied dramatically: in some cases the interaction involves large-scale replacement, conquest, and subjugation, while in some other cases the interaction involves explicit assimilation. No matter how different these ways would be, cultural interactions always play an essential role in the development and evolution of human society, and ancient China is no exception to this rule. Since the 1980s, plentiful archaeological discoveries have supplied abundant data for the reconstruction of Chinese prehistory. These new finds have not only moved most Chinese archaeologists to abandon the theory that presumes the development of Chinese civilization was in the Central Plains, but has led to the realization that ancient Chinese culture had emerged through cultural interaction among different regions (Su 1997). Cultural interaction had developed gradually from inner to outer China and eventually fostered direct or indirect communication between Social Evolution & History / September 2018 260 East and West. In the last 20 years or so, a series of new archaeological finds in northwestern China have clarified the pathways, chronologies and scales of early cultural contact that took place along the ancient Silk Road (Li 2002). Among these miscellaneous finds, the mace head provides an important case study in our understanding of the East-West interaction. In 1986, the Department of Archaeology of Peking University and the Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Gansu Province discovered some fragments of stone mace-heads at several loci during the Hexi Corridor field explorations in Gansu Province (GPICR and SAMPU 2011). In the summer of 1987, during the excavation at Gangu’ya Cemetery of Jiuquan, Gansu, one boulder mace-head was uncovered in burial 44 (Fig. 2) (SAMPU and GPICR 2012). These important discoveries attracted my attention and drew me to further investigate this question.","PeriodicalId":42677,"journal":{"name":"Social Evolution & History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mace-head: A Significant Evidence of the Early Cultural Interaction between West and East\",\"authors\":\"Li Shuicheng\",\"doi\":\"10.30884/SEH/2018.02.14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The archaeological evidence available so far has revealed that the earliest mace-heads first appeared in the Near East about 10,000 BP. along with the early development and spread of agriculture. After that maceheads began to spread throughout the ancient world: southward to Ancient Egypt Kingdom in North Africa, and northwest to Europe and then to the Eurasian steppe of central Asia and Siberia. Eventually, this movement gradually arrived at the Northwestern region of China. In China, mace-heads were found only in Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai and Western Shaanxi in Northwestern Chine. In fact, the morphology of these objects is quite similar to those found outside China. The author assumes that maces, as they bear special and symbolic functions, are not the original or indigenous cultural trait of Chinese civilization. Instead, they are more likely to be exotic goods coming from out-side. The author argues the reasons can be summarized as follow: first, mace-heads in the Near East significantly predate all counterparts in China. Second, the amounts of mace-heads found in China are relatively limited. Third, mace-head discoveries in China are concentrated only in the northwestern area, a pattern explicitly indicating the Western origin of this type of artifacts. From the very beginning of the modern field of archaeology in China in 1921, the question of the origin of ancient Chinese culture has been a focus of academic discussion. For instance, Dr. J. G. Andersson (Fig. 1) initially considered the Yangshao Culture (4900–3000 BCE) as the earliest stage in the emergence of Chinese civilization (Andersson 1923). Later, under the influence of some western scholars, Anderson accepted the model that found Chinese culture as originating in the West. Subsequently, he focused on the northwestern regions of China in search of evidence related to the earliest stages of Chinese civilization (Andersson 1925). Li Shuicheng / A Significant Evidence of the Early Cultural Interaction 259 Fig. 1. Dr. J. G. Andersson Although the ‘Western origin theory’ of Chinese culture has been challenged and criticized from the beginning, there was not any study for a long time that sufficiently elucidated and pin-pointed the provenance of ancient Chinese culture given the scarcity of evidence. For many Chinese scholars during that time, the “western-origin theory” became a longstanding dilemma. Since the 1950s, numerous archaeological discoveries have rejected the idea of ‘Chinese culture coming from the West’ and Chinese scholars gradually have established the theory of ‘Chinese culture originating indigenously’ – in the main valleys of the Yellow River, also known as the Central Plains. To a certain extent, the dispute has even become a controversial question debated on the philosophical level. In fact, no regional culture has ever been completely isolated in the history of world. Archaeology has shown, irrefutably, that cultural exchange played a crucial role in the development of all ancient civilization even in their earliest of stages. Nonetheless, the ways in which cultural interaction was present may be varied dramatically: in some cases the interaction involves large-scale replacement, conquest, and subjugation, while in some other cases the interaction involves explicit assimilation. No matter how different these ways would be, cultural interactions always play an essential role in the development and evolution of human society, and ancient China is no exception to this rule. Since the 1980s, plentiful archaeological discoveries have supplied abundant data for the reconstruction of Chinese prehistory. These new finds have not only moved most Chinese archaeologists to abandon the theory that presumes the development of Chinese civilization was in the Central Plains, but has led to the realization that ancient Chinese culture had emerged through cultural interaction among different regions (Su 1997). Cultural interaction had developed gradually from inner to outer China and eventually fostered direct or indirect communication between Social Evolution & History / September 2018 260 East and West. In the last 20 years or so, a series of new archaeological finds in northwestern China have clarified the pathways, chronologies and scales of early cultural contact that took place along the ancient Silk Road (Li 2002). Among these miscellaneous finds, the mace head provides an important case study in our understanding of the East-West interaction. In 1986, the Department of Archaeology of Peking University and the Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Gansu Province discovered some fragments of stone mace-heads at several loci during the Hexi Corridor field explorations in Gansu Province (GPICR and SAMPU 2011). In the summer of 1987, during the excavation at Gangu’ya Cemetery of Jiuquan, Gansu, one boulder mace-head was uncovered in burial 44 (Fig. 2) (SAMPU and GPICR 2012). These important discoveries attracted my attention and drew me to further investigate this question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Evolution & History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Evolution & History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30884/SEH/2018.02.14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Evolution & History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30884/SEH/2018.02.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

迄今为止可用的考古证据表明,最早的狼牙棒头最早出现在近东,约为10000 BP。随着农业的早期发展和普及。此后,狼牙棒开始在古代世界传播:向南传播到北非的古埃及王国,向西北传播到欧洲,然后传播到中亚和西伯利亚的欧亚草原。最终,这场运动逐渐传到了中国西北地区。在中国,狼牙棒头仅在中国西北部的新疆、甘肃、青海和陕西西部发现。事实上,这些物体的形态与中国以外发现的非常相似。笔者认为,狼牙棒具有特殊的象征功能,并不是中华文明的原始或本土文化特征。相反,它们更有可能是来自外部的异国商品。笔者认为,其原因主要有以下几个方面:一是近东狼牙棒头的出现明显早于中国的狼牙棒。其次,在中国发现的狼牙棒头数量相对有限。第三,中国的狼牙棒头发现仅集中在西北地区,这一模式明确表明了这类文物的西方起源。从1921年中国现代考古学领域开始,中国古代文化起源问题就一直是学术界讨论的焦点。例如,J.G.Andersson博士(图1)最初认为仰韶文化(公元前4900–3000年)是中华文明出现的最早阶段(Andersson 1923)。后来,在一些西方学者的影响下,安德森接受了中国文化起源于西方的模式。随后,他专注于中国西北地区,寻找与中国文明最早期阶段有关的证据(安德松1925)。李水成/早期文化互动的重要证据259图1。安德松博士虽然中国文化的“西方起源论”从一开始就受到质疑和批评,但由于缺乏证据,长期以来没有任何研究能够充分阐明和明确中国古代文化的起源。对于当时的许多中国学者来说,“西方起源论”成为一个长期存在的困境。自20世纪50年代以来,许多考古发现否定了“中国文化来自西方”的观点,中国学者逐渐在黄河(也称为中原)的主要流域建立了“中国本土文化”的理论。在某种程度上,这场争论甚至已经成为哲学层面上争论的一个有争议的问题。事实上,在世界历史上,从来没有一种区域文化是完全孤立的。考古学无可辩驳地表明,文化交流在所有古代文明的发展中发挥了至关重要的作用,即使是在最早的阶段。尽管如此,文化互动的方式可能会有很大的不同:在某些情况下,互动涉及大规模的替代、征服和征服,而在其他一些情况下,交互涉及明确的同化。无论这些方式有多不同,文化互动始终在人类社会的发展和演变中发挥着至关重要的作用,中国古代也不例外。20世纪80年代以来,大量的考古发现为中国史前史的重建提供了丰富的资料。这些新发现不仅促使大多数中国考古学家放弃了认为中国文明发展在中原的理论,而且使他们认识到,中国古代文化是通过不同地区之间的文化互动而产生的(苏,1997)。文化互动从中国内部逐渐发展到外部,最终促进了《社会进化与历史》/2018年9月260东西方之间的直接或间接交流。在过去20年左右的时间里,中国西北部的一系列新考古发现阐明了古丝绸之路沿线早期文化接触的途径、年代和规模(李,2002)。在这些混杂的发现中,狼牙棒头部为我们理解东西方相互作用提供了一个重要的案例研究。1986年,北京大学考古系和甘肃省文物考古研究所在甘肃河西走廊野外考察中,在多个地点发现了一些石狼牙棒头的碎片(GPICR和SAMPU,2011)。1987年夏,在甘肃酒泉甘谷崖墓地发掘时,发现一块巨石狼牙棒头埋于44(图2)(SAMPU和GPICR 2012)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Mace-head: A Significant Evidence of the Early Cultural Interaction between West and East
The archaeological evidence available so far has revealed that the earliest mace-heads first appeared in the Near East about 10,000 BP. along with the early development and spread of agriculture. After that maceheads began to spread throughout the ancient world: southward to Ancient Egypt Kingdom in North Africa, and northwest to Europe and then to the Eurasian steppe of central Asia and Siberia. Eventually, this movement gradually arrived at the Northwestern region of China. In China, mace-heads were found only in Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai and Western Shaanxi in Northwestern Chine. In fact, the morphology of these objects is quite similar to those found outside China. The author assumes that maces, as they bear special and symbolic functions, are not the original or indigenous cultural trait of Chinese civilization. Instead, they are more likely to be exotic goods coming from out-side. The author argues the reasons can be summarized as follow: first, mace-heads in the Near East significantly predate all counterparts in China. Second, the amounts of mace-heads found in China are relatively limited. Third, mace-head discoveries in China are concentrated only in the northwestern area, a pattern explicitly indicating the Western origin of this type of artifacts. From the very beginning of the modern field of archaeology in China in 1921, the question of the origin of ancient Chinese culture has been a focus of academic discussion. For instance, Dr. J. G. Andersson (Fig. 1) initially considered the Yangshao Culture (4900–3000 BCE) as the earliest stage in the emergence of Chinese civilization (Andersson 1923). Later, under the influence of some western scholars, Anderson accepted the model that found Chinese culture as originating in the West. Subsequently, he focused on the northwestern regions of China in search of evidence related to the earliest stages of Chinese civilization (Andersson 1925). Li Shuicheng / A Significant Evidence of the Early Cultural Interaction 259 Fig. 1. Dr. J. G. Andersson Although the ‘Western origin theory’ of Chinese culture has been challenged and criticized from the beginning, there was not any study for a long time that sufficiently elucidated and pin-pointed the provenance of ancient Chinese culture given the scarcity of evidence. For many Chinese scholars during that time, the “western-origin theory” became a longstanding dilemma. Since the 1950s, numerous archaeological discoveries have rejected the idea of ‘Chinese culture coming from the West’ and Chinese scholars gradually have established the theory of ‘Chinese culture originating indigenously’ – in the main valleys of the Yellow River, also known as the Central Plains. To a certain extent, the dispute has even become a controversial question debated on the philosophical level. In fact, no regional culture has ever been completely isolated in the history of world. Archaeology has shown, irrefutably, that cultural exchange played a crucial role in the development of all ancient civilization even in their earliest of stages. Nonetheless, the ways in which cultural interaction was present may be varied dramatically: in some cases the interaction involves large-scale replacement, conquest, and subjugation, while in some other cases the interaction involves explicit assimilation. No matter how different these ways would be, cultural interactions always play an essential role in the development and evolution of human society, and ancient China is no exception to this rule. Since the 1980s, plentiful archaeological discoveries have supplied abundant data for the reconstruction of Chinese prehistory. These new finds have not only moved most Chinese archaeologists to abandon the theory that presumes the development of Chinese civilization was in the Central Plains, but has led to the realization that ancient Chinese culture had emerged through cultural interaction among different regions (Su 1997). Cultural interaction had developed gradually from inner to outer China and eventually fostered direct or indirect communication between Social Evolution & History / September 2018 260 East and West. In the last 20 years or so, a series of new archaeological finds in northwestern China have clarified the pathways, chronologies and scales of early cultural contact that took place along the ancient Silk Road (Li 2002). Among these miscellaneous finds, the mace head provides an important case study in our understanding of the East-West interaction. In 1986, the Department of Archaeology of Peking University and the Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Gansu Province discovered some fragments of stone mace-heads at several loci during the Hexi Corridor field explorations in Gansu Province (GPICR and SAMPU 2011). In the summer of 1987, during the excavation at Gangu’ya Cemetery of Jiuquan, Gansu, one boulder mace-head was uncovered in burial 44 (Fig. 2) (SAMPU and GPICR 2012). These important discoveries attracted my attention and drew me to further investigate this question.
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
0.80
自引率
33.30%
发文量
8
×
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