2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-24363-0_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spilling Blood: Conflict and Culture over Animal Slaughter in Mongol Eurasia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather than true accounts, these statements seem like exaggerated portrayals of steppe peoples as barbarians and “others”. There are no archaeological indications of the kinds of meats and bloods consumed, or the ways in which these were described to have been prepared, beyond a few historic references to slaughter techniques common during the Mongol Empire 27 – 30 , over about 2000 years after our cauldrons were used. When considering both historical and archaeological sources, there has been no reason to give fresh blood consumption in ancient Mongolia serious consideration, but rather that a preference to not waste resources from animal sources 30 that appears to have extended much further into the past than previously known.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather than true accounts, these statements seem like exaggerated portrayals of steppe peoples as barbarians and “others”. There are no archaeological indications of the kinds of meats and bloods consumed, or the ways in which these were described to have been prepared, beyond a few historic references to slaughter techniques common during the Mongol Empire 27 – 30 , over about 2000 years after our cauldrons were used. When considering both historical and archaeological sources, there has been no reason to give fresh blood consumption in ancient Mongolia serious consideration, but rather that a preference to not waste resources from animal sources 30 that appears to have extended much further into the past than previously known.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%