البورسلین الروسى وأثره على صناعة الخزف فى آسیا الوسطى فى نهایة القرن 13هـ/ 19م وبدایة القرن14هـ/ 20م (دراسة آثاریة فنیة لنماذج مختارة بالمتحف الفنى المعمارى ببخارى)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
الملخص: کان لمنطقة آسيا الوسطى باع طويل فى صناعة المنتجات الخزفية منذ أقدم العصور، ثم تطورت هذه الصناعة على مدار العصر الإسلامى بفتراته التاريخية المختلفة، وکان هناک مراکز صناعية مشهورة مثل بخارى وسمرقند وطشقند وخوارزم وفرغانة وغيرها، وکان لکل منها مميزات خاصة من حيث أشکال المنتجات الخزفية والألوان والعناصر الزخرفية، وقد استمرت هذه المراکز المتخصصة فى صناعة الخزف المحلى حتى نهاية القرن 13هـ / 19م.هذا وقد تأثرت صناعة الخزف فى آسيا الوسطى بالبورسلين المنتج فى المصانع الروسية والذى تم تصديره إلى تلک المنطقة منذ منتصف القرن 13هـ/ 19م، والملفت للنظر زيادة الطلب على تلک المنتجات المستوردة مقارنة بالمنتجات المحلية. ويهدف هذا البحث إلى دراسة نماذج من البورسلين الروسى المستورد و الخزف المحلى تقليد البورسلين فى آسيا الوسطى فى نهاية القرن 13هـ/19م وحتى بداية القرن14هـ/20م للتعرف أسباب ظهور البورسلين فى المنطقة وتأثيره على صناعة الخزف المحلى، وأشهر مصانع البورسلين فى روسيا، وأنواع أوانى البورسلين، وأساليب زخرفتها، فضلًا عن تحليل النقوش الکتابية المسجلة عليها من حيث الشکل والمضمون فى ضوء نماذج فريدة من البورسلين المحفوظة فى المتحف المعمارى الفنى لولاية بخارى، وقد أثمرت الدراسة عن بعض النتائج الهامة منها على سبيل المثال انتشار المنتجات الخزفية الروسية المصنعة آلياً فى الأسواق المحلية فى آسيا الوسطى فى نهاية القرن 13هـ/19م، وفتح سوق جديدة فى آسيا الوسطى الهدف منها محاولة انعاش صناعة الخزف بإضافة نقوش تقليدية محلية على أوانى البورسلين المستوردة، إلى جانب محاولة تقليد أوانى البورسلين المستوردة من حيث الشکل باستخدام الخزف المحلى. Russian Porcelain and its Impact on the Ceramic Industry in Central Asia in the Late 13th AH/19th AD and the Early 14th AH/20th AD Century (An Artistic Archaeological Study of Selected Samples at Bukhara Art-Architectural Museum) Central Asia has a long history of the industry of ceramic products. Over Islamic history, this industry was developed, and well-known industrial centers were established in Bukhara, Samarkand, Tashkent, Khawarezm, Ferghana, etc. These centers demonstrated special characteristics in terms of the forms, colors, and decorations of the ceramic products. They produced local ceramic until the late 13th AH/19th AD century. Moreover, the industry of ceramic in Central Asia was affected by the porcelain made in Russia and exported to the region until the mid-13th AH/19th AD century. It is worth noting that the demand grew on the imported compared to the local products. The present study examines models of the imported Russian porcelain and the local ceramic models in Central Asia from the late 13th AH./19th AD to the early 14th AH/20th AD century to determine the causes of porcelain emergence in the area, its impact on the local ceramic industry, the most famous plants of porcelain in Russia, as well as the types and decorations of the porcelain vessels. Moreover, it analyses the inscriptions of porcelain in terms of form and content in the light of unique models kept at Bukhara Art-Architectural Museum. The results showed that the automatically manufactured Russian porcelain products spread in the local Central Asian markets in the late 13th AH/19th AD. New Central Asian markets were established to revive the ceramic industry by adding local inscriptions to the exported vessels and making models of the exported vessels in terms of shape using local ceramic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.218 | 0.216 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".