This paper focuses on the space-time pattern of “Han and ‘Yi’ (汉夷)” in the southwest of China in Qin-Han period. Materials used in this paper including: the aristocratic families(豪族大姓), well-know men and women (士女) in the “Records of... more
This paper focuses on the space-time pattern of “Han and ‘Yi’ (汉夷)” in the southwest of China in Qin-Han period. Materials used in this paper including: the aristocratic families(豪族大姓), well-know men and women (士女) in the “Records of Huayang Kingdom” (《华阳国志》, RHK), and horizontal tombs (brick-chambered tomb, stone-chamber tomb and tomb on the cliff) from archaeological materials since 1940s to 2015. All those materials have been proved as the relic of Han ethnic in Qin-Han period. Based on the space-time pattern of those materials, this paper concludes, if we consider the administrative division of RHK as the analyze scale, and regards the end of Han dynasty as the final time surface, that: (1) the main area of Han including provinces of Shu (蜀), Qianwei (犍为), Guanghan (广汉), Baxi (巴西), Zitong (梓潼), Hanzhong (汉中), and area along the Yangtze River of provinces of Jiangyang (江阳), Ba (巴西) and Badong (巴东), and Han in part of these provinces have taken a high proportion; (2) provinces of Weixing (魏兴), Shangyoung (上庸), Xingcheng (新城), Dangqu (宕渠), Zhuti (朱提), Pingyi (平夷), Pingle (平乐), Jianning (建宁), Jinning (晋宁) and Yalang (夜郎) are the mixed area of Han and ‘Yi’; (3) the remainder provinces in RHK are mainly the distribution of ‘Yi’. All those situations are presented by a map in this paper.
Indigenous research paradigm (IRP), as an “unthinking” path to the dominant paradigms, is a mainstream methodology which emerges since 1960s, and now ongoing to search for an effective methodology for Aboriginal/Native/Indian/Indigenous... more
Indigenous research paradigm (IRP), as an “unthinking” path to the dominant paradigms, is a mainstream methodology which emerges since 1960s, and now ongoing to search for an effective methodology for Aboriginal/Native/Indian/Indigenous research and Indigenous people. In essence, IRP reflecting the Indigenous people’s requirement for their own development right when they using their reducing knowledge day by day. According to Indigenous scholars’ suggestion, for example what Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Shawn Stanley Wilson have stated, the key words of IRP are: first, in which the shared ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological components of Indigenous researchers identified, where the “shared” means a holism; second, a research paradigm must lays the roots in indigenous oil and at the service of indigenous development; third, ethic and morality should be a research progress, not after just an empty agent after consequence; fourth, as the success of IRP, indigenous researchers can borrow effective tools from other suitable research paradigms. Beyond doubt, the development of IRP is changing our research aesthetic tradition, if not, our hope will be doubtful yet.
The emerging field labeled “geography/geographies of science” is/are vibrant as well as productive in the past decades. Mostly, this field is inspired by sociologist Steven Shapin and geographer David N. Livingstone etc., but terms such... more
The emerging field labeled “geography/geographies of science” is/are vibrant as well as productive in the past decades. Mostly, this field is inspired by sociologist Steven Shapin and geographer David N. Livingstone etc., but terms such as geography/geographies of science, historical geographies of science, geographies of scientific knowledge used by different scholars or implied in diverse texts are various, contradictory sometimes. In order to make it in a consistent line, three key words, i.e. place or site, region, space, in geography are used to reference to imply the local studies of scientific knowledge, regional studies of science, and spatial studies of science respectively; of course, if it is allow, the three “studies” could be labeled as geographies of scientific knowledge, regional geographies of science, and spatial geographies of science respectively. As “geography” in this paper (also in Livingstone’s Putting Science in Its Place) is used to or implied as a medium, and science is always happened or circulated in particular places, regions, a science could beyond its original sites or places; but a provincial science to be a global science is based on regional and subregional factors have conditioned the production and consumption of scientific knowledge, or science has expressed or channeled local loyalties. In a short, science is always in traveling, and is travels in different social and cultural contexts.
Abstract:In this article, from a historiographical perspective, we examined the ways that geographers and historians used to construct their geographical histories. We start with an overview of ideas that argue for a 'scientific'... more
Abstract:In this article, from a historiographical perspective, we examined the ways that
geographers and historians used to construct their geographical histories. We start with an
overview of ideas that argue for a 'scientific' history in geography. Then, we discuss how
some geographers construct their 'scientific history' in a 'strong program' pattern, while the
others contrast a 'knowledge history' which does not give a damn to the comparative
dimension with early modern geography. In conclusion, our aim is tantamount to proposing a
bidirectional perspective to understand our histories and future. At the same time, we propose
the dualism between Anglophone and non- Anglophone Geography what is unnecessary or
pseudo rather than real. Until recently, the history of geography was drafted in narrow,
uncritical terms usually invoked to legitimize the activities and perspectives of different
geographical constituencies in a modernistic view, sealed off from external economic, social,
political or cultural forces. For example, currently popular All Possible Worlds (by James, and
now Martin), developed an "essentialist" historiography which postulates what geography is
as a science "in essence", and constructs geography's history in an essentialist light. The "top
to down" narrative pattern in this history makes: only the Anglophone geographical tradition
is legitimate; the nature of history is constructed, abstracted; traditions beyond Anglophone
are always absent (e.g. Chinese geography), or sometime, explained in an anachronism way;
and (we are so sad to see) natural geography and human geography are divided into two
different intellective enterprises. The shaping of geography as a discipline has resulted from a
combination of productive and successful communication and missed opportunities, of
presence and absence, of fluid travels of ideas and projects, but also of closures,
impediments, good lessons that got lost. So, a history of geography should be concerned with
the past for its own sake, rather than the ways in which it can be understood in the light of
the present- day practice of the subject. We suggest that history should be constructed from
the root, knowledge, and then explain why it is important and how it changes. The history
like this is what we called knowledge history, a history in a "bottom to top" narrative path
which implies geography in various places and times is so dissimilar and the aim of writing
is an annotation. By comparing the "top to down" and "bottom to top" narrative paths, we
suggest both the construction and explanation are necessary for a history. It will be purely
admirable if a history presents a history "from the physical and biological, through the social
and economic, to the humanistic"
geographers and historians used to construct their geographical histories. We start with an
overview of ideas that argue for a 'scientific' history in geography. Then, we discuss how
some geographers construct their 'scientific history' in a 'strong program' pattern, while the
others contrast a 'knowledge history' which does not give a damn to the comparative
dimension with early modern geography. In conclusion, our aim is tantamount to proposing a
bidirectional perspective to understand our histories and future. At the same time, we propose
the dualism between Anglophone and non- Anglophone Geography what is unnecessary or
pseudo rather than real. Until recently, the history of geography was drafted in narrow,
uncritical terms usually invoked to legitimize the activities and perspectives of different
geographical constituencies in a modernistic view, sealed off from external economic, social,
political or cultural forces. For example, currently popular All Possible Worlds (by James, and
now Martin), developed an "essentialist" historiography which postulates what geography is
as a science "in essence", and constructs geography's history in an essentialist light. The "top
to down" narrative pattern in this history makes: only the Anglophone geographical tradition
is legitimate; the nature of history is constructed, abstracted; traditions beyond Anglophone
are always absent (e.g. Chinese geography), or sometime, explained in an anachronism way;
and (we are so sad to see) natural geography and human geography are divided into two
different intellective enterprises. The shaping of geography as a discipline has resulted from a
combination of productive and successful communication and missed opportunities, of
presence and absence, of fluid travels of ideas and projects, but also of closures,
impediments, good lessons that got lost. So, a history of geography should be concerned with
the past for its own sake, rather than the ways in which it can be understood in the light of
the present- day practice of the subject. We suggest that history should be constructed from
the root, knowledge, and then explain why it is important and how it changes. The history
like this is what we called knowledge history, a history in a "bottom to top" narrative path
which implies geography in various places and times is so dissimilar and the aim of writing
is an annotation. By comparing the "top to down" and "bottom to top" narrative paths, we
suggest both the construction and explanation are necessary for a history. It will be purely
admirable if a history presents a history "from the physical and biological, through the social
and economic, to the humanistic"