Search

This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book includes five contributions that reconstruct the development of sinological studies as a field of scholarship in East and West Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, and Romania. Susanne Weigelin-Schwiedrzik describes the evolution of sinology in West and East Germany with respect to an array of complex geopolitical constellations. It argues that the history of German sinology should be analyzed not solely regarding the Cold War conflicts and animosities but also in reference to the problematic legacy of colonialism and politics of the Third Reich. The book explains the histories of specific German sinology centers, whose activities were as often determined by universities’ top-down strategies or some influential sinologists’ positions and approach as by state directives. It investigates the international framework for research on modern China within the Eastern Bloc.

A review of the book "Between Winds and Clouds: The Making of Yunnan (Second Century BCE to Twentieth Century CE)," by Bin Yang is presented.

Subjects and Masters by Michael C. Brose answers the question, “Who really ran the Mongol empire?” The common stereotype of "leadership" during that period of world history most likely consists of a band of savage horse­ mounted nomads, led by the fearless and powerful Chinggis Qan, sweeping down from the steppe to conquer and rule with brutal force over the most powerful Eurasian empires of the time. But while the Mongol tribesmen were certainly effective in conquest and empire building, they could not have succeeded alone. In fact, the rapid conquests of Chinggis and his heirs, and the empire that they constructed across Eurasia, were achieved through the skills and efforts of many different peoples who collaborated (willingly or unwillingly) with the Mongol lords. Not only were the nomadic Mongol tribesmen few in number (especially relative to the large agrarian states they would ultimately conquer, China and Persia), but they also lacked the skills and experience needed to hold power over the long term.

Fujinami sarcoma virus encodes a 140/000 m.w. polypeptide (P140) which has been correlated as the agent of transformation in host chicken fibroblasts and mammalian fibroblasts. To conclusively identify the role of P140 in the transformation process it will be necessary to obtain intact/ purified P140. The availability of an antibody monoclonally specific to the N-terminal gag encoded portion of P140 suggested a one-step immunoaffinity purification of P140. After purification of the antibody out of mouse ascites fluid, by 50% ammonium sulfate fractionation and ion exchange chromatography, antibody was linked to a Sepharose 4-B matrix activated with cyanogen bromide. The anti-pl9 affinity matrix bound intact P140 as a doublet relative to a polyclonal anti-pl9. Chaotropic agents, high pH and low pH treatments all failed to elute the bound P140 from the affinity matrix. Failing the purification of intact P140 a method of partial proteolysis was used to produce varying sized fragments of P140/ with the goal of purifying these fragments for further work on the role of P140. Trypsin alone in a limited proteolysis produced small, unstable peptides too close in size distribution to be effectively purified. Chymotrypsin alone produced a broad range of more stable peptides, with a predominance of a 45,000 m.w. peptide. Chymotrypsin-trypsin consecutive proteolysis produced a very stable 35,000 m.w. peptide. Gel filtration of the chymotryptic peptides was ineffective as the peptides coraplexed and were not fractionated. Ion exchange chromatography fractionated the complexing chymotryptic peptides, making possible the purification of these peptides. The stable 45,000 m.w. peptide retained some kinase activity, as it phosphorylated the substrate enolase, similar to but less intense than intact P140. A 30,000 m.w. peptide only phosphorylating after ion exchange did not phosphorylate enolase.