Xianbei Zoomorphic Plaques: Art, Migration, and Human-Environment Entanglement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article Xianbei Zoomorphic Plaques: Art, Migration, and Human-Environment Entanglement is a good paper. Based on stylistic and visual analysis of Xianbei metal plaques, it discusses the changing environments and migration of the Xianbei people from the mountain range across the Mongolian steppe to northern China.  It shows clear evidence of wide and relevant reading. A strong argument is developed in a well-structured discussion. Appropriate and relevant sources have been identified and brought together in interpretation, and the result is a good contribution to knowledge of Xianbei material culture

While this is good as it stands, a few questions come to mind that could further improve the work if considered by the author:

a) Since the author herself/himself has mentioned the various groups of Xianbei people, the question immediately arises as to whether there are differences in animal representation between these different groups and whether this material culture shows us a different understanding of animals? If this is beyond the scope of the article, since the author is mainly discussing the Tuoba clan of the Xianbei people, it would be good to mention this in the introduction or to elaborate a bit on the similarities or differences in the products of the various Xianbei groups.

b) p. 3: To support the argument, the author presents the different symbolism of the deer in the Scytho-Siberian culture. The author only mentions that "Jacobson explored the symbolic meaning of deer" - it would be good to briefly explain what the symbolism of a deer was in Scytho-Siberian culture.

c) Could the symmetrical composition in the Xiongnu artistic tradition be inspired by their interactions with the "Chinese"?

d) How is pastoral nomadism reflected in the twin deer motif? This idea needs to be further developed and presented.

e) p. 8: I was a bit confused by the discussion of the topknot, which some scholars interpret as ushnisha. How can this hypothesis explain his co-existence with dragons? This needs further elaboration.

f) Conclusion: can this analysis show that the deer motif was more common in the early phases, or were deer and horse motifs used simultaneously?

Author Response

Thanks for all the comments. Below, I provide a point-by-point response following the order of the comments by the reviewers.

a) Thanks for this comment. As the reviewer pointed out, the current scope of my paper is centered on materials associated with the Tuobao clan, also partly because Wei shu serves as my primary textual evidence. In paragraph 3, I explained the diversity within the Xianbei people and pointed out Tuoba will be the main focus as the reviewers suggested. I did it in a brief manner since I hope the complexity and debates involved in paring textual records and archaeological remains would not distract the readers from my main argument.

b) Thanks for this comment. I elaborated on Jacobson’s work on page 3.

c) That’s a good point! Thanks for this. I added the discussion on page 6.

d) My brief response would be the twin-deer motif doesn’t reflect pastoral nomadism directly. Rather, I would see both the motif and the adoption of pastoral nomadism as the result of Xianbei's migration from the mountains to the steppes. As I stated in the last paragraph of the deer section, it is when the Xianbei tribesmen moved to the former territory of the Xiongnu, they adapted to pastoral nomadism due to the changing environment, and meanwhile, their design of deer plaques also gained a new taste inspired by the Xiongnu visual culture.

e) Thanks for pointing it out. I made a serious typo on p.8. What I was trying to say is actually the opposite: this hypothesis does NOT explain his co-existence with dragons. Revision has been made on page 8.

f) Thanks for this question. The deer and horse motifs were used at the same time, illustrating the migration from mountains to steppes from two different angles. I added a couple of sentences in the conclusion paragraph to clarify this point.

Reviewer 2 Report

The premise of this article is that representations of deer and horses by the Xianbei culture changed as they migrated across the steppe and settled in North China.  The shift in form and iconography is set forth clearly in the article.  The author uses an ecological basis as the explanation for this artistic shift, arguing that the Xianbei understood and represented animals differently as their lifestyle changed from that of hunter-gatherers to agro-pastoralists.

Overall, the article presents a novel if slightly reductive argument.  Changing human/non-human animal relationships may indeed have predicated a shift in artistic representation.  This is a well established idea similar to the relationship between art and belief described by Aby Warburg in his studies on Native American Indians.

Looking at the art of the Xianbei, however, I wonder if other factors may account for this artistic shift.  Perhaps a cultural lens?  Was there was Han-Xianbei cultural exchange?  How, for example, are deer and horses represented in the art of the Western Jin?  Perhaps a material cultural lens?  How might these changes in the number and form of animals be linked to the physical shapes of the objects themselves?  The author considers an aspect of this question at the end of section 4, arguing that the change in function mirrored a change in lifestyle.  However, perhaps the shift from "galloping" to "crouching" reflects the limitations of creating a metalwork plaque that is not surrounded by a rectangular border.  For example, the right leg of figure 6 is bent backwards, connecting with the rear hoof and left front leg to create a solid border line on the piece's lower edge.  If it were extended forward, it would not do this, creating a jagged and unstable border prone to breakage.  This is also the case for figure 10, where the "crouching" creates a unified border around the piece.

All this to say: the author's explanation is plausible, but is only one of many possible explanations for this artistic shift.  A multiplicity of interpretations is understandable as you are working with proto-historical material, where the only written sources were written after this art was produced.  And perhaps the change was spurred by a confluence of factors!  In any case, a more serious consideration of other possible perspectives - even if only to raise and dismiss them - would strengthen your argument.

Some minor points: 

The premise that deer were understood as magical animals by the Xianbei is based on a contemporary study of the Evenks people.  What relationship does this contemporary tribe have with the Xianbei, whose traditions evolved 2000 years ago?  A little more context is needed.

The article needs copy editing.  There are some English-language errors.

Author Response

I really appreciate the reviewer's comments, which mainly raised two questions. First, other factors contributed to the change of animal motifs; and second, the validity of bringing ethnographical evidence. 

For the first comment:

I agree with the reviewer that the changing decorative patterns resulted from a confluence of various factors, including cultural lenses such as interactions with Han Chinese, as the reviewer pointed out. But the methodical aim of this paper is to experiment with an ecological perspective and explore to what extent this ecological lens can push the arguments. It is not my goal in this paper to offer a comprehensive survey of all possible factors that lead to the change. 

For the second comment:

The first thing to clarify is that my argument is the deer is more than a hunting target, but possesses active agency. They formed a co-dependent relationship with the Xianbei, which is more than being understood as a magical animal. Secondly, the ethnographical study of Evenks is not the only evidence for this argument. I also brought the Weishu records to support the contemporaneous perception of the ancient Xianbei people. Thirdly, the Evenks people inhabit the same ecological zone as the Xianbei people. Since what I try to highlight in this article is the entanglement between environment, animals, and humans, I believe the ethnographical observation of a group who live in a similar climate and environment and conduct similar ways of living is helpful to understand the ancient society.