[1]胡箫白.明代前中期汉藏交流的物质文化考察[J].中国农史,2024,43(06):68-78.
　HU Xiaobai.Material Culture in Early-mid Ming Sino-Tibetan Interaction[J].AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CHINA,2024,43(06):68-78.
点击复制

明代前中期汉藏交流的物质文化考察()
分享到：

《中国农史》[ISSN:1000-4459/CN:32-1061/S]

卷:
43
期数:
2024年06期
页码:
68-78
栏目:
出版日期:
2024-12-29

文章信息/Info

Title:
Material Culture in Early-mid Ming Sino-Tibetan Interaction
作者:
胡箫白
（南京大学 历史学院，江苏 南京 210023）
Author(s):
HU Xiaobai
（School of History, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023）
关键词:
明代; 物质文化; 汉藏交融
Keywords:
Ming dynasty;  material culture;  Sino-Tibetan interaction
分类号:
S-09；K212
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
明代汉藏交流的层次丰富、内容多元，但相关文本记载一定程度上受到“朝贡”话语体系的简化，既往的研究亦然。而以物质文化为视角，重新审视和考察明初朝廷与藏地僧俗频密互动过程中宗教礼物的经济价值，可以反思“朝贡”框架“重政治轻文化”的倾向和“薄来厚往”的定式表述，因此是理解明代汉藏交流的重要路径。本文以汉藏文化交融地带的藏獒、药材及刀剑铁甲为例，揭示出藏地贡品藏獒在跨地域互动过程中经历的文化内涵的嬗变，由宗教图腾转化为外夷宾服的象征；汉藏边地流通的药材则是考察明代汉藏之间日常知识流通及管窥明朝边地卫所生活实态的优质视角；刀具盔甲在明代川西北地方社会是政治联盟的信物，但在明朝官员眼中则是卑劣杂货，汉藏之间长期存在的跨文化误解甚至引起了地缘政治板块的动荡。因此，本文对物质文化的聚焦，可以进一步推进学界对中国古代各民族间交往交流交融进程的研究。
Abstract:
Sino-Tibetan interaction during the Ming dynasty was phenomenal and dynamic, yet the textual records are, to a certain degree, simplified by the narrative of the tributary system. Previous scholarship on Ming dynasty Sino-Tibetan interaction also falls into this simplified narrative. This article proposes to take the material culture perspective, especially through focusing on Tibetan dogs, botanical medicine and swords and armories, to revisit the alleged "trivial tributes vs valuable awards" paradigm of previous historiography on the tributary system so as to deepen our understanding of Ming dynasty Sino-Tibetan interaction. The cultural connotation of Tibetan dogs changed in the transregional Sino-Tibetan interaction from religious totem to symbols of suppressed outsiders. The flow of botanical medicine allows us to examine the livelihood of Ming China’s frontier garrison soldiers and cross-ethnic material exchange. Swords and armories in northwestern Sichuan were tokens for political alliance and symbols for submission and peace-making, but from the Ming official’s perspective, they were simply cheap metal that frontier swindlers use to trick the Ming for rewards. Cultural misunderstanding during Sino-Tibetan interaction even caused geopolitical reshuffle. The perspective of material culture provides a new angle to study Ming dynasty cross-ethnic interaction.

相似文献/References:

[1]陈 瑞.明代合肥地区的畜牧业述论[J].中国农史,2016,35(04):14.
　CHEN Rui.A Review of the Animal Husbandry in Hefei Area in Ming Dynasty[J].AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CHINA,2016,35(06):14.
[2]徐 静.明代宁夏镇“水头”研究[J].中国农史,2021,40(05):84.
　XU Jing.Study on "Shuitou"（水头） of Ningxia Town in Ming Dynasty[J].AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CHINA,2021,40(06):84.
[3]吴兆庆 吴 滔.明代两畿鲁豫俵马折价和市场价格研究[J].中国农史,2022,41(01):64.
　WU Zhao-Qing WU Tao.The Converted Price and the Market Price of Biao Horses（俵马）in Northern and Southern Zhili as Well as Henan and Shandong in the Ming Dynasty[J].AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CHINA,2022,41(06):64.
[4]展 龙 李争杰.明代地方农灾信息奏报及其决策价值研究[J].中国农史,2022,41(03):3.
　ZHAN Long LI Zheng-jie.Local Agricultural Disaster Information and Its Decision-making Value in the Ming Dynasty[J].AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CHINA,2022,41(06):3.
[5]郝红暖.明代安徽地区的马政及其环境影响初探[J].中国农史,2022,41(06):63.
　HAO Hong-nuan.A Preliminary Study on the Horse Policy and Its Environmental Influence of Anhui Area in the Ming Dynasty[J].AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF CHINA,2022,41(06):63.

更新日期/Last Update: 2025-02-10