Images, objects and imperial power in the Roman and Qin-Han empires
How and why was imperial power made visually and physically manifest in two similar, contemporaneous megastates - the Roman Principate and Qin-Han China? Framing the Chinese and Roman material within such a question breaks it free from the web of expectations and assumptions in which conventional scholarship almost always situates it. It also builds upon the limited but promising work recently undertaken to study these two empires together in a comparative context. The purpose of this thesis is not to discover similarities and differences for their own sake; but, by discovering similarities and differences, to learn about the nature of imperial authority and prestige in each state. The comparative method compels us to appreciate the contingent - and sometimes frankly curious - nature of visual and artefactual phenomena that have traditionally been taken for granted; and both challenges and empowers us to access higher tier explanations and narratives. Roman expressions of power in visual terms are more public, more historical- biographical, and more political, while Qin-Han images and objects related to imperial authority are generally more private, generic and ritual in their nature. The Roman material emphasizes
Carlson, Jack
Power (Social sciences)--Case studies ; Art ; Roman ; Art ; Chinese--Qin-Han dynasties ; 221 B.C.-220 A.D ; Art--History ; Imperialism--China--History ; Imperialism--Rome--History ; China--Antiquities ; China--History--Qin dynasty ; 221-207 B.C ; China--History--Han dynasty ; 202 B.C.-220 A.D ; Rome--Antiquities ; Rome--History--Empire ; 284-476
Images, objects and imperial power in the Roman and Qin-Han empires. How and why was imperial power made visually and physically manifest in two similar, contemporaneous megastates - the Roman Principate and Qin-Han China? Framing the Chinese and Roman material within such a question breaks it free from the web of expectations and assumptions in which conventional scholarship almost always situates it. It also builds upon the limited but promising work recently undertaken to study these two empires together in a comparative context. The purpose of this thesis is not to discover similarities and differences for their own sake; but, by discovering similarities and differences, to learn about the nature of imperial authority and prestige in each state. The comparative method compels us to appreciate the contingent - and sometimes frankly curious - nature of visual and artefactual phenomena that have traditionally been taken for granted; and both challenges and empowers us to access higher tier explanations and narratives. Roman expressions of power in visual terms are more public, more historical- biographical, and more political, while Qin-Han images and objects related to imperial authority are generally more private, generic and ritual in their nature. The Roman material emphasizes
images object imperial_power roman han empire imperial_power make visually physically manifest similar contemporaneous roman principate han china framing chinese roman material within question break free web expectation assumption conventional scholarship almost_always situate also build_upon limited promising work recently undertake study empires together comparative context purpose discover similarity_difference sake discover similarity_difference learn nature imperial_authority prestige state comparative_method appreciate contingent sometimes curious nature visual artefactual phenomenon traditionally take_grant challenge access high tier explanation narrative roman expression power visual term public historical biographical political han image object relate imperial_authority generally private generic ritual nature roman material emphasizes