本文選題：阿馬爾那泥板 + 阿馬爾那時代�。� 參考：《東北師范大學(xué)》2006年博士論文

【摘要】：在研究阿馬爾那泥板書信基礎(chǔ)上,本文旨在探討阿馬爾那時代近東大國之間的外交關(guān)系,主要從外交實務(wù)、外交慣例和文化差異對外交的影響等三個方面考察這個時代的外交狀況。 在阿馬爾那時代,大國主導(dǎo)近東政治格局是非常顯著的現(xiàn)象。在阿馬爾那時代的前期,埃及、米坦尼和巴比倫三國主導(dǎo)近東地區(qū)政治格局,后期則是埃及、赫梯、巴比倫和亞述四國主導(dǎo)近東地區(qū)政治格局。三國主導(dǎo)政治格局向西國主導(dǎo)的政治格局過渡是這個時代的顯著的特點。格局轉(zhuǎn)變的主要推動力來自赫梯和亞述,正是赫梯和亞述的興起才使三國主導(dǎo)地區(qū)政治格局的時代結(jié)束,形成了四國主導(dǎo)政治的格局。在這個轉(zhuǎn)變過程中,逐漸形成了如下三角外交關(guān)系:埃及、米坦尼與赫梯三角關(guān)系,埃及、巴比倫與亞述三角關(guān)系,埃及、亞述與赫梯三角關(guān)系。不管在哪個外交區(qū)域里,埃及都奉行勢力均衡外交戰(zhàn)略,維持地區(qū)力量的均勢,實現(xiàn)埃及國家利益的最大化;赫梯和亞述則是力求外交上獲得主動,以交好大國,為國家的復(fù)興創(chuàng)造良好的外部環(huán)境;巴比倫和米坦尼則是對宿敵亞述和赫梯的一舉一動都非常關(guān)注,竭力遏制其復(fù)興。 在阿馬爾那時代,近東大國外交活動中形成了一系列外交慣例和做法。首先,在外交準(zhǔn)則上形成了家庭準(zhǔn)則和對等準(zhǔn)則,家庭準(zhǔn)則將外交的參與者置于一個大家族之內(nèi),按照親屬關(guān)系模式塑造彼此之間的關(guān)系,對等準(zhǔn)則將追求國家利益的各國納入到一個活動框架之內(nèi),實現(xiàn)參與者的收益對等。其次,在外交方式上,出現(xiàn)了禮物交換、王室聯(lián)姻和信息溝通,其中禮物交換從物質(zhì)的角度實現(xiàn)大國之間的溝通,王室聯(lián)姻從人的角度實現(xiàn)大國之間的往來,信息溝通則是從信息資源方面進(jìn)行交往。再次,在大國使節(jié)的往來過程中,逐漸形成了關(guān)于使節(jié)的方方面面的慣例。最后,在其他外交慣例方面,如外交關(guān)系的確立、中斷、重建和確認(rèn)等方面,以及外交保護(hù)和外交禮儀上,這個時候都形成了一些慣例。 文化的差異會增加外交成本,會對外交活動的有效開展產(chǎn)生一定的阻礙作用。首先,神圣王權(quán)的觀念與對等準(zhǔn)則之間存在矛盾;其次,中心——邊緣觀念的濃厚與否直接影響著禮物交換、王室聯(lián)姻和信息溝通等的渠道是否暢通。在阿馬爾那時代,文化上的差異表現(xiàn)最明顯的是埃及與西亞國家之間。在西亞地區(qū)的各個國家的王權(quán)神化的程度比較低,埃及王權(quán)神化的程度比較高,而王權(quán)神化的程度越高越不容易接受對等準(zhǔn)則,因此,在外交活動中,埃及的不適應(yīng)最為明顯,而西亞國家則基本不存在這種情況。在中心——邊緣觀念的表現(xiàn)方面,相比于其他國家來說,埃及保存得更為完整,因此,當(dāng)西亞國家早已放棄這種觀念并開始實踐對等交往觀念的時候,埃及仍然以這種觀念為指導(dǎo)去處理對外關(guān)系,這就帶來了埃及與其他國家間的一系列矛盾。為了適應(yīng)西亞地區(qū)業(yè)已形成的外交慣例,埃及也對自身的文化進(jìn)行了修正,以便與西亞國家順利往來。
[Abstract]:On the basis of the study of Amar's mud plate epistles, this paper aims to explore the diplomatic relations between the great powers in the near east of the Amar era, mainly from three aspects of diplomatic practice, diplomatic practice and cultural differences on diplomacy.
In the Amar era, the political pattern of the great powers dominated the Near East was a very remarkable phenomenon. In the early period of the Amar era, Egypt, Babylon, and the three countries dominated the political pattern in the Near East, and the political pattern of the Near East was dominated by Egypt, Hittites, Babylon and Assyrian. The transition of the pattern of governance is the remarkable feature of this era. The main impetus of the change of the pattern comes from the Hittites and Assyrian. It is the rise of Hittites and Assyria that ends the era of the political pattern of the Three Kingdoms and forms the dominant political pattern of the four countries. In this transformation, the following triangular diplomatic relations are gradually formed: Egypt, Michael The relationship between Nepal and Hittites, Egypt, Babylon and Assyrian relations, Egypt, Assyrian and Hittite triangle relations. No matter in which diplomatic area, Egypt pursues a balanced diplomatic strategy, maintains the balance of regional power, maximizes the national interests of Egypt, and Hitti and Assyria strive for diplomatic initiative to make good power, To create a good external environment for the revival of the country, Babylon and Mr tieni are very concerned about the actions of the old enemy Assyria and Hittites, and strive to contain their revival.
In the time of Amar, a series of diplomatic practices and practices were formed in the diplomatic activities of the great powers of the Near East. First, the family and reciprocal norms were formed on the diplomatic standards. The family norms put the participants in a large family, shaping the relationship according to the kinship model, and the equivalence principle would pursue the national interests. In the diplomatic way, the exchange of gifts, the marriage of the royal family and the communication of information have come into being, in which the exchange of gifts from the material point of view realizes the communication between the great powers, the marriage of the royal family realizes the exchange among the great powers from the angle of man, and the information communication is from the information capital. Again, in the course of the communication between the great powers, the practice of all aspects of the envoy has been gradually formed. Finally, in other diplomatic practices, such as the establishment, interruption, reconstruction and recognition of diplomatic relations, as well as diplomatic protection and diplomatic etiquette, some practice has been formed at this time.
Cultural differences will increase the diplomatic costs and have a certain hindrance to the effective development of diplomatic activities. First, there is a contradiction between the concept of the holy power and the principle of reciprocity. Secondly, whether the center of the marginal concept is directly influenced by the exchange of gifts, and whether the channels of Wang Shilian's marriage and information communication are unimpeded. In Amar In that time, the most obvious cultural differences were between Egyptian and Western Asian countries. The degree of the deification of royalty in various countries in Western Asia was relatively low, the degree of the deification of Egyptian royal power was higher, and the higher the degree of the deification of the royal power, the less easy to accept the equivalence principle, therefore, in the diplomatic activities, Egypt was not the most obvious. There is no such situation in the Western Asian countries. In terms of the center - the performance of the edge concept, Egypt is more intact than in other countries. Therefore, when Western Asian countries have already abandoned this concept and began to practice the concept of reciprocity, Egypt is still guided by this concept to deal with foreign relations. There is a series of contradictions between Egypt and other countries. In order to adapt to the diplomatic practices that have been formed in the Western Asia region, Egypt has also amended its own culture to go with Western Asian countries smoothly.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類號】：K3

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 王歡;;古代埃及文獻(xiàn)中的赫梯國王形象[J];古代文明;2013年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 郭城;試論古埃及新王國時期對外政策的演變[D];山西大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2059468