Ancient bronze technology and nomadic communities of the Middle Gobi Desert,Mongolia |
| |
| Authors: | Jang-Sik Park William Honeychurch Amartuvshin Chunag |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Metallurgical Engineering, Hongik University, Chochiwon, Choongnam 339-701, Republic of Korea;2. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, USA;3. Institute of Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulaanbaatar 51, Mongolia;1. Department of Metallurgical Engineering, Hongik University, Chochiwon, Choongnam 339-701, Republic of Korea;2. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, USA;3. Institute of Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Ulaanbaatar 51, Mongolia;1. Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, 395 Humphrey Center, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States;2. Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States;3. Kimmel Center for Archaeological Science, Weizmann Institute of Science, P.O. Box 26, Rehovot 76100, Israel;4. Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 439 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108, United States;5. Science Museum of Minnesota, 120 W. Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102, United States;6. Soil Testing and Research Analytical Laboratories, University of Minnesota, 135 Crops Research Building, 1902 Dudley Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, United States;7. College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences, University of Minnesota, 277 Coffey Hall, 1420 Eckles Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, United States;1. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA;2. Department of Geology, University of the Free State, Nelson Mandela Drive, Bloemfontein, Brandhof 9324, South Africa;1. Géosciences Environnement Toulouse, UMR 5563 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Toulouse, Institut de Recherches pour le Développement, 14-16, Avenue Edouard Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France;2. Travaux et Recherches Archéologiques sur les Cultures, les Espaces et les Sociétés, UMR 5608 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Toulouse, Maison de la Recherche, 5 Allées Antonio Machado, 31 058 Toulouse Cedex 09, France;1. Institute of Historical Metallurgy and Materials, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, PR China;2. Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics, Beijing 100009, PR China;1. The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel;2. Department of Structural Biology and the Kimmel Centre for Archaeological Science, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel;1. Laboratoire Métallurgies et Cultures, IRAMAT UMR 5060, CNRS, Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard, France;2. Laboratoire Archéomatériaux et Prévision de l’Altération, NIMBE UMR 3685, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, France |
| |
| Abstract: | The Xiongnu period of Mongolian prehistory (ca. 3rd century BC–AD 2nd century) is notable for the emergence of an expansive nomadic state and major changes in metallurgical and ceramic technologies. A number of Xiongnu period and pre-Xiongnu period bronze and bronze-related artifacts from the site at Baga Gazaryn Chuluu in the Middle Gobi province of Mongolia were examined for their chemical compositions and microstructures. They include finished objects, leftovers from casting, and pieces of slag from copper smelting and the assemblage likely represents a combination of local and regional production as well as long-distance exchange items. Results show that the entire bronze manufacturing process, from smelting to fabrication, is represented at BGC sites and bronze working may have been technologically self-sufficient, though ore sources are still uncertain. Our evidence suggests that this bronze assemblage was the result of two different technological traditions characterized by either the dominant use of arsenic, enforced apparently by restriction in tin supply, or the profuse use of both tin and lead. The arsenic-based tradition was observed in the majority of pre-Xiongnu period objects while the tin and lead recipes were verified in most objects dating to the Xiongnu period. This shift in bronze tradition may reflect changes in inter-regional interaction with frontier groups beyond the Gobi Desert and with the early state societies of China. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
