The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe: The Formation of the Xiongnu Confederation and the Silk Road 9813291540, 9789813291546

Citation preview

Jianhua Yang · Huiqiu Shao · Ling Pan

The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe The Formation of the Xiongnu Confederation and the Silk Road

The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe

Jianhua Yang Huiqiu Shao Ling Pan •

•

The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe The Formation of the Xiongnu Confederation and the Silk Road

123

Jianhua Yang Jilin University Changchun, China

Huiqiu Shao Jilin University Changchun, China

Ling Pan Jilin University Changchun, China Translated by Haiying Pan, Zhidong Cui, Xiaopei Zhang, Wenjing Xia, Chang Liu, Licui Zhu, Li Yuan, Qing Sun, Di Yang, Rebecca O’ Sullivan.

ISBN 978-981-32-9154-6 ISBN 978-981-32-9155-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

The vast steppe in the Northern Zone of China is an integral part of the south-eastern Eurasian Steppe. Its cultural connection with the Eurasian Steppe has been of interest to both Chinese and foreign scholars. Prior to Prof. Yang Jianhua and her colleagues writing this book, this topic has been uncharted territory for previous Chinese scholars. It is, therefore, gratifying that they have obtained the privilege to speak on behalf of Chinese scholars to the international academic community. Moreover, this opportunity serves as a reward for the two to three generations of Chinese fieldworkers who have laboured for decades on archaeological sites in the expansive steppe in the Northern Zone of China. This book, in the words of the author “is a picture of the endless interweaving of various links and interactions”. “It is a historical picture scroll of the exchanges of cultures represented by metalware between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe, which lasted for 2000 years from the second millennium B.C.”. Although it may contain some blanks or limitations, this picture scroll, intertwined with the researchers’ hard work, is sure to extend Chinese archaeologists’ depth of knowledge to the Anglophone world, which, in turn, will provide new areas of interest and avant-garde ideas for future excavation and research. As Chinese archaeology moves towards the world, it will likewise be welcome worldwide. This book also offers the authors’ insights into the cultural connection between the steppe in the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. After reading it, I think what deserves substantial credit in this book are the following: At the forefront is locating a “Northern Zone-the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province” on the eastern Eurasian Steppe. Growing from the beginning of the second millennium B.C., this metallurgical province came into being in the second half of the second millennium B.C. and covers a vast area including the Northern Zone of China, the Mongolian Plateau, Transbaikal, and the Minushinsk Basin further west, spreading eastern culture westward. By the middle of the first millennium B.C., when the steppe was generally nomadic, and western culture was pushing eastward towards the Steppe, the eastern Asian Steppe kept its original eastern traditions.

v

vi

Foreword

The dichotomy of eastern and western Chinese Northern bronzes presented in this book is based on the original data analysis, and it provides a crucial method for future research. It is essential to differentiate eastern and western “bronzes of the Northern Zone of China” at different eras. The chaotic concepts of “Karasuk Style,” “Scythia Style”, or “Ordos Style” used in the past should be abandoned, and new concepts should be proposed. Indeed, the demarcation between the eastern and the western bronzes in different times demands further research, and the mineral and metallurgical centres of the Northern Zone-the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province require additional fieldwork to make this perspective more convincing. The second major innovation of this work is to use specific examples to further develop David Christian’s perspective further that “the driving force of social development in the Eurasian inland mainly comes from the frontier areas between the agricultural areas and the south”, more specifically from the general idea that “barbarians engaged in agriculture” in the Northern Zone of China. Chinese archaeologists should emphasize the discovery and research of the “Rong and Di (戎狄)” remains, which are rarely mentioned in the literature. The study of the “Rong and Di” remains ought to be raised to its due position not only in Eurasian Steppe history but also in the history of the Central Plain of China. The third innovation is the study of the origin of the Xiongnu, which should focus on the eastern part of the entire Asian steppe, as the traditional culture there is the historical foundation for the formation of the Xiongnu Confederation. The study of the origin of the Xiongnu should concentrate neither solely on the Northern Zone of China, as was done before the 1990s, nor only on the Mongolian Plateau. The approach to solving this historical mystery should take into consideration both the historical tradition of “the Northern Zone-the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province” and the changes of the metallurgical province following the widespread of nomadism in the steppe. Indeed, in such an old and extensive topic, it is impossible to reach a consensus on the complex phenomena of specific metal artifacts alone. This book can only be considered as a foundation for readers’ bold speculation. Enjoying the privilege of being among the first groups of readers of this book, I feel obliged to impart my thoughts on the matter. The most significant feature of this book is that it provides a panoramic view of the Eurasian Steppe during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age to explain the archaeological remains in the Northern Zone of China. There are limitations when exploring Chinese ancient literature, which is usually relied on as the main advantage of Chinese archaeology, pinpointing areas of interest and inspiring ideas for study. To illustrate, the literature is only used in Sect. 5.2, Chap. 5, in analysing the division of the northern Great Wall region into two different cultural systems during the Eastern Zhou period. In so doing, the conclusion is drawn that the Rong and Di were in the south of this region, and the Hu (胡) were in the north (I still reserve my opinion that the Hu (胡) and the Rong and Di should be distinguished by ethnic group, not by the artifacts that they used). However, in a broader range of time, especially in the Spring and Autumn period described in the Zuozhuan (〈〈左 传〉〉), Zuo’s Commentary on “The Spring and Autumn Annals” not only the Baidi

Foreword

vii

(白狄), an important tribe of the Di, was in the west of the Yellow River, but also the Chidi (赤狄), another important tribe of the Di, was in the south-east of Shanxi Province. Since the Zuozhuan says, “the Di’s vast land could be annexed to the territory of Jin Kingdom”, the Rong and Di were distributed in most of Shanxi Province, the names of “Rong” and “Di” could be exchanged, and no strict distinction existed between them. In the early Spring and Autumn period, the Di attacked Xing and Wei Kingdoms which were located to the east of Taihang Mountains, only to force Xing to move to Yiyi (夷仪) and Wei to Chuqiu (楚丘), then later to Diqiu (帝丘). After the Di exterminated Wen (Su) Kingdom, they had reached the centre of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty. During the chaotic period of the Royal family of Zhou Dynasty, Prince Dai (Gan Zhaogong 甘昭公) led the Rong, who were distributed in Yangju (扬拒), Quangao (泉皋), and Yiluo (伊洛), to invade the imperial city of Zhou. It is evident that the Rong and Di had already occupied the Yiluo region (Luoyang, the capital of Zhou Dynasty). Then, they invaded Zheng, Wei, and Song Kingdoms and attacked Qi and Lu Kingdoms, and married a lady of Zhou (周襄王) once married a lady of the Di. As recorded, the war between Zhou and the Rong and Di lasted until the first year of Chenggong (590 B.C.). The Zuozhuan records that Duke Zhuang of Wei (卫庄公, r. 480–478 B.C.) could see Rongzhou (戎州), where the Rong lived, from the top of the wall of his imperial city (then Diqiu, current Hua County, Henan Province) and that when he, “saw the beautiful hair of [the Di man] Ji’s wife”, he ordered that her hair be cut off to make a wig for his wife. According to these records, the Rong and Di were also distributed in Henan Province at that time. Now, although we could distinguish a certain number of Northern bronzes from the bronzes of Qin, Jin, Yan, and other kingdoms of the Spring and Autumn period, to prove the existence of the Rong and Di there at that time, we know little about their archaeological remains in Shaanxi, Shanxi, Hebei, and Henan Provinces, not to mention their existence outside China. In my article The Formation of the Nomadic Cultural Belt in the Great Wall Area of Chinese Northern Zone of 2002, I once put forward the view that the four tombs excavated at Zhangping, in Mizhi in northern Shaanxi are the remains of the Di culture of the Spring and Autumn period. However, in this book, the authors still consider them to be the remains of the Jin culture. Indeed, due to the insufficient archaeological work at present, it is natural for people to hold different views. However, with further development of the archaeology field and study, it is believed that ancient literature will be held in higher esteem. The historical traces of the Rong and Di, as groups of people who had played an important historical role in the relationship between the Central Plain culture and the nomadic cultures of Northern Asia, their historical traces will be demonstrated. The other limitation for the book is the lack of archaeological data from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age in Mongolia. At times, rather than detailed arguments, only probabilistic guesses or rough inferences are made. A good case in point is the section discussing the origin and formation of the Xiongnu culture. What might have been overlooked by many researchers is “Xianyun (玁狁)”, a term frequently referred to in the literature of the Western Zhou period. According to bronze inscriptions, “Xianyun” had chariots in war. However, their chariots were

viii

Foreword

different from those of Kingdom Zheng, as recorded in the literature of the Spring and Autumn period in the line, “the Rong and Di walked, while we (the Chinese) took chariots”. Remains of “the Xianyun” from the Western Zhou period have not yet been discovered in the Northern Zone of China. It should be an archaeological subject whether “Xianyun” belonged to the Mongolian Plateau, where chariots painted on the rock were discovered similar to the pictographic “wagon” in the bronze inscription of Shang and Zhou dynasties. Therefore, in fieldwork and archaeological research of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age on the Eurasian Steppe, we look forward to the progress made by our neighbours in Mongolia in solving the old mysteries and putting forward new research objectives. In 1993, I prefaced Yang Jianhua’s first foreign archaeological monograph, Prehistory of Mesopotamia. After only 20 odd years, she has not only published in-depth research monographs on archaeology in Western Asia but has also led the writing of a monograph on the archaeology of the Eurasian Steppe extending from Eastern Europe to the Great Wall area of China. Her achievements thus far are inspirational. I congratulate her on the valuable achievements of half her life’s hard work and see with delight that the Jilin University’s archaeological research outside of China has developed from a personal endeavour to preliminary academic teamwork with a sustainable future. Therefore, I am looking forward to their publication of more in-depth research monographs in the near future. Changchun, China April 2015

Lin Yun

Preface

In the history of humanity, two types of civilizations, agricultural and pastoral, coexisted on the Eurasian continent. The dividing line between them lay at approximately 40 degrees north latitude. To the south of the boundary stood the great, ancient agricultural civilizations. From east to west, these were the Yellow River civilization, the Indus civilization, the Mesopotamian civilization, and the Aegean civilization, while to the north of the 40th parallel north were early nomadic civilizations, such as the Xiongnu civilization, the Sarmatian civilization, and the Scythian civilization. The communications between the two types of civilizations prompted the development of human history. In historical documents from the Central Plain, nomadic people played the role of destroyers. However, in the world system, they were information disseminators of sedentary civilizations. Pastoral nomadism was a way of life and profession that allowed steppe people to adapt to the environment. The steppe civilizations played an essential role in the domestication of horses, as well as the development and utilization of the secondary products of livestock, such as fur and milk. They also helped popularize stirrups, cavalry, and light vehicles. The steppe civilizations contributed to the spread of luxury goods, exchanges of trade goods, the diffusion of religious and geographical knowledge, the communication of information and technology between the Central Plain and the Northern Zone of China, and communications between China and other civilizations. In other words, the steppe civilizations were once key actors in the East Asian system, as well as being the initiators and disseminators of cultural communications and trade between China and other cultures. Some scholars describe the regions of agricultural civilization as cells and the Eurasian Steppe to the north of 40 degrees north latitude as tubes connecting these cells, which absorbed and transmitted cultural factors of different agricultural civilizations. After the Qin and Han dynasties, China entered a new era when two critical events occurred in the Northern Zone of China and the adjacent Eurasian Steppe. One was the formation of the powerful Xiongnu Confederation; the other was the opening of the Silk Road. The Shiji (〈〈史记〉〉, Records of the Grand Historian), the first work to relate the two events together, records the original purpose of Zhang ix

x

Preface

Qian’s (张骞) mission to the Western Regions “(西域)” (a Han Dynasty term for the area west of Yumenguan Fort, including what is now Xinjiang and parts of Central Asia). His mission aimed to unite the Rouzhi (月氏) with the Han Dynasty to fight against the Xiongnu (Sima 1982) because the Xiongnu had taken control of North-West China and blocked trade. Although Zhang did not accomplish this task, his mission led to the opening of the Silk Road, thus linking the formation of the Xiongnu Confederation with the emergence of the Silk Road. Because the Xiongnu occupied most of the eastern part of the Eurasian Steppe at that time, the Silk Road could not follow the previous metal route through the steppe but moved southward to the desert oases and formed the later Silk Road in the desert. This book starts from the communications between China and other civilizations along the old Metal Road on the steppe to explore the formation of the Xiongnu Confederation and the Silk Road. On the Eurasian continent, communications between the East and the West began in the Early Metal Age. Metals, the representatives of advanced production technology of the time, as they were lightweight, unbreakable, and easy to carry, spread quickly across the Eurasian continent. Moreover, metals could be preserved for a longer time compared with other commodities exchanged on the Silk Road. Therefore, more historical evidence of metals can be found in the records than for any other type of artifact. In this paper, the northern road across the steppe distinguished by metal product exchanges is called the Metal Road on the steppe or the Steppe Highway.

The Geography of the Eurasian Steppe The Eurasian Steppe is one of the most vast steppe ecoregions in the world. Like a continuous belt, it stretches eastward for more than 10,000 km, from the lower reaches of the Danube in Europe through the Eastern European Plain, the West Siberian Plain, the Kazakh Uplands, the Sayan-Altai Mountains, and the Mongolian Plateau to the Songliao Plain in North-East China. From north to south, it extends from Russia and the forests of Southern Siberia all the way to the deserts of present-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The geographical environment of this region is diverse. In the north, the steppe merges naturally into the forest area, forming a steppe–forest transition zone. In the south, the steppe transforms into the desert, making a desert steppe belt on the desert. Finally, in the middle are typical, semi-arid steppes (Dergachev 1989). Steppe environments can also be found amid some massive mountains, including the Ural Mountains, the Sayan-Altai Mountains, and the Tian Shan Mountains (Plate 1). A temperate continental climate characterizes the Eurasian Steppe. With little rainfall and barren soil, the steppe is not appropriate for cultivation. However, thanks to the vast area of the steppe, animal husbandry has been an important type of economy for the residents there for thousands of years. According to the characteristics of its physiography, the Eurasian Steppe is usually divided into three zones spreading from west to east. The western zone, or the European portion of the

Preface

xi

steppe, stretches from the east flank of the Carpathian Mountains to the steppe south of the Ural Mountains; its central zone extends from the east flank of the Ural Mountains to the Altai, embracing the West Siberia Steppe along the Ob River, as well as the Kazakh Steppe, and the steppe along both the north and south faces of the Tian Shan Mountains. The eastern zone extends from the Altai to the Songhua River and the Liaohe River valley, covering the central and the lower Yenisei River valley, the Baikal watershed, the Mongolian Plateau, and the Songliao Plain.1 The Northern Zone of China, in a broad sense, covers the northern regions of China from Xinjiang to Heilongjiang Province, while in a narrow sense, and refers only to the so-called Great Wall Belt in the Northern Zone of China, which does not cover the entire region along the Great Wall but refers to the area where the agricultural people from the Central Plain and the nomadic people from the Northern Zone of China interacted during ancient times (Lin 2003a). This book studies the Northern Zone of China mainly in its narrow sense but sometimes involves Xinjiang and North-East China in relation to contacts with the Eurasian Steppe. From the perspective of the entire Eurasian continent, the Great Wall Belt in the Northern Zone of China is the frontier of the southern Eurasian Steppe bordering agricultural areas. David Christian (David 2006) considers it the birthplace of social development in inland Eurasia, where non-military technology, ideology, and trade exchanges occurred in the agro-pastoral society. From this perspective, we can understand what role the Northern Zone of China, the region between the Eurasian Steppe and the Central Plain, has played in the eastern steppe. Connections between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe occurred primarily in the Asian part of the Eurasian Steppe, especially the middle and eastern zones of its Asian region, which included Semirechye, the Sayan-Altai Mountains, the Minusinsk Basin, Transbaikal, and Mongolia. Regarding scope, the area of interaction can be divided into two parts, the eastern and western zones. The western zone, extending from south-west to north-east, mainly involves the Tian Shan Mountains, the Altai Mountains, and the Sayan Mountains, namely the “Inner Asia Mountain Corridor2”, while the eastern zone covers the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal. The route connecting the west zone with the Northern Zone of China runs east–west, while the connecting route between the east zone and the Northern Zone of China runs south–north. Located in the south-east of the Eurasian Steppe, the steppe of the Northern Zone of China is distributed continuously from the Xiliaohe River Basin in the east through the Yanshan Mountains, the Yinshan Mountains, and the Helan Mountains to the Huangshui River Basin and the Hexi Corridor. According to the present administrative division, it includes western Liaoning Province, south-eastern Inner Mongolia, northern Hebei Province, northern Shanxi Province, northern Shaanxi 1

Quoted from Li (2011). The concept was coined by Michael D. Frachett in Multiregional Emergence of Mobile Pastoralism and Nonuniform Institutional Complexity across Eurasia, Current Anthropology, Vol. 53, No. 1 (February 2012), pp. 2–38.

2

xii

Preface

Province, central-southern Inner Mongolia, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Gansu Province, and north-eastern Qinghai Province. According to the economic division (Bai 1995) from the Han Dynasty to the Sui and Tang Dynasties, it was a semi-agricultural and semi-pastoral area, where both the soil and the climate were accommodating to farming and herding, covering the present Gansu Province, central Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (south to the Yinshan Mountains and Langshan Mountain), Shaanxi Province, north-western Shanxi Province, and northern Hebei Province. Based on the present geography, its southern border extends north-eastward from the Longmen Mountains (between Shaanxi and Shanxi) to the Jieshi Mountains (in Changli County of Hebei), while its northern border runs along the Yinshan Mountains, the Helan Mountain, the Qilian Mountains on the north and south of the Hexi Corridor, the Daxue Mountains, the Heli Mountain, the Longshou Mountain, and the Yanshan Mountains. To the north of those mountains, however, the soil, climate, and other natural conditions are widely different, and only a nomadic economy could survive because farming people could not make a living there in the long run. The Northern Zone of China is typical of a continental climate. It rains infrequently, mostly in summer and autumn; it rarely snows and is rather cold in winter. According to its geographical traits and cultural background, the Northern Zone of China can be divided into three independent regions: the eastern region (southern and northern parts of the Yanshan Mountains), the central region (central-southern part of Inner Mongolia and the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau), and the western region (centring on the Gansu-Qinghai region). The eastern region can be further divided into the north and the south faces of the Yanshan Mountains. The north face of the Yanshan Mountains, high in the west and low in the east, comprises south-eastern Inner Mongolia and western Liaoning area. Among these mountains, the most important are the southern Greater Higgnan Mountains, Nuluerhu Mountain, and Qilaotu Mountain. The main rivers in this area are the Xiliaohe River, the Xar Moron River, and the Laoha River. The south face of the Yanshan Mountains (high in the north-west, low in the south-east, and with mountains and hills in the north-west) covers the Beijing and Tianjin areas along with Zhangjiakou, Tangshan, and the southern part of Chengde of Hebei Province. The Sanggan River also flows west–eastward through this area. The central and south-eastern parts of this area are mainly plains swept by the Haihe River and the Luanhe River. With flat terrain and numerous rivers, the central and south-eastern parts of this area are abundant in water and soil resources. This is even the case in the northern part of the region, where the Luanhe River and the Chaobai River run from the north-east or north-west through low mountains into the plains. These characteristics make the area a pleasant place for people to live in. The central region mainly consists of northern Shaanxi Province, central and northern Shanxi Province, along with the Daihai area in Liangcheng County and the Hetao area in central-southern Inner Mongolia. Lying along the middle reaches of the Yellow River and surrounded by plateaus, the central region is usually covered by deep layers of loess. Due to the fault mechanism and natural erosion by the Yellow River cutting through from north to south, the central region features

Preface

xiii

complicated terrain patterns of numerous hills and valleys. On the eastern side of the Yellow River, Shanxi Province has the Lüliang Mountains to its east and the Taihang Mountains to its west. In the central part of Shanxi Province, there are three basins: the Datong Basin, the Xinding Basin, and the Taiyuan Basin from north to south. The mountains in the northern part of Shanxi Province are also joined with the Yinshan Mountains in central-southern Inner Mongolia. On the west side of the Yellow River, the Ordos Plateau and the North Shaanxi Plateau join together, with the Hetao Plain to its north, the Guanzhong Basin to its south, and the Plateau of east Gansu to its west. The western region mainly consists of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Gansu Province, and north-eastern Qinghai Province. This region is diverse in its terrain patterns, featuring mountains, hills, alluvial plains, plateaus, and dunes. In the east, the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, high in the south and low in the north, shows distinct differences in landform. The Yinchuan Plain, at the centre of this region with the Helan Mountains to its west, overlooks the Hetao area and the Ordos Plateau eastward. In the west, Gansu Province shares boundaries with the Loess Plateau, the Tibetan Plateau, and the Inner Mongolian Plateau, while Qinghai Province, located mostly on the Tibetan Plateau, shows diverse patterns of terrain such as basins, mountains, rivers, and valleys. The population of Qinghai Province is mainly distributed in the north-eastern part along the Huangshui River valley, a tributary of the Yellow River.

The History of Research on the Relations Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe The Eurasian Steppe and the Northern Zone of China, with their special geographical conditions, bred an animal husbandry civilization distinctively different from the agricultural civilization in the south. The endless steppe also serves as an essential channel for cultural exchanges. For a better understanding of the relations between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe, researchers should first conduct thorough studies of: 1) the Northern Zone of China; 2) the Eurasian Steppe; and 3) the interactions between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. (1) Many research findings related to the Northern Zone of China have been published. Among them, most focus on the culture of the Northern Zone of China and have been conducted by scholars from mainland China, with a rare few conducted by scholars from other countries. The research can be divided into four categories. The first category focuses on a specific type of artifact, emphasizing the evolution of the artifact at different historical stages. Among these, studies on animal plaques or animal patterns are the most detailed, while studies on the origin and transmission directions of these artifacts go beyond the boundaries of China

xiv

Preface

(Wu 1981, 2002a; Qiao 2002; Lin 2008) to explore social changes by analysing the evolution of the artifacts during different historical stages (Du 1993). However, because most of these studies are focused on a specific type, the role of the type of artifacts in a region or an archaeological culture and their relations with other artifacts from the same cemeteries have not been revealed. The second category of studies goes into depth on the Northern bronze culture of one particular region, such as studies on bronze short swords (Zheng 1984) and the Jundushan cemetery (Jin 1994; Han 1994) in Hebei, Ordos bronzes in Inner Mongolia (Tian and Guo 1988), and the Northern bronzes of the Longshan region (Luo 1990, 1993; Xu and Li 2001), as well as a systematic study of bronze cultures in North-West China (Shui 2001). This type of research takes a particular region as the subject, focusing on the periodization of the bronzes in this region as well as the relations between the bronzes and coexisting artifacts to explore the significance of bronzes in regional archaeology. However, few of these studies have adopted a broader perspective of viewing the Northern Zone of China or the Eurasian Steppe as a whole. The third category studies the cultures of the Northern bronze system from the perspective of the Xiongnu culture and makes references to documents and archaeological remains both in China and abroad (Tian 1983; Wu 1990, 1998). Here, the Xiongnu Confederation refers to both the original main body of the Xiongnu people led by Modu and the confederation formed subsequently by merging and allying some previously independent tribes. Therefore, to locate the origin of the Xiongnu people, it is of great importance to clarify the archaeological and cultural relations among the various independent tribes before the Xiongnu Confederation during the Eastern Zhou period as well as their relations with the northern steppe. The last category, a brand-new branch, is a comprehensive study of the whole Northern Frontier Belt that draws on the findings of the second category of research. Chinese scholars published the first research of this type in the early 1990s (Lin 1993). In the late 1990s (Linduff 1997; Cosmo 1999; Miyake 1999), many scholars beyond China applied this approach to their studies. In the twenty-first century, with more publications on the detailed periodization and distinctions of the Northern Cultural Belt, studies adopted a dynamic perspective to examine the relations among cultures and the development of cultures in this region (Yang 2004; Lin 2003b), as well as the Hu’s relations with the Rong and Di (Yang 2009) and a systematic summary of research findings of the various cultures (Wu 2007a). (2) Regarding the study of archaeological cultures in the Eurasian Steppe area beyond China, Chinese scholars have done no more than summarize the culture in a particular region of the steppe (Ma 2008) or discuss a particular culture outside of China (Wu 2007b; Shao 2007). Apart from a few studies by Japanese scholars (Gao 1994), most of the research findings in this field have been published by European, American, and Russian scholars. Earlier studies focused mainly on Southern Siberia and the Pontic area. Southern Siberia is the most important centre of nomadic civilization in the Eurasian Steppe and the area where Russian archaeological work has been previously conducted. Many Russian scholars have conducted special

Preface

xv

studies on the archaeological sequence, cultural sequence, and characteristics of this area (Киселев 1949; Mikhali 1969; Вадецкая 1986). Archaeological and cultural studies on the Pontic area mainly focus on Scythian culture (Kossack 1998; Cernenko 1983) and Sarmatian culture (Sulimirski 1970). The relevant records in Herodotus’s Histories and a large number of high-level cemeteries form the critical basis of these studies. Similar studies have been conducted on the archaeological cultures of the Urals, Siberia (Koryakova 2007), and the nomadic cultures of Kazakhstan (Stark and Rubinson 2012). The second type of study mainly explores specific sites, such as Chernach’s study on Seima-Turbino remains (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010) and Kuzmina’s study on the Andronovo’s complex (Kuzmina 2007). These studies, with specific research targets and comprehensive documentation, facilitate further studies on the same types of sites. The third type involves systematic studies on all steppe cultures during both the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. The main publications are Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age (Davis-Kimball et al. 1995) in 1995 and Parzinger’s book in German in 2006 (Parzinger 2006), to name a few. These works focus on all steppe cultures during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and discuss, from an overall perspective, the various archaeological cultures in the Eurasian Steppe. Specialized archaeological research of this kind can even be found in studies on the bronzes of the Eurasian Steppe (Chernykh 1992), as well as the development and evolution of the Eurasian Steppe cultures (Philips 2007; David 1998; Yang 2014). (3) Scholars of China and other countries have studied the relations between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. As early as 1929, some scholars compared animal patterns between southern Russia and the Northern Zone of China (Rostovtzeff 1929; Anderson 1932; Alfred 1998; William 1971). Similar studies were subsequently conducted (киселев 1960; Bogdanov 2004). Some historical studies on the frontier theories in the USA also addressed this area, including Owen Lattimore’s Inner Asian Frontiers of China (Lattimore 2010), Barfield’s Nomadic Empires and China (Barfield 2011), and Nicola Di Cosmo’s Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History (Di Cosmo 2010). In the field of archaeology, Huber presented her new and important perspective on the origins of China’s early bronzes in her article Qijia and Erlitou (1995) (Fitzgerald-Huber 1995). Despite their broad perspectives, the research findings of scholars of other countries on the relations between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe outside China have been questioned (Legrand 2004) because they lack a detailed understanding of the cultural connotations of the Northern Zone of China. Chinese scholars’ studies on the relationship of cultures between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe started late; their achievements can be roughly classified into two categories. The first category includes: comparative studies on artifacts of similar types and shapes between the Eurasian Steppe and the Northern Zone of China (Gao 1958; Wu 2002b; Lin 2008; Du 1993; Li 2005a; Lin 1980; Shao and Yang 2013); discussions of Eurasian Steppe factors in Northern bronzes (Li 2011); and

xvi

Preface

comparative studies of China’s early bronzes concerning their local features and evolution (Li 2005b). The second category concerns studies on the relationships between steppe cultures and bronze cultures in the Northern Zone of China based on a comparative analyses of bronzes (Wu 1986; Mei and Gao 2003; Wu 2002c, 2008; Lin 1987). In summary, archaeological discoveries from and research on the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age in the Northern Zone of China have been relatively in-depth, while studies on the Eurasian Steppe of the same time are becoming more comprehensive and systematic. Based on these findings, further studies could be conducted on contacts between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. However, some Chinese scholars, due to the lack of research materials and the language barrier, still hold a limited understanding of the Eurasian Steppe. Therefore, the previous understanding of the Eurasian Steppe has not been complete or systematic. Scholars have either studied the Eurasian Steppe beyond China as a whole or dubbed the entire culture “the Scythian culture along the coasts of the Black Sea”. This book is the first systematic monograph to study cultural interactions between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe in an attempt to explore their connections by studying the periodization and distinctions of adjacent steppe cultures. In such a space–time framework, strands of previous and subsequent case studies together with threads of cultural interactions among various regions have been woven into a historical scroll through which the historical significance of the changes in cultural communications among various regions, especially the formation of the Silk Road and the Xiongnu Confederation, has been analysed.

About the Book This book focuses on the cultural interactions among various regions and cultural zones by studying population migration and the gradual transmission of cultural factors. In the Early Iron Age, for instance, the rapid spread of short swords, axes, horse gears, and other weapons in the Eurasian Steppe catered to the demand stimulated by ongoing war for territory. The extensive use of new weapons and horse gears brought about tremendous changes in society, such as the rise of the warrior class and the rapid development of social hierarchy. Altogether, the book consists of six chapters, in addition to the preface and the conclusion. Chapter 1 addresses the germination of Northern bronzes. External factors played a significant role in the nascence of Chinese metal tools, and more attention is needed to distinguish local characteristics from other influences on the early Chinese bronzes. The research takes a Eurasian continental perspective to analyse the origin and evolution of the bronzes because the early Chinese bronze zones are likely associated with the oasis agricultural cultures in the south of Central Asia and the steppe cultures in the northern part of the Eurasian Steppe. This book explores

Preface

xvii

the systematic relations among the bronzes of the Central Plain of China, the Northern Zone of China, and North-West China during the Xia period. It also outlines the significance of the internal and external cultural elements in the development of early Chinese bronzes. Chapter 2 explores the expansion of the steppe culture during the second millennium B.C. The metallurgy research on the Eurasian Steppe demonstrates that the centre of metallurgy moved gradually from west to east. In the Late Bronze Age, the second millennium B.C., the two most important types of remains in the Asian Steppe were the Andronovo culture complex and Seima-Turbino remains in the forest–steppe area. This research compares artifacts from the Northern Zone of China with those from the Xinjiang region, covering two aspects: axes with an inner hole from the Andronovo culture and socketed axes of the Seima-Turbino remains, revealing the expansion of the steppe culture in the second millennium and its relationship with the bronze cultures in the Northern Zone of China and the Xinjiang region. Chapter 3 discusses the rise and spread of Northern bronzes. As the Eurasian Steppe culture entered the Late Bronze Age in the second half of the second millennium B.C., the Shang culture on the Central Plain of China shrank. However, cultures continued to flourish in the Northern Zone of China, where exceptional bronzes were made, and it spread beyond the Yanshan Mountains to the Mongolian Plateau, the Minusinsk Basin, and other areas. At the turn of the first millennium B. C. and the second millennium B.C., the Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk Basin, with its unique knives and swords with mushroom-shaped pommels, a straight hilts, and recesses, spread widely in the south. It led to a brief unity in styles of bronze knives and swords in the Northern Zone of China, the Mongolian Plateau, and the Minusinsk Basin in Southern Siberia. Chapter 4 centres at the beginning of the early nomadic era. At the beginning of the first millennium B.C., with significant changes in techniques, social structure, and ideology, the Eurasian Steppe region entered the early nomadic era. Although there were initially few nomadic communities, they spread throughout the Eurasian Steppe around the seventh century B.C. One crucial issue is how the pastoralists of the Late Bronze Age became nomadic herdsmen in the Early Iron Age. In exploring the reason for this, comparisons are made and analysis is conducted to distinguish the main characteristics of the weapons, horse gears, and zoomorphic motifs on artifacts from the Pontic area, the Kuban River valley, Siberia, the Mongolian Plateau, Inner Mongolia, and other regions. Chapter 5 focuses on the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe of the Early Iron Age. After the seventh century B.C., groups of steppe people developed splendid nomadic cultures, including the Scythian culture in the Pontic area, the Sauromates-Sarmatian culture in the Volga to southern Ural region, the Kazakh culture in Kazakhstan, the Tagar culture in the Minusinsk Basin, the nomadic culture of the Arzhan and Pazyryk cemeteries in the Tuva and Altai region, and the Slab Grave culture in Mongolia and Transbaikal region. During this period, interactions among these regions were active. In particular, the nomadic cultures in the north-western Inner Asian Mountain Corridor, northern Mongolia, and the

xviii

Preface

Transbaikal region interacted most frequently with the Northern Zone of China. Most of the remains of this period in the Northern Zone of China were left behind by the Rong, the Di, and the Hu but were distributed widely and belonged to different historical periods and cultural systems. This chapter first provides a detailed account of the cultural remains of the Rong, Di, and the Hu, as well as a specific analysis of the basic connotation of the nomadic cultures in the Eurasian Steppe. Then, it reveals the cultural relations of different steppe regions with the Northern Zone of China during the Eastern Zhou period and demonstrates the dynamic interactions between the Northern Zone of China and its steppe neighbours. Chapter 6 discusses the cultural relations between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe during the Xiongnu period. In the late Warring States period, the Xiongnu had already been present around the Great Wall Belt in the Northern Zone of China, and they formed a confederation spanning the northern steppe during the Qin and Han periods. However, the unique culture of the Xiongnu did not come into being until the mid-Western Han period. The three most significant contributors to the Xiongnu culture were the culture in the Central Plain in the Yellow River valley of the Northern Zone of China, the Great Wall Belt culture, and the Slab Grave culture in Mongolia and the Transbaikal region. While the Xiongnu culture was taking shape, the Han culture had already been dominant in most parts of the Great Wall Belt. As the Xiongnu were expanding their power eastward, northward, and westward during the mid-Western Han period, their cultural elements spread to the Northern Zone of China and central Siberia. As a result, cultural communications between the Great Wall Belt and the Eastern steppe were obstructed by the Xiongnu, followed by a period of minimal communication lasting almost a century from the Qin and Han periods to the early Western Han period. Only during the early years of Emperor Wudi’s reign in the mid-Western Han period, with the opening of the Silk Road, were cultural communications restored. This chapter examines the origin and spread of the Xiongnu culture based on historical period divisions and the cultural factor analysis method to further explore changing cultural interactions between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe, as well as the cultural background to the opening of the Silk Road. This book was compiled collaboratively. The preface and conclusion were written by Yang Jianhua, the first five chapters were written collaboratively by Yang Jianhua and Shao Huiqiu, and Chap. 6 was written by Pan Ling. This book heavily references Zhang Wenli’s research on the Kayue culture, as well as Han Jinqiu’s views outlined in his doctoral dissertation related to the Northern Zone of China during the Shang and Zhou periods. Since archaeology centres on the study of ancient artifacts, the illustrations of ancient artifacts are an essential part of the book. For readers’ convenience, some artifacts are referred to repeatedly in different research contexts. Changchun, China

Jianhua Yang Huiqiu Shao Ling Pan

Preface

xix

References Alfred, S. (1998). Sino-Siberian art in the collection of C.T. Loo. Bangkok, Thailand: SDI Publications. Anderson, J. G. (1932). Hunting magic in the animal style. Stockholm: The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Bai, S. (1995). Zhongguo tongshi (A general history of China). Shanghai People’s Publishing House (Vol. 6) (in Chinese). Вадецкая, Э. Б. (1986). Археологические памятники в степях среднего Енисея. – Ленинград: Наука. Barfield, T. J. (2011). Weixian de bianjiang: youmu diguo yu Zhongguo (The perilous frontier: nomadic empires and China). (J. Yuan, Trans.). Nanjing, China: Jiangsu People’s Press (in Chinese). Bogdanov, E. S. (2004). The origin of the image of a predator coiled up in a ball in the “Eastern Province” of the Scythian realm. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 4(20), 50–55. Cernenko, E. V. (1983). The Scythians 700–300 B.C. London: Osprey Publishing Ltd. Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient metallurgy in the USSR (S. Wright, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. Chernykh, E., & Kuzmineh, S. (2010). Ouya dalu beibu de gudai yejin: Saiyima-Tuerbinnuoo xian xiang (Ancient metallurgy in the Northern Eurasia: Seima-Turbino phenomenon). Beijing: Zhonghua Press (in Chinese). Cosmo, N. (1999). The northern frontier in pre-imperial China (From the origins of civilization to 221 B.C.). In: The Cambridge history of ancient China. Cambridge University Press. David, C. (1998). A history of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia. Wiley-Blackwell. David, C. (2006). A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia—Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Davis-Kimball, J., Bashilov, V. A., & Yablonsky, L. T. (1995). Nomads of the Eurasian steppe in the early iron age. Berkeley: Zinat Press. Dergachev, V. (1989). Neolithic and bronze age culture communities of steppe zone of the USSR. Antiquity, 63, 793–802. Di Cosmo, N. (2010). Gudai Zhongguo yu qi qianglin: Dongya lishishang youmu Liliang de xingqu (Ancient China and its enemies: the rise of nomadic power in East Asian history) (Y. He & S. Gao, Trans.). Beijing, China: China’s Social Science Press (in Chinese). Du, Z. (1993). Ouya caoyuan dongwu wenshi yu zhongguo gudai beifang minzu zhi kaocha (Research on the zoomorphic motifs of the Eurasian Steppe and the ethnic groups in the Northern Zone of ancient China). In: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan (Collected papers of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica) (Vol. 64), Issue 2 (in Chinese). Fitzgerald-Huber, L. G. (1995). Qijia and Erlitou: The question of contacts with distant cultures. Early China, 20, 40–52. Gao, B. (1994). Zhongguo de fu (Chinese fu-cauldron). Caoyuan kaogu tongxun 4 (in Chinese). Gao, Q. (1958). Yindai de yimian tongjing ji qi xiangguan zhi wenti (A Bronze mirror in the Yin Period and its related issues). Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan, Issue 29 (in Chinese). Han, J. (1994). Cong Jundushan dongzhoumu tan shanrong, hu, donghu de kaoguxue wenhua guishu (On the archaeological and cultural attribution of Shanrong, Hu and Donghu from the Jundushan cemetery of the Eastern Zhou dynasty). In: Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji 1 (The collection of the archaeological works in Inner Mongolia Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Jin, F. (1994). Jundushan rongwenhua mudi zangzhi yu zhuyao qiwu tezheng (Burial system and characteristics of main artifacts from the Jundushan Shanrong culture cemetery). Liaohai wenwu xuekan 1 (in Chinese).

xx

Preface

Киселев, С. В. (1949). Древняя история Южной Сибири. – Москва: Наук; Mikhail P (1969) The ancient civilization of southern siberia. New York: Cowles Book Company. Киселев, C. B. (1960). Sulian jingnei qingtong wenhua yu Zhongguo Shangwenhua de guanxi (The relations between bronze culture in the Soviet Union and the Shang culture in China). Kaogu 2 (in Chinese). Koryakova, L. (2007). The Urals and Western Siberia in the bronze and iron ages. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kossack, G. (1998). On the origins of the Scytho—Iranian animal style. In: B. Hansel et al. (Ed.), Towards translating the past, Berlin. Kuzmina, E. E. (2007). The origin of the Indo-Iranians. Boston, USA: Brill. Lattimore, O. (2010). Zhongguo de Yazhou neilu bianjiang (Inner Asian frontiers of China) (T. Xiaofeng, Trans.). Nanjing, China: Jiangsu People’s Press (in Chinese). Legrand, S. (2004). Karasuk metallurgy: Technological development and regional influence. In: K. M. Linduff (Ed.), Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River. Li, G. (2005a). Zhong xi qingtong mao bijiao yanjiu (A comparative study of the bronze spears from China and the West). Zhonguo lishi wenwu 6, 19–28 (in Chinese). Li, S. (2005b). Xibei yu zhongyuan zaoqi yetongye de quyu tezheng ji jiaohu zuoyong (The regional characteristics of early metallurgy in the Central Plain and Northwestern China and their interactions). Beijing: Kaogu xuebao 3 (in Chinese). Li, G. (2011). Zhonguo Beifang qingtongqi de Ouya caoyuan wenhua yinsu (The cultural elements of Eurasian Steppe in the Northern Zone of China) (p. 15) Beijing, China: Cultural Relics Press (in Chinses). Lin, Y. (1980). Guanyu qingtong gongxingqi de ruogan wenti (Several issues about bronze bow-shaped artifacts). Jilin daxue shehui kexue luncong 2. Jilin daxue shehui kexue xuebao bianji bu, Jilin, China (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1987). Shang wenhua qingtongqi yu beifang diqu qingtongqi guanxi zhi zai yanjiu (Re-study on the relationship between bronzes of Shang culture and bronzes from Northern China). Kaoguxue lunwen ji 1. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1993). Guanyu Zhongguo de dui Xiongnu zuyuan de kaoguxue yanjiu (An Archaeological Study of the Origin of the Xiongnu in China). Neimenggu wenwu kaogu (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics and Archaeology) (pp. 1–2) (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2003a). Zhongguo beifang Changcheng didai youmu wenhuadai de xingcheng guocheng (The formation of the nomadic cultural belt along the Great Wall). Yanjing xuebao, New Issue 5 (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2003b). Zhongguo beifang Changcheng didai youmu wenhuadai de xingcheng guocheng (The formation of the nomadic cultural belt along the Great Wall). Yanjing xuebao. New Issue 14, 95–145. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2008). Lun Ouya caoyuan de juanqu dongwuwen (On the coiled zoomorphic mortifs of the Eurasian Steppe). In: L. Y. xueshu wenji 2 (The collection of Lin Yun’s Academic works 2). Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Linduff, K. (1997). An archaeological overview. In: Ancient bronze of the eastern Eurasian Steppe from the Arthur M. Sackler collections. New York, USA: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation. Luo, F. (1990). Guyuan qingtong wenhua chulun (A preliminary study of the Guyuan bronze culture). Kaogu 8 (in Chinese). Luo, F. (1993). Yi Longshan wei zhongxin Ganning diqu chunqiuzhanguo shiqi beifang qingtong wenhua yanjiu (A study of Northern bronze culture in the Longshan-centered Gansu-Ningxia region during the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period). Neimenggu wenwu kaogu, 1–2. Ma, J. (2008). Gongyuanqian ba-qian san shiji de Sayan-A’ertai—zaoqi tieqi shidai Ouya dongbu caoyuan wenhua jiaoliu (Sayan-Altai—early Iron Age steppe cultural exchanges in Eastern Eurasia from the 8th to 3rd century B.C.). In: O. xuekan (Eurasian Learning Publications) (Vol. 8) Zhonghua Book Company (in Chinese).

Preface

xxi

Mei, J., & Gao, B. (2003). Saiyima—Tubinnuo xianxiang he Zhongguo Xiibei diqu de zaoqi qingtong wenhua. Xinjiangwenwu 1. (in Chinese). Miyake, T. (1999). A study of bronze culture in ancient Northern China, Kokugakuin University research series. Parzinger, H. (2006). Die frühen Völker Eurasiens Vom Neolithikumzum Mittelalter, C.H. Beck. Philips, L. K. (2007). The making of bronze age Eurasia. New York: Cambridge University Press. Qiao, L. (2002). Zhongguo Beifang dongwu paishi yanjiu (Study on animal ornaments in Northern China). Bianjiang Kaogu yanjiu, Issue 1 (in Chinese). Rostovtzeff, M. (1929). The animal style in south Russia and China. Princeton University Press. Shao, H. (2007). Kalasuke wenhua chulun (A preliminary study of Karasuk culture). Xinjiang wenwu 3 (in Chinese). Shao, H., & Yang, J. (2013). Ouya caoyuan he Zhongguo Xinjiang yu Beifang diqu de youqiong zhanfu (Socketed battle axes in the Eurasian Steppe and Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China), 1, 69–86. Kaogu (in Chinese). Shui, T. (2001). Ganqing diqu qingtong shidai de wenhua jiegou he jingji xingtai yanjiu (Research on cultural structure and economic pattern of the Bronze Age in Gansu and Qinghai regions). In: Zhongguo xibei diqu qingtong shidai kaogu lunji (The collection of archaeology of the Bronze Age in Northwestern China). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Sima, Q. (1982). Shiji Dayuan liezhuan (The historical records—biographies of Dayuan). Zhonghua Book Company (Vol. 123, pp. 31–57) (in Chinese). Stark, S., & Rubinson, K. S. (2012). Nomads and networks: The ancient art and culture of Kazakhstan. New York: Princeton University Press. Sulimirski, T. (1970). The Sarmatians. In: Ancient people and places (Vol. 73). Thames and Hudson. Tian, G. (1983). Jinnianlai Neimenggu diqu Xiongnu kaogu (Recent Archaeology of Xiongnu in Inner Mongolia). Kaogu xuebao 1 (in Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1988). E’erduosishi qingtongqi de yuanyuan (Origin of Ordos bronzes). Kaogu xuebao 3 (in Chinese). Watson, W. (1971). Cultural frontiers in ancient East Asia. Edinburgh University Press William, W. (1971). Cultural frontiers in ancient East Asia. UK: Edinburgh University Press. Wu, E. (1981). Woguo Beifang gudai dongwu wenshi (Ancient animal patterns in Northern China). Kaogu xuebao, Issue 1 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (1986). Zhongguo Beifang qingtong wenhua yu Karasuk de guanxi (The relations between bronze culture in the Northern Zone of China and that in Karasuk. In: Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu—Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu 50 nian jininan lunwenji). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (Chinese archeological research—collection of Mr. Xia Nai’s 50 years of archeological work). Beijing, China: Science Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (1990). Lun Xiongnu kaogu yanjiu zhong de jige wenti (On several issues on the Xiongnu archaeology). Kaogu xuebao 4 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (1998). Xiongnu zuyuan chutan—beifang caoyuan minzu kaogu tantao zhiyi (A preliminary exploration of the origin of the Xiongnu—one of the archaeological studies of ethnic groups on the northern steppe). In: Zhou Qin wenhua yanjiu (Cultural studies of Zhou and Qin periods). Xi’an, China: Shaanxi renmin Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2002a). Zhongguo Beifang qingtongqi toudiao baishi (Bronze fretwork belt ornaments in Northern China). Kaogu xuebao, Issue 1 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2002b). Luelun Ouya caoyuan zaoqi you muren yishu zhong de juanqu dongwuwen xingxiang (On coiled zoomorphic motifs of early nomadic art in the Eurasian Steppe) Kaogu 11. Wu, E. (2002c). Ouya dalu caoyuan zaoqi youmu wenhua de jidian sikao (Viewpoints on the early Nomadic culture of the Eurasian Steppe). Kuxuebao, 4, 446. Wu, E. (2007a). Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu (Research on archaeological cultures in the northern steppe). Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese).

xxii

Preface

Wu, E. (2007b). Lun shibanmu wenhua de niandai ji xiangguan wenti (On the date and related issues of Slab Grave culture). Xinshiji de Zhongguo kaoguxue (Archaeology of China in the new century). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2008). Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua bijiao yanjiu (A comparative study on the archeological cultures on the Northern steppe). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Xu, C., & Li, J. (2001). Dongzhou shiqi de rongdi qingtong wenhua (Rongdi bronze culture in the Eastern Zhou period). Kaogu xuebao 1 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2004). Chunqiu Zhanguo shiqi Zhongguo beifang wenhuadai de xingcheng (The formation of Northern China cultural belt in the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2009). Zhongguo beifang dongzhou shiqi liangzhng wenhua yicun bianxi—jianlun Rong Di yu Hu de guanxi (Differentiation and analysis of two cultural sites of the Eastern Zhou period in Northern China–on the relationship among the Rong, the Di, and the Hu). Kaogu xuebao 2 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2014). Guowai guanyu Oya caoyuan shiqian shidai wanqi de zonghe yanjiu pingjia (A review of overseas studies of the Eurasian Steppe during the late prehistoric age). In: Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 16 (Studies of the frontier archeology, Vol. 16). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zheng, S. (1984). Zhongguo beifang qingtong duanjian de fenqi ji xingzhi yanjiu (Study on the stages and shapes of bronze short swords in Northern China). Wenwu 2 (in Chinese).

Contents

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Different Bronze Systems in Eurasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Eastern Bronze Culture System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Western Bronze Culture System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Bronze Culture System During the Late Prehistoric Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Background Beyond China Related to Chinese Early Bronzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Early Bronzes of the Oasis Culture in Southern Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Early Bronzes of the Steppe Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Seriation of Some Early Bronzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Formation of Different Systems of Early Chinese Bronzes . 1.3.1 Central Plain Bronze System During the Xia Period . . . 1.3.2 Northern Bronze System During the Xia Period . . . . . . 1.3.3 Early Bronzes of the Northwestern Bronze System During the Xia Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.4 The Relationship Among the Bronzes of the Central Plain and the Northern Zone and Those of the Northwestern Bronze System During the Xia Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Relationship Between the Early Bronzes from China and those Outside of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Relationship Between the Bronzes of the Qijia Culture and those Outside of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Relationship Between the Bronzes of the Siba Culture, the Tianshanbeilu Culture, and Those Beyond the Borders of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

1 3 4 4

..

5

..

6

. . . .

. . . . . .

7 12 19 23 23 24

..

28

..

30

..

33

..

34

..

37

. . . . . .

xxiii

xxiv

Contents

1.4.3 The Prototype of the Northern Zone of China Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During the Second Millennium B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex . . . . 2.1.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Socketed Battle-Axes in Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Characteristics, Dating and Population of the SeimaTurbino Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Relationship Between the Two Types of Remains . . . . . 2.2 Relevant Remains in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Relevant Remains of the Andronovo Culture Complex Found in Xinjiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Socketed Battle-Axes in Xinjiang and the Northern Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Hollow-Head Axes in Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Bronze Spears with Seima-Turbino Characteristics Found in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China and the Steppe Zone During the 2nd Millennium B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Expansion of the Andronovo Culture Complex in Xinjiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 The Spread of Socketed Battle-Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Spread of Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Seima-Turbino-Type Bronze Spears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Northern Bronzes During the Early Shang Period . . . . . 3.1.2 Northern Bronzes from the Late Shang to West Zhou . . 3.1.3 Evolution of the Major Bronzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C. . . . . . . 3.2.1 The Kazakh Steppes, Eastern European Steppe, and Forest Steppes in the Post-Seima Period . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Early Bronzes from the Mongolian Region . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 The Karasuk Culture in the Minusinsk Basin . . . . . . . .

40 42

.. ..

47 51

..

51

.. .. ..

73 88 89

..

89

. . 104 . . 107 . . 110 . . 111 . . . . . .

. . . . . .

112 115 120 123 124 125

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

133 134 134 138 149 164

. . 164 . . 166 . . 170

Contents

xxv

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 The Influence of Northern Bronzes on Central Plain Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 The Influence of Northern Bronzes on the North of the Yanshan Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 The Relationship Between Northern Bronzes and the Mongolian Plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 The Relationship Between Northern Bronzes and the Minusinsk Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 The Influence of the Northern Bronzes on the Steppes Beyond the Border, Taking the Bronze Short Sword as an Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 176 . . . 177 . . . 189 . . . 198 . . . 202

. . . 208 . . . 216 . . 227

4 The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 The Pontic Area and the Kuban River Basin: The Pre- and Early Scythian Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Southern Siberia in Russia: The Arzhan Kurgan . . . . . . 4.1.3 Slab Grave Culture on the Mongolian Plateau and in Transbaikal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Upper Xiajiadian Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Kayue Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 The Relationship Between the Upper Xiajiadian Culture and the Slab Grave Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Cultural Interaction Between the Upper Xiajiadian Culture and Southern Siberia and the Black Sea . . . . . . 4.3.3 Division of the Middle and Eastern Eurasian Steppe and Their Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Hypothesis on Reasons to Transition from Animal Husbandry to Nomadic Pastoralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 271 . . 274

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe 5.1.1 The Scythian Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 The Sauro-Sarmatian Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 The Saka Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . 228 . . 228 . . 233 . . 243 . . 245 . . 246 . . 257 . . 261 . . 261 . . 263 . . 267

. . . . .

279 279 279 287 298

xxvi

Contents

5.1.4 The Tagar Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.5 The Early Nomadic Culture in the Tuva Area . . . . . . . . 5.1.6 The Early Nomadic Culture in the Altai Region . . . . . . 5.1.7 The Slab Grave Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 The Sites of the Di in Northern China . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Remains Related to the Hu in the Northern Zone . . . . . 5.2.3 Differences Between Two Types of Sites in the Northern Zone of China During the Eastern Zhou Period . . . . . . . 5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Interactions with the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Interactions with Minusinsk and Tuva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Connections with the Altai Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Connections with the Semirechye Region in the Tianshan Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Comparison of Earliest Xiongnu Remains and the Related Remains of Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe in Xiongnu Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Description of Related Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains in Mongolia and the Transbaikal Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 The Large Tombs of the Xiongnu (Pan 2015b) . . . . . . . 6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements of the Xiongnu and Their Communication with Surrounding Areas . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Analysis of the Cultural Factors of the Xiongnu Remains in the Middle and Late Western Han Period (Pan 2007b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 The Spread of the Xiongnu Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Summary of the Spread of Xiongnu’s Cultural Factors and Their Relationship with the Surrounding Ethnic Groups and the Subordinate Countries of Xiongnu . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

319 332 339 348 351 352 373

. . 392 . . 400 . . 400 . . 404 . . 417 . . 425 . . 437

. . 438 . . 446 . . 451 . . 465 . . 465 . . 465 . . 467 . . 476 . . 493

. . 494 . . 511

. . 520

Contents

6.3 The Transformation of Cultural Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe from the Late Warring States Period to the Middle Western Han Period (Pan 2015a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Eurasian Steppe Cultural Features in the Northern Zone of China During the Late Warring States Period . . . . . . 6.3.2 The Eurasian Steppe Cultural Factors in the Northern Zone of China During the Western Han Dynasty . . . . . . 6.3.3 The Cultural Factors of the Central Plain in the Xiongnu Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 The Opening of the Silk Road and Its Southward Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxvii

. . 523 . . 523 . . 526 . . 530 . . 530 . . 533

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559

About the Authors

Jianhua Yang is a professor at the School of Archaeology, Jilin University. After graduation from Jilin University in 1978, Yang has been teaching Archaeology. From 1981 to 1984, she researched the prehistory of Mesopotamia and Western Asia for the master’s degree; and from 1997 to 2001, she focused on the archaeology in the Northern Zone of China during the Bronze Age for the doctorate degree. As a visiting scholar, Professor Yang conducted research at Cambridge University twice, in 1994 and 2002. Yang also visited Pittsburgh University in 2008. Her research interests cover a wide range of directions which includes the history and theory of archaeology, the prehistory of Western Asia and Mesopotamia, and the archaeology in the Northern Zone of China and Eurasia Steppe. Her representative works include Prehistory of Mesopotamia, A History of Archaeology outside of China, The Formation of the Northern Chinese Frontier Belt during the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States Periods, Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and Yanshan Mountains in the Second Millennium B.C., and Mesopotamia: From Village to City State. Huiqiu Shao is a professor at the School of Archaeology, Jilin University. He was admitted to the Department of Archaeology of Jilin University in 1998. From 2002 to 2007, he pursued his master's and doctorate degrees focusing on the archaeology of the Bronze Age in Northern Zone of China. He has been teaching since he was awarded the doctoral degree in 2007. As a visiting scholar, Shao studied at the University of Pennsylvania from 2012 to 2013. His research directions include the archaeology of the Bronze Age in Northern Zone of China, the archaeology in Xinjiang, and the archaeology in Eurasian Steppe. His published work includes The Development of the Prehistoric Cultures in Xinjiang and Their Interactions with Neighboring Cultures. Ling Pan is a professor at the School of Archaeology, Jilin University. Pan graduated from the Department of Archaeology of Jilin University in 1989 and then worked in the Cultural Relics Management Station of Jiamusi City, Heilongjiang Province from 1989 to 1997. From 1997 to 2003, she completed her master's and xxix

xxx

About the Authors

doctorate degrees at Jilin University. Following her graduation in 2003 with a doctoral degree in history, Pan has been teaching at Jilin University. Her research directions include the Frontier Archaeology in the Northern Zone of China and the archaeology during the Warring States and the Qin and Han periods. Her representative works include Study on the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery and Related Problems on Xiongnu Archaeology, Study on Late Period Cauldrons of North China.

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Fig. 1.6 Fig. 1.7 Fig. 1.8 Fig. 1.9 Fig. 1.10

Fig. 1.11 Fig. 1.12 Fig. 1.13 Fig. 1.14 Fig. 1.15

The distribution of main excavation sites of early metal artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology of bronzes of the Namazga culture . . . . . . . . . . Copper and bronze artifacts from the Hissar site. . . . . . . . . . Copper and bronze artifacts from the Sialk site . . . . . . . . . . Early copper artifacts from the circumpontic metallurgical province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early metal artifacts from the caucasus region . . . . . . . . . . . Metal artifacts of the Garin-Bor culture in forest-steppe zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early metal artifacts from the Altai-Sayan region . . . . . . . . . The evolution of bronze axes in Europe. Scandinavian peninsular (a); Italy (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The development and evolution of socketed spear in the Eurasian steppe. 1–4 Maikop culture; 5 Kuro-Araks culture; 6 Kuban area; 7 Dagestan; 8–10 Catacomb culture; 11–12 Saskatchewan culture; 13–14 Abashevo culture; 15–17 Upper reaches of Volga River; 18–19 Timber Grave culture; 20 Andronovo culture; 21–23 Seima-Turbino complexes . . . . . . Early bronzes of the Xia dynasty from the central plain . . . . Different categories of bronzes from the Qijia culture . . . . . . Early bronzes of the Xia period from the northern zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between the main bronzes of the Siba culture and those of the Tianshanbeilu culture . . . . . . . . . . . Speculation on the development of metal artifacts of the Qijia culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

7 8 10 11

.. ..

15 16

.. ..

17 18

..

20

.. .. ..

22 24 26

..

28

..

30

..

38

. . . .

xxxi

xxxii

Fig. 1.16

Fig. 1.17 Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3

Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5

Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7

Fig. 2.8

Fig. 2.9 Fig. 2.10 Fig. 2.11

Fig. 2.12

Fig. 2.13

List of Figures

The evolution of sword with trident-shaped guard. 1 Swords from Siberia; 2, 3 Swords from the steppes beyond China (Grushin 2006); 4 Swords from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery; 5–7 Swords from Guyuan, Ningxia (Luo and Han 1990; Luo and Yan 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze knives around the Xia period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province of the Copper Age. A. Central area; B. Marginal area (the Tripoliye-Kukutani culture); C. Peripheral area (Eastern European steppe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steppe areas of the Early Bronze Age. A. Eurasian Metallurgy Province; B. Circumpontic Metallurgical Province; C. Pit Grave culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steppe areas of the Middle Bronze Age. A. Putapovka; B. Tashgawa; C. Sintashta/Petrovka; D. Abashevo culture; E. Krotovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steppe areas of the Late Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution and expansion of the Andronovo culture complex. 1 Timber Grave culture; 2 Sintashta culture; 3 the formation phase of the Andronovo culture (Petrovka); 4 the booming phase of the Andronovo culture . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of sites of the Sintashta culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Arkaim settlement of the Sintasta culture. 1 The outer defensive walls; 2 the inner defensive walls; 3 houses; 4 circular streets with drainage system; 5 central square; 6 main entrance; 7 trenches; 8 courtyard; 9 interior room; 10 other entrances; 11 gate stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of M2 at the Sintashta CM cemetery; 1 Sacrifices on the cover of the wooden coffin; 2 plan of the tomb bottom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The bone cheekpieces from the Sintashta cemetery; 1, 2 M11; 3 M5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carriages from the Sintashta cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carriage remains and their reconstruction plan from the Sintashta cemetery; 1 Carriage Remains from M28; 2 reconstruction plan of a vehicle from Sintashta (Littauer and Crouwel 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vessels from the Sintashta cemetery; 1–5 M6; 6 M18; 7, 8, 11. M14; 9, 12, M12 (6 made of stone, and others ceramics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metal tools and weapons from the Sintashta cemetery. 1, 2 Socketed axes; 3, 4 forged socketed spearheads; 5 sickles; 6–12 short swords; 13, 14 adzes with wide butt end; 15, 16 hook-shaped artifacts; 17, 18 awls (with 1, 6, 10, 11,

.. ..

41 42

..

48

..

48

.. ..

49 49

.. ..

50 53

..

54

..

55

.. ..

55 56

..

56

..

57

List of Figures

Fig. 2.14 Fig. 2.15 Fig. 2.16 Fig. 2.17 Fig. 2.18 Fig. 2.19

Fig. 2.20

Fig. 2.21

Fig. 2.22

Fig. 2.23

xxxiii

14, 18 unearthed from M3; 2, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16 from M39; 5, 9, 17 from M11; 3, 12 from M30; and 4 from M18) . . . . . . . . Examples of the Tomb structures of the Andronovo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramics of the Andronovo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes of the Andronovo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Kargaly site. 1 Copper ore; 2 slag; 3, 4 metallurgical tools; 5, 6 Molds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aerial photo of the Kargaly mineral site and a map of its internal tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramics from the Semirechye-type tombs. 1 Prigorodnoe; 2 Issyk-Kul; 3, 4 Arpa; 5, 6 Dzhaylyau III; 7, 8 Tamgaly I; 9–14, 15–18 Usunbulak I; 15 Tegermen-say . . . . . . . . . . . . . A hoard of bronzes from the Semirechye areas and bronzes from other sites. Group A: Shamshi; Group B: Sululuk; Group C: Issyk-Kul; Group D: Ivanovka; Group E: Novo-Pavlovka; Group F: Sadovoe; Group G: Beshkek; Group H: Bronzes from other sites (1 Kairak-Kumy site; 2 The Chu River; 3 Preobrazhenka; 4 Tup; 5 Valleys in the upper Syr Darya; 6 Kant; 7 Ringitam 8, 9 Tashtube; 10 Dun Bei) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socketed battle-axes and other coexisting Artifacts from the second half of the 5th millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. 1–6 Class A battle-axes; 7 the predecessor of the Class B battle-axes; 8 bronze sword; 9 bronze chisel (5 from Eastern European steppes; 6 from Transcaucasia others from the Tripoliye-Kukutani culture) . . Socketed Battle-Axes and Other Coexisting Artifacts from the Middle of the 4th millennium B.C. to the End of 3rd millennium B.C. 1–3 Class A battle-axes; 4–17 Class B Type I battle-axes; 18, 23 Bronze swords; 24–27 Bronze chisels (3, 8, 9, 22, 23, 27 from the Afanasievo culture; 10–14 from the Maikop culture; 15–17 from the Kuro-Araks culture; others from the Pit Grave culture) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socketed Battle-Axes and Other Coexisting Artifacts from the End of the 3rd millennium B.C. to the Beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. in Regions beyond China; 1–9 Class B Type II battle-axes; 10–15 Class B Type III battle-axes; 16–21 Class B Type IV battle-axes; 22–30 Bronze swords; 31–50 Battle-axes from other regions (1–3, 10 from the Poltavka culture; 4, 23, 24 the Sintashta culture; 5, 6 the Abashevo culture; 7–9 the Catacomb culture; 10, 11 the Timber Grave culture; 12–30 the Andronovo culture complex; 31–36 Northern Caucasus; 31–50 Transcaucasia) .

..

58

.. .. ..

60 61 62

..

63

..

64

..

65

..

65

..

67

..

68

..

69

xxxiv

Fig. 2.24 Fig. 2.25 Fig. 2.26

Fig. 2.27

Fig. 2.28

Fig. 2.29

Fig. 2.30

Fig. 2.31

Fig. 2.32

Fig. 2.33

Fig. 2.34

List of Figures

Socketed battle-axes from the Near East. 1–27 Collection of the Ashmolean museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the Seima-Turbino complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes from the Seima and Turbino cemeteries. 1–7, 20–25 Bronze daggers; 8, 26 bronze knives; 9, 29 socketed axes; 10 serrated edge bronze artifact; 11, 30, 31 ring-shaped ornaments; 13–15, 33–36 axes; 16–19, 37–40 bronze spears; 32 hooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes from the Rostovka cemetery. 1–6 Bronze daggers; 7 bone-hilt bronzes; 8, 9 bronze knives; 10 stone casting mold for axes; 11–14 axes; 15–19 bronze spears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seima-Turbino type bronze tools and weapons. 1–4 Knives; 5–10 daggers; 11–15 spears; 16–21 axes (4 from the Elunino cemetery; 1, 5–7, 11, 16, 17 from the Seima cemetery; 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18 from the Turbino cemetery; others from the Rostovka cemetery) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socketed battle-axes from the Seima-Turbino remains. 1–3 The Turbino cemetery; 4–6 the Seima cemetery; 7 No. 1 cemetery of Murjiha; 8 the Sokolovka cemetery . . . . . The plan and artifacts from the Rostovka cemetery M34. 1 bronze spear; 2 bronze axes; 3 bronze dagger; 4 ceramic shard; 5 bronze ring-shaped ornament; 6, 7 stone arrowheads; 8 bone awl; 9, 10 bronze artifacts with a bone hilt . . . . . . . . The plan and artifacts from the Rostovka cemetery M8. 1, 2 bronze spears; 3 bronze axes; 4 bronze dagger; 5 bronze awl; 6 stone arrowheads; 7 stone blades; 8–12 stone artifacts 13 bone artifacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axes from the Seima-Turbino remains. 1–10, 13 the Turbino No. 1 cemetery; 11, 12, 14–19 the Seima cemetery; 20 Zarniago; 21 Usti-Sorbakino; 22 Beikosye; 23 Tarsma; 24 Altai; 25–33 Rostovka; 34 Mikopuchegay River; 35 Socorovo; 36 Smolenskier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axes of the post-Seima-Turbino Age. 1–8 Eastern Ukraine and the Don river; 9–11 lower reaches of the Dnieper river; 12, 13 the Volga basin; 14, 15 Bulgaria 16 former Kalganski village; 17 Sigaevo (Cигaeвo); 18 Kizhirovo; 19 Kosikha; 20 Voynovka-Gilevia; 21 Sobakina (Coбaкинa); 22 Kubekovo (Кyбeкoвo); 23 Kizhirovo; 24 Middle vacugan (Cpeдний Bacюгaн) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the Andronovo culture complex in Xinjiang. 1 The Tacheng Health School Site; 2 the Tomb of Sazitun Village in Tori County; 3 the Adunqiaolu Site and Graveyard in Wenquan County; 4 the Daxigou site in Huocheng County; 5 the Karasu Site in Nileke County; 6 the Nilekqiongkeke

.. ..

74 76

..

76

..

77

..

78

..

81

..

82

..

83

..

85

..

86

List of Figures

Fig. 2.35

Fig. 2.36

Fig. 2.37

Fig. 2.38

Fig. 2.39

Fig. 2.40 Fig. 2.41 Fig. 2.42

Fig. 2.43

xxxv

Site; 7 the sacrifice sites and cemetery at Hojiretai in Nileke County; 8 the Tomballesayi Graveyard; 9 the Ayousaigoukou Site in Xinyuan County; 10 Tomb No. 2 of Kukesuxi in Turks County; 11 the Xiabandi Cemetery in Tashkurgan County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of distribution and burial structures at the Xiabandi AII cemetery. 1 Burial distribution (partial); 2 burial ground M20; 3 burial ground M25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diagnostic types of pottery and metals from the Xiabandi AII cemetery. 1 AIIM001:1; 2 AIIM052A:1; 3 AIIM030:1; 4 AIIM042:1; 5 AIIM005D:1 6 AIIM041:1; 7 AIIM059:1; 8 AIIM035:1; 9 AIIM113:1; 10 AIIM062:3; 11 AIIM062:4; 12 AIIM062:7; 13 AIIM032:6; 14 AIIM032:5; 15 AIIM042:2; 16 AIIM004:1② 17 AIIM032:4; 18 AIIM032:3; 19 AIIM004:2② 20 AIIM004:2① 21 AIIM005A:1; 22 AIIM042:5; 23 AIIM039:3 (1–12 are pottery, 17, 18 silver wares, others bronze wares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flared earrings from different places. 1, 2 Dun Bei; 3 Kupukhta; 4 Dzhartas; 5 Tash-Tyube; 6 Rublevo VIII; 7 Dzham; 8 Adunqiaolu; 9, 10 Xiabandi cemetery; 11, 12 Tangbalesayi cemetery; 13 Ganguya cemetery; 14 Lintan Mogou cemetery; 15 Pingding Mountain in Fuxin; 16 Liujia River in Pinggu; 17 Ping’an Fortress in Zhangwu; 18 Xiaoshandong Village in Qian’an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Tombs of the Bronze Age at Tomballesayi Graveyard in Nileke county. 1 plan of M16; 2, 3 pottery guan-pots in M16; 4 plan of M17; 5–7 pottery pots; 8, 9 bronze earrings 10–12 bronze foot chains (5–12 from M17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Tombs of the Bronze Age of No. 2 Tomb Cluster at Kuokesuxi, Tekes county. 1 Burial ground M53; 2–5 pottery from M53; 6 burial ground M83; 7, 8 pottery from M83 . . . Tomb M3 at Sazi Village of Tori county . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Artifacts from Daxigou Huocheng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Architectural remains, tombs and artifacts from the Adunqiaolu site. 1 Plan of F1–F3; 2 plan of SM4; 3 pottery pots from SM4; 4 bronze earring covered with a thin layer of gold from SM4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burial ground of F1 and Some Artifacts from the Karasu site. 1. burial ground of F1; 2–14 pottery fragments; 15 Millstone; 16, 17 stone pestle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

90

..

91

..

92

..

93

..

96

.. .. ..

97 98 99

. . 100

. . 100

xxxvi

Fig. 2.44

Fig. 2.45

Fig. 2.46

Fig. 2.47

Fig. 2.48

Fig. 2.49

Fig. 2.50

List of Figures

Artifacts from the Ayusaigoukou site. 1 Shoulder folding pot (T1③:1); 2 pottery cup (F1:5); 3–12 pottery fragments (T1③:19, T1③:15, T1③:9, T1③:8, T1③:12, T1②:1, T1③:7, T1③:13, T1③:5, T1③:4) 13 bronze knife (F1:2) 14 millstone (F1:1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes of the Andronovo culture type in Xinjiang. 5 Woxuete Township, Tori County 6 Jimsar county 12, 13 Fukang 24 Banfanggou, Urumqi 34 Urumqi Academy of Agricultural Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pottery of the Xintala type, the Northern Niya type and the Haladun type under the influence of the Andronovo culture. 1–6 Andronovo pottery from Kazakhstan area . . . . . C-Type socketed battle-axes from the northern zone of China during the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. 1–3 Ca type Battle-Axes; 4–6 Cb type Battle-Axes 7–16 Cc type Battle-Axes; (1 Shijiayuan, Chunhua; 2 Heidouzui, Chunhua; 3 Beipo, Chunhua; 4, 5 Xicha, Qingshuihe; 6 Chaodaogou, Qinglong; 11 Linzheyu, Baode; 8 Laoniuwan, Qingshuihe; 9 Shangdong Village, Ji County; 10 Caojiayuan, Shilou; 12 Chenshantou, Luan County; 13 Gaohong, Liulin; 14 Panjialiang, Huangzhong; 15 Shangsunjia, Datong, Qinghai; 16 Qianyingzi, Qinghai; 17 Mongolia) . . . . . . . . . . Socketed battle-axes from Xinjiang. 1–5 Class B Type IV Battle-Axes; 6–8 Class C Battle-Axes (1–3 Aga’ersheng, Gongliu; 4 Woxuete, Toli County; 5 Jimsar; 6 Nanwan Cemetery; 7, 8 Yanghai Cemetery No.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axes from the central plain and the northern zone of China during the Shang and Zhou periods. 1 Erligang, Zhengzhou; 2 Anyang; 3 Tianhu Lake, Luoshan; 4 Lingbao; 5, 6 Yin Ruins; 7–9 Western Zhou Cemetery, Zhangjiapo; 10 Beiyao, Luoyang; 11, 12 Longtoushan; 13 Qianjinyingzi, Aohan; 14, 15 Fengjiacun, Suizhong; 16 Lijiayingzi, Aohan; 17, 18 Donggoudaoxia, Fengning 19, 20 Baifu, Changping; 21 Suide; 22, 23 Shilou; 24, 25 Great Wall Belt, Inner Mongolia; 26 Zhukaigou Site; 27 Qingshuihe County; 28 E221 Erdos; 29 Xinglin Site, Minxian County; 30 Qijiaping, Guanghe; 31 Tuchangtou, Minhe; 32 Nuomuhong Site; 33 Xiabanzhuwa, Hualong County (16, 18, 26 are stone molds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early period axes from Xinjiang. 1 Tianshanbeilu Cemetery; 2 Hami Museum; 3 Xintala, Heshuo; 4 Northern Niya; 5 Liushui Cemetery; 6 Ili Region; 7 Tekesi County; 8 Ili Museum; 9 Tacheng; 10 Tomb No. 4 at Chawuhu; 11 Tekesi County; 12 Tomb No.1 at Yanghai; (6 is stone mold.) . . . . .

. . 101

. . 102

. . 104

. . 105

. . 106

. . 107

. . 110

List of Figures

Fig. 2.51

Fig. 2.52

Fig. 2.53

Fig. 2.54 Fig. 2.55 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5

xxxvii

Seima-Turbino bronze spears from China. 1 Shenha, Qinghai; 2 Shaanxi; 3 Shanxi; 4 Xichuan, Henan; 5 Chaoyang, Liaoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of socketed battle-axes on the steppe (from the second half of the 5th Millennium B.C. to the end of the 3rd Millennium B.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the B-Type and C-Type socketed battle-axes (from the end of the 3rd Millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 1st Millennium B.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Axes of Angara-Yenisei and the Karasuk culture. 1–3 Angara-Yenisei; 4–8 the Karasuk culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early bronzes in the Baikal Region. 1 Bronze spears; 2–3 bronze knives; 5–7 axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes dating back to early Shang period from Zhukaigou site. 1—Bronze dagger, 2—bronze knife, 3—the stone casting mold of the ax, 4—bronze mou, 5—ring, 6—Earring, 7—bronze ding, 8–10—bronze ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes from Taixi sites in Gaocheng city. 1, 2—Bronze ge, 3, 4—zhuoge, 5—ram-head pommel dagger, 6—bronze knife, 7, 8—bronze arrowheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Locations of the eight assemblages in the Northern zone of China. Assemblage 1—Lingshi. Assemblage 2—Shilou, Yong he, Xixian, Suide in Shaanxi, Qingjian, Yanchuan, Yanchang, Zichang and Wubu. Assemblage 3—Caiji in EjinHoro Banner, Ganquan County, Baode County, Liulin County, Shilou County, Ji County and Yanchuan County. Assemblage 4—Qingshuihe County. Assemblage 5—Huai’an and Zhangbei in Zhangjiakou, Beijing, Qinglong, Suizhong, Xingcheng, Xinmin in Shenyang, Faku, Fushun and Aohan. Assemblage 6—Qian’an, Luan County, Lulong County, Zunhua and Ji County. Assemblage 7—Changping, Xinglong and Chaoyang in Shenyang. Assemblage 8—Chaoyang and Chifeng. Other locations: Zhuanglang County in Gansu, Gaocheng City in Hebei, Fenyang in Shanxi and Taigu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Jingjie, Lingshi County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Shilou. 1–3—Dagger (from Xiaoyaopo in Qingjian, Chujiayu in Shilou, Houlanjiagou in Shilou respectively), 4, 5—knives (from Yantou Village in Suide County and Houlanjiagou in

. . 111

. . 118

. . 118 . . 120 . . 122

. . 135

. . 136

. . 138 . . 139

xxxviii

Fig. 3.6

Fig. 3.7

Fig. 3.8

Fig. 3.9

Fig. 3.10

List of Figures

Shilou respectively), 6—spoon (from Xiejiagou in Qingjian), 7–9—bow-shaped artifacts (from Heidouju in Chunhua, Chujiayu in Shilou and Houlanjiagou in Shilou respectively), 10—long knife (from Houlanjiagou in Shilou, 11–13—earring ornaments (from Xiaxinjiao in Yonghe, Taohuazhuang in Shilou and Taohuazhuang in Shilou respectively) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Baode. 1–3—Short swords (from Caojiayuan in Shilou County, Gaohong in Liulin County and Qutoucun in Yanchuan County respectively), 4—knife (from Gaohong in Liulin), 5—cheekpiece (from Caojiayuan in Shilou County), 6—awl (from Linzheyu in Baode), 7—bow-shaped ornament (from Linzheyu in Baode), 8—boot (from Gaohong in Liulin County), 9—lingdou (from Linzheyu in Baode), 10—horse status (from Yanjia Village in Ganquan County), 11–13—socketed axes (from Gaohong in Liulin, Qutou Village in Yanchuan and Caojiayuan in Shilou County respectively), 14—spear (from Gaohong in Liulin County), 15—helmet (from Gaohong in Liulin County) . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Xicha. 1–3—Socketed axes (from M10 in Xicha, chance finds in Qingshuihe and collected in Qingshuihe respectively), 4, 5—earrings (from M3 in Xicha), 6—chisel (from M9 in Xicha), 7—ax (chance finds in Qingsh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Chaodaogou. 1—Short sword (from Chaodaogou), 2–7—knives (from Chaodaogou, Chaodaogou, Chaodaogou, Wanghua in Fushun, Yanghe and Fengjiafu respectively), 8—socketed ax (from Fengjiafu), 9—socketed yue (from Fengjiafu), 10, 11—zhuoge (from Fengjiafu and Yanghe respectively) . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Zhangjiayuan. 1, 5—Socketed axes (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an and Chentoushan in Luan County respectively), 2—zhuoge (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an), 3—socketed ge (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an), 4—bow-shaped artifacts (from Chentoushan in Luan County), 6—armlet (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an), 7—earring (from Zhangjiayuan in Ji County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Baifu tombs. 1–5—Swords, 6—dagger 7—spear, 8, 9—socketed axes, 10 —socketed ge, 11—socketed ge, 12–15—knives, 16—helmet (5 and 13 are from Xiaohe’nan in Xinglong while others are from Baifu in Changping) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 141

. . 142

. . 144

. . 145

. . 146

. . 147

List of Figures

Fig. 3.11

Fig. 3.12 Fig. 3.13

Fig. 3.14

Fig. 3.15

Fig. 3.16

Fig. 3.17

Fig. 3.18

xxxix

Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Chaoyang Chifeng Assemblage. 1, 2—Dagger (from Chaoyang), 3—zhuoge (from Chaoyang), 4—lid (from Chaoyang), 5—horse-head pommel artifact (from Chaoyang), 6–9—knives (from Shi’erjiazi in Jianping, Chifeng, Chaoyang and Chifeng respectively) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swords with animal-head pommel. 1—From Chaodaogou, 2—from Yinxu, 3—from Zhangbei, 4, 5—from Baifu . . . . . Swords with bell-shaped Pommel. 1—From EjinHoro Banner, 2—from Yanjia Village, 3–5—from Baode, 6—from Shuiquan in Aohan, 7—from Baifu, 8—from Zhuanglang . . Swords with Mushroom-shaped Pommel. 1—From Shaoguoyingzi in Jianping, 2, 4—from Baifu in Changping, 3—from Xiaohenan in Xinglong, 5—from Jiuzhan in Heshui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knives with animal-head Pommel. 1—From Chaodaogou, 2—from Yantou Village, 3—from Ershijiazi, 4—from Dongli, 5—from Tazigou, 6—from Wushijiazi, 7—from Xiaohenan, 8—from Reshuitang, 9—from Shilizi, 10—from Fuhao Tomb, 11–13—from Xiaotun (M181, M1713 and M20 respectively) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knives with bell-shaped pommel. 1—From Chaodaogou, 2—from Xiaohenan, 3—collected from Chifeng, 4—from Wanliu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ring pommel knives. 1–6—Knives with upturned points (from Dongli, Niugutu, Dapaozi, Chifeng, Transbaikal and Mongolia respectively), 7–13—knives with a three-stud ring pommel (from Dasikong, Wanghua, Houlanjiagou, Chaodaogou, Yanghe, Fengjiafu and Onon River respectively), 14–17—ring pommel knives (from Chaodaogou, Yanghe, Fengjiafu and southern Gobi of Mongolia respectively) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socketed axes. 1–3—From Dahongqi in Xinmin, 4—from Yanghe in Xingcheng, 5—from M539 in Dasikong, Anyang, 6—from Fengjiafu in Suizhong, 7—from Chaodaogou in Qinglong, 8—from Wanliu in Faku, 9—from Xicha in Qingshuihe, 10—from Linxi, 11—from Laoniuwan in Qingshuihe, 12—from Chenshantou in Luan County, 13—from Laoniuwan in Qingshuihe, 14—from Houqian in Luannan, 15—from M6122 in Qu Village, 16, 17—from Linzheyu in Baode, 18—from Gaohong in Liulin, 19—from M6123 in Qu Village, 20—from Baifu in Changping, 21—from M6231 in Qu Village, 22—from Xiaoshandongzhuang in Qian’an, 23—from Qutou Villiage

. . 148 . . 150

. . 151

. . 152

. . 153

. . 154

. . 156

xl

Fig. 3.19 Fig. 3.20

Fig. 3.21 Fig. 3.22

Fig. 3.23

Fig. 3.24 Fig. 3.25

Fig. 3.26

List of Figures

in Yanchuan, 24—from Shangdong Village in Ji County, 25—from Caojiayuan in Shilou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zhuoge. 1, 2—From Taixi, 3—from Chaodaogou, 4—from Yanghe, 5, 6—from Fengjiafu, 7—from Xiaoshandong . . . . Cheekpieces with animal-head pommel. 1—From Caojiayuan, 2—chance finds from the Ordos, 3—from Xiaoheishigou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Casting molds. 1—From Lijiaying, 2—from Xicha . . . . . . . The distribution of the Valikovaya Pottery (cited from Chernykh 1992, Fig. 79). 1—Pshenichevo-Babadag, 2—Coslogeni, 3—Noua and Moldavian ‘Thracian Hallstatt’, 4—Belogrudovka and Chernoles, 5—Sabatinovka and Belozerka, 6—‘Scrubnaya-Khvalynsk’-basins of the Don, Volga and eastern Ural region, 7—Kobyakovo, 8—Sargary culture, 9—settlements of the Beghazy-Dandybai type, 10—sites of the Trushnikovo type, 11—Amirabad culture, 12—Yaz I-Tillya-tepe-type sites, 13—inferred borders of the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Metal implements from areas East to the Altai Mountains dating back to post-Seima period (cited from Chernykh 1992, Fig. 81). 1–10—From Danube (1,3,4,6,9,10 from Romania, 2, 5, 7, 8—from the Republic of Bulgaria), 11–27—from Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukraine and Don River, 28–37—Unearthed along Volga River, 38–49—from East of the Ural Mountains and the Republic of Kazakhstan, 50–62 from the central Asia part of the former Soviet Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part of casting molds from Samuxi IV site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze knives of Shang and Zhou periods from Mongolia. 1—From Govi-Altai aimag, 2—from Töv aimag, 3—from Govi-Altai aimag, 4—from Khovd aimag, 5—from Sükhbaatar aimag, 6—from Ömnögovi aimag, 7—from Töv aimag, 8—from Orkhon aimag, 9—from Dornogovi aimag, 10—from Sükhbaatar aimag, 11—from Dundgovi aimag, 12—from Övörkhangai aimag, 13—from Ömnögovi aimag, 14—from Ömnögovi aimag, 15—from Dundgovi aimag, 16—from Khovd aimag, 17—from Töv aimag, 18, 19—unknown, 20—from Bayankhongor aimag. . Bronze swords of Shang and Zhou periods from Mongolia. 1—From Bayankhongor aimag, 2, 6—from Khövsgöl aimag, 3—from Zavkhan aimag, 4, 7—from Ömnögovi aimag, 5—from Khovd aimag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 158 . . 160

. . 161 . . 162

. . 165

. . 166 . . 167

. . 168

. . 169

List of Figures

Fig. 3.27

Fig. 3.28

Fig. 3.29

Fig. 3.30 Fig. 3.31

Fig. 3.32

Fig. 3.33

Fig. 3.34

xli

Other Bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods from Mongolia. 1—Battle ax, 2, 3—helmets, 4, 5—axes, 6, 7—spoon-shaped ornaments, 8—bronze pendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze knives and other tools and weapons of the Karasuk culture. 1–13—Bronze knives, 14—bronze sickle, 15— bronze spear, 16—ge, 17, 18—axes 19, 20—bone artifacts, 21—stone arrowheads, 22–24—bow-shaped artifacts . . . . . . Ornaments of the Karasuk culture. 1, 2, 14—Pediform pendants, 3, 4, 21—bronze plague ornaments, 5, 7, 17— bracelets, 6, 7, 20—rings, 8, 9, 22, 23—pao conchos, 10—comb, 11, 12, 19—earrings, 13—shellfish ornaments, 15, 16—triangle-shaped ornaments, 24—spoon-shaped ornaments, 25—mirror-shaped ornament, 26—necklace . . . . Bronze short swords of the Karasuk culture (from Altai and Minusinsk Basin) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Taixi daggers with goat-head pommel and their counterparts of the Northern bronzes. 1—Taixi M112:11, 2—Xiejiagou Qingjian County, 3—Chujiayu Shilou County, 4—Zhangbei, 5—Caojiayuan Shilou County, 6—Wanghua Fushun, 7—Chaodaogou Qinglong County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Knives with Ring Pommel Knives from the Central Plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Xiaotun M5:1125, 2—Zhaoyao M201, 3—Fengjia SFJ1:6, 4—Liuwan, 5—Inner Mongolia Museum collection (stone outer model), 6—Houjiazhuang M1461, 7—Houjiazhung M1716, 8—Lijiata, 9—Ordos E
164, 10—Panjialiang M221:208, 11—Wuguancun North Sacrifice Pit M202, 12—Houjiazhuang M1546, 13—Chujiayu, 14—Ordos E
159, 15—Transbaikal. . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Knives with a three-stud ring pommel of the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Houlanjiagou, 2—Wanghua Fushun, 3—Minusinsk Basin, 4—Mongolia, 5—Xiaotun M164:13:2853, 6—Dasikong M539:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Knives with animal-head pommel knives from the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Huayuan township, 2— Chaodaogou, 3—from Hunting Magic in the Animal Style, 4—Tazigou, 5—from The horseback tribe—the bronzes of Northern Zone of China, 6—from Erdos bronzes, 7—Xiaotun M5:690, 8—from a work of Klas Bernhard Johannes Karlgren. 9—Huayuanzhuang M54:300, 10— Huayuanzhuang M54:373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 170

. . 171

. . 173 . . 173

. . 178

. . 179

. . 180

. . 181

xlii

Fig. 3.35

Fig. 3.36

Fig. 3.37

Fig. 3.38

Fig. 3.39

Fig. 3.40

Fig. 3.41

Fig. 3.42

Fig. 3.43

List of Figures

Knives with mushroom-shaped pommel and the their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Houqianyi 99T1③:17, 2—Chifeng, 3—Fengjia 87SFJ1:12, 4—Heidouzui M1, 5—Xiaotun M238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ring pommel knives and the their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Yin Ruins (without archaeological provenience), 2—Hohhot Cultural relics market, 3—Suiyuan (without archaeological provenience), 4—Chaodaogou, 5—Wanliu, 6—Chifeng, 7—Mongolia . . . Comparisons between bronze short swords of the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—2005AGM3, 2—from a work of Klas Bernhard Johannes Karlgren, 3—Gaohong of Liulin county, 4—Zhangbei . . . . . Comparisons between the tubular axes of the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Yanghe of Xingcheng county, 2—Heidouzui M2, 3—Panjialiang M117:1, 4—Caojiayuan of Shilou county, 5—Dasikong M539:4, 6—Laoniupo 86XLIII1M7:1, 7—Anyang (without archaeological provenience), 8—from a work of William Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison between Bronze Pi of the Shang culture and the short swords and knives from Zhukaigou. 1—Panlongcheng PYWM11:44, 2—Panlongcheng PWZH6:2, 3—Zhukaigou M1040:2, 4—Zhukaigou M1040:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origin of the AII tubular axe. 1—Dasikong M539, 2—the western part of Yin Ruins, 3—Dasikong M24:2, 4—Anyang Museum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolvement of the Tubular Ge. 1—Taixi M79:3, 2—Taixi M38:3, 3—Guojiazhuang M160:307, 4—Taixi M17:2, 5—Fengjiafu 87J1:25, 6—Xiaoshandongzhuang M1:6 . . . . . Evolvement of long knife. 1—Hourenjiagou of Shilou county, 2—Huayuanzhuang M54:87, 3—the western part of Yin Ruins M1713:94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influences of bronzes of the area along the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi during the Shang and Zhou periods. 1—HoujiazhuangXibeigang M1004:R15338, 2—Gaohong cemetery of Liulin county, 3—Baifu M2:6 of Changping county, 4—Xiaoheishigou M8061:212 of Ningcheng county, 5—Wafangzhong M791:188 of Ningcheng, 6—Xizishanbeizui M7501:13 of Ningcheng, 7—Caojiayuan of Shilou county, 8—Erdos (collected), 9. 10 —Xiaoheishigou 8061:210 of Ningcheng, 11—western part

. . 182

. . 183

. . 183

. . 184

. . 185

. . 186

. . 187

. . 188

List of Figures

Fig. 3.44 Fig. 3.45 Fig. 3.46

Fig. 3.47

Fig. 3.48

Fig. 3.49

Fig. 3.50

Fig. 3.51 Fig. 3.52

Fig. 3.53

xliii

of Yin Ruins M1713:94, 12—Houlanjiagouo of Shilou, 13—Baifu M2:24 of Changping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze helmet from Kelermes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collection of cheekpieces at Japanese museum. Tokyo National Museum (1997, Figs. 27, 28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern bronze knives of the Shang and Zhou periods from the southern flank of the Yanshan mountains. 1—Chaodaogou, Qinglong, 2—Chaoyangshan, Ershijiazi, Jianping, 3—Dongli, Naiman, 4—Tagouzi, Lindong, 5—Wushijiazi, Aohan, 6—Xiaohenan, Xinglong, 7— Reshuitang, Aohan, 8—Shilashan, Laonanchuan, Jianping M741 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influences of Northern bronzes of Western Zhou period from the Southern Piedmont of the Yanshan Mountains. 1—Stone grave at Nanshangen, Ningcheng, 2—M101: 47 at Nanshangen, Ningcheng, 3—M7501: 22 at Beishanzui, Xizi, 4—Baifu, Changping, 5—M3: 17 at Baifu, 6—Xiaohenan, Xinglong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze Knives from the Northern Zone of China and Similar to Those from Mongolia. 1—Chujiayu, Shilou, 2, 10—Fenjiafu, Suizhong, 3–5—collected from the Ordos, 6—Gaohong, Liulin, 7–9—Chaodaogou, Qinglong. . . . . . . . Two types of bronze swords from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Hukaigou, 2—Shaoguoyingzi, Jianping, 3, 5—Baifu, Changping, 4—Xiaohenan, Xinglong, 6—Chaodaogou, Qinglong, 7—Zhangbei, 8—Baode, 9—Shuiquan, Aohan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Karasuk and Karasuk-type bronze Knives (quoted in Sophie 2004b, p. 152) Karasuk metallurgy: Technological development and regional influence. In M. L. Katheryn (Ed.), Metallurgy in Anceint Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River (p. 152)) . . . . . . Phase I of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Phase II of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (spreading routes of swords with animal-head pommel). b Phase II of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (spreading routes of swords and knives with bell-shaped pommel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase III of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (spreading routes of swords with mushroom-shaped pommel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 190 . . 191 . . 193

. . 195

. . 197

. . 198

. . 200

. . 203 . . 204

. . 206

. . 207

xliv

Fig. 3.54

Fig. 3.55

Fig. 3.56

Fig. 3.57 Fig. 3.58

Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2

Fig. 4.3

List of Figures

Connection between the two types of Shang and Zhou bronze short swords of the Northern Zone of China and Their Counterparts beyond China. 1—Zhukaigou, 2—Chaodaogou, 3, 8, 16, 20, 21—Minusinsk, 4—BayanhongorAymag, 5, 13—HövsgölAymag, 6—DzavhanAymag, 7, 14— ÖmnögovǐAymag, 15—East Kazakhstan, 17—Xiaohenan, 18, 19—Baifu, 22—Xiaoheishigou, 23—Tianjvquan, 24, 25—Arzhan I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zhukaigou knives and swords versus those with bone hilt and stone blade (after Miyamoto 2000: Fig. 38). 1, 3—M1040 at Zhukaigou, 2—M93 at Yuanyangchi, 4—M92 at Yuanyangchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of knives and swords with bone hilt and stone blade (after Miyamoto (2000): Fig. 39). 1—Zhujiazhai, 2—Yuanyangchi, 3—Huazhaizi, 4—Linjia, 5—Dadiwan, 6—Changshan, 7—Zhukaigou, 8—Ashan, 9—Xiyuan, 10—Shihushan, 11—Miaozigou, 12—BulageManghe, 13—Nantaizi, 14—Baiyinchanghan, 15—Nasitai, 16—Fuhegoumen, 17—Danangou, 18—Wugenbaoleng, 19—Xinglongwa, 20—Bashan, 21—Zuojiashan, 22—Ang’angxi, 23—Xinkailiu, 24—Xiaoyingzi, Yanji . . . . The origin of bronze swords of the late Shang period. 1, 5—Taixi, 2—Seima cemetery, 3, 4—Chaodaogou . . . . . . . . Distribution of bronzes with Ibex Head (Quoted in Lin (2015, Fig. 11)). 1—Chaodaogou, Qinglong, 2—Zhangbei, 3—Niantoucun, Suide, 4—Shi’ertaiyingzi, Chaoyang, 5—Wanliu, Faku, 6—Yin Ruins, An’yang, 7— Huayuanxiang, Hami, 8—Taixi, Gaocheng, 9—Dongli, Naiman Banner, 10—Bayandalai, 11—BayanhongorAymag, 12—Nalintaile, 13—Balkan, 14—DornogovǐAymag? 15—Transbaikal, 16—Abakan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution map of ethnic groups in central and Western Eurasian steppe during the early iron age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of cultures on the Eurasian Steppe during the transition period. I—Early nomadic cultures on the north bank of the Black Sea and along the Kuban River; II—Early nomadic cultures in Southern Siberia; III—Slab-Grave culture; IV—Upper Xiajiadian culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-Scythian and early Scythian artifacts. 1, 22 Balki Kurgan; 2 Suborobo M2 of Kurgan 5; 3, 12–15, 23, 24 Novocherkassk; 5, 9–11, 16, 17, 25–27 Zolynoe; 18–21 Michalkow Cellar; 28, 38, 44 slobodzei M3 of Kurgan 3; 29–33, 37, 41 Malaya Tsimbalka; 34 Ryzanovka Kurgan 2; 35, 39, 45–49 Zhanbotin Kurgan 2; 36, 40. Cheriogorovka;

. . 211

. . 211

. . 212 . . 213

. . 215 . . 228

. . 229

List of Figures

Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6

Fig. 4.7

Fig. 4.8

Fig. 4.9

Fig. 4.10 Fig. 4.11

Fig. 4.12

Fig. 4.13

xlv

42, 43 Kamyshevkaha; 50–55 Ryzanovka Kurgan 5; 56, 74–82 Kelermes M2; 57–73 Kelermes M1; (3, 57–64. made of iron; 18–22, 73, 74 made of gold; 23, 25, 27, 28, 44–49, 65–72, 79–82 made of bone; the rest made of bronze) . . . . . Plan and isometric view of Arzhan Kurgan I . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of Arzhan Kurgan II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weapons of Arzhan Kurgan period. 1–5, 13, 14 Bronze swords; 6, 15, 16 socketed battle axes; 7–12, 17–23 bronze arrowheads (1 collected from Tuva, 2–4, 6–12 unearthed from Arzhan Kurgan I, 5. unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin, 13–23 unearthed from Arzhan Kurgan II) . . . . . . . . . Horse harness fittings from Tuva and Altai. 1–10 Arzhan Kurgan I; 11–16 Arzhan Kurgan II; 17 Tuva (collected); 18–27 Altai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution of horse cheekpieces in Altai. 1, 2, 6 Three-hole cheekpieces and method of use; 3, 7 T-shaped cheekpieces and method of use; 4, 5, 8, 9 Y-shaped cheekpieces and method of use (5, 9 made of bronze, the rest made of bone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ornaments with zoomorphic motifs from Arzhan Kurgan. 1–4, 6, 7 Arzhan Kurgan I; 5 Altai (collected); 8, 9, 11–17 Arzhan Kurgan II; 10. Tuva (collected) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of early slab grave culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its formation stage. 1–10 Longtoushan M1 in Keshiketengqi; 11–17 Dapaozi in Wengniuteqi; 18–29 M7701 at Shuiquanchengzi, Jianping county (20 is bone-made; others are bronzes) . . . . . Weapons of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its booming stage. 1–3 Xiaoheishigou M8601; 4 Xiaoheishigou M8501: 36; 5 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2:4; 6 Nanshangen M101; 7 Xizibeishanzui 7501; 8 Xiaoheishigou75ZJ; 9 Xiaoheishigou M8501; 10 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM5:1; 11 Tianjuquan 7301; 12 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM3:6; 13, 14 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM3; 15, 16 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2; 17, 18 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM10; 19 Liangjiayingzi 8071; 20 Xiaoheishigou M8501:42; 21 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2:6; 22 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:9; 23 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:8; 24 Xizibeishanzui 7501; 25 Xiaoheishigou M9601:164; 26 Xiaoheishigou M8501:40; 27 Xizibeishanzui 7501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horse and chariot accouterments of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its booming stage. 1–3 Xiaoheishigou M8601; 4 Xiaoheishigou M8501:173; 5 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:5; 6 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM11:27; 7 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:6;

. . 230 . . 234 . . 236

. . 237

. . 238

. . 239

. . 240 . . 244

. . 247

. . 249

xlvi

Fig. 4.14

Fig. 4.15

List of Figures

8 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:1; 9 Nanshangen M101; 10 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:2; 11 Xiaoheishigou M9601:26; 12 Xiaoheishigou M9601:27; 13 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM11:30; 14 Xiaoheishigou M8501:173; 15 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM11:26; 16 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:3; 17 Tianjuquan 7301; 18 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:4; 19 Xiaoheishigou M9601:24; 20 Xiaoheishigou M8501:61; 21 Xiaoheishigou M8501:76; 22 Xiaoheishigou M8501:75; 23–26 Xiaoheishigou M9601:149, 140, 152, 139; 27 Xiaoheishigou M8501:64; 28 Xiaoheishigou M8501:72; 29 Xiaoheishigou M8501:69; 30.Xiaoheishigou M8501:70 . . . . . . 252 Artworks with zoomorphic motifs and ornaments of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its booming stage. 1 Xiaoheishigou 75ZJ7; 2 Tianjuquan 7301; 3 Xiaoheishigou M8501:39; 4 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM3:6; 5 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM5:1; 6 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM5:9; 7 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM5:4; 8 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM17:4; 9 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM5:13; 10 Xiaoheishigou M8501:167; 11 Xiaoheishigou M8501:165; 12 Xiaoheishigou M8501:173; 13 Xiaoheishigou 99ZJ:2; 14 Xizibeishanzui 7501; 15 Xiaoheishigou M8501:85; 16 Xiaoheishigou 75ZJ:23; 17 Nanshangen M3:6; 18 Xiaoheishigou M8501:172; 19 Nanshangen M4:28; 20 Xiaoheishigou M8501:157; 21 Nanshangen M101; 22 Xiaoheishigou 93NDXAIIM17:3; 23 Xiaoheishigou 93NDXAIIM17:4; 24 Xiaoheishigou 83ZJ:1; 25 Xiaoheishigou M8501:146; 26 Xiaoheishigou M8501:171; 27 Liangjiayingzi 8071; 28 Xiaoheishigou NDXAIM3:18; 29 Nanshangen M101; 30 Xiaoheishigou M8501:32; 31 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM1:1; 32 Xiaoheishigou M9601:665; 33 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM1:14; 34 Xiajiadian M11; 35 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXBIM6:3; 36 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXBIIM 4:3; 37 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXBIM3:1; 38 Xiaoheishigou M9601:433; 39 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM1:5; 40 Xiaoheishigou M9601:435; 41 Xiaoheishigou M9601:453; 42 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2:31; 43 Xiaoheishigou M9601:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Bronzes of the Kayue culture. 1 li-tripod (Baojiazhai in Xi’ning); 2 gui-food vessel (Dazhonghuazhuang); 3, 4 socketed battleaxes (Panjialiang M29:2, Qianyingcun); 5, 6 bronze yue (Ahatela M12, Panjialiang M117:41); 7, 8 bronze ge (Xiazhiquancun, Dongcun GD04); 9, 10 bronze spears (Dazhonghuazhuang M95:1, Huabiliang M6:2); 11 helmet

List of Figures

Fig. 4.16

Fig. 4.17

Fig. 4.18 Fig. 4.19 Fig. 4.20

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3

xlvii

(Tangeryuan); 12, 13 bronze swords (Zongansi, Guanting); 14–16 bronze arrowheads (Panjialiang M234:8, Shangsunjiazhai M399:8, Shangsunjiazhai M1025:24); 17 Hollow-head ax (Xiabanzhuwa); 18–21 bronze knives (Panjialiang M221:208, Panjialiang M210, Dazhonghuazhuang M15:2, Panjialiang M185:2); 22 bronze mirror (unearthed from Datong); 23, 24 bronze bracelets (Shangsunjiazhai M825:12, Shangsunjiazhai M723:1); 25, 26 (Panjialiang M185:21, Dazhonghuazhuang); 27–30 pao conchos (Shangbanzhuwa 90M40:7, Shangsunjiazhai M1027:6, Shangsunjiazhai M565:8, Dazhonghuazhuang M53:7); 31–34 linked-bead ornaments (Shangsunjiazhai M203:1, Shangsunjiazhai M669:1, Shangsunjiazhai M22:2, Shangsunjiazhai M105:3); 35–38 bell-shaped bronze ornaments (Panjialiang M57:9, Shangbanzhuwa 90M30:3, Dazhonghuazhuang M79:1, Huangjiazhai M5:2); 39–41 bronze mace heads (Dazhuanghuazhuang M87:1, collected fromHuangyuanzhongzhuang, Huangjiazhai M16:5); 42 human-shaped bronze ornaments (collected from Dazhonghuazhuang) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of the slab grave culture and the upper Xiajiadian culture (1). 1, 2, 8–10 bronze helmets; 3–6, 11–14 axes; 7, 15 bow-shaped artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of the slab grave culture and the upper Xiajiadian culture (2). 1–3, 18 bronze knives; 15–17 bronze swords; 4, 5, 19, 20 spoon-shaped ornaments; 6, 7, 14, 21–23, 30 bronze plaques; 8, 24 bronze earrings; 9, 25 ornaments with a split tail; 10–13, 26–29 linked-beads ornaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the West, the middle and the East of the Eurasian Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone cheekpieces of the Karasuk period (unearthed from the Torgazhak site) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Animal plaques from the region between Southern Siberia and the Northern zone of China. 1 Collected from Mori County, Xinjiang; 2. Scythian gold bowl; 3, 7 Khovd, Mongolia; 4, 8 DundgovǐAymag, Mongolia; 5, 6 East Taldi, Habahe County; 9 Ubur-KhangaiAymag, Mongolia . . . . . . . Distribution of early nomadic cultures on the Eurasian Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plans of the Scythian tombs. 1 Kostromskaya tomb; 2 Jelisavetinskaya tomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weapons and horse fittings of the Scythian culture. 1, 3, 4, 5 Kelermes M1; 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 Ryzanovka M5; 6 Kelermes

. . 258

. . 261

. . 262 . . 264 . . 265

. . 268 . . 280 . . 281

xlviii

Fig. 5.4

Fig. 5.5

Fig. 5.6

Fig. 5.7

List of Figures

M4; 7 Kelermes M23; 12, 13, 22, 24, 25 Kelermes M2 (1904); 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26 Kelermes M2-4; 19, 20 Kelermes M29; 21, 23 Kelermes M31; 26, 27–38 Kelermes M2 (1904); (3 is made of gold and iron; 7–15 and 18 are made of bronze; 27–38 are made of bone; the rest are made of iron) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoomorphic motifs of the early Scythian culture. 1 Bone horse fitting (Temir-Gora); 2, 3 bone sheep head (Kelermes 1); 4 bone psalia (Zhurovka 432); 5 leopard-shaped amulet (Kelermes 1); 6 deer-shaped amulet (Kostromskaya); 7 deer-shaped plaque (Kelermes); 8 bronze horse-shaped plaque (Tsukur Liman); 9 leopard-shaped plaque (Ulsky I); 10 ibex-shaped plaque (Ulsky I); 11, 12 bronze mirrors (Romny, Kelermes 2); 13 bird-shaped plaque (Litoy); 14 bronze fu (Kelermes); 15–18, 20 finials (Kelermes 1, Kelermes, Makhoshevsky, Ulsky 2, Ulsky 2); 19 cross-shaped plaque (Necropolis); 21 bronze mirror (Kelermes 4); 22 gold crown (Kelermes 3); 23 gold plaque (Kelermes 4); 24 sheath (Kelermes 1); (1–4 are made of bone; 11, 12, 14–21 are made of bronze; the rest are made of gold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoomorphic motif art in the middle Scythians culture. 1 Scabbard (Shumeyko); 2 frontlet (Zhurovka 401); 3 horse ornament (Seven Brothers 2); 4 horse face ornament (Seven Brothers 2); 5, 6 wild boar-shaped plaque ornaments (Aleksandrovka); 7 wolf-shaped plaque ornament (Kulakovsky); 8 horn-shaped cup (Seven Brothers 4); 9, 10 horse-shaped plaque ornaments (Seven Brothers 4, Zhurovka G); 11 ornament of a wooden bowl (Ak-Mechet); 12–14 ornaments of horn-shaped cups (Seven Brothers 4); 15–18 gold plaque ornaments of garments (Seven Brothers 2); 19 gold plaque ornament (Nymphacum 17) (2–4, 7, 9, 10 are made of bronze and others are made of gold) . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoomorphic motif art in the late Scythians culture. 1 Talisman (Kul oba); 2, 5 staff heads (Chmyreva Mogila, Alexandropol); 3 gold collar (Tolstaya Mogila); 4 bronze mirror (Kul oba); 6 silver vessel (Kul oba); 7 gold brooches (Tolstaya Mogila); 8 boat-shaped ear pendant (Dort Oba 2); 9 pendant (Deyev); 10 horse face ornament (Bolshaya Tsimbalka); 11 gold combs (Solokha) (2 and 5 are made of bronze, 4 is made of gold and bronze, 6 is made of silver, and others are made of gold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of burial shapes of the Sauromatian culture . . . . .

. . 282

. . 283

. . 285

. . 286 . . 288

List of Figures

Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 5.13 Fig. 5.14 Fig. 5.15

Fig. 5.16 Fig. 5.17

Fig. 5.18 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22

Fig. 5.23 Fig. 5.24 Fig. 5.25

xlix

Vessels of the Sauromatian culture. 1–9 Ceramics guan-jars, 10–13 bronze fu-cauldrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology of swords of the Sauromatian culture . . . . . . . . Sauromatian and early Sauromatian arrowheads. a 7th Century B.C.; b 6th Century B.C.; c 6th–5th Century B.C. . Other weapons of the Sauromatian culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The harnesses of the Sauromatian culture. a Snaffle bits and cheekpieces; b horse ornaments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Art of zoomorphic motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze mirrors and cultic or toilet articles (spoon-shaped artifacts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoomorphic motifs from the Philippovka cemetery. 18 is from M3; the rest are from M1 (1, 2, 29 are made of gold and wood, 14, 18, 23 are made of bronze, 30 is made of silver, the rest are made of gold) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ritual artifacts from the Sauromatian cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of transitional period from the Don-Volga River region. 1–8 Vessels; 9, 10 horse cheekpieces; 11 horse snaffles; 12 arrowheads; 13 knives; 14 harnesses (1–8 are ceramics, 9–11, 13 are made if bronze, the rest are made of bone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tasmola Kurgans “with mustaches” (“Beard Tomb” of the Tasmola culture) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tasmola common burials (burials of the Tasmola culture) . . Ceramics from the tombs of the Tasmola culture . . . . . . . . . Other artifacts of the Tasmola culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of Eastern Kazakhstan from the 8th Century B.C. to the 1st Century B.C. 1–14 Tombs; 15–23 vessels (15 bronze vessel, 23 wooden vessel, others pottery vessel); 24, 36, 37 bronze swords; 45 Iron sword; 25–29, 38 bronze knives; 46 iron knife; 30–35, 39–44 arrowheads (35, 41–43 are bone arrowheads, others are bronze arrowheads); 47 grindstone; 48, 49, 50 harnesses; 51, 72, 73, 82 bronze mirrors; 52 bronze plate; 53–62, 74–76 zoomorphic ornaments (53, 55 are bronze ornaments, others are gold ornaments); 63–66 pao conchos; 67–69 gold flake ornaments; 70, 71, 80, 83–85 gold pendants; 77, 86, 87 bone artifacts; 78, 79 stone artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of sites in the Semirechye, Fergana and Pamir regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The form and structure of typical burials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical weapons and harnesses. The Semirechye region: 6, 7, 12, 13, 25, 26, 30–32, 39–43, 47–50, 53, 55, 57–60, 63–66; the Fergana region: 2–5, 8–11, 14–17, 19–22, 35, 36, 45, 46,

. . 289 . . 290 . . 291 . . 292 . . 292 . . 293 . . 293

. . 294 . . 296

. . 297 . . . .

. . . .

299 300 301 302

. . 304 . . 307 . . 308

l

List of Figures

Fig. 5.26

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37

Fig. 5.38

Fig. 5.39

Fig. 5.40

Fig. 5.41 Fig. 5.42 Fig. 5.43 Fig. 5.44 Fig. 5.45 Fig. 5.46 Fig. 5.47 Fig. 5.48 Fig. 5.49

51, 52, 56; the Pamir region: 1, 18, 23, 27–29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 54, 61, 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical ornaments. The Semirechye region: 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 24–27, 31–33, 37, 38, 47, 48, 52–59, 60, 62–70; the Fergana region: 8–10, 13–19, 22, 23, 28–30, 34–36, 46, 49–51, 61, 71–75; the Pamir region: 1, 3, 20, 21, 39–45 . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze and ceramic vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Issyk cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The unearthed artifacts at site 3 in the Semirechye region . . The unearthed artifacts at site 20 in the Semirechye region . Distribution map of the Tagar sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The burials of the early Tagar culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The burials of the late Tagar culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramic vessels of the early Tagar culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramic vessels of the late Tagar culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fu-Cauldrons of the Tagar culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weapons of the Tagar culture. 1–9, 30–33 Bronze short swords (short swords); 10–15, 45–47, 50 bronze battleaxes; 16–27, 34–44 bronze arrowheads; 28, 29, 48, 49 bronze Dui-ferrule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tools and bow-shaped artifacts of the Tagar culture. 1–15 Bronze knives; 16–22 bronze awls; 23–27 bronze axes; 28–32 bronze bow-shaped artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harnesses of the Tagar culture. (a) 1-8 snaffle bits; 9, 10 units of snaffle bits and cheekpieces; 11-14 cheekpieces; (b) other harness fittings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ornaments and other artifacts of the Tagar culture. 1–3 Bronze mirrors; 4 bone combs; 5 bronze pao-conchos; 6 pendant; 7 bronze beads; 8, 9 bronze headdresses; 10 necklace; 11–13 wild boar ivory carvings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Animal style of the Tagar culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tools of the Tagar culture. 1, 2 Bronze sickles; 3, 4 bronze saws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The life scene of the Tagar residents (Petroglyphs) . . . . . . . . The distribution map of the early nomadic culture sites in the Tuva area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of tombs of the late phase of the Tuva area . . . . . Vessels of the late phase in the Tuva area (1–7 are made of ceramic; 8–10 are made of wood) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weapons of the late phase in the Tuva area . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tools of the late phase in the Tuva area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harnesses and other artifacts of the late phase in the Tuva area. 1–4 Snaffle bits and cheekpieces (1–3 are made of bronze, 4 is made of iron); 5 the picture of the restored bridle;

. . 309

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

310 311 312 314 314 320 321 322 323 324 324

. . 325

. . 326

. . 327

. . 328 . . 329 . . 330 . . 331 . . 333 . . 334 . . 335 . . 335 . . 336

List of Figures

Fig. 5.50 Fig. 5.51 Fig. 5.52 Fig. 5.53 Fig. 5.54 Fig. 5.55 Fig. 5.56

Fig. 5.57

Fig. 5.58 Fig. 5.59 Fig. 5.60 Fig. 5.61 Fig. 5.62 Fig. 5.63

Fig. 5.64

li

6–9 bronze mirrors; 10, 11 bone cups; 12, 13 wooden combs; 14–16 bronze hooks; 17–19 bronze buckles; 20 necklace (made of wood and bronze); 21–23 gold earrings . . . . . . . . . The animal style of the late phase in the Tuva area . . . . . . . The distribution map of the early nomadic culture sites in the Altai region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The examples of tombs of the Maiemir phase . . . . . . . . . . . The burial goods and deer stone remains in the Maiemir phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The examples of burials of the Pazyryk phase . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramics of the Pazyryk phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The artifacts in the Pazyryk phase. 1–3 Bronze battle axes; 4, 5 bronze short swords; 6 bronze and iron short sword; 7 bronze double birds swords; 8 bronze knives; 9 iron knives inlaid with gold; 10 iron knife; 11, 12 bronze arrowheads; 13, 14 sets of bridle; 15 bronze snaffle bit; 16 iron snaffle bit; 17– 19 bone cheekpieces; 20, 21 bone belt accessories; 22 saddle; 23 the picture of the restored harnesses; 24, 25 bronze mirrors; 26, 27 gold pendants; 28–32 zoomorphic wooden statues; 33 wooden konghou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoomorphic motif art of the Pazyryk period. a Griffins (golden wares); b reverse zoomorphic motifs; c images of god and animals; d1 felt product; d2 tiger motifs on the coffins; d3 bird motifs on silk fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan and isometric view of tombs of Slab Grave culture . . . Pottery of Slab Grave culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts of the late Slab Grave culture in transbaikal regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some iron artifacts of Slab Grave culture in Transbaikal regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the sites of Rong and Di and Hu people . . . . Typical tombs of Zhongshan State. 1 Bronze hairpin (M8004: 11); 2 bronze cutter (M8004: 9); 3 bronze mirror (M8004: 12); 4 gold wire coils (M8004: 1, 2); 5 pao conchos (M8004: 14-1); 6 bronze hu-pot (M8102: 4); 7 sword with animal-mask-shaped guards (M8102: 12); 8 bronze bell (M8102: 11); 9 pao conchos (M8102: 17); 10 gold-plate ornament (M8102: 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical artifacts of the Rong and Di. 1 Bronze plague (Diaoyutai, Tang County); 2 bronze plague (Stone Cist Tomb at Mancheng Quarry in Hebei); 3 bronze button (Lingshou City M8102: 17); 4 gold wire coil (Lingshou City M8004: 2); 5 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Pingshan); 6 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Pingshan); 7 bronze cutter

. . 337 . . 338 . . 340 . . 341 . . 342 . . 343 . . 344

. . 345

. . 347 . . 349 . . 350 . . 350 . . 351 . . 352

. . 356

lii

List of Figures

(Lingshou City M8004: 9); 8 gold-inlaid bronze winged mythical beast (royal tomb of Zhongshan Kingdom); 9 silver and gold-inlaid bronze cattle-shaped sacrificial zun-vessel for wine (Lingshou City M6: 112); 10 bronze fu-cauldron (Zhongtong village, Xinle); 11 bronze fu-cauldron (Lijiazhuang, Xingtang); 12 bronze pot (Lijiazhuang, Xingtang); 13 bronze button (Yuan Ping); 14 gold wire (Tagangliang M3: 7, Liuzhuang, Yuanping); 15 bronze knife (Tagangliang M1: 6, Liuzhuang, Yuanping); 16 bronze horse snaffle bit (Yuanping); 17 bronze horse snaffle bit (Yuanping); 18 bronze horse snaffle bit (Yuanping); 19 bronze fu-cauldron (Lianjiagang, Yuanping); 20 bronze fucauldron (Li Wei village); 21 bronze horse snaffle bit (Liyu village); 22 bronze horse snaffle bit (Liyu village); 23 bronze horse snaffle bit (Liyu Village); 24 tiger-shaped three-dimensional animal (Liyu village); 25 bronze dingtripods (Liyu village); 26 bronze fu-cauldron (Tagangliang M3: 2, Liuzhuang, Yuanping); 27 bronze hu-pot (Liyu village); 28 bronze plaque (Yuhuangmiao M129: 2); 29 bronze plaque (Xiaobaiyang M22: 1, Xuanhua); 30 bronze buckle (Jundushan YYM102: 10); 31 bronze ring (Jundushan YYM102: 3); 32 bronze linked-beads ornament (Lishugou Gate 1678); 33 bronze tubular ornament (Hulugou); 34 bronze buckle (Jundushan YYM13: 7); 35 bronze belt hook (Jun Dushan YYM102: 11); 36 bronze sword (Hulugou YHM35: 1); 37 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Ganzi Fort M8: 9); 38 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Ganzi Fort M9: 2); 39 bronze cutter (Northern Singh M1: 79); 40 bronze horse snaffle (Zhangjiakou Nihezi Village); 41 bronze horse snaffle (Jun Du Mountain); 42 bronze horse cheekpiece (Ganzibao M5: 8); 43 ceramic dingtripods (Jundushan YHM52: 1); 44 ceramic guan-pot (White Temple); 45 bronze fu-cauldron (Gangzi Fort M8: 1); 46 bronze fu-cauldron (Yuhuang Temple M18); 47 bronze belt hook (Yulin); 48 ceramic li-vessel (Taochangping M20: 3); 49 ceramic double-handled jars (Fengjiata M1: 15); 50 bronze fu-cauldron (Qiaochatan, Shenmu); 51 bronze fucauldron (Ximawan, Jingbian); 52 bronze fu-cauldron (Chengguan, Suide); 53 bronze fu-cauldron (Zhidan County); 54 tiger-shaped ornament (Yu village M1: 6, Ning County); 55 bronze short sword (Yu village M1: 8, Ning County); 56 three-dimensional tiger-shaped ornament (Yu village M1: 4, Ning County); 57 ceramic jar (Maojiaping I, LM5: 2, 58, Gangu); 58 bronze fu-cauldron (Wangjia village, Qishan) . . . . 359

List of Figures

Fig. 5.65

Fig. 5.66

liii

Atypical artifacts of the Rong, Di and Hu (A. The Rong and Di; B. the Hu). 1 Pottery jar (Jingping cemetery M54: 3); 2 bronze cutter (Jingping cemetery M192: 3); 3 bronze belt hook (Jingping cemetery M192: 4); 4 nail-shaped bone object (Jingping cemetery M57: 1); 5 nail-shaped bone object (Jingping cemetery M192: 2); 6 pottery guan-jar (Hamadun cemetery: 01); 7 pottery li-cauldron (Xigang cemetery M334: 2); 8 pottery jar (Hamadun cemetery M16: 3); 9 bronze sword (Chaigangwan cemetery M4: 7); 10 bronze knife (Chaigangwan cemetery M4: 8); 11 bronze knife (Xigang cemetery M83: 1); 12 bone bow tips (Hamadun cemetery M18: 7); 13 bronze belt buckle (Xigang cemetery M146: 5); 14 bronze mirror (Chaigangwan cemetery M75: 5); 15 bronze bell-shaped ornament (Hamadun cemetery M5: 6); 16 bronze tube-shaped ornament (Hamadun cemetery M4: 2); 17 bronze plaque (Hamadun cemetery M11: 3); 18 bronze plaque (Xigang cemetery M74: 1-②); 19 bead-string ornament (Hamadun cemetery M19: 3); 20 bead-string ornament (Hamadun cemetery TM4: 1); 21 bead-string ornament (Xigang cemetery M9: 5); 22 bead-string ornament (Hamadun cemetery M12: 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Artifacts of the Hu people in Guyuan area. 1 Openwork-decorated bronze round plaque (M2 of Samen cemetery in Guyuan City, Ningxia); 2 sole-shaped horse head ornament (Mengyuan Township, Pengyang County, Ningxia); 3 bronze hollow-head ax (Mengyuan Township); 4 bronze knife (Mengyuan Township); 5 bronze knife (Huaiwan Site at Shanbei Village, Xiji County, Ningxia); 6 bronze pao conchos (Mengyuan Township); 7 bronze button (M1 of Samen cemetery); 8 bronze bubble-shaped horse head ornament (Miyuan Site in Pengyang County); 9 bronze three-dimensional ibexes (M1 of Samen cemetery); 10 bronze bubble-shaped staff head (88M1 of Samen cemetery); 11 bronze axle ornament (M1 of Samen cemetery); 12 bronze short sword (M3 of Samen cemetery); 13 bronze knife (IM12: 12 of Mazhuang cemetery in Guyuan); 14 bronze pickax (M19: 4 of Yujiazhuang cemetery in Guyuan); 15 bronze gedagger ax (M17: 6 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 16 bronze plaque (M14: 10 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 17 bronze belt buckle (IMB: 21 of Mazhuang cemetery); 18 bronze mirror-shaped ornament (M15: 14 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 19 pottery jar (M10: 2 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 20 horse head ornament with tube (IIIM5: 33 of Mazhuang cemetery); 21 eagle-shaped bronze staff head (SM4: 15 of Yujiazhuang

liv

Fig. 5.67

Fig. 5.68

List of Figures

cemetery); 22 big-horn-shaped bronze staff head (IIIM4: 1 of Mazhuang cemetery); 23 bronze big-horn-shaped ornament (IIIM4: 3 of Mazhuang cemetery); 24 bronze short sword (Acquired115 of Mazhuang cemetery); 25 iron knife (IM15: 1 of Mazhuang cemetery); 26 bronze ge-dagger ax (IM1: 30 of Mazhuang cemetery); 27 iron plaque (IIIMS: 17 of Mazhuang cemetery); 28 bronze plaque with tiger-biting-animal design (IM12: 5 of Mazhuang cemetery); 29 bronze belt buckle (IIIM1: 52 of Mazhuang cemetery); 30 bronze plaque (Chenyangchuan Site in Xiji County, Ningxia); 31 pottery jar (M5: 20 of Mazhuang cemetery) . . . . . 376 Artifacts of the Hu people in Yinnan area. 1 Bronze snaffle (M2: 5 of Niding Village cemetery in Zhongning County, Ningxia); 2 bronze round plaque (M2: 14 of Niding Village cemetery); 3 sole-shaped horse head ornament (M2: 4 of Niding Village cemetery); 4 bronze short sword (M3: 1 of Niding Village cemetery); 5 bronze sword with trident-shaped guard (M3: 12 of Langwozikeng cemetery in Zhongwei, Ningxia); 6 bronze ge-dagger ax with socket (M3: 5 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 7 bronze ax with socket (M1: 2 of Niding Village cemetery); 8 bronze hollow-head ax (M5: 3 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 9 bronze belt buckle (M2: 19 of Niding Village cemetery); 10 bronze tube-shaped ornament (Niding Village); 11 pottery jar (M2: 18 of Niding Village cemetery); 12 bronze short sword (M5: 3 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 13 bronze pickaxe (M5: 27 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 14 eagle-shaped bronze staff head (M1: 19 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 15 horse head ornament with tube (M1: 6 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 16 bronze plaque (M1: 23 of Langwozikeng cemetery) . . . . . . . . . 378 Artifacts of the Hu people in Western Inner Mongolia. 1 Bronze snaffle (Ming’anmudu Site in Ejin Horo Banner); 2 bronze knife (Baohaishe Site in Jungar Banner); 3 bronze gedagger ax with socket (Ming’anmudu Site); 4 bronze earring (M3: 4 of Xiyuan cemetery in Baotou City); 5 bronze belt buckle (Ming’anmudu Site); 6 bronze joint pao concho (M6: 6 of Xiyuan cemetery); 7 bronze button (M6: 10 of Xiyuan cemetery); 8 bronze spoon (M6: 2 of Xiyuan cemetery); 9 and 10 bronze fu-cauldrons (Baohaishe Site); 11 bronze horse head ornament (GM1: 8 of Gongsuhao cemetery in Ejin Horo Banner); 12 bronze bubble-shaped horse head ornament (Gongsuhao cemetery); 13 bronze chariot shaft finial (M2: 17 of Hulstai cemetery in Urad Rear Banner); 14 bronze sword with double birds turning back their heads (GM1: 5 of

List of Figures

Fig. 5.69

lv

Gongsuhao cemetery); 15 bronze knife (GM1: 6 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 16 bronze pickax (GM1: 1 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 17 ring-shaped bronze belt buckle (M3: 14 of Xigoupan cemetery); 18 bronze tube-shaped ornament (M2: 9 of Hulstai cemetery); 19 bird-shaped bronze plaque (GM1: 8 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 20 bird-shaped bronze plaque (M1: 28 of Taohongbala cemetery in Hanggin Banner); 21 bronze plaque with standing deer figure (M2: 16 of Hulstai cemetery); 22 pottery pot (M2: 48 of Hulstai cemetery); 23 pottery jar (M1: 1 of Taohongbala cemetery); 24 ibex-head-shaped finial (Yulongtai cemetery in Jungar Banner); 25 tiger head-shaped silver rein fitting (M2: 13 of Xigoupan cemetery); 26 crane head-shaped finial (M2: 72 of Xigoupan cemetery); 27 deer-shaped ornament (M2: 9 of Xigoupan cemetery); 28 bronze pickax (2264 of Yulongtai cemetery); 29 gold plaque (Aluchaideng cemetery in Hanggin Banner); 30 bronze belt buckle (2257 of Yulongtai cemetery); 31 bronze belt buckle (M3: 20 of Xigoupan cemetery); 32 swan-shaped lead ornament (M2: 41–45 of Xigoupan cemetery); 33 standing monster-shaped gold plaque (M2: 29 of Xigoupan cemetery); 34 gold eardrop (Nianfangqu Site in Dongsheng City); 35 silver plaque (Shihuigou Site in Ejin Horo Banner); 36 gold crown top ornament (Aluchaideng cemetery) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Artifacts of the Hu in Eastern Inner Mongolia. 1 Bronze snaffle (M59: 3 of Maoqinggou cemetery in Liangcheng County); 2 bronze rein fitting (M59: 4 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 3 bronze short sword (M59: 2 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 4 bronze ge-dagger ax (M58: 1 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 5 bronze plaque (M63: 1③ of Maoqinggou cemetery); 6 bronze bead-string-shaped plaque (M2: 4 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 7 bronze belt buckle (M59: 9 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 8 bronze tube-shaped ornament (M1: 4-3 of Guoxianyaozi cemetery in Liangcheng County); 9 bronze plaque (M5: 6 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 10 bronze plaque (M55: 4 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 11 bronze plaque (Fanjiayaozi cemetery in Horinger County); 12 pottery jar (M63: 7 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 13 iron dagger (M1: 2 of Yinniugou cemetery in Liangcheng County); 14 iron pickax (M38: 1 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 15 bronze belt buckle (M11: 6 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 16 pottery jar (M11: 1 of Maoqinggou cemetery) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

lvi

Fig. 5.70

Fig. 5.71

Fig. 5.72 Fig. 5.73

Fig. 5.74

Fig. 5.75

List of Figures

Bronzes from the Jinggouzi cemetery. 1, 2 Bronze sword; 3 bronze knife; 4 bronze arrowhead; 5–7, 9, 10, 11 bronze paoconchos; 8 bronze swirl-pattern ornament; 12, 13 bronze earrings; 14 linked pao ornament; 15, 17, 18 cloud-pattern ornaments; 16 modified bird-shaped ornament; 19 linked-beads ornament; 20, 21, 29 pendants; 22–25 bell-shaped ornaments; 26 bronze bell; 27 modified bird-head-shaped ornament; 28 tubular ornament; 30 fox-head-shaped ornament; 31 horse-shaped ornament . . . . . Bronzes related to artifacts of the Jinggouzi cemetery. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12–14 Xiaoheishigou; 2, 5 Beixinpu; 3 Samencun; 16 Xindianzi; 8 Dapaozi; 9, 17, 20–24 Lishugoumen; 10 Xinzhouyaozi; 11 Longtoushan; 15, 19, 26 Yuhuangmiao; 18 Huizigou; 25 Taohongbala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tombs with bone artifacts at Jinggouzi, Yujiazhuang and Guoxianyaozi cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from Northern Shaanxi. 1 Deer-shaped gold monster; 2 gold three-dimensional tiger figure; 3 silver three-dimensional stag; 4 silver three-dimensional doe; 5 gold-inlayed silver sword hilt; 6 pottery double-handled jar (M1: 15 of Fengjiata cemetery); 7 pottery Li-cauldron (M20: 3 of Taochangping cemetery); 8 pottery dou-bowl (M20: 2 of Taochangping cemetery); 9 pottery dou-bowl with lid (M1: 4 of Fengjiata cemetery); 10 pottery pot (M1: 1 of Fengjiata cemetery); 11 pottery double-handled jar (M13: 5 of Taochangping cemetery); 12 pottery jar (M13: 6 of Taochangping cemetery); 13 pottery dou-bowl (M13: 2 of Taochangping cemetery); 14 pottery jar (M20: 4 of Taochangping cemetery); 15 pottery Li-cauldron (M2: 4); 16 pottery basin (M2: 2); 17 pottery dou-bowl (M2: 3); 18 pottery jar (M2: 5); 19 bronze ge-dagger ax (M2: 8); 20 bronze arrowhead (M2: 7); 21 bronze knife (M2: 10); 22 whetstone (M2: 12); 23 bronze beltbuckle (M2: 14); 24 jade jue-pendant (M2: 6); 25 bronze ring (M2: 11) . . . . . . . . . . . Tiger-shaped plaques from the Northern Zone of China and Mongolian Plateau. 1 Luotuoliang, Longhua; 2 collected from Mongolia; 3, 5 Yuhuangmiao cemetery; 4 Dundgovǐ Aymag, Mongolia; 6, 10 Ubur-Khangai Aymag, Mongolia; 7 Mazhuang, Guyuan; 8 Ömnögovǐ Aymag, Mongolia; 9 Guoxianyaozi cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Northern Zone of China, the Slab Grave culture and Early Xiongnu. 1, 2 Guoxianyaozi; 3 Yujiazhuang; 4 Beixinpu; 5, 6 Xiaobaiyang; 7–11 Slab Grave culture; 12, 13 Ivolga; 14 Ivolga cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 385

. . 386 . . 389

. . 394

. . 401

. . 403

List of Figures

Fig. 5.76

Fig. 5.77

Fig. 5.78 Fig. 5.79

Fig. 5.80 Fig. 5.81

Fig. 5.82

Fig. 5.83

Fig. 5.84

Fig. 5.85

lvii

Short swords with double bird pommel and other coexisting artifacts from the Northern Zone of China. 1, 2 Niding Village M1; 3 Niding Village; 4–6 Niding Village M2; 7–10 Gongsuhao M1; 11 Taohongbala; 12–15 Maoqinggou (M58, M70, M60, M58); 16 Guoxianyaozi M1: 4-3; 17–19 Yinniugou; 20 Baimiao; 21, 22 Beixinpu M1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Short swords with double bird pommel beyond China. 1, 5 Kazakhstan; 2 Southern Siberia; 3 Tagar culture; 4 Ulaangom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramics from Hulusitai and Ulaangom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socketed Ge and pickaxes. 1–4 Socketed zhuoge; 5–10 type I pickaxes; 11–16 type II pickaxes; 17–19 type III pickaxes (1, 2 Karasuk culture; 3 Obi River; 4 Transbaikal; 5 Arzhan Tomb I; 6, 15, 16 Tagar culture; 7–10 Belyjar tomb I; 11, 12 Altai-Pazyryk culture; 13, 14 Tuva Uyok culture; 17 Maoqinggou cemetery; 18 Yinniugou cemetery; 19 Yulongtai cemetery; 17–19 are iron; the rest ones are bronze) . . . . . . . Socketed Ge with tubular socket from Xinjiang. 1 Qunbake tomb; 1, 2, 3 Yanghai cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution from socketed Ge to pickaxes. 1–8 Zhuoge with tubular socket; 9–11 type I battle axes; 12, 13 type II battle axes; 14, 15 type III battle axes (1 From the Western Zhou cemetery at Baifu, Changping; 2 from Transbaikal; 3 from Minusinsk basin; 4 from the brick and roofing tile plant at Dongcun, Qinghai; 5, 7 of Karasuk culture; 6 from Yanghai cemetery; 8 from tomb 1 of Qunbake cemetery; 9 royal tomb 1 of Arzhan; 10, 13 of Tagar culture; 11 from Banfangqu, Urumqi; 12 from Kuola cemetery, Hami; 14 from Yulongtai cemetery; 15 from Yinniugou cemetery) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution of other two types of socketed battle axes found from the Northern Zone of China. 1 Nidingcun, Zhongning (M2); 2, 3 Langwozikeng, Zhongwei (M3, M5); 4 Baicaowa, Pengyang; 5 Taohongbala; 6 Miaoqu, Qingyang; 7 Guchengcun, Guyuan; 8 Mazhuang, Guyuan . . . . . . . . . . . . Handled mirrors from the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. 1 Minusinsk basin; 2, 5 Tuva; 3 Hulusitai, Inner Mongolia; 4 Dundgovǐ Aymag, Mongolia; 6 Altai; 7 Guoxianyaozi, Liangcheng; 8 Transbaikal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finials with standing animal from Minusinsk, Mongolia and the Northern Zone of China. 1, 2 Krasnoyarsk; 3–6 Belyjar tomb I; 7 Minusinsk (Chance find); 8 Bayanhongor; 9, 10 Uvurkhangai; 11, 13 Yulongtai; 12 Sujigou; 14 Xigoupan . . Connections between the Northern Zone of China and areas of Minusinsk and Tuva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 405

. . 406 . . 407

. . 409 . . 410

. . 410

. . 412

. . 414

. . 415 . . 416

lviii

Fig. 5.86

Fig. 5.87

Fig. 5.88

Fig. 5.89

Fig. 5.90 Fig. 5.91 Fig. 5.92

Fig. 5.93

Fig. 5.94

Fig. 5.95 Fig. 5.96

List of Figures

Patterns of animals in a twisted posture from Altai, Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China. 1–4 Pazyryk culture; 5, 8 Alagou in Xinjiang; 6 Zaghunluq culture; 7 Kulansarike cemetery in Aksu; 9 Hongzhuang in Guyuan; 10 Beikang Village in Xi’an; 11 collection of Ordos Museum; 12 Xigoupan M2 in Inner Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of mythical creatures with horns from Altai and the Northern Zone of China. 1–4 Pazyryk culture; 5 Aluchaideng in Inner Mongolia; 6 Nalingaotu Village in Shaanxi Province; 7, 8 Xigoupan in Inner Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contrast chart of bird-shaped ornaments with wings spread. 1, 2 Ak-Alakha cemetery in Altai; 3 treasures of Peter the Great; 4 Aluchaideng in Inner Mongolia; 5, 6 Xigoupan in Inner Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolution of tiger patterns from the Northern Zone of China and Siberia. 1 Xiaobaiyang in Xuanhua, Hebei; 2 Zhuanshan cemetery in Longhua, Hebei; 3, 4 Maoqinggou cemetery in Inner Mongolia; 5 GuoxianYaozi cemetery; 6 Shihuigou in Inner Mongolia; 7 Aydingkol Lake in Turpan Basin, Xinjiang; 8 Chenyangchuan in Guyuan, Ningxia; 9 Jianghe; 10 Siberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tiger patterns of the Pazyryk culture. 1 Ak-Alakh M1; 2 Bashadar M2; 3, 6, 7 Pazyryk M2; 4, 5 Pazyryk M1 . . . . . . Connection routes between the Northern Zone of China and the Altai region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts showing connections between the Pazyryk culture and Central Plain. 1 Pazyryk M5; 2 Pazyryk M6; 3 Firsovo cemetery XIV; 4 Guo tombs 1612:65, Sanmenxia, Henan . . Comparisons between plagues from Majiayuan and those from the Semiryechye region of Kazakhstan. 1–3, 7–9 Majiayuan; 4, 6, 10–12 Issyk kurgan; 5 Lake Issyk (chance find) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Composition comparisons between animal patterns of Majiayuan and those of the Semiryechye region of Kazakhstan. 1 On sideboards of the carriage in Majiayuan M3; 2 on the hat of the “golden man” of Issyk kurgan . . . . Comparisons among plagues from Majiayuan, Guyuan and Issyk. 1 Guyuan; 2, 4 Majiayuan; 3 Issyk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relevant artifacts from Tianshan area, Xinjiang. 1 Xinyuan (chance find); 2 Yili basin; 3 Hami (chance find); 4 Baiqier cemetery; 5 Alagou M30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 418

. . 419

. . 421

. . 422 . . 422 . . 423

. . 424

. . 426

. . 427 . . 430

. . 430

List of Figures

Fig. 5.97

Fig. 5.98

Fig. 5.99 Fig. 5.100

Fig. 5.101

Fig. 5.102

Fig. 5.103

Fig. 5.104

Fig. 5.105 Fig. 5.106

Fig. 6.1

lix

Comparisons between bronzes from the Semiryechye region of Tianshan Mountains and those from Xinjiang. 1 Alagou M30; 2 Qapqal (chance find); 3 Xinyuan Yutang Ruins; 4, 5 Xinyuan (chance find) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceramics from Xinjiang related to the Semiryechye region in the Tianshan Mountains. 1 Yanghai cemetery no. 3; 2, 5 Gongliushankou cemetery; 3, 12 Zaghunluq cemetery no. 1; 4 Suodun Bulake cemetery; 6, 9, 13 Qirentuohai cemetery; 7, 8 Anjihai cemetery; 10 Yeshikelie cemetery; 11 Qiafuqihai Section A No. IX; 14 Xiangbaobao cemetery; 15 Alagou cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tianshan corridor in Xinjiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ibex shapes. 1 Issyk kurgan; 2 Xinyuan, Yili; 3 Baiqier cemetery, Hami; 4 Majiayuan; 5 Ak-Alakha cemetery, Altai; 6 Altai Berel cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons among tiger-shaped plagues. 1 Qingzigou; 2 Luotuoliang; 3 Maoqinggou; 4, 5 Guoxian Yaozi; 6 Zhangjie Village; 7 Shihuigou; 8 Dundgovi; 9, 10, 12 Uvurkhangai; 11 Ömnögovǐ; 13 Bayanhongor; 14 Arkhangaĭ; 15 Dornogovi; 16, 17 Derestuy cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons among horse-shaped plagues. 1 Xiaobaiyang; 2, 3 Yuhuangmiao; 4 Xinangou; 5 Yulongtai; 6, 7 Dundgovi; 8 Bayanhongor; 9 Uvurkhangai; 10 Iwoga cemetery; 11 Derestuy cemetery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons among beast-head ornaments. 1 Yuhuangmiao; 2, 3 Aruchden; 4 Nianfangqu; 5 Xigoupan; 6 Uvurkhangai; 7, 9 Dundgovi; 8 SühbaatarAymag; 10–13 Derestuy cemetery . . . Comparisons among belt ornaments. 1, 3 Maoqinggou; 2 Taohongbala; 4 Samen Village; 5 Baimiao; 6 Bayankhongor; 7, 9 Dresden cemetery; 8 Transbaikal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons among waist decoration methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution map of sites related to early Xiongnu in the Northern Zone of China. 1 Yujiazhuang; 2 Samen Village; 3 Zhangjie Village; 4 Aruchden; 5 Taohongbala; 6 Shihuigou; 7 Nianfangqu; 8 Goupan; 9 Sujigou; 10 Yulongtai; 11 Xindianzi; 12 Maoqinggou; 13 Yinniugou; 14 GouxianYaozi; 15 Xiaobaiyang; 16 Beixinbao; 17 Qingzigou; 18 Xinangou; 19 Luotuoliang; 20 Iwoga; 21 Derestuy (Note Artifacts unearthed in Mongolia can only be roughly located to provinces) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Derestuy cemetery (1). 1–3 Openwork bronze plaques with animal motifs; 4 P-shaped belt buckle with an animal motif; 5 wooden plaques with gold foil and animal motifs; 6 openwork oval-shaped bronze ornament; 7,

433

434 435

435

440

442

443

444 447

448

lx

Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3

Fig. 6.4

Fig. 6.5

Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7

Fig. 6.8 Fig. 6.9

List of Figures

8 openwork rectangular belt plaques with animal motif; 9 openwork bronze ring; 10 trapezoid bronze belt buckle; 11, 12 spoon-shaped belt ornaments; 13 small plaque with animal motif; 14 bronze button with bear-shaped pattern; 15 stone belt plaque; 16 bronze bell; 17 turquoise pendant; 18 claw-shaped stone pendant; 19 bone ornament in cluster; 20 iron awl; 21 bronze arrowhead; 22 iron arrowhead; 23 bone arrowhead; 24 bearing-pole-shaped pendent; 25 bone bow end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Derestuy cemetery (2). 1–7 wuzhu-coin; 8, 9 big-mouthed deep belly jar; 10–12 pottery pot; 13 flare-mouthed pottery pot; 14 pottery basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plans of the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1 M1 at Gol Mod II; 2 M20 at Gol Mod I; 3 M7 at Tsaraam cemetery; 4 M2 at Noin-ula cemetery; 5 M54 at the Sudzhin cemetery of Ilmova valley; 6 M79 at Gol Mod I; 7 M82 at Takhitgynkhotgor; 8 M83 at Takhitgynkhotgor; 9 M64 at Takhitgynkhotgor (after Brosseder 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some large-scale Xiongnu tombs and satellite tombs (site layout). 1 M1 and its subordinate tombs at the cemetery of Gol Mod II; 2 M7 at Tsaraam and its subordinate tombs (Icons and numbers on the nearer side of the main tomb respectively indicate the gender and age of the tomb owner) (1 after Diimaazhav Erdenebaatar et al. 2011; 2 after Mиняeв 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One large-scale Xiongnu tomb: plan and profile of the partition wall in M54 at Ilmova valley (after Кoнoвaлoв 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure of the large-scale Xiongnu tombs: a sketch map of M64 at Takhitgyn Khotgor (after Brosseder 2009) . . . . . . . . Some coffin decorations from the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1 Coffin decoration (recovered) from the M2 at Duurlig Nars (gold foil strips, and four-leaf flowers); 2 gold four-leaf flowers studded with turquoise from the M20 at the Noyonuul cemetery; 3 bronze sticks from the M2 of DuurligNars; 4 Gold coffin decoration from the M2 of Duurlig Nars (1–3 Quoted from Treasures of Xiongnu Fig. 051, Fig. 053; 4 Quoted from Miller 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silver Horse Gears from the M20 at the cemetery of Gol Mod I (quoted from Erööl-Erdene 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze Fu-Couldron from the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1 M2 at the Duurlig Nars cemetery; 2 M1 at the Takhitgyn Khotgor cemetery; 3 M4 at the Noyonuul cemetery; 4 M9 at the Noyonuul cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 472

. . 473

. . 479

. . 480

. . 481 . . 482

. . 484 . . 486

. . 487

List of Figures

Fig. 6.10

Fig. 6.11 Fig. 6.12

Fig. 6.13

Fig. 6.14

Fig. 6.15

Fig. 6.16

Fig. 6.17

Fig. 6.18

lxi

Han-style bronze mirrors from the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1. From M1 at the No. 1 cemetery of Gol Mod; 2. M25 of the Noyonuul cemetery; 3. M20 at the No. 1 cemetery of Gol Mod; 4. M7 of the Tsaram cemetery; 5. M2 of the Duurlig Nars cemetery; 6. M1 at the No. 2 cemetery of Gol Mod (4 after Mиняeв 2009, the others from Törbat 2011) . . Structure of Tomb M2, Guwei Village, Hui County . . . . . . . Plan and profile drawings of the tomb of King of Zhongshan state (after Fig. 7 in Cuo-tomb, the tomb of the King of the Zhongshan state in the Warring States period) . . . . . . . . . . . Restoration of the appearance and anatomy of a tomb of the Tjesi stage from the Upper Yenisei River, Southern Siberia, Russia (from Baдeцкaя 1986, p. 92, Fig. VIII: 22, 23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural features from the Yellow River Basin found in the Burial vessels from the Xiongnu tombs of the Middle and Late West Han period. 1 The bottom of the coffin was formed by planks connected by a butterfly-like wooden “waist,” and two horizontal timbers were placed at the bottom (M59 at the Derestuy cemetery); 2 the junctions of the four walls of the wooden coffin were connected by mortise and tenon joints (M59 at the Derestuy cemetery) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urn coffin and tombs with a secondary terrace at the Ivolga cemetery. 1 M94 in the Ivolga cemetery; 2 M3 in the Ivolga cemetery; 3 M210 in the Ivolga cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of the underlying vertical decoration polished by stone between the Xiongnu pottery and that of the Northern zone of China during the middle and late West Han periods. 1, 2 Ivolga cemetery; 3, 4 Houmaqiao cemetery . . . Comparisons between the Xiongnu pottery from the Transbaikal area and that from the Northern zone of China during the middle and late Han periods (1). 1, 2 Pottery basins; 3 broken potteries; 4, 5 pottery pot; 6 pottery jar (1 F50 from the Ivolga Archaeological Site; 2 F39 from the Ivolga Archaeological Site; 3 F49 from the Ivolga Archaeological Site; 4, 5 M4032 railway region in Sanmenxia; 6 M4046 railway region in Sanmenxia) . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Xiongnu pottery from the Transbaikal area and that from the Northern zone of China during the middle and late Han periods (2). 1 A type pottery of the second category from Qiaocun (M486); 2 B type pottery of the second category from Qiaocun (M311); 3, 4 C type pottery of the second category from Qiaocun (M4198, M4126); 5 pottery pot from tombs of the Qin dynasty at

. . 489 . . 490

. . 491

. . 492

. . 495

. . 497

. . 499

. . 500

lxii

Fig. 6.19

Fig. 6.20

Fig. 6.21

Fig. 6.22

Fig. 6.23

List of Figures

Ta’erpo (M34233, M44212); 6 from tombs of the Han dynasty in Shuo County (6M476); 7, 8, 10, 12 From the Ivolga cemetery (M100, M183, M211, M173); 9, 11 From the Ivolga Archaeological Site (culture layer, F25) . . . . . . . . Comparisons between ceramic jars with a handle from the Xiongnu sites of the Middle West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from the Great Wall Area of the Warring States period; 1 M78 at the Ivolga Cemetery; 2 M95 at the Ivolga Cemetery; 3 the culture layer of the Ivolga archaeological site; 4 AIIIM7 at the Shuiquan Cemetery in Aohanqi, Inner Mongolia; 5 BIIM36 at the Shuiquan Cemetery in Aohanqi, Inner Mongolia; 6 M8 at the Guoxianyaozi Cemetery; 7 M5 at the Yujiazhuang Cemetery in Pengbao; 8 M10 at the Yujiazhuang Cemetery in Pengbao; 9 M1 at Taohongbala Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Plaques with Zoomorphic Motifs from the Xiongnu culture of the West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from the Great Wall area of the Warring States period. 1 M5 at the Taohongbala Cemetery in Hangjinqi, Inner Mongolia; 2 M59 at the Xinzhouyaozi Cemetery in Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia; 3IM12 at the Yanglang Cemetery in Guyuan, Ningxia; 4, 5 the Derestuy Cemetery in the Transbaikal Area of Russia . . . . . Comparisons between ceramics from the Xiongnu culture of Late West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from the Slab Grave Culture. 1 M138 at the Ivolga Cemetery; 2 the culture layer of the Ivolga archaeological site; 3 F9 at the Ivolga archaeological site; 4 F49 at the Ivolga archaeological site; 5, 6 the Devolzi Tombs of the Slab Grave culture; 7 slab grave at Dabhar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between Bone arrowheads and Bone bow ends from the Xiongnu culture of the West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from other areas. 1, 2, 4–10 the Ivolga archaeological site; 3, 11 the Ivolga cemetery; 12–19 slab grave culture tombs (after Chibictalov, slab grave culture in the Transbaikal area and Mongolia, Figs. 64–67); 20, 25– 27 the Guoxianyaozi cemetery; 21 the Beixinbao cemetery in Huailai; 22, 24 the Xiyuan cemetery in Baotou; 23, 28 the Yujiazhuang cemetery in Pengbao; 29–34 the Pingyang cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from No. 2 Cemetery at Tsagan-Khushun in the West Bank of Transbaikal region. 1, 2 Spoon-shaped bronze belt ornaments; 3 bronze plaque with net-shaped pattern; 4 bronze belt buckle; 5 bone belt buckle; 6 bone belt buckle; 7

. . 501

. . 503

. . 504

. . 506

. . 508

List of Figures

Fig. 6.24

Fig. 6.25

Fig. 6.26 Fig. 6.27

lxiii

bronze belt buckle; 8, 9 bone arrowheads with a bifurcated end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Trekin cemetery in the Tuva area of Russia. 1 Openwork bronze plaque with zoomorphic motifs; 2 openwork bronze plaque with net-shaped pattern; 3 openwork bronze ring-shaped ornament; 4 spoon-shaped bronze belt ornament; 5 bone arrowhead with a bifurcated end; 6 bone bow end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from Ialoman No. 2 cemetery in the Altai region similar to those of the Xiongnu culture during Western Han period and an example of the tomb plan and profile. 1 Horn-bone tube with a sloped orifice; 2 gilded bronze belt fitting; 3 three-bladed iron arrowhead; 4 socketed two-bladed bone arrowhead; 5 pottery guan jar; 6 the plan and profile of the barrow of No. 43 Tomb (1 ibex bone; 2 headwear; 3, 4 belt plaques; 5 organic organization; 6 Bow; 7 iron belt buckle; 8 iron short sword; 9 arrowhead; 10 horn-bone pendant; 11 bronze spoon-shaped belt buckle; 12 gold ornament; 13 gold earrings; 14 iron sheet; 15 lacquerware; 16 wooden bowl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The spread of the Xiongnu culture during the Middle and Late Western Han periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between the Eurasian steppe-style gold and silver artifacts of the Late Warring States period from the Great Wall Belt and their counterparts from the Altai region. 1 Silver ornamental leave with mystical horned creature pattern; 2 gold plaque with mystical horned creature pattern; 3 gold ornamental leave with pattern of wolf in prone position; 4 gold ornamental leave with mystical horned creature pattern; 5 gold ornamental leave with pattern of herbivore bitten by a tiger; 6 torch-shaped gold brooch; 7 saddle pads ornament with mystical horned creature pattern; 8 wooden ornamental leave with mystical horned creature pattern; 9 pendant on the saddle pads with pattern of wolf in prone position; 10 wooden pendant on the saddle pads with Griffin pattern; 11 felt applique on the saddle pads with pattern of deer bit by beast; 12 torch-shaped wooden belt accessory (1, 4, 5 found in M2 on the Bank of Xigoupan, Yek Juu League; 2, 3, 6 found in Aluchaideng, Hanggin Banner; 7 found in No. 1 tomb of Tychta, Altai region; 8 found in Polis-Katangin ancient tomb in Altai region; 9, 10, 12 found in Aka-Alaha tomb in Altai region; 11 found in Bazerek ancient tomb in Altai region) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 514

. . 516

. . 518 . . 521

. . 524

lxiv

Fig. 6.28

Fig. 6.29

Fig. 6.30 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4 Fig. 5

Fig. 6

List of Figures

A reconstructed drawing of the evolution of horned spirit beast pattern in China from the Late Warring States period to the Western Han period (After Lin’s description in his paper entitled A Study on the plaque with Mythical Horned Creature Pattern in the Eurasian Steppe). 1 M2 at Xigoupan, Yeke Juu League, Inner Mongolia; 2 burials of bronzesmith in Xi’an in the late Warring States period; 3, 5 the Daodunzi Cemetery in Tongxin County, Ningxia; 4, 8 the Xichagou Cemetery in Xifeng County, Liaoning Province; 6 the tomb of King of Chu State in the Lion Mountain in Xuzhou; 7 the Aluchaideng Cemetery in Hangjin Banner, Inner Mongolia; 9 the Tomb of Liu Zhi, Marquis of Wanqu of Western Han in Xuzhou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Xiongnu-style openwork rectangular plaques with Zoomorphic Motifs. 1. M108 in Derestuy Cemetery in Transbaikal, Russia; 2, 3 M1 in Daodunzi Cemetery in Tongxin County, Ningxia; 4 the Xichagou Cemetery in Xifeng County, Liaoning Province; 5 M100 in Ivorga Cemetery in Transbaikal, Russia; 6 A chance find in Bayck Area in Southern Siberia, Russia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of Xiongnu’s large-scale tombs: profile of M54 from Ilmova valley in the Transbaikal, Russia . . . . . . . . . . . Metal artifacts in the Eurasian Steppe and the Northern Zone of China in the early 1st millennium B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andronovo culture complex and the Seima-Turbino complexes in the mid 2nd millennium B.C. and the Northern Zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The rise of the Northern Zone-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province at the end of 2nd millennium B.C. at the turn of Shang and Zhou periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Confrontation between the eastern and the western traditions around the 8th century B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eastward advancement of cultures in steppe piedmonts in the Eastern Zhou period from the 7th to the 3rd centuries B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expansion of the Xiongnu Confederation and opening of the Silk Road since the 2nd century B.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 526

. . 527 . . 531 . . 552

. . 553

. . 554 . . 554

. . 555 . . 556

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table Table Table Table Table Table

1.2 1.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Table 6.1

Table 1

Phase comparison of different cultures in the Central Asian Oases area during the Early Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The carbon-14 data of the Okunevo culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Groups of bronzes of the Qijia culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistics of Sites from Zhongshan State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural remains from Yuanping and nearby sites . . . . . . . . . Remains related to the Di from Northern Hebei . . . . . . . . . . . Racial types of the eastern Zhou cemeteries in Inner Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of cemeteries discovered in China with Xiongnu-styled artifacts similar to those unearthed from the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery (quoted from Erööl-Erdene 2011) . . . . . . . . . . Archaeological chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. 11 . 19 . 27 . 354 . 357 . 361

. . 397

. . 470 . . 540

lxv

List of Plates

Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10 Plate 11 Plate 12 Plate 13

Map of vegetation and plant distribution in Eurasia . . . . . . . . . Bronze knife and swords of Xia, Shang and Zhou Periods from the Northern Zone of China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronzes of Shang and Zhou Periods from the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bronze knives of Shang and Zhou Periods from the Northern Zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from the Eurasian Steppes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts and restriction of artifacts from Arzhan II . . . . . . . . . Comparisons between artifacts from the Eastern Talede Cemetery and those from Arzhan II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifacts from Issyk Kurgan and related artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . Tombs and metal artifacts of the Eastern Zhou Period from the North of Hebei Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Animal-shaped artifacts from cemeteries of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Zone of China (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . Animal-shaped artifacts of cemeteries of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Zone of China (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . Plaques from cemeteries of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Zone of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Silk Road of the Western Han Period and distribution map of related sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 562 . . 562 . . 563 . . 563 . . 564 . . 565 . . 566 . . 567 . . 568 . . 569 . . 570 . . 570 . . 571

lxvii

Chapter 1

The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Metallurgical technology is one of the greatest inventions in history, as smelting, processing, and the use of metals are vital signs of a civilized society. The origin of metallurgy has been disputed around the world for ages. Some scholars believe that the metallurgical technology of Eurasia originated from the ancient Near East and later spread to other regions (Roberts 2009); others assert that the metallurgy of the Old World had several origins (Thatcher 2010, Appendix II, pp. 269–275). The earliest use of bronzes may date back to the 8th–6th millennium B.C. in Asia Minor and the Near East. In Çayönü Tepesi, a Neolithic settlement in Turkey, bronzes made directly from copper ore were found. However, due to the immature metallurgical technology of the time, only a few types of small bronzes could be made; developed large bronzes or bronze tools that can reflect people’s daily life have not yet been found (Chernykh 1992). Therefore, it is still difficult to conclude that the metallurgical technology of other parts of Eurasia originated from Asia Minor or the Near East, and no consensus has been reached on this issue in academia to date. The origin of early Chinese metallurgy has also attracted considerable attention worldwide. However, there has been controversy in academic circles over the past 50 years. There are two main viewpoints: first, ancient Chinese metallurgy is secondary, the result of western metallurgical technology transmitted from west to east (Loehr 1949; Muhly 1998; An 1993; Xu 2006); second, early Chinese metallurgical technology is autochthonic (Yan 1984; Hua 1991; Bai 2002; Thatcher 2010, Appendix II, pp. 269–275; Wang 2013). However, there is no firm evidence to substantiate the origin of early Chinese metallurgical technology. Nevertheless, most scholars do not deny that external factors played an essential role in the origin of early Chinese metalware. This conclusion is grounded in the following facts. First, the early bronzes that have been found in Northwest China can be dated to a much earlier time and are higher in number than those discovered in the Central Plain. Only during the Erlitou period did bronzes of the Central Plain become more popular. Therefore, there is a high possibility that other cultures influenced the bronzes of the Central Plain through Northwest China. Second, there is a significant similarity in shape between the bronzes of Northwest China and © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3_1

1

2

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

those of other countries. Third, early Chinese bronzes appeared much later than those of other regions in Eurasia. Since the bronzes of the Eastern European steppe tended to spread from west to east, early Chinese bronzes may date to the middle and late Bronze Age in Eurasia. Was there a local Chinese factor that promoted the development of the early Chinese bronze industry? It may be difficult to deny that some of the early Chinese bronzes may have originated in China because the date gap among the bronzes of different regions alone is not sufficient to make a conclusion. If there were local Chinese factors that contributed to the beginning of Chinese metallurgy, then what role(s) did external factors and Chinese local factors play in the process? To answer the above questions, we must first study how to distinguish local Chinese features from external factors in early Chinese metallurgical technology (Mei 2006). To date, archaeological studies on metalware have been conducted from four perspectives. The first perspective analyzes metal components in artifacts, such as whether they contain arsenic or tin elements and whether the arsenic or tin elements found were formed naturally or deliberately. The second perspective studies production technology, such as whether the artifacts were forged or cast. The third explores the shapes, the types, and their combination among metalware. For instance, an increasing number of weapons and harnesses may reveal a strengthened army and an improved mobile society. The fourth perspective studies metalware with regard to the situation of those sites of excavation. For example, bronzes of the late Longshan culture were all unearthed from small- or medium-sized tombs rather than large ones, which indicates that at that time, metalware was not regarded by the upper class as a symbol of wealth and status. Among these four perspectives, the former two mainly fall within the field of metallurgical archaeology, while the latter two fall within the field of archaeology. At times, however, all of them can be integrated into a single study. To explore the cultural factors of the early bronzes in China, the studies in this book have been mainly conducted from the latter two perspectives, especially exploring the shapes, the types and their combination in metalware. To distinguish Chinese local factors from external ones, we deem it necessary to broaden the horizons of studies to include early bronzes in the surrounding areas beyond China, on which scholars conducted extensive work. So far, the research method adopted has been to find artifacts similar to the early Chinese bronzes and then to determine their dates and analyze their cultural attributes. Regretfully, no scholars have conducted a systematic study of the development of early bronzes beyond China or untangled the development rules of bronzes around the world. Rather than studying the early metalware of China, based merely on Chinese documents and in comparison with similar metalware of the surrounding areas, as previous studies have done, we approach the distribution of early metalware in China by placing China within a broader cultural context, Eurasia, and taking China as only one part of the continent. Rather than comparing individual metalware pieces, we examine, from the perspective of a general development pattern of the early bronzes in Eurasia, the role of external factors on early Chinese bronzes with the aim of yielding valuable results.

1.1 Different Bronze Systems in Eurasia

1.1

3

Different Bronze Systems in Eurasia

More than 180 years ago, the Danish antiquarian C. J. Thomsen (December 29, 1788–May 21, 1865) proposed the three-age system to categorize the ancient societies: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. This applies to studies in most parts of the Old World, especially Eurasia. The emergence of the Bronze Age exerted a significant impact on the economy and society of human beings. Moreover, with the acquisition of ore, the specialization of production, and the distribution of bronze products, the range of communication reached an unprecedented level. In light of this, some scholars believe that the world system has been established for more than 5000 years because they hold that the system was formed in the 3rd millennium B.C. (in the Early Bronze Age) (Frank 1993). Because bronzes are handy, easy to preserve, and of exceptional value, they were distributed more widely and preserved longer than pottery. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Bronze Age bred several archaeological cultures with similar bronzes. In China alone, we find Central Plain bronzes represented by the Chinese dynasties in the Central Plain, Northeast bronzes in Northeast China, and Northern bronzes1 along the Great Wall of China. Instead of identifying different archaeological cultures, based on the components and origins of bronzes, scholars of the former Soviet Union even divided the distribution areas of bronzes into different metal-making and metallurgical centers. These centers, which were interrelated, constitute metallurgical provinces with a broader area. Altogether, there are seven such metallurgical provinces in the former Soviet Union and 10–20 in the world (Chernykh 1992). If we move our attention from the subtle features of bronzes in terms of specific types and shapes to aspects broadly related to the function and methods of production and place bronzes into stages of social development, we find three important bronze culture systems of the Bronze Age across space and time on the Eurasian continent. Specifically, they are the eastern bronze culture system centered on the Central Plain of China, the western bronze culture system represented by the culture of the Tigris and Euphrates in the Near East, Egypt, Greece and Rome, and the late prehistoric bronze culture system of the Eurasian Steppe that lay adjacent.

1

Lin (1998). The Northern bronzes refer to the bronzes of the Northern System, which are widely distributed in the Northern Zone of China and have a great influence on the culture of the Central Plain. They are a complex of multi-sources and multi-branches. They are called the ``Northern bronzes'' because, on the one hand, they are different from the bronzes that originated in the Central Plain in terms of type, shape, ornament, and style; on the other hand, they are connected with bronzes from other parts of the Eurasian Steppe.

4

1.1.1

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Eastern Bronze Culture System

In ancient East Asia, the most splendid civilization was the Xia-Shang-Zhou civilization in the Central Plain of China, in which bronzes are its most splendid material culture. In this system, bronze vessels are the most important. Among them, jue are the earliest, appearing in Phase III of the Erlitou culture in 1700 B.C. A jue is a tripod vessel or goblet used to serve warm wine, with the feet and body formed into an integrated piece using the pottery-piece-model casting method. The shape of the bronze vessel was an imitation of its pottery counterpart. The piece-model casting method played a decisive role in determining the characteristics of patterns on bronzes, because patterns were cast on bronzes after they were carved on the pottery-piece-models, a method quite different from that of Western civilizations where patterns were carved directly on bronzes. In the Eastern bronze culture system, the most typical pattern is the “Three-Layered Flowers” design from the late Shang dynasty. With the design of flowers blooming on three layers and pattern lines running smoothly at each turning point, it is exquisite craftsmanship. The entire pattern of an artifact can be divided into several sections, each cast using separate molds. With lines running smoothly on the surface of each artifact, a three-dimensional image is displayed. The most typical design is taotie, a motif consisting of a zoomorphic mask commonly found on Chinese ritual bronze vessels of the Shang and Zhou dynasties. In addition to bronze vessels, other bronzes are mainly musical instruments, weapons, horse and chariot accouterments and a small number of tools. From the perspective of function, the most important are sacrificial vessels used in worship ceremonies and musical instruments used in all types of ceremonies. Undoubtedly, weapons and horse and chariot accouterments were for warfare. Tools were rarely used in actual production activities. The functions of these bronzes, which represent the highest material culture in ancient Chinese civilization, are a concrete manifestation of a famous line in China: “ceremonies and warfare are the greatest events of a country.” Few bronzes were used as personal ornaments in the Central Plain of China. Instead, ornaments of non-metallic materials, mostly jade, were favored by Chinese people.

1.1.2

Western Bronze Culture System

Western civilization, i.e., European civilization, was born in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although copper wares appeared early in these regions, due to the lack of tin, the Bronze Age came relatively late. In Mesopotamia, bronzes prevailed during the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur III), the last Sumerian dynasty in approximately 2100 B.C. Egypt entered the Bronze Age during the Middle Kingdom of Egypt around 2000–1700 B.C. Among the numerous metal vessels unearthed from the Royal Cemetery at Ur (2600–2500 B.C.) (Hall and Woolley 1934), most are forged

1.1 Different Bronze Systems in Eurasia

5

products of pure copper with flat bottoms. However, in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (notated Dynasty XVIII, 1880–1307 B.C.), each vessel and its pedestal were made separately, with the vessel forged out of one piece of copper and the pedestal cast into openwork. Larger vessels were usually forged using more than two pieces of copper. In Greece, a copper vessel dated to approximately 330 B.C., 90 cm in height, was forged from two copper pieces that were riveted together and decorated with cast fittings. As illustrated in the above examples, a western Eurasian bronze vessel mainly has a flat bottom with the vessel and pedestal forged separately. This may be because the forging technology at that time was not sufficiently advanced to make a tripod or round-legged furniture or there was little need to spend so much energy to make one, because people then attached more significance to the function of vessels. As daily utensils, copper vessels symbolized nobility and prosperity at that time, because they were made of rare and precious metal materials, such as gold and silver. A good case in point is a gold bowl unearthed from the Royal Cemetery at Ur. Forged copper vessels feature decorative patterns, which were directly inscribed on copper wares. Decorative patterns can be categorized into two types: protruding patterns that are knocked out from the inside and incised patterns that are directly carved on vessels. This method allows more freedom of expression, making the patterns on each vessel a complete epic scroll. In the western Eurasian bronze culture system, the most energy-consuming bronzes were bronze sculptures of human beings or gods produced by lost-wax casting (Burney 1977). The earliest bronze sculpture of a human figure in Mesopotamia was made by lost-wax casting during Early Dynastic period (2700– 2400 B.C.), because it is easy to carve out the details using this method. Under the influence of Mesopotamian civilization, India widely used the lost-wax casting method in making bronze sculptures of human beings. Another type of bronze commonly used in the western bronze culture system includes bronze tools and weapons. Sumerian bronze tools and weapons were prevalent throughout the Near East. For the ease of casting and mass production, bronze containing up to 10% tin was widely used in the production of tools and weapons. Spears and socketed axes were the most typical artifacts among bronze weapons and were more refined than similar artifacts from other areas of the same period. In high-ranking tombs, such as the Royal Cemetery at Ur, to show the nobility of the master, gold was used instead of bronze to make weapons of the same shape, such as gold short swords.

1.1.3

Bronze Culture System During the Late Prehistoric Period

The bronze culture system of the late prehistoric period mostly lay in the northern Eurasian Steppe areas to the north of the civilized area, the periphery of Eastern

6

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

civilization and Western civilization, where social development was still in the late period of the prehistoric period. Bronzes in these areas mainly featured implements, weapons, and ornaments. Around 5000 B.C., the northern part of Eurasia generally entered the Copper Age, with the Carpathian-Balkan metallurgical province as the most developed area. Copper wares there were mainly forged from pure copper in the form of small tools and ornaments. In 3500 B.C., the region entered the Early Bronze Age. The Circumpontic Metallurgical Province was formed with the Caucasus as the major copper production area, producing mainly arsenic bronze. Socketed axes, the most representative copper wares of this period, were made by multi-piece-model casting, while others, the majority of copper wares, were still forged. The Middle Bronze Age from 2500 B.C. saw bronzes cross the Ural Mountains and, for the first time, spread all the way eastward to the Sayan Ridge and the Altai area. In the late Bronze Age, dating from the 16th century B.C., the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province was replaced by the metallurgical province in Eurasia, featuring axes, spears, and short swords. Later, the bronze culture extended eastward to the Baikal region. Throughout the north of Eurasia, the metallurgical production center continued to move eastward, and the production method gradually evolved from forging to mold casting, specifically single-piece-model and multi-piece-model casting. The bronzes, however, were never used in important social life such as ceremonies, and most of them were only tools, weapons, and ornaments. The making method evolved naturally from forging to casting. The differences among the three bronze culture systems mentioned above primarily resulted from the different stages of their social development. In a civilized society, bronzes were primarily used to determine the level of ceremonies, so most of them were of no practical use. However, the different use of bronzes—bronze vessels for eastern ceremonies and bronze sculptures for western ceremonies— manifested the different traditions of the eastern and western bronze culture systems and reflected the different needs of ancient societies and religions in the two areas. The division of these three bronze cultures and culture systems in this book does not suggest that there were only three civilization systems of the Bronze Age in Eurasia. Instead, it only indicates that these three systems were primary and original. In fact, under their influence, secondary bronze culture systems developed in the surrounding areas.

1.2

Research Background Beyond China Related to Chinese Early Bronzes

Bronzes appeared slightly later in China than in neighboring Central Asia and the Eurasian Steppe. As far as the study of the early bronzes beyond China is concerned, two aspects are worth mentioning. The first is the study of the origin and development of copper and bronzes in certain areas, primarily in the Copper Age

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

7

and the early and middle stages of the Bronze Age before the use of copper and bronzes in China. Thus, it is worthwhile to summarize the development pattern of copper and bronzes to understand the development of early Chinese bronzes and to explore their development patterns. The second aspect is a synchronic comparative study between early bronzes found beyond China and those discovered in China, mostly Eurasian bronzes of the period beginning from the late Bronze Age, because only bronzes of the same period can influence each other and disseminate outwards. In this field, considerable research has been reported in China. For this reason, only the first aspect of the study is examined here. In the discovery of and research on the early copper and bronzes outside of China, two areas related to the early copper wares of China are worth mentioning. One is the Oasis culture in southern Central Asia, and the other is the steppe culture in the north of Eurasia.

1.2.1

Early Bronzes of the Oasis Culture in Southern Central Asia

The oasis area in southern Central Asia was an essential part of the Silk Road during the Han and Tang periods and a crucial link between ancient West Asia and China. It is also where a developed Oasis agricultural civilization was bred, which yielded abundant research materials on early bronzes. According to the available documents, the civilization mainly covered the Nomazga culture sequence in Turkmenistan, east of the Caspian Sea, the Hissar culture sequence in the northeast of Iran, and the Sialk culture sequence on the Iranian Plateau (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1 The distribution of main excavation sites of early metal artifacts

8

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.2 Chronology of bronzes of the Namazga culture

1.2.1.1

The Namazga Culture Sequence

The Namazga culture sequence was mainly based on the remains of Namazga, the most important site in the Margiana-Bactria archaeological complex (MBA). It represents the entire chronological sequence of Central Asia from the Neolithic Age to the end of the Bronze Age before the Andronovo culture complex spread southward into this area. The site was excavated from 1952, and the entire Namazga sequence was classified into six phases. The first three phases belonged to the Chalcolithic Age. The last three phases were identified to be in the early, middle, and late stages of the Bronze Age, which began in 3000 B.C. (Kohl 1984). Our study involves the first five phases (Fig. 1.2). Earlier than the Namazga culture, the site of Anau belongs to the Neolithic Age. During the Neolithic Age, there were a small number of small pieces of bronzes in Central Asia, all forged. One of them was a semi-finished copper bead rolled from a piece of copper (Fig. 1.2: 51), which belongs to the early period of the culture when copper and stone were used in metal making simultaneously. This period is called Namazga Phase I and can be further divided into two periods. Its bronzes include needles, pins, heavy bronze pieces that were probably used as tools, and chisel-shaped objects forged out of bronze pieces (Fig. 1.2: 45–50). Bronzes can be classified into tools and ornaments, which are mainly forged pointed objects, such

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

9

as needles, chisels, and pins. Bronzes are rare, because they were still at its budding stage. The number of bronzes in Namazka Phase II increased significantly. Most of them are pointed artifacts, such as awls, pins and double-edged knives with many points (Fig. 1.2: 17–33). The number of side-edged tools also increased, such as sickles and axes (Fig. 1.2: 34, 35). Namazka Phase II also yielded a bronze mirror (Fig. 1.2: 43), a ring-shape ornament made of metal wires (Fig. 1.2: 40), and a bronze ax imitating a stone ax. The most significant change at this time was the emergence of socketed axes with the socket hole in the middle, which could only be made by internal and external model casting (Fig. 1.2: 44). Significant changes took place in Namazka Phase IV. Ornaments of the period were mostly double helix ring pins (Fig. 1.2: 7–13) and a few ring ornaments (Fig. 1.2: 14, 15). Tools were rare, probably due to the limitations of discovery. Short daggers with handle emerged (Fig. 1.2: 16). In Namazka Phase V, daggers evolved into standard short swords (Fig. 1.2: 5), and socketed axes still existed. Previous ornaments disappeared, but a metal seal with a consistent style appeared (Fig. 1.2: 1–3). The style of bronzes from Namazka Phase V is utterly different from that of bronzes of Namazka Phase IV. From Phase I to Phase II, the Namazga culture developed bloomed, with pointed objects as diagnostic artifacts. There was no apparent link between Phase IV and its previous phases; therefore, the sudden increase in the number of double helix ring pins should be attributed to the influence of external cultural factors. No obvious inheritance relationship existed between Phase V and Phase IV; as a result, the emergence of numerous seals came from cultural influences completely different from those of Namazka Phase IV.

1.2.1.2

The Hissar Culture Sequence

The Hissar site is in northeastern Iran, and the German scholar Schmidt during 1931–1932 led its excavation. In 1938, an excavation report on this site was published, but unfortunately, we could not find this report. In 1982, Schmidt re-examined the site and published the article A Study on the Northern Settlement of the Hissar Site from the Neolithic Age to the Bronze Age (Schmidt 1982). Based on his research, the site can be divided into three phases, which are equivalent to the Chalcolithic Age and the early and middle periods of the Bronze Age (Fig. 1.3). Hissar Phase I did not yield as many pointed objects as the Namazga culture sequence did. Only a few pieces of artifacts in a fixed style appeared, such as adzes (Fig. 1.3: 3), chisels (Fig. 1.3: 4), short swords (Fig. 1.3: 6) and mushroom-headed pins (Fig. 1.3: 23, 24). In Phase II, single-edged knives (Fig. 1.3: 1), ridged short swords without hilts (Fig. 1.3: 5), double helix pins, and ring-shaped ornaments appeared (Fig. 1.3: 21, 22, 27). Phase II can be roughly identified as equivalent to Namazga Phase IV based on the emergence of double helix pins. Numerous new weapons and vessels emerged in Phase III. The pointed objects were still underdeveloped, with only needles discovered (Fig. 1.3: 2). Weapons included

10

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.3 Copper and bronze artifacts from the Hissar site

short swords (Fig. 1.3: 7–9), spears (Fig. 1.3: 10, 11), and socketed axes (Fig. 1.3: 12–14). Ornaments included pins decorated with a standing animal on the top (Fig. 1.3: 15–20), bracelets composed of ring-shaped ornaments (Fig. 1.3: 25, 26), and mirrors with a handle (Fig. 1.3: 34, 35). Vessels included bowls, cups, and single-handled and high-necked pots and bottles (Fig. 1.3: 37–43). The budding stage does not appear in the Hissar culture sequence, nor do pointed artifacts. There were no double-edged pointed knives that were common in this region but only single-edged ones. Short swords were different from Phase II to Phase IV. These three phases had no distinct tradition; foreign cultures most likely influenced them. Few tools and numerous weapons existed in the Hissar culture sequence, which suggests that the Hissar culture valued combat highly. The coexistence of strong foreign cultural influences and armaments implies a history of foreign conquest and local resistance.

1.2.1.3

The Sialk Culture Sequence

In 1933–1937, the German archaeologist Gilshman led the excavation of the Sialk site. In 1938, the Excavation Report of the Sialk Site in the Kashan Area (Chirshman 1938) was published. The site consists of two mounds and is divided into five phases. Phase I belongs to the Neolithic Age, Phase II to the Chalcolithic Age, Phase III coincides with Hissar Phase I, Phase IV with Hissar Phase II, and Phase V with the Iron Age. Metalware in Phase I constitutes mainly pointed objects, including double-edged pointed knives, awls, needles, and pins (Fig. 1.4: 14–19). Pointed objects apart, ring-shaped ornaments were the only artifacts (Fig. 1.4: 20, 21). Side-edged tools, including axes and chisels (Fig. 1.4: 7–9), bead ornaments (Fig. 1.4: 10) and more metal vessels (Fig. 1.4: 11–13) appeared in Phase II. Bronzes in Phase III were

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

11

Fig. 1.4 Copper and bronze artifacts from the Sialk site

similar to those in Phase II (Fig. 1.4: 1–3), with only concave bronze mirrors as an exception (Fig. 1.4: 4). Metalware of the Sialk site did not change much from Phase I to Phase III. The strong traditions, represented mainly by pointed objects and side-edged tools such as pickaxes with a short tubular socket, indicate that this site was scarcely influenced by external factors and only the metal vessels in Phase III were probably influenced by Mesopotamia. Based on the research of the three sites mentioned above, the early Bronze Age in Central Asia could be divided into four phases. Their dates are as follows (see Table 1.1). The analysis of the metalware development sequence shows that metalware in both Namazga and Sialk consitutes mainly pointed objects with no dividing line between hilt and blade. The style probably developed locally from the Neolithic

Table 1.1 Phase comparison of different cultures in the Central Asian Oases area during the Early Bronze Age Phase

Hissar

Sialk

Mesopotamia

Chalcolithic Age A Chalcolithic Age B

I II

Namazga I II, III

I

II III

Early Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age

III IV

IV V

II III

Ubaid III Ubaid IV Uruk Sumer Akkad

IV

12

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Age. Therefore, it is most likely a local tradition. Side-edged tools gradually formed the bulk of the metalware there. From the Bronze Age, tools were no longer the primary category of metalware, whereas weapons and ornaments increased significantly in number. A distinct dividing line appeared between the hilt and the blade of artifacts. Therefore, artifacts became more uniform in shape, such as the short sword from Namazga Phase IV. The bronzes from the Hissar site bear their characteristics: short swords with hilt and blade appeared in the Chalcolithic Age when bronze and stone were used simultaneously (Fig. 1.3: 6). The chisels are also uniform in shape (Fig. 1.3: 4), and the shape of the top of the pins can be easily distinguished, while the shape of similar artifacts from the other two sites is obscure. In the Early Bronze Age, single-edged swords were widely used rather than the early double-edged swords. These results indicate that the metalware of the Hissar site did not develop locally. Instead, it was imported from a more developed area. After the Bronze Age, the number of metal tools decreased while the number of weapons and ornaments increased dramatically, which indicates that the metalware of this era was transformed from tools for production to weapons in warfare and artifacts for the manifestation of social identity. Through the analysis of the development of early metalware in Central Asia, the tradition and development of local bronzes and external influences in the shape of metalware have been clarified, which is of great importance for understanding the origin of early Chinese metalware.

1.2.2

Early Bronzes of the Steppe Culture

The previous three sites in the oasis area of Central Asia are a relatively short distance from Northwest China. The development patterns they display are crucial for the investigation of the origin of metalware in China. However, what has been discovered is far from sufficient. To the north of these sites, early metalware of the steppe cultures has been unearthed. The relationship between the development and transmission of this metalware and early bronzes of China is also worthy of attention. Due to the disagreement over the absolute dates of the early bronzes from the steppe in academic circles, a brief illustration is necessary. For quite a long time, archaeological materials from the steppe have been excavated and studied by the ex-Soviet scholars. They use the following methods to determine the absolute date of these materials: comparison with the chronology of Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings; comparison with artifacts from China and ancient Greece in terms of typology; carbon-14 dating; and tree-ring dating. Tree-ring dating is seldom applied independently because of its limitedness, but it is used to calibrate the carbon-14 dating data. Since the early carbon-14 dating data were minimal and geographically dispersed, many Russian archaeologists and metallurgical archaeologists mainly used Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronologies to calibrate carbon-14 data and determine the absolute date of the bronze cultures on the steppe (Киселев 1949).

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

13

According to the research of these Russian scholars, the dates of early metalware from the steppe can be divided into at least four stages in terms of development: the Copper Age (Chalcolithic period) from the second half of the 5th millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C.; the Early Bronze Age from the middle or second half of the 4th millennium to the 3rd millennium B.C.; the Middle Bronze Age from the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C. to the 16th century B.C.; and the Late Bronze Age from the 16th to the 10th–9th century B.C. (Chernykh 1992). The sequence of cultures regarding absolute chronology was accepted by most scholars until the 1990s. However, the publication of carbon-14 data in recent years has almost completely reversed this traditional chronology. For the last 10–15 years, many laboratories in Russia have conducted the carbon-14 dating test on specimens unearthed from different sites on the steppe and obtained numerous dating data. Based on these results, many scholars have denied the traditional view and established a new chronological sequence of the Early Metal Age on the steppe. Compared with previous research, the steppe cultures supposedly date from a much earlier time and span a much longer period (Chernykh 2010). According to the statistical analysis conducted by some scholars in recent years, a new dating sequence has been established2: The The The The The

Copper Age: 5000–3300 B.C. Early Bronze Age: 3300–2600 B.C. Middle Bronze Age: 2500–1900 B.C. Late Bronze Age: 1800–1500 B.C. End of Bronze Age: 1400–800 B.C.

It should be noted that some scholars, with reference to the latest carbon-14 data, have agreed on the absolute date of the Early Metal Age on the steppe, but other scholars, particularly traditional archaeologists, have not fully endorsed this conclusion (Kuzmina 2007). We also have doubts about it (Shao 2012), but we will not discuss this issue further in this section. No matter what conclusion is adopted, the emergence of early bronzes in the steppe culture system is far earlier than that in China, which could shed light on the study of the origin and development of early Chinese bronzes. Since their foundations, the steppe cultures were closely related to the agricultural cultures from the Pontic area and the Caucasus region. Therefore, the early bronze sites in the latter two areas should also be involved in the analysis of the cultural sequence on the steppe.3

2

The chronological division of this paper mainly comes from Koryakova (2007). However, C14 dating shows a range of dates, and certain errors exist. Different scholars also have different choices in using these results. Therefore, different conclusions exist in the process of dividing specific eras. As shown in Frachetti (2008) and Chernykh (2010). 3 Information on bronzes in this part mainly comes from Chernykh (1992).

14

1.2.2.1

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

The Pontic Area

In the Pontic area, developed copper sites have been found, dated to the Copper Age of the 5th millennium B.C. Among the cultures they embody, Tripolye and Sredny Stog are most representative. Tripolye, a typical agricultural culture, is one of the most famous archaeological cultures in the Pontic area. Hundreds of sites belonging to this culture have been discovered. The number of metal objects unearthed from them is far higher than that from any other culture of the same period in southern Central Asia and the Caucasus region. According to studies, the Tripolye site could be put into two categories, Phase A and Phase B, in terms of their development. During Phase A, the culture covered the area from the Southern Bug River in Ukraine to Romania, Moldova and the eastern Carpathian region. During Phase B, the culture expanded eastward to the middle reaches of the Dniester River. The best representative of the development level of Tripolye copperware was found at the Karbuna kiln site, in which beads, plaques (Fig. 1.5: 3–6) and axes were unearthed (Fig. 1.5: 1, 2). The Sredny Stog culture is mainly distributed in the middle and lower reaches of the Dnieper River, the Donetz River, the Azov Sea and the eastern European steppe along the lower reaches of the Don River. More than a hundred sites and tombs of this culture have been discovered. Animal husbandry was the main source of sustenance for the Sredny Stog people, while hunting, fishing and farming played supporting roles in their lives. Unearthed animal bones indicate that horses played an essential role in this culture. Copper artifacts were mainly found in burials, basically ornaments (Fig. 1.5: 8–10), with only one exception—a hammer (Fig. 1.5: 7). Copperware apart, there were also grave goods, such as flint knives, shells, and necklaces made of animal teeth and wild boar tusk. The copperware from different cultures on the Pontic area displays significant similarities. The principal finds are ornaments, especially spiral ring-shaped ornaments and plaques with holes (Fig. 1.5: 3–5, 8–10, 13, 14, 20), as well as weapons such as socketed battle-axes (Fig. 1.5: 2, 7, 18, 19), implements such as flat axes (Fig. 1.5: 1, 16), and a few awls and hooks (Fig. 1.5: 11, 12). However, pointed-head artifacts, which were well developed in the oasis culture in Central Asia, rarely appeared at the sites of the Copper Age in this area. When it came to the Early Bronze Age, the Pit Grave culture4 dominated the area, with double-edged knives marked by a clear division between the hilt and the blade.

4

The Pit Grave culture, also known as the Yamnaya culture, is a famous early Bronze Age culture in the Eastern European steppe. The Pit Grave culture area is distributed widely. It extends from the south Ural in the east to Moldova in the west and from North Caucasus in the south to the middle of Volga River in the north. Thousands of Kurgans of the culture were discovered in this area. It is generally believed that the date of the Pit Grave culture should range between the early 3rd millennium B.C. and the early 2nd millennium B.C., but the C14 data in recent years are mostly concentrated between 3500 and 2200 B.C.

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

15

Fig. 1.5 Early copper artifacts from the circumpontic metallurgical province

1.2.2.2

The Caucasus Region

The Caucasus region is in the vast region of the Caucasus Mountains between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. It can be divided into two parts, with the Grand Caucasus Mountains as the boundary. North of the mountains is the North Caucasus or Ciscaucasia, and south of them the Southern Caucasus or Transcaucasia.5 Although surrounded by mountains, the region had been an essential link between the Eastern European steppe and West Asia since ancient times. A relatively small number (no more than 25) of copper artifacts dating to the Copper Age has been found there, mainly from the Shulaveri-Shomu culture.

5

Transcaucasia and North Caucasus are mainly used in this book since they are widely accepted.

16

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.6 Early metal artifacts from the caucasus region

As a typical agricultural culture, the Shulaveri-Shomu culture was distributed in the valley of southern Transcaucasia from the 6th to the 5th millennium B.C. It could be divided into five stages, with copper remains dated to the last stage. The major finds there are double-edged knives and spear-shaped artifacts with no clear division between the hilt and the blade (Fig. 1.6: 1, 3) and bracelets coiled from strips of metal sheets (Fig. 1.6: 4). From the beginning of the Bronze Age, the Caucasus enjoyed a boom in metallurgy and copper making. The variety and quantity of the metalware increased rapidly, and its metallurgical development was prominent among cultures of the same period on the entire Eurasian continent. The bronzes can be attributed to two cultures: the Maikop culture from North Caucasus and the Kuro-Araks culture from Transcaucasia. The bronzes from these cultures display distinct foreign characteristics, such as pins with double-curved tips (Fig. 1.6: 20, 21), a typical style in West Asia; swords peculiar to West Asia (Fig. 1.6: 14, 15); socketed axes prevalent on the steppe; short swords with clear divisions between the hilts and blades (Fig. 1.6: 11); flat axes (Fig. 1.6: 7, 8); and West Asian-typed socketed picks (Fig. 1.6: 9). All these artifacts indicate that bronzes of the Early Bronze Age from the Caucasus were influenced by the steppe to its north and West Asia to its south, as determined by the unique geographical location of the Caucasus region.

1.2.2.3

The Southern Ural Forest Steppe and the Altai-Sayan Steppe

Metalware in the Central Eurasian Steppe and the Asian steppe appeared later than those in the eastern Eurasian Steppe and the Caucasus, and no Copper Age sites have been found in the former two areas. Metalware from these areas was first

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

17

Fig. 1.7 Metal artifacts of the Garin-Bor culture in forest-steppe zone

discovered dating to the early or middle Bronze Age. The Garin-Bor culture of the southern Ural region is a typical forest-steppe culture, while the Afanasievo culture and Okunevo culture on the Altai-Sayan steppe are typical cultures of the Asian steppe region. The Garin-Bor culture was mainly distributed throughout the Kama River area and the Vyatka Basin in the Southern Urals. Although this culture had entered the Bronze Age, the bronze making methods were still primitive, and copper artifacts with impurities were its main products. Double-edged knives with an unclear boundary evident between the handle and blade constitute the majority of discovered wares (Fig. 1.7: 1, 2). The blades of these knives are wider than their counterparts from the Central Asian oasis culture. Some axes from the Garin-Bor culture have also been discovered, and the irregular shapes of their heads show that they were at their primitive stage (Fig. 1.7: 4). The primitive forms of axes indicate that the hollow socket did not necessarily develop from the casing style (Fig. 1.9). Apart from some round plaques and coiled plaques (Fig. 1.7: 5, 6), few ornaments have been discovered. With the inferior quality of its soil and unsuitable climate for agriculture, the Altai-Sayan region belongs to the typical mountain steppe ecoregion. However, because the water, animal, plant, and mineral resources here are abundant, this area mainly relied on fishing and husbandry. The Afanasievo culture is the earliest known local culture that had used metals. It is generally accepted that this culture dates to the period between the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C. and the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. (Вадецкая 1986). Carbon-14 dating data from 27 samples have been obtained, but they span a long period of time, ranging from the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. to the end of the 3rd millennium B. C. (Chernykh 2004, pp. 19–22). To date, no more than 100 pieces of metals have

18

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

been discovered from the Afanasievo culture, most of which are copper artifacts and a few gold and silver ones. Most of the copper artifacts are amorphous copper foils while only a fourth of them are in distinguishable forms, either small implements or weapons (Fig. 1.8: 9–11) or spring ornaments (Fig. 1.8: 12, 13). The Okunevo cultural site is mostly distributed across the Minusinsk Basin in the middle reaches of the Yenisei River in modern Russia, as well as in the northeastern Mongolia and Tuva. Due to the lack of published materials on the culture, it is difficult to determine its date. The carbon-14 data show that the site mainly dates to the period between 2500 and 1500 B.C. (Chernykh 2004) (Table 1.2). Bronzes are common in this culture. Tools include embedded-handled knives and awls (Fig. 1.8: 1, 3). Short swords are relatively advanced with clear boundaries between the handles and the blades (Fig. 1.8: 6). A bronze spear was found at a late Okunevo cultural site, the socket of which was forged with two loose ends (Fig. 1.8: 5). The first of this kind appeared in the Asian steppe region (Chernykh 1992). Ornaments of this culture consist mainly of ring-shaped ornaments with circular cross-sections and flat joints at both ends (Fig. 1.8: 7, 8). Each metal artifact mentioned above represents the tradition of its origin. The earliest is the socketed ax from the Pontic area, representative of the local customs. Socketed axes from the Ural forest steppe and tools with embedded bone handled from the Altai-Sayan region reflect the characteristics of their respective region. Both steppe regions and West Asia influenced the bronzes of the Caucasus. From

Fig. 1.8 Early metal artifacts from the Altai-Sayan region

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

19

Table 1.2 The carbon-14 data of the Okunevo culture

the Copper Age, only a tiny portion of the metals from these regions were pointed-edged artifacts, significantly different from those from the Central Asia oasis region. The analysis of the unearthed metals on a larger scale confirmed the influences of socketed axes of the Black Sea on the metalware of the Central Asia Hissar, which are neater in form than those from the Tripoliye culture (Fig. 1.3: 12– 14).

1.2.3

Seriation of Some Early Bronzes

Typological analyses of bronzes out of China also deserve attention. Research on the origin and development of axes and socketed spears could shed light on the origin of similar artifacts among early Chinese bronzes.

1.2.3.1

Evolution from Flat Copper Axes to Axes

The Copper Age witnessed the appearance of the flat copper ax, which is identical in form to the stone ax of the Stone Age. The emergence of the flat copper ax was much earlier than that of the socketed ax. The evolution and development of flat copper axes to socketed axes spans a long period. In the early 20th century, the Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius, who refined the concept of seriation, studied this evolutionary process. In his book Prehistorical Archaeological Methods (Chinese translation: Xianshi kaoguxue fangfalun 先史考古学方法论) (Montelius 1937), he conducted a typological analysis of the evolution sequence of axes from Scandinavia and Italy. Scandinavian axes evolved from flat copper axes that imitated stone axes (Fig. 1.9: 1, 2) to axes with two convex edges (Fig. 1.9: 3) and eventually to axes fastened to the wooden handle by winding copper wires around the handle (Fig. 1.9: 4, 5). These were followed by casing-type axes (Fig. 1.9: 6) as copper wires evolved into copper-cast cases, which later evolved

20

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.9 The evolution of bronze axes in Europe. Scandinavian peninsular (a); Italy (b)

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

21

into casted axes but retained the “na” (in Chinese: 内) in the socket (Fig. 1.9: 7). It was when “na” disappeared from the axes that the first ax emerged in the real sense (Fig. 1.9: 8, 9). Likewise, Italian copper axes also evolved from flat copper axes (Fig. 1.9: 11, 12) to axes with two convex edges (Fig. 1.9: 13, 14) and then to socketed axes as the convex curled inwards into a socket with both sides unclosed (Fig. 1.9: 15, 16). Later there came axes with crossbars to better fix axes on the wooden handle (Fig. 1.9: 17, 18). However, copper axes of this stage still had to be clipped into the wooden haft, presumably a transitional form between axes with a clipping handle and socketed axes, which indicates that the early Italian copper axes did not evolve into real axes. Apart from the areas mentioned above, no similar evolutionary processes of the copper ax have been found in other places. The socketed ax is commonly thought to be a tool related to wood chopping. From an archaeological perspective, the regions with advanced socketed axes are all located in forest-steppe zones and northern forest zones. Early metal-making methods required large amounts of wood as fuel, so frequent wood chopping could be the reason for the popularity of copper axes in these areas. The evolution of the copper ax from a solid ax to a socketed one was a complicated process, and only frequent usage would result in the constant development. Nordic Scandinavia, a typical northern forest zone, witnessed the most through the evolution of copper ax. Despite its relatively abundant forest resources, Italy is no match for the Nordic region in terms of forest resources, so there was no complete evolution of the copper ax in Italy.

1.2.3.2

Evolution from Solid Tanged Spears with to Socketed Spears

Similar to axes, the emergence and development of socketed spears in the Eurasian Steppe took a long time. According to the available information, the socketed spears emerged in the middle of the Bronze Age, while solid tanged spears became popular in the Early Bronze Age. Andrew Sherratt speculated on the evolution of solid tanged spears to socketed spears.6 He believed that the socketed spears of the Eurasian Steppe evolved from the early solid tanged spears by employing the forging technique used in making chisels and other artifacts. This evolution can be illustrated with the help of the archaeological findings of the early bronzes of the Eurasian Steppe (Fig. 1.10). In the Early Bronze Age, more mature solid tanged spears could be found in the Maikop culture and the Kuro-Araks culture in the Caucasus and Kura-Araks Lowlands (Fig. 1.10: 4, 5). Coexisting with these spears were “C”-shaped chisels (Fig. 1.10: 1–3). After that, the shape and structure of solid tanged spears underwent little change but became more regular (Fig. 1.10: 11, 12), while “C”-shaped chisels developed into forged socketed chisels with open

6

In 2002, Professor Yang was a visiting scholar in Cambridge, England. When she visited the Oxford University Museum, Professor Sheratt talked about the evolution of socked spears on the Eurasian Steppe. The analysis of this article was based on his ideas. See Andrew (2006).

22

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.10 The development and evolution of socketed spear in the Eurasian steppe. 1–4 Maikop culture; 5 Kuro-Araks culture; 6 Kuban area; 7 Dagestan; 8–10 Catacomb culture; 11–12 Saskatchewan culture; 13–14 Abashevo culture; 15–17 Upper reaches of Volga River; 18–19 Timber Grave culture; 20 Andronovo culture; 21–23 Seima-Turbino complexes

1.2 Research Background Beyond China …

23

sockets (Fig. 1.10: 6–8). Meanwhile, other tools made using similar forging technique emerged (Fig. 1.10: 9, 10). With the popularity of the socket forging technique, socketed spears came into being in the middle Bronze Age. The forging technique was employed in making spears with an unclosed socket (Fig. 1.10: 13– 17). In the late Bronze Age, with the further development of the technique of making socketed spears, forged spears with a closed socket emerged (Fig. 1.10: 18– 23), which were found in Andronovo culture complex, Timber Grave culture (the Srubnaya culture), and Seima-Turbino sites, especially in the Seima-Turbino sites, where spears became the most distinctive weapon (Fig. 1.10: 21–23). Based on the above analysis, the emergence and development of socked spears in the Eurasian Steppe was a natural continuous evolutionary process.

1.3

The Formation of Different Systems of Early Chinese Bronzes

The bronzes of China can be divided into five systems: the Central Plain bronze system, the Northeast bronze system, the Northern bronze system, the Northwestern bronze system, and the Yunan-Guizhou bronze system. The Central Plain bronze system is the bronze system of the East Asian cultures analyzed above. Other bronze systems in the surrounding areas of the Central Plain can be classified into the bronze system of the Late Prehistoric period. Here, we aim to explore the relationship between early Chinese bronzes and the Eurasian Steppe, analyzing the characteristics of each bronze system in China and their process of formation, mainly focusing on the Northern bronze system and the Northwestern bronze system.

1.3.1

Central Plain Bronze System During the Xia Period

There had already been a Central Plain bronze system in China during the Erlitou culture of the Xia dynasty, which featured bronze vessels made using the clay piece-mold casting method. There are also several unearthed bronzes that are dated much earlier to the Longshan period, and even to the Yangshao period. However, to understand the bronzes of the Central Plain bronze system, it is still necessary to identify their characteristics through the bronzes of the Erlitou culture. Then based on this, we can understand bronzes of the same period and even of earlier times from other parts of China. The Central Plain bronzes mainly consist of bronze vessels, i.e., ritual vessels (Fig. 1.11: 19–22), as well as weapons (Fig. 1.11: 12–18) and some production tools (Fig. 1.11: 1–11). Ritual bronzes are the most characteristic bronzes of the Central Plain bronze system. Weapons and tools also have specific features, mainly

24

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.11 Early bronzes of the Xia dynasty from the central plain

in handle-installation methods. Blades of weapons and tools of the system were made of bronze while handles were usually made of wood or bone. The handle-installation methods of the Central Plain bronze system were characterized by either binding the end of the metal part, a solid part instead of a socket one, of the blade to the handle or inserting the end into the handle. Tools such as knives, awls, axes, chisels, and weapons such as ge were tied to their wooden handle while tanged arrowheads were inserted into their wooden or bone shafts. Most of the bronze knives of the Erlitou culture are only knife-blades, which could not be used without handles. There is only one exception, a knife with the blade integrated with the handle (Fig. 1.11: 5). This piece could not be classified into the Central Plain bronze system; instead, it probably belongs to another bronze system. Although the Dongxiafeng type and the Yueshi culture have yielded no ritual bronzes, their bronzes, with the same handle-installation method for weapons and tools as that in the Erlitou culture (Fig. 1.11: 26–32), belong to the Central Plain bronze system of the Xia dynasty.

1.3.2

Northern Bronze System During the Xia Period

In the Northern Zone of China, bronzes of the Xia period are utterly different from those of the Central Plain bronze system. Bronzes of the Northern bronze system have mainly been discovered in the Qijia culture, the Zhukaigou culture, the Lower Xiajiadian culture, and the Datuotou Culture.

1.3 The Formation of Different Systems …

1.3.2.1

25

Bronzes of the Qijia Culture

The Qijia culture is one of the most advanced prehistoric cultures in Western China. The culture was named after the type site in Qijiaping, Guanghe County, Gansu Province. The culture was mainly distributed on the upper reaches of the Weihe River, the middle and lower reaches of the Taohe River, and the lower reaches of the Huangshui River. The absolute date of the Qijia culture is later than the Majiayao culture. New carbon-14 dating data reveal that the absolute date of the Qijia culture spanned from 2183 to 1630 B.C. (Xie 2002b). Many scholars believe its absolute dates should be between 2200 and 1800 B.C. (Li 2009b). In recent years, with the publication of new archaeological materials, the lower limit of the date of the Qijia culture has changed, especially with the publication of dates of the Qijia cemetery in Lintan Mogou; it has been significantly pushed back (Chen et al. 2012). This issue is explicitly discussed in Dr. Chen Xiaosan’s recent paper “Research on the Early Bronze Age Remains in the Hexi Corridor and its Adjacent Areas—Focusing on Qijia and Siba Cultures.” He argues that 2100–1450 B.C. is a reasonable date range for the Qijia culture (Chen 2012). To date, more than 130 bronzes have been classified into bronzes of the Qijia culture (Li 2009a; Wang 2007). From the perspective of the developmental trajectory of early bronzes in Eurasia, it can be observed that they are a mixture of artifacts of different periods. In the 1980s, Professor Zhang Zhongpei conducted periodization research on the Qijia culture (Zhang 1987) and proposed that the Qijia culture had transitioned from copper artifacts to bronzes. In recent years, it has been reported that artifacts made of arsenical bronze of the Qijia culture had been discovered at the Zongri site in Qinghai (Xu et al. 2010), which made the development of the bronze metallurgical technology in the Qijia culture more complicated. According to their location of discovery, bronzes of the Qijia culture can be divided into three groups: Group A is represented by bronzes from the Huang Niangniangtai site, distributed along the upper reaches of the Wuwei, Huangshui and the Taohe River in central Gansu; Group B is represented by bronzes from Gamatai, distributed on the eastern plateau and Hehuang area of Qinghai; and Group C is represented by bronzes from Qijiaping, discovered on the middle and lower reaches of the Daxia River and the Taohe. We analyzed these bronzes according to their respective group (Fig. 1.12) and identified the following characteristics for each group, which are summarized in Table 1.3 (Wang 2007). This analysis shows that the types of bronzes can be restricted by regions, types of sites, and ways of obtaining information. Although there have been discoveries on bronzes of the Qijia culture in recent years, as some materials have not been published officially or others still have disputed dates and attributes, our study does not include these materials.

26

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.12 Different categories of bronzes from the Qijia culture

1.3 The Formation of Different Systems …

27

Table 1.3 Groups of bronzes of the Qijia culture Group

Unearthed from

Category of Artifacts

Main Forms of Artifacts

Material(s)

Production techniques

A

Mainly residential sites Mainly graves Mainly surveys

Mostly tools

Knife, awl, chisel, and drill

Copper

Primarily forging

Mostly ornaments Mostly tools

Ring, bubble, and mirror Knife, ax, sickle, and dagger

Bronze

Casting

Copper and bronze

Advanced casting

B C

1.3.2.2

Bronzes of the Zhukaigou Culture

The Zhukaigou culture is an archaeological culture named after the Zhukaigou site in Nalinta Township, Ejin Horo Banner, Ordos, Inner Mongolia. The culture centered on the south-central part of Inner Mongolia, which includes the Ordos Plateau in the Hetao area and the region around Liangcheng, north of the Ordos Plateau (Wu 2007). The Zhukaigou site can be divided into five stages, among which the third to fifth stages are attributed to the Zhukaigou culture (Wang 2004). The third and fourth stages are contemporary with the late Xia dynasty and the fifth stage with the early Shang dynasty. For the convenience of discussion, these two periods are hereafter referred to as the early Zhukaigou culture and the late Zhukaigou culture, respectively. Only a small number of bronzes, basically armlets, bracelets, rings, chisels, awls, and needles (Fig. 1.13: 10–22), have been excavated from cemeteries and residential sites of the early Zhukaigou culture (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2000).

1.3.2.3

Bronzes of the Lower Xiajiadian Culture and the Datuotou Culture

The Lower Xiajiadian culture and the Datuotou culture are closely related, both being the early bronze cultures. The Lower Xiajiadian culture was located around the Chifeng and Chaoyang regions on the middle and upper reaches of the Laoha River and the Daling River, north of the Yanshan Mountains. The bronzes of the Lower Xiajiadian culture include dagger-axes with an integrated handle, mace head, piers, knives, and earrings (Fig. 1.13: 2, 7–9). The Datuotou culture is named after the Datuotou site in Dachang County, Hebei Province (Tianjin Cultural Bureau Archaeological Excavation Team 1966), which was initially attributed to the Lower Xiajiadian culture. However, many archaeologists agree with Professor Han Jiagu that this is an independent archaeological culture, which neither shares the same origin with nor belongs to the Lower Xiajiadian culture (Han 1984). The Datuotou culture spread around Beijing, Tianjin, and Tangshan around the lower reaches of the Haihe River, the Chaobai River, the Luan River and their tributaries south of the

28

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.13 Early bronzes of the Xia period from the northern zone of China

Yanshan Mountains. The finds there include bronzes such as knives, arrowheads, earrings, and rings (Fig. 1.13: 1, 3–6). Judging from their excavation layer and the shapes and styles of coexisting pottery, we can confirm that these bronzes are earlier than the Shang dynasty (Lin 2008, pp. 7–20). Bronzes of the northern bronze system were influenced both by steppe culture and the cultures in the Central Plain. Bronzes of the Qijia culture show a stronger influence from the steppe and appeared earlier than the Xia period. Bronzes unearthed from other areas in the Northern Zone of China are fundamentally concurrent with the Xia period. On the one hand, they share features of the northern bronzes; on the other hand, they show influences from the Central Plain, which can be seen from tanged arrowheads, knives, chisels, and dagger-axes there.

1.3.3

Early Bronzes of the Northwestern Bronze System During the Xia Period

The Siba culture in the Hexi Corridor and the Tianshanbeilu culture in eastern Xinjiang of the Xia period were also two important bronze cultures. Located further west than the Qijia culture, these two cultures were not only influenced by the Qijia culture but also strongly influenced by the steppe cultures beyond China. The path steppe culture came along is believed to have become an essential part of the Silk Road of the Han and Tang dynasties. Current research indicates that the Tianshanbeilu culture existed from 2000 to 1500 B.C.,7 and the Siba culture existed 7

There are only six C14 data in the Tianshanbeilu cemetery. Except for data of an early date (6118-5887 B.C.), the rest data are within the first millennium B.C., which may be the result of the contamination of the human bone specimen. The excavators assume that the dates of the cemetery

1.3 The Formation of Different Systems …

29

from 1950 to 1550 B.C. (Xie 2002a). Although these two cultures were slightly later than the Qijia culture, these three experienced a parallel development stage. The Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture are closely related, as demonstrated by the pottery and bronzes unearthed from the archaeological sites of these two cultures. Moreover, bronzes show a high level of similarities in their shapes, production materials, and techniques. These similarities are speculated to be the result of both a shared origin and frequent and long-lasting interaction between the two cultures (Han 2005). Therefore, we discuss these two cultures together when analyzing the early bronzes. Nearly a thousand pieces of bronzes have been discovered in the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture. Among them, more than 600 pieces were unearthed from the Tianshanbeilu archaeological site (Qian 2006). Compared with those of the Qijia culture, the bronzes of these two cultures were widely used in various types, made of complex alloys, and show more advanced technology, which indicates that the bronze metallurgy then was more stable and mature (Li 2005a). The bronzes from these two cultures share significant similarities in type, shape, and structure, upon which researchers have conducted detailed comparisons (Li and Shui 2000; Qian 2006). Similar bronzes unearthed from the archaeological sites of these two cultures include knives, axes with a hollow tubular socket, arrowheads, awls, earrings, bracelets, buttons, mirrors, spiral-shaped ornaments, belt ornaments, beads, and butterfly-shaped ornaments (Fig. 1.14: 1–14, 19–32), covering most types of tools, weapons, and ornaments. It also suggests that bronzes of the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture maintained a relatively stable combination of artifacts during the process of their communications. Apart from these similar bronzes, these two cultures each have their unique artifacts. For example, bronze tubes and openwork plaques are unique to the Tianshanbeilu culture (Fig. 1.14: 33– 35), while mace heads (Fig. 1.14: 15), spears (Fig. 1.14: 16), belt ornaments (Fig. 1.14: 17) and flare earrings (Fig. 1.14: 18) exist only in the Siba culture. The uniqueness of the bronzes may reflect the cultural differences between the two cultures. Some of the bronzes of the two cultures are similar to those of the Qijia culture in the region of Gansu and Qinghai, such as knives (Fig. 1.14: 1, 19), bead ornaments (Fig. 1.14: 9, 27) and mirrors (Fig. 1.14: 10, 28). Comparing the periodization of the Qijia culture and judging from the shapes and styles of the types of bronzes of the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture, we believe that they are related to the bronzes of the late stage of the Qijia culture and that their production techniques are more mature than those of the latter. In addition to typical bronzes of the Northern bronze system, the Northwestern bronze system has advanced metal ornaments, such as bead ornaments (i.e., ornaments with a single bead or single rows of beads or double rows of linked were between the 19th and 13th century B.C. However, the period adopted by this article is based on the conclusion made by Li Shuicheng after his comparative analysis of the “transitional type” sites in Gansu and the Siba cemetery and the Tianshanbeilu cemetery. For details, see 280 (Lv et al. 2001; Li 2005a).

30

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.14 Comparisons between the main bronzes of the Siba culture and those of the Tianshanbeilu culture

beads), as well as mirrors of an early date. Knives of this bronze system feature the blade and the hilt cast into an integrated piece with ornaments on both the pommel and hilt. Also, axes and chisels, with their hollow, socketed shanks mounted to a perpendicular wooden shafts, enjoyed great popularity.

1.3.4

The Relationship Among the Bronzes of the Central Plain and the Northern Zone and Those of the Northwestern Bronze System During the Xia Period

In the Central Plain of China, one primary function of bronzes was to serve in ritual ceremonies. Those unearthed from the Erlitou culture were ritual bronzes, unique to the Central Plain, mainly bronze jue, jia, and tripods, as well as weapons such as bronze dagger-axes with long handles. However, coexisting artifacts, such as knives, awls, yue, plaque ornaments, and others, may have originated elsewhere. Lin Yun notes that a ring-pommel knife with cutout patterns on the hilt (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1983, Fig. 10) and a bronze qismall ax (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1965) (Fig. 1.11: 5, 18) are not typical artifacts of the Central Plain but are related to bronzes of the Northern Zone of China (Lin 1998). These bronzes indicate that the interactions between the Central Plain and the Northern Zone of China started as early as the Erlitou period. Features of the bronzes of the Northern Zone of China are found in some Central Plain bronzes. One example is the finely embossed net patterns found on the tripod and bronze yue unearthed from Erlitou (Fig. 1.11: 17,

1.3 The Formation of Different Systems …

31

22), which is quite like the motifs on the hilt of a knife unearthed from Niangniangtai of the Qijia culture (Fig. 1.12: 10) (Chen 2012). One distinctive feature of the Northern bronze system is that it has no ritual bronzes; instead, it has ornaments such as rings, bracelets, armlets, and earrings. In the Northern bronze system, bronzes of the early Zhukaigou culture and the Lower Xiajiadian culture show similarities with bronzes of the Central Plain. These bronzes include tools such as knives, chisels, awls and needles, and weapons such as arrowheads, primarily tanged arrowheads. The Datuotou culture has yielded one socketed arrowhead, which is different from those of the Central Plain culture in that it is installed by inserting the hilt into the socket. Among the various bronzes of the Qijia culture, some knives have a metal blade and a wooden handle while others have an integrated metal blade and handle. There are also solid bronze axes and socketed axes with the hilt inserted into the tubular socket. Only knives without handles and broad axes share similarities with those of the Central Plain bronze system. They all belong to Group A of the Qijia culture bronzes. The bronzes of this group are mostly forged bronzes, which are rough in craftsmanship. Group C of the Qijia bronzes are mainly cast artifacts, such as axes and knives with the blade and handle cast into one piece, similar to those of the Northwestern bronze system. Bronzes of Group C appeared later than those of Group A. Judging from the shapes, dates of bronzes of the Qijia culture and their connection with their adjacent cultures; bronzes of the early Qijia culture appear to be related to the Central Plain bronze culture, only reflecting more influence from the Northwestern bronze culture. The Northern bronze system and the Central Plain bronze system share similarities among their numerous tools and weapons, which indicates frequent cultural exchanges between them. However, they differ on whether to use metal to make ornaments. Because the Zhukaigou culture and the Lower Xiajiadian culture are closer to the Central Plain bronze system, it can be reasonably speculated that the early bronzes of these areas formed under joint influences from bronzes of the Northwest and those from the Central Plain. The Xia dynasty is a critical period in establishing the early bronze patterns in China. Therefore, we need to answer the following two questions. First, when did the differentiation between the Central Plain bronze system and the Northern bronze system start? Second, when did the differentiation between the Northern bronze system and the Northwestern bronze system occur? To answer these two questions, we need to pay close attention to two types of artifacts. Artifacts of the first type are small pointed-edged tools such as cones, needles, and chisels, which were common in the Central Plain and the Northern bronze systems, especially at their early stages. Artifacts of this type appeared rather early in Central Asia, dating to the earliest stage of the Copper Era locally, probably more than one thousand years earlier than their counterparts in the Central Plain. Therefore, such artifacts may not have been imported into China, and their very existence in various Chinese bronze systems indicates that the early Chinese bronzes had developed in some way independently, and probably from the same origin. The second noteworthy type of artifact is bronze ornaments, which are

32

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

unique to the Northern bronze system and the Northwestern bronze system. Because ornaments of this type did not appear in the Central Plain bronze system, this may indicate a division between the Central Plain bronze system and the other two bronze systems. Using the current literature, it is unfeasible to date these bronze ornaments, but it is relatively clear when they first appeared in the Qijia culture. Unlike the artifacts of Group A that were excavated from residential sites, all the artifacts of Group B have been excavated from cemeteries. Although artifacts of Group B postdate those of Group A, the former could not have developed from the latter, based on the types and shapes of the artifacts and the environment at their excavation sites. The two groups also differ in terms of areas of distribution. Artifacts of Group A are mainly distributed in the Wuwei area, the upper reaches of the Huangshui and the Weihe in central Gansu. Those of Group B were distributed more westward in the eastern plateau area in the upper reaches of the Yellow River and the Hehuang area. The different distribution indicates that artifacts of Group B may have originated differently from those of Group A or may have been introduced from regions outside of China. Based on the above analysis, speculations can be made regarding the relationship among early bronzes of the Central Plain, North China, and Northwest China. (1) Early Chinese bronzes can be traced at least to the Neolithic Age. After the slow development during the Longshan period, bronzes were widely used in China, although at their primary stage. They were mainly simple pointed-edged cast tools such as cones, needles, and chisels of similar shapes. No noticeable difference has been observed among bronzes of this period from the Central Plain, North China, and Northwest China. Similar artifacts have been found outside of China, although they appeared much earlier than their Chinese counterparts and still in the primitive stage of their respective cultures. Therefore, the bronzes of the Yangshao and Longshan periods in China should have their own origins. (2) From the end of the Longshan period, bronzes of the Northern Zone of China began to take a different development route from those of the Central Plain. The different bronze assemblages of the Northern bronze system and Central Plain bronze system appeared: small ornaments in the Northern bronze system (for instance, bronzes of Group B in the Qijia culture) began to become popular, and the production method and shape of tools began to change. By imitating local pottery bells, pottery vessels, and jade artifacts, the Central Plain developed its distinctive bronze tradition, featuring large-scale bronze vessels and weapons. (3) The Xia period saw the continual development of bronzes toward large-scale ritual vessels and weapons in the Central Plain. Under the influence of the Northern bronze system, the Northwestern bronze system emerged. However, under more influence from the steppe cultures outside of China, more differences in the shape and type from the Northern bronze system can be observed in the Northwestern bronze system. The combination of tools and ornaments in the Siba and the Tianshanbeilu cultures are closely related to Central Asia and

1.3 The Formation of Different Systems …

33

the steppe outside of China. In comparison with the Central Plain bronze system, the North and Northwestern bronze systems show more similarities, with bronzes of the Qijia culture as their transitional form. The in-depth research of Huber, an American scholar, emphasizes the influence of cultures outside China on the Qijia culture and then on the early Erlitou culture in the Central Plain (Hu 2008) through the Qijia culture. Huber’s publication claims that, in approximately 2000 B.C., there existed a passage winding from the Eurasian Steppe to the Hexi Corridor, from Weishui to Henan. This passage connected the East and the West, through which the metalware and metallurgical technology outside of China entered the Central Plain (Fitzgerald-Huber 2003). After the formation of the Central Plain bronze system and the Northwestern bronze system, both expanded outwards and exerted a significant influence on the Northern bronze system. Based on the criteria of classification of the Eurasian bronze system, the bronzes in the Central Plain belong to the eastern civilization, while those in the North and the Northwestern systems can be classified into the prehistoric bronze system.

1.4

Relationship Between the Early Bronzes from China and those Outside of China

Many research achievements have been made regarding early Chinese bronzes, and thorough metallurgical archaeological analysis has been conducted on most of the early bronzes unearthed (Beijing Iron and Steel Institute Metallurgical History Group 1981; Sun and Han 1997; Qian 2006; Mei 2006). Findings suggest that the earliest Chinese metalware dates to the Yangshao period. Unfortunately, very few findings of this period have been obtained, with only some copper cladding unearthed at the Jiangzhai site in Lintong, Xi’an and a bronze sword of the late Majiayao culture from the Linjia site in Dongxiang, Gansu. Some scholars believe that these artifacts are likely to represent the chance creation of bronze alloys, which cannot objectively reflect the level of the metallurgy of that period there (Teng 1989). Some scholars even question their respective bronze cultures and periods (An 1993). Currently, most of the early bronzes unearthed from China date approximately from the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C. to the 17th century, or in other words from the Longshan period to the Xia dynasty. Despite the extremely unbalanced geographical distribution of these early bronzes, attention should be drawn to the Northwest region of China, where bronzes produced by high metallurgical technologies appeared early and in a close connection with their counterparts outside of China. The Qijia culture, the Siba culture, and the Tianshanbeilu culture are the most representative bronze sites in this region. Therefore, in this section, the discussion mainly focuses on the connections among these three cultures and the

34

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

cultures outside of China. As the ends of these three cultures had entered the Xia period, i.e. in the 2nd millennium B.C., they are related to the non-Chinese cultural sites outlined in the next chapter.

1.4.1

Relationship Between the Bronzes of the Qijia Culture and those Outside of China

Most of the bronzes from the Qijia culture were chance finds either by collection or investigation. Even the excavated bronzes are unidentifiable in date, which is unfavorable to the study of their origin and development. Although it is impossible to stage the excavated artifacts according to their stratigraphic relationship, their dates can be distinguished according to the developmental trajectory of early bronzes. The results reveal that most of the bronzes that are similar to those of the steppe beyond China could date to the later period of the Qijia culture. Among the bronzes from Qijia, knives are the major finds and diverse in shape. Qijia knives can be divided into four stages according to the morphological development pattern of early metal knives in Eurasia. The first stage features a single-blade knife (Fig. 1.14: 1). It is different from most of the double-edged knives of the Copper Age, which confirms that the Qijia culture appeared much later than the Copper Age. The earliest single-blade knife was found in Hissar dating to the Early Bronze Age. Therefore, the single-blade knife at Qijia could not be dated to an earlier period. The second stage features single-blade knives with spines (Fig. 1.14: 2, 3), but no separation between the hilt and the blade is observable. At the third stage, the hilt appeared for the convenience of holding (Fig. 1.14: 4). The fourth stage yielded knives with ornaments on pommels and hilts, and knives with socketed tangs or shanks mounted to perpendicular wooden shafts (Fig. 1.14: 9). All of these artifacts are confirmed to date to much later than the Middle Bronze Age in Eurasia, but share similarities with the bronze assemblages of Seima-Turbino sites. For the bronzes of the Qijia culture, we take the analysis of its bronze knives as a clue to discuss other bronzes. Bone-hilt awls are common artifacts in the Qijia culture and the subsequent cultures in the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 1.14: 11). They are also found in the Okur culture in Eurasia, which reveals that it is likely that there was a close relationship between the early bronzes of Northwest China and those of the Asian steppe. Qijia bronzes could date to the transitional period from the early to the middle Bronze Age. Qijia pointed-edge tools consist of bronzes such as awls and needles (Fig. 1.14: 12–15). The analysis of the early bronzes outside of China indicates that pointed-edge bronzes have their origin in Central Asia, where agriculture was predominant, while bronzes in the Asian steppe, where animal husbandry was prevalent, were mostly introduced from the Eastern European steppe or produced

1.4 Relationship Between the Early Bronzes …

35

under their influence. Therefore, it is speculated that pointed-edge tools most likely constitute the bulk of Qijia bronzes, although small in number. Bronze axes of the Qijia culture include flat-plate axes and hollow-headed axes (Fig. 1.14: 16–18). Flat-plate axes are broad, similar to those of Namazonian-Tepe II, only with a circle of raised bowstring lines on the top. As Namazonian-Tepe II predates the Qijia culture, there may be possible origin relations between flat-plate axes of these two cultures. Axes with ears in the Qijia culture are more primitive than the most popular axes in Seima-Turbino assemblages (Thatcher 2010). Axes in the Eurasian Steppe were first seen with the Garin-Bor culture, which was located in the forest-steppe of the Ural Mountains during the 3rd millennium B.C. The hollow head is round, ear-free, and thin-walled (Fig. 1.7: 4). The shape of the Qijia ax is the transitional form between those of Garin-Bor and Seima-Turbino. Axes of this shape were also found in Changji, Xinjiang, which indicates that they spread not only to the Qijia culture but also further south to the Xinjiang region (Lin 2014). Axes first appeared in the forest-steppe zone but rarely appeared in the steppe. It is likely that they were used to cut down trees because they are especially common in metal-casting cultures, thus establishing connections among axes, trees, and bronze casting. Axes have never been found prior to the Qijia culture, and there have been no evolutionary traces discovered in this culture. Therefore, the sudden emergence of the advanced axes here was presumably under the influence of cultures outside of China. Also, their inconsistent shapes could be interpreted as the result of imitating artifacts outside of China. The net patterns on the handles of bronze knives of the latest stage of the Qijia culture are similar to those in the Seima-Turbino culture (Figs. 1.14: 7; 2.27: 8), which dates to 1800–1400 B.C. Therefore, the patterns on handles could be regarded as the result of influence from external factors. If the net patterns on Seima-Turbino knives, Qijia knife handles, and the Erlitou bronze tripods (Fig. 1.11: 22) are taken into consideration collectively, it is evident that the Qijia culture functioned as a bridge between the civilizations in the Central Plain and those in the Eurasian Steppe. Single-layered and ring-shaped ornaments constitute the bulk of ornaments in the Qijia culture (Fig. 1.14: 19–25). They were also found among the early bronzes from the oasis area in Central Asia, for instance, from the earliest Sialk site, where bronze and stone were used simultaneously in metal-making. Because most of the ring-shaped ornaments of the European steppe are multi-layered and spring-shaped, the single-layered and ring-shaped patterns are local traditions of the Qijia culture. Bubble ornaments and mirrors of the Qijia culture (Fig. 1.14: 27, 28) have rarely been observed in Eurasia before the middle of the Bronze Age; thus, they are considered popular artifacts of the late Bronze Age, which appeared rather late in the Qijia culture. As seen from the above analysis, the dates of metal artifacts of the Qijia culture vary greatly. Some even appeared after the Qijia culture, such as the bronze spear (Wang 1995) unearthed from Shenna in Xining, Qinghai Province. As most of the bronzes of the Qijia culture were related to bronzes outside of China, they are likely to have been imported from abroad. Pointed-edged tools, the representative of the local tradition of the culture, are rather small in number, which may indicate that

36

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

external cultures mainly influenced the shapes of early Chinese bronzes. Rather than keeping the original external factors intact, the Qijia culture refined these factors and made artifacts quite different from those beyond the borders of China. Through comparisons between bronzes of the Qijia culture and those from abroad, we can find similarities between the Qijia culture and cultures in the oasis area in Central Asia. It can be explained by the fact that the two places are geographically adjacent, which enabled them to share an even larger-scale cultural tradition quite different from the metal-producing traditions in the steppe. Thus, artifacts there, such as pointed-edged artifacts, single-edged knives, flat axes, and single-layered ring-shaped ornaments are quite similar in shape. It is likely that they developed independently in the Qijia culture. It may be more rational to explicate their similarities in terms of the dissemination and the influence of artifacts such as axes and knives with a net-patterned hilt. Recently, new research findings have been made on the interactions between the Qijia culture and Seima-Turbino (Lin 2014). The findings indicate that the dates of the two sites and their interaction period should be discussed separately when their chronological relationships are taken into consideration. Based on the current research, the starting date of the Seima-Turbino remains might be earlier than expected, while the ending date of the Qijia culture might be later. Regarding the time of their interactions, two aspects are worth mentioning. One is the dates of the Seima-Turbino bronzes which are similar in shape to those of the Qijia culture; these have not yet been studied. The other is the dates of bronzes of the Qijia culture, which are similar in shape to those of Seima-Turbino. As seen from the above analysis, bronzes of the Qijia culture appeared rather late, so the current archaeological findings indicate that their interactions occurred mainly in the late period of the Qijia culture. However, when the Seima-Turbino culture started has no direct relationship with the interaction period between the two cultures. In terms of bronze assemblages, there is no apparent connection between the Qijia culture and the subsequent cultures in China. However, as far as individual Bronzes are concerned, the bronzes of Qijia became an important source for the later development of Chinese bronzes. It can be inferred that the bronzes in the Qijia culture came from different regions and through different channels. However, due to limited information, the routes of transmission have not yet been clarified. These bronzes did not combine well with the unique characteristics of the Qijia culture. Therefore, they did not exert a significant impact on later Chinese bronze assemblages.

1.4 Relationship Between the Early Bronzes …

1.4.2

37

Relationship Between the Bronzes of the Siba Culture, the Tianshanbeilu Culture, and Those Beyond the Borders of China

Some of the bronzes in the Tianshanbeilu culture and the Siba culture are typologically related to those in the later period of the Qijia culture. However, a few other types of artifacts have rarely been observed in Qijia culture assemblages, namely, axes with hollow tubular sockets, mace heads, earrings, belt ornaments, bronze arrowheads, and butterfly-shaped ornaments. Among the bronzes, some require special attention because most reflect the influence of external cultures. The first type is the mace head. One piece of this kind was unearthed at Huoshaogou cemetery which is attributed to the Siba culture. It is 8 cm high and cast in the shape of a small jar. It is ingeniously exquisite in craftsmanship. Although a section of the wooden shaft remains in the socket, four incised bowstring lines flow smoothly on the bottom, and four cast ibex heads with curved horns stand on the lower part of the belly (Fig. 1.14: 15). A mace head, one of the emblems of authority and status, is a typical western artifact prevailing in the ancient Near East. The artifact with a similar function in ancient China is yue. From some research findings in China, mace heads in the west date back much earlier in time and are often higher in number, while in China, only a few have been unearthed from the northwestern regions. As seen from the above analysis, the mace head can be viewed as an important testimony to cultural interactions between west and east in ancient times (Li 2005a). The second type is the shaft-hole spear. One spear from the Siba culture was cast with a sealed socket (Fig. 1.14: 16). The emergence and development of spears in the Eurasian Steppe have been discussed previously (Fig. 1.10). However, records of the development and evolution of shaft-hole spears, as well as hollow-head axes, are rare finds in China. Compared with cast bronze spears in the Bronze Age outside of China, the shaft-hole spears from the Siba culture are not typologically well structured; therefore, they are still considered to be replicas of bronze spears from the Eurasian Steppe. The other two types of artifacts are axes with hollow tubular sockets and trumpet-shaped bronze earrings. Axes with hollow tubular sockets or tubular bronze adzes are viewed as artifacts of the intermediate stage between flat axes and axes according to their evolution in Europe (Fig. 1.9). Axes of this type were also found in the Tianshanbeilu culture and the Siba culture (Fig. 1.14: 4, 22), with similar ones discovered in the Seima and Reshnoe cemeteries in the northern Ural forest steppe, eastern Kazakhstan, and northwestern Xinjiang. Some scholars have researched the development and evolution of shaft-hole axes (Lin 2011) and revealed that axes from the Tianshanbeilu culture are typologically earlier than those from the Siba culture. Their locations of discovery in Xinjiang and the Hexi Corridor are closely related to the steppe beyond the borders of China, with the nearest site in Tarbagatay Prefecture (Gong 1997, (Fig. 2)). It indicates that these axes might have been introduced to Xinjiang using the Emin River as a transport or

38

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

communication route. One horn-shaped earring was unearthed at Huoshaogou cemetery in the Siba culture (Fig. 1.14: 18). Although artifacts of this type have not been found in the Tianshanbeilu culture, they are widely distributed inside and outside of China. Beyond the borders of China, they are concentrated in the Andronovo culture. Earrings of this type have also been found in the Northern Zone of China, which serves as a case in point to illustrate the influence of the Eurasian Steppe on the Northern Zone of China (Lin 2008, pp. 7–19). Another type of artifact, named sword with trident-shaped guard, was a popular type of bronze weapon in Gansu, Xinjiang, and other southwestern regions of China during the Eastern Zhou period. Professor Yang Jianhua published an article about this weapon in 2010 (Yang 2010). In the original form of this type of sword, the hilt and blade were separated and only fixed with rivets. According to findings, it could be speculated that swords with trident-shaped guard probably evolved from short swords with rivets for fixing (Fig. 1.15: 1, 2) to short swords with rivets for decoration (Fig. 1.15: 3), then to short swords with no rivets at all, and finally to iron swords with bronze hilts, which prevailed during the Eastern Zhou period (Fig. 1.15: 5–7). One such short sword was excavated from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery (Fig. 1.15: 4). With a trident-shaped guard, a plain hilt, and a wide but short blade, it was viewed as a

Fig. 1.15 Speculation on the development of metal artifacts of the Qijia culture

1.4 Relationship Between the Early Bronzes …

39

bronze sword of this type at its intermediate development stage, earlier than iron swords with bronze hilts from Guyuan and Ningxia, but later than those with fixed rivets or decorative rivets from the steppe beyond China. Thus, this bronze sword from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery was possibly influenced by western cultures. Apart from the types and shapes of bronzes, the issue of arsenical bronze alloys in the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture should be considered. Artifacts made using arsenical bronze are commonly found in these two cultures. Bronzes of this type have been found in three important cemeteries in the Siba culture, namely, the Huoshaogou cemetery, the Ganguya cemetery, and the Donghuishan cemetery (Sun et al. 2003). Eighty-nine bronzes unearthed from the tombs in Tianshanbeilu were analyzed and found to contain 10% arsenic. Mineral data from the Hexi Corridor and the Hami area indicate that arsenic-bearing sulfide resources, which are necessary to produce arsenical bronze, are found in both areas. As most of the arsenical bronzes unearthed from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery were ornaments, it suggests that the arsenical bronzes were produced selectively. According to research, arsenic alloys with 2% to 6% arsenic have the best mechanical properties overall. Because the contents of arsenical bronze in the bronzes of the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture are within this range, it could be inferred that the metallurgical craftsmen had mastered the arsenical bronze metallurgy technology. The arsenical bronze objects of these two cultures could be made locally rather than traded for from afar (Li and Shui 2000). In the ancient Near East, arsenical bronze was used from 4000 B.C. and spread rapidly throughout Western Asia and Eastern Europe. Since arsenical bronze was locally produced in the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture, it is unclear whether the technology came from other places. After analyzing research findings on the mineral resources and smelting methods in various regions, metallurgical archaeologists have assumed that arsenical bronze technology probably developed in the Hami region of Xinjiang and the Siba area of Gansu. They have even speculated that the early arsenical then bronze technology originated with the Siba culture in the Hexi Corridor, then spread to the Hami area approximately 1800 B.C. According to the chronology of Tianshanbeilu, arsenical bronze had not yet been found at the early stage of the culture; instead, copper and tin bronze without impurities prevailed during this stage (Qian et al. 2001), critical evidence of the above inference. Although the excavation report on the Tianshanbeilu cemetery has not yet been published, at least three different cultural factors (Li 2009a) have been found in the first stage of the cultural sites divided by excavators. Regarding the rationality of the periodization, it is still necessary to refer to the publication of the excavation report. In recent years, earlier arsenical bronzes (Xu et al. 2010) have been found in the Qijia culture in Qinghai, which may indicate that the ancient people in Northwestern China mastered arsenical bronze making technology before the Siba culture8.

8

The amount of arsenic copper found before the Siba culture is quite small, and there is no definite evidence to prove its specific date. This conclusion requires more supporting information.

40

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

As seen from the above analysis, the bronze metallurgy of the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture had entered a mature and stable development stage. On the one hand, bronzes of the two cultures inherited some elements from the bronzes from the Qijia culture in Gansu and Qinghai. On the other hand, they took in external cultural factors from the Near East (for instance, mace heads) and the steppe area beyond China (open-socketed axes, swords with trident-shaped guards, earrings with trumpet-shaped ends, and others) and formed a bronze assemblage with stable characteristics.

1.4.3

The Prototype of the Northern Zone of China Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province

In Mongolian museums, there is an extensive collection of bronzes, most of which are similar in shape to those found in the Northern Zone of China. In light of Chernykh’s classification criteria for Eurasian metallurgical provinces, the concept of “The Northern Zone of China Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical province” (Yang 2008) has been proposed with the aim to emphasize the close relationship between the Northern Zone of China and adjacent Mongolian Plateau. Concerning bronzes, the Transbaikal region in the far north should also be included in this metallurgical province. From the late Shang dynasty, driven by cultural influences from both the southern Central Plain and the northern steppe, bronze production in the above areas developed greatly. Eventually, a unique bronze assemblage was formed there and spread outward. However, the prototype of this metallurgical province had already been formed earlier in the Xia period. The best evidence of this process is the loop-handled knives with upturned points unearthed around this area. These knives are characterized by ring-shaped pommels and concave lens-shaped cross-sections of the hilts. The tips of these types of knives are upturned, and the joint between the hilt and the blade is folded outward. Overall, the knife is slightly like an “S” in shape (Fig. 1.16). Knives of this type are pervasive but are generally found in the most northern part of the China’s Northern Zone, adjacent to the Eurasian Steppe. The knives have also been found in the Tianshanbeilu culture in Hami (Qian et al. 2001), the Siba culture along the Hexi Corridor (Li and Shui 2000), the northern Shaanxi region, and the Lower Xiajiadian culture in the north of the Yanshan Mountains. One was even unearthed from the Lower Xiajiadian culture site in Dongli, Naiman Banner, eastern Inner Mongolia (Li 1983), where the sand layer in the stratum of the site potentially dates to the Xia period. In 2000, a similar copper knife with a broken ring-shaped pommel, a short handle, and a triangular blade profile (Fig. 1.16: 7; Plate 2: 1) was unearthed from a house at the Huoshiliang site in Yulin, northern Shaanxi. The house was located on the black sand layer and truncated the yellow sand layer below, so this site could also date to the Xia period (Shanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009). The two sites are located in the most northern part of China, which had experienced severe desertification in ancient times. Changes in

1.4 Relationship Between the Early Bronzes …

41

Fig. 1.16 The evolution of sword with trident-shaped guard. 1 Swords from Siberia; 2, 3 Swords from the steppes beyond China (Grushin 2006); 4 Swords from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery; 5–7 Swords from Guyuan, Ningxia (Luo and Han 1990; Luo and Yan 1993)

loop-handled knives with upturned points took place at the hilt and the boundary between the hilt and blade. During the Xia period, the blade and hilt of this type of knife were demarcated, with the hilt bending into an outward arch and the blade protruding downward. The entire knife takes the shape of an “S.” This type of knife was still in use during the Shang and Zhou periods, only with a straight hilt and an indistinct boundary between the blade and hilt. Knives of this type, with similar evolutionary processes, have been found in the northern part of the Northern Zone of China, as well as in Mongolia (Fig. 1.16: 1, 2) and the Transbaikal region (Fig. 1.16: 3) (Волков 1967; Новгородов 1989; Гришын 1981), which indicates that this knife was widely distributed between the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau. The distribution area of these knives coincides with the area of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab Grave culture. It can be concluded that the two cultures, with great similarities, belong to the same metallurgical province, the prototype of which emerged in the Xia period (see Fig. 3.51) (Fig. 1.17). This chapter has discussed metalware research from four perspectives, before mainly focusing on the morphology of metalware. The development of metallurgical technology may have two modes. The first is called the “gradual” mode, in which metalware was transformed gradually from the simple, early form to the late complex form. The second is called the “explosive” mode, in which metal-making technology suddenly emerged out of nowhere (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010) in places without evidence for long-term development, just like a bomb explosion. From the above analysis, the origin and development of bronzes of the Qijia culture took the “explosive” mode. The Qijia culture had not formed a bronze industry with specific characteristics, nor with fixed bronze assemblage. From the perspective of shape, most of the bronzes there have a close relationship with those of the cultures

42

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Fig. 1.17 Bronze knives around the Xia period

beyond China, although they came from different regions and through different routes before reaching Northwest China. Bronzes of the Qijia culture are not identical to those of overseas cultures. Furthermore, the bronze metallurgy of the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture had entered a mature and stable development stage. Although bronze metallurgy continued to integrate foreign cultural elements, it had formed stable metal assemblage that could be transmitted outward. As the types of bronzes in the Qijia culture are identical with those of the Siba culture, their development mode is more likely to have been a “gradual” one. The influences of overseas cultures on early Chinese bronzes are manifold, not only in their shape but also in the production concept, technique, and the immigration of people. The issues remain unresolved: did metal making technology in China come from abroad as external factors and influence Chinese metals; did the metallurgical technology possessed by the Qijia people evolve from copper making to bronze making; and what role did the newly-discovered arsenical bronze play in the development of the bronze making industry? From the perspectives of the materials and production technology, these problems are still open to exploration. Archaeologists can collaborate with metallurgical historians to design more targeted topics in research.

References An, Z. (1993). Shi lun Zhongguo de zaoqi tongqi [On early bronzes in China]. Kaogu, 12 (in Chinese). Andrew, S. (2006). The Trans-Eurasian exchange: The prehistory of Chinese relations with the West. In V. Mair (Ed.), Contact and exchange in the ancient World. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

References

43

Bai, Y. (2002). Zhongguo de zaoqi tongqi yu qingtongqi de qiyuan [Study on early Chinese bronzes and their origin]. Dongnan Wenhua Issue, 7 (in Chinese). Baдeцкaя, Э. Б. (1986). Apxeoлoгичecкиe пaмятники в cтeпяx cpeднeгo Eниceя. – Лeнингpaд: Hayкa; Editorial Department of Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (1988) Zhongguo dabaikequanshu kaogujuan [Chinese encyclopedia, archaeological volume]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Beijing Iron and Steel Institute Metallurgical History Group. (1981). Zhongguo zaoqi tongqi de chubu ya jiu [Preliminary study of early Chinese copperware]. Kaogu xuebao, 3, 287–301. Boлкoв, B. B. (1967). Бpoнзoвый и paнный жeлeзный вeк ceвepнoй мoнгoлии, –Улaнбaтop. Taблицa, 3, 20–31. Burney, C. A. (1977). The ancient Near East. New York, USA: Cornell University Press. Chen, J., et al. (2012). Gansu lintan mogousiwa wenhua muzang chutu tieqi yu Zhongguo yetie jishu de qiyuan [Iron artefacts unearthed from the Mogousiwa culture in Lintan County, Gansu province and the origin of metallurgy in China] (Vol. 8). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Chen, X. (2012). Hexi zoulang ji qi linjin diqu zaoqi qingtong shidai yicun yanjiu – yi Qijia, Siba wenhua wei zhongxin [Research on the early Bronze Age cultures in the Hexi Corridor and surrounding areas: study on Qijia and Siba cultures] (Jilin University doctoral dissertation) (in Chinese). Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient metallurgy in the USSR (S. Wright, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Chernykh, E. (2004). Ancient metallurgy of northeast Asia: from the Ural to the Saiano-Altai. In K. M. Linduff (Ed.), Metallurgy in ancient eastern Eurasia from the Ural to the Yellow River (pp. 19–22). New York, USA: The Edwin Mellen Press. Chernykh, E. H. (2010). Ancient metallurgy in Eurasia and China: An interactive issue. In Ancient metallurgy in the North of Eurasia, Seima-Turbino phenomenon. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Chernykh, E. H. (2010) Ouyadalu caoyuandai xumuwenhua de xingcheng guocheng: cong yejinkaogu he tanshisi niandai de jiaodu fenxi [Formation process of husbandry culture on the Eurasian Steppe: analysis from the perspective of metallurgical archaeology and C14 dating]. In Ouyadalu bei bu de gudai yejin: Saiyima Tuerbinnuo xianxiang [Ancient metallurgy in Northern Eurasia: Seima-Turbino phenomenon] (Attachment No. 1, pp. 251–268). Beijing, China: Zhonghua shuju (in Chinese). Chernykh, E. H., & Kuzmineh, C. B. (2010). Ouya dalu beibu de gudai yejin: Saiyima-Tuerbinnuoo xian xiang [Ancient metallurgy in the Northern Eurasia: Seima-Turbino phenomenon] (pp. 269–275). Beijing: Zhonghua Press (in Chinese). Chirshman, R. (1938). Serie Archèologique Tome IV Fouilles De Sialk: Près De Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937 (Vol. 1). Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner 12, Rue Vavin (IV). Fitzgerald-Huber, L. G. (2003) The Qijia culture: paths east and west. In The museum of far eastern antiquities. Bulletin No. 75, Stockholm. Frachetti, M. D. (2008). Pastoralist landscapes and social interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia (pp. 38–43). Oakland, USA: University of California Press. Frank, A. G. (1993). Bronze age world system cycles. Current Anthropology, 34(4), 383–429. Gong, G. (1997). Xinjiang diqu zaoqi tongqi luelun [A brief discussion on the early bronze artefacts in Xinjiang area]. Kaogu Issue, 9, 15 (in Chinese). Grushin, S. P. (2006). Origins of various design elements in Seima-Turbino bronze artifacts. Archaeology, Ethnology, Anthropology of Eurasia, 2(26), 61–67. Hall, H. R., & Woolley, C. L. (1934). Ur excavations: the royal cemetery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Han, J. (1984). Jingjin diqu shangzhou shiqi wenhua fazhan de yidian xiansuo [Clues on the culture development of Shang and Zhou periods in the Beijing-Tianjin area]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

44

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Han, J. (2005). Xinjiang qingtong shidai—zaoqi tieqi shidai wenhua de fenqi he puxi [The Bronze Age of Xinjiang—the stages and pedigree of the early Iron Age culture]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3, 57–99 (in Chinese). Hoвгopoдoв, Э. A. (1989). Дpeвняя Moнгoлия. Mocквa: Hayкa. C. 24, тaблицa 8. Hu, B. (2008). Qijia yu Erlitou: yuan juli wenhua hudong de taolun [Qijia and Erlitou: discussion on the distance interactions among cultures]. In X. Hanyi (Ed.), Yuanfang de shixi [The constant practice in the distance]. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Guji Press (in Chinese). Hua, J. (1991). Lun Zhongguo yejinshu de qiyuan [On the origin of metallurgy in China]. Ziran Kexue Yanjiu Issue, 4 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2000). Zhukaigou: qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao [Zhukaigou: excavation report on the early Bronze Age site]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1983). 1980 nian qiu Henan Yanshi Erlitou yizhi fajue jianbao [A brief excavation report on Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan province in the autumn of 1980] Kao gu, 3 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1965). Henan Yanshi Erlitou yizhi fajue jianbao [A brief excavation report on Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan province]. Kao gu, 5, 14 (Plate 5) (in Chinese). Киceлeв, C. B. (1949). Дpeвняя иcтopия Южнoй Cибиpи. Hayк: Mocквa. Kohl, P. (1984). Central Asia paleolithic beginnings to the Iron Age. Paris: France. Kohl, P. L. (2007). The making of Bronze Age Eurasia (pp. 20–21). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Koryakova, L. (2007). The Urals and western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. New Year, USA: Cambridge University Press. Kuzmina, E. E. (2007). The origin of the Indo-Iranians. Boston, USA: Brill. Li, D. (1983). Kulun, Naiman liang qi Xiajiadian xiaceng wenhua yizhi fenbu yu nahan [The distribution and content of the Lower Xiajiadian culture in Kunlun and Naiman Banners]. Wenwu ziliao congkan, 7, 98–114 (in Chinese). Li, S. (2005a). Quanzhangtou: gu sichou zhilu zaoqi wenhua jiaoliu de zhongyao jianzheng [Mace head: an important witness of the early cultural interactions along the ancient Silk Road]. In Zhongguo shekeyuan gudai wenming yanjiu zhongxin tongxun (in Chinese). Li, S. (2005a). Xibei yu zhongyuan zaoqi yetongye de quyu tezheng ji jiaohu zuoyong [The regional characteristics of early metallurgy in the Central Plain and Northwestern China and their interactions] (Vol. 3, pp. 239–278). Beijing: Kaogu xuebao (in Chinese). Li, S. (2009b). Tianshan beilu mudi yiqi yicun fenxi [An analysis of the first-phase artifacts from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery]. In Yuweichao xiansheng jinian wenji [Professor. Yu Weichao’s commemorative anthology] (pp. 193–202). Peking: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, S. (2009b). Xibei yu zhongyuan zaoqi yetongye de quyu tezheng ji jiaohu zuoyong [Regional features and interactions of the copper metallurgy in the Northwest and the Central Plain]. In Dong feng xi jian—Zhongguo xibei shiqian wenhua zhi jincheng [From east to west: the prehistory culture development in Northwestern China]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. Li, S., & Shui, T. (2000). Siba wenhua tongqi yanjiu [Research on the bronzes of the Siba culture]. Wenwu, 3, 80–120 (in Chinese). Lin, M. (2014). Ouya Caoyuan wenhua yu shiqian sichouzhilu [Eurasian Steppe culture and prehistoric Silk Road]. In Xinjiang Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture Cultural Relics Bureau (Ed.), Sichouzhilu Tianshan Langdao [Silk Road and Tianshan Corridor]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998). Zaoqi beifang qingtongqi de jige niandai wenti [Issues on the dates of early bronzes from Northern China]. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji [The collection of Lin Yun’s academic works]. Beijing, China: China Encyclopedia Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2008). Xiadai de Zhongguo beifangxi qingtongqi [Northern bronzes of the Xia dynasty]. In Linyun xueshu wenji [The collection of Lin Yun’s academic works] (Issue 2, pp. 7–19) (in Chinese).

References

45

Lin, Y. (2011). Silu kaitong yiqian Xinjiang de jiaotong luxian [Traffic routes in Xinjiang before the opening of the Silk Road]. Caoyuan wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Loehr, M. (1949). Weapon and tools from Anyang and Siberia analogies. American Journal of Archaeology, 53, 126–144. Lv, E., et al. (2001). Xinjiang qingtong shidai kaogu wenhua qianlun [On the archaeological culture of the Bronze Age in Xinjiang]. In Su Bingqi yu zhongguo dangdai kaokuxue [Su Bingqi and contemporary archaeology in China] (pp. 172–193). UK: Kexue Press. Luo, F., & Han, L. (1990). Ningxia Guyuan jinnian faxian de beifangxi qingtongqi [The bronzes of Northern style found in Ningxia Guyuan in recent years]. Kaogu, 5, 403-418 (in Chinese). Luo, F. & Yan, S. (1993). 1988 nian Guyuan chutu de beifangxi qingtongqi [Northern Bronzes Unearthed in Guyuan in 1988]. Kaogu yu Wenwu, 3, 17–20 (in Chinese) Mei, J. (2006). Guanyu Zhongguo yejin qiyuan ji zaoqi tongqi yanjiu de jige wenti [Issues on the origin of Chinese metallurgy and early bronze research]. In Zhongguo yejinshi lunwenji (Vol. 4, Issue 9, pp. 11–23). Beijing, China: Kexue Press, (in Chinese). Montelius, O. (1937). Xianshi kaoguxue fangfalun [Prehistorical archaeological methods] (pp. 29–36) (G. Teng, Trans.). Shanghai: Commercial Press (in Chinese). Muhly, J. D. (1998). The beginnings of metallurgy in the old world. In The beginning of the use of metals and alloys (pp. 2–20). R. Maddin (Ed.), Cambridge: MIT Press. Qian, W. (2006). Xinjiang Hami diqu shiqian shiqi tongqi ji qi yu linjin diqu wenhua de guanxi [Bronzes in prehistoric times in Hami area of Xinjiang and their relationship with cultures in neighboring regions] (Vol. 9, p. 40). Beijing, China: Zhishi Chanquan Press (in Chinese). Qian, W., et al. (2001). Xinjiang Hami Tianshan beilu mudi chutu tongqi de chubu yanjiu [A preliminary study of the bronzes unearthed from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery in Hami, Xinjiang]. Wenwu, 6, 79–89 (in Chinese). Roberts, B. W. (2009). Development of metallurgy in Eurasia. Antiquity, 83, 1012–1022. Schmidt, E. F. (1982). Tepe Hissar-noelithische und kupferzeitliche Siedlung in Nordostiran. Dargestellt von Paul Yule. Shanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2009). Shaanbei chutu qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed from northern Shaanxi] (Vol. 5). Chengdu, China: Bashu Shushe Press (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2012). Guanyu caoyuan kaogu de jige wenti: cong Kuzimina ‘Yindu-Yilangren qiyuan’ yishu tanqi [Several questions on steppe archaeology: from the origin of Indian-Iranian in Kuzmina]. Xiyu Yanjiu, 3 (in Chinese). Sun, S., & Han, R. (1997). Gansu zaoqi tongqi de faxian yu yelian, zhizao jishu de yanjiu [Research on the discovery and metallurgy and making the technology of early bronzes in Gansu]. Wen wu, 7. Sun, S., et al. (2003). Huoshaogou Siba wenhua tongqi chengfen fenxi ji zhizuo jishu de yanjiu [The study on the element analysis and making technology of bronzes of the Siba culture at Huoshaogou]. Wenwu, 8, 86–96 (in Chinese). Teng, M. (1989). Zhongguo zaoqi tongqi youguan wenti de zai tantao [Re-discussion on issues related to early Chinese bronzes]. Beifang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Tianjin Cultural Bureau Archaeological Excavation Team. (1966). Hebei Dachang huizu zizhixian datuotou yizhi shijue jianbao [Brief report on the trial excavation of the Datuotou site in Dachang Hui Autonomous County, Hebei province]. Kaogu, 1 (in Chinese). Гpишын, Ю. C. (1981). Пaмятники Heoлитa, Бpoнзoвoгo и Paннeгo Жeлeзнoгo Beкoв Лecocтeпнoгo Зaбaйкaлыя. Mocквa: Hayкa. Wang, C. (2013). Zhongguo de yejin qiyuan [The origin of metallurgy in China]. In Kexue kaogu jinzan. Kexue Press (in Chinese) Wang, G. (1995). Xining shi shenna qijia wenhua yizhi [The Qijia cultural site at Shenna in Xining]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian (1993) [Chinese archaeological yearbook 1993]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Wang, L. (2004). Lun zhukaigou yizhi chutu de lianglei yicun [Two types of sites unearthed from the Zhukaigou site]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu, Issue 12 (in Chinese)

46

1 The Germination of Northern Bronzes

Wang, Z. (2007). Cong qijia wenhua tongqi kan Zhongguo zaoqi tongqi de qiyuan yu fazhan [Viewing the origin and development of early Chinese bronzes from the study of Qijia culture bronzes]. Xi’an, China: Sanqin Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2007). Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu [Research on archaeological cultures in the northern steppe]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Xie, D. (2002a). Ganqing diqu shiqian kaogu [Archaeological studies on the prehistorical Gansu– Qinghai area] (Vol. 11, pp. 138–151). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Xie, R. (2002b). Ganqing diqu shiqian kaogu [Prehistory archaeology in the Gansu-Qinghai area] (pp. 112–136). Beijing: Wenwu Press. Xu, J, et al. (2010) Qinghai tongde zongri yizhi chutu tongqi de chubu kexue fenxi [Preliminary scientific analysis of bronzes from the Zongri site in Tongde, Qinghai]. Xiyu yanjiu, 2 (in Chinese). Xu, Z. (2006). Wangu jianghe: Zhongguo lishi wenhua de zhuanzhe yu kaizhan [Everlasting rivers: the turning and the development of Chinese history and culture] (Vol. 5, pp. 40). Shanghai: Wenyi Press (in Chinese). Yan, W. (1984). Lun Zhongguo de tongshi bingyong shidai [On the era of using copper and stone simultaneously in China]. Shiqian Yanjiu Issue, 1, 36–44 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2008). Shang Zhou shiqi Zhongguo Beifang yejinqu de xingcheng—Shang Zhou shiqi beifang qingtongqi de bijiao yanjiu [The formation of the Chinese northern metallurgical province during the Shang and Zhou periods: A comparative study on the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China during the Shang and Zhou periods]. In Gongyuanqian er qianji de Jin Shan gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei [Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and the north and the south of Yanshan Mountains in the 2nd millennium B.C.]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2010). Sanchashi hushoujian yu Zhongguo xibu wenhua jiaoliu de guocheng [The cultural interactions between swords with trident-shaped guard and Western China]. Kaogu, 4, 71–78 (in Chinese). Zhang, Z. (1987). Qijia wenhua yanjiu (Shang, Xia) [On Qijia culture]. Kaogu xuebao, Issue Jan. 2 (in Chinese).

Chapter 2

The Expansion of Steppe Culture During the Second Millennium B.C.

Studies of the metallurgical history of the Eurasian Steppe show that the metallurgical centers underwent a process of movement from west to east. In 5th millennium B.C., the northern part of Eurasia generally entered the Copper Age, when the metallurgical centers were mainly located in the Carpathian-Balkan region (Fig. 2.1). The second half of the 4th millennium B.C. witnessed the beginning of the Early Bronze Age when the metallurgical province around the Black Sea was formed, with the Caucasus as the main copper-producing area and the Caucasus Mountains as the demarcating line between agriculture and animal husbandry (Fig. 2.2). The pattern endured until the mid-Bronze Age approximately 2500 B.C. The difference was that, with the expansion of animal husbandry culture in Eastern Europe, the demarcation line between agriculture and animal husbandry moved southward to the Transcaucasian area. Bronze culture, for the first time, crossed the Ural Mountains and spread to the Sayan and Altai mountains. During this period, many bronze cultures emerged, such as the Abashevo culture, the Sintashta culture, and the Petrovka culture (Fig. 2.3). The Late Bronze Age in the 2nd millennium B.C. witnessed the transformation of this cultural pattern: the Caucasus-centered metallurgical province was replaced by the Eurasian metallurgical province. Because tin deposits were abundant in Asia and sulfide ores were mined in the Urals, Kazakhstan, Sayan-Altai, and Baikal regions, the most advanced bronze cultures were distributed in the forest-steppe regions of Eastern Europe, western Siberia, and Kazakhstan. The bronze culture further expanded eastward to Transbaikal. The Timber Grave culture came into being in the Eastern European Steppe, and the Andronovo culture appeared in the Asian steppes (Fig. 2.4). During this period, the two most representative culture in The pictures in this chapter were partly adopted from the course material named Archaeology of Russia, Central Asian and Mongolia delivered by Professor Hanks. B: Fig. 2.1 from ppt slide 10.3; Figs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.10 from ppt slide 10.22; Figs. 2.4, 2.16, 2.17, 2.24 from ppt slide 10.24, Fig. 2.5 from ppt slide 10.29. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3_2

47

48

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.1 Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province of the Copper Age. A. Central area; B. Marginal area (the Tripoliye-Kukutani culture); C. Peripheral area (Eastern European steppe)

Fig. 2.2 Steppe areas of the Early Bronze Age. A. Eurasian Metallurgy Province; B. Circumpontic Metallurgical Province; C. Pit Grave culture

the Asian steppes were the Andronovo culture complex and the Seima-Turbino complex in the northern forest steppe area (Fig. 2.25). The Andronovo culture complex played an essential role in the development of bronze cultures in Eurasia. Its cultural expansion and population migration had a

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

49

Fig. 2.3 Steppe areas of the Middle Bronze Age. A. Putapovka; B. Tashgawa; C. Sintashta/ Petrovka; D. Abashevo culture; E. Krotovo

Fig. 2.4 Steppe areas of the Late Bronze Age

50

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.5 Distribution and expansion of the Andronovo culture complex. 1 Timber Grave culture; 2 Sintashta culture; 3 the formation phase of the Andronovo culture (Petrovka); 4 the booming phase of the Andronovo culture

significant impact on many remains of the same period or later in the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang. Pottery is the most essential item of the Andronovo remains, and bronze weapons there were well-developed as well, among which the most representative item was socketed battle-ax. The distribution and development of the battle-ax again manifest the cultural exchanges among different cultures amid cultural collision and fusion between the East and the West. The Seima-Turbino remains, as a special kind of bronze culture in the forest steppes, are widely distributed but enjoyed only relatively short-lived popularity. Even so, these cultures exerted a massive impact on the Northern Zone and Xinjiang regions of China. The Seima-Turbino remains are renowned for their superb bronze-casting craftsmanship and unique bronze tools and weapons. Among them, hollow-headed axes are the most numerous. As an essential tool widely used in the forest steppe area, hollow-headed axes were an embodiment of the cultural exchanges in the Eurasian steppe area. Andronovo culture complex featuring socketed axes and Seima-Turbino remains featuring hollow-headed axes are the focus of this chapter. By comparing these two culture remains with related cultures in the Northern Zone and Xinjiang region of China, this chapter attempts to illustrate the expansion of the steppe cultures in the 2nd millennium B.C. and their relationship with the cultures in China.

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

2.1 2.1.1

51

Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex Andronovo Culture Complex and Socketed Battle-Axes in Steppe

The Andronovo culture complex was named after the tomb excavated from 1914 onwards near Andronovo village, Achinsk, in the Minussinsk Basin by the former Soviet archaeologist C. A. Teploukhov in 1929 (Editorial Board of Archaeology of Encyclopedia of China 1986, pp. 15–16). Since then, many similar remains have been unearthed from a broader area. In light of the findings, scholars believe that the Minussinsk Basin, as the location of a small part of the culture, is at the northeastern edge of the broader Andronovo culture complex area. Considering the cultural differences exhibited among the different remains, some scholars use the terms such as unity, entity (Kuzmina 2007, pp. 9–16), or community (Chernykh 1992, pp. 210– 215) to refer to the interconnected sub-ethnoses of the Andronovo culture. In this article, the term “Andronovo culture complex” is adopted. The reason for grouping cultural remains with cultural differences into the same unity is that “cultural unity is a dynamic system of closely related interconnected (due to either a common origin or the process of the consolidation of different ethnoses) sub-ethnoses, forming a continuous chain or network within a limited natural habitat.” (Kuzmina 2007, pp. 9–16) The Andronovo culture complex, with the Kazakh steppe at its center, expanded westward to the south of the Urals eastward to the middle reaches of the Yenisei River and the Tianshan Mountain area, and southward to the Turkmenistan area of the former Soviet Union in the south of Central Asia, with a blurred boundary in the north (Fig. 2.5). According to the Kuzmina’s study, the Andronovo culture complex can be classified into three phases, namely, the formation, the boom, and the declining phases. During the formation phase, the culture represented by the Petrovka culture, was mainly located in the south of the Ural and the north and center of Kazakhstan. During the booming phase, represented by the Alakul, the Fedorovo and the Kozhumberdy cultures (the combination of the former two types), the culture included many interconnected local and temporal variants, such as the Atasu and the Semirechye. Among them, the Alakul culture was mainly located in Chelyabinsk, along the Tobol River, in the northern Kazakh steppe and forest-steppe area, and western Kazakhstan. The Fedorovo culture and its variants were located in the Urals northern, central and eastern Kazakhstan, around the Irtysh River, the Upper Ob River, the Middle Yenisei River, the Tianshan Mountains regions, the Pamir Plateau, and the south of Central Asia. During the declining phase, the typical Andronovo culture complex, such as Alakul and Fedorovo, fell into decay. The area of the Andronovo culture complex greatly shrank, and some obvious changes occurred within the complex as a result of the expansion of the Timber Grave culture and the Karasuk culture. During this phase, the most representative culture types were the Alekseevka in central Kazakhstan and the Semirechye culture in the Semirechye area.

52

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

However, the exact periodizations of the three phases are still under debate in academic circles. Kuzmina proposes that the first phase be dated from the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. to the 17th or 16th century B.C., the second from the 15th to 13th century B.C. and the last from the 12th to the 9th century B.C. (Kuzmina 2007). Kuzmina’s periodizations are based on the comparison of the Andronovo culture complex and the neighboring cultures as well as previous carbon-14 dating results, and consensus was reached among most Russian scholars of the last century (Chernykh 1992). However, recent evidence of carbon-14 dating obtained in the steppe area has revealed that for some cultures, the date should be set earlier compared with traditional periodizations (Goersdorf et al. 2001; Chernykh 2004). Thus, E. N. Chernykh, among other scholars, has changed the previous periodization accordingly and claims that the first phase (Petrovka) dates approximately from the 22nd to the 18th or 17th century B.C., the second phase (Alakul and Fedorovo) from the 20th to the 15th century B.C., and the third stage (the culture period of earthen pottery with raised stripes) around the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. We conducted a dating analysis on the Andronovo remains. Drawing on previous research and comparative analysis on bronzes and the new carbon-14 dates, we believe that the formation phase of the Andronovo culture complex coincided with the existence of the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures, presumably from the 22nd to the 18th century B.C. (Shao 2014). The boom phase, represented by the Fedorovo culture type, was approximately from the 18th to the 14th B.C., and the declining phase coincided with the existence of the Karasuk culture from the 14th to the 8th B.C. The Sintashta culture is worth mentioning in relation to the study of the basic characteristics of the Andronovo culture complex. The Sintashta culture was closely related to the early stage of the complex and is of great significance in the archaeological study of the Bronze Age of the steppes.

2.1.1.1

The Cultural Background to the Formation of the Andronovo Culture Complex—The Sintashta Culture

In the formation phase of the Andronovo culture complex, Sintashta, as a very important culture, was of great importance in the steppe area. It was first discovered in the southern part of Chelyabinsk of the former Soviet Union in the 1960s and was long regarded as the early stage of the Andronovo culture complex. In recent years, with the large-scale investigation and excavation of the Sintashta type of settlements and tombs in the Ural area, the uniqueness of these remains has become apparent. Therefore, the Sintashta culture has been differentiated from the Andronovo culture complex (Koryakova 2002). In 1969, the Ural Archaeological Expedition team led by V. F. Gening discovered the site on the shore of the Sintashta River. The official excavation of the site began in 1972, and the site was named the Sintashta culture. In 1973–1974 and 1983–1986, defensive settlement sites and large-scale tombs were unearthed after multiple investigations and

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

53

Fig. 2.6 Distribution of sites of the Sintashta culture

excavations. Most of the published materials concerning the excavations and research are fragmented, among which the most detailed report is the Sintashta Site Report published in 1992 (Gening 1992). According to the large-scale investigation and excavation of the remains in recent years, dozens of Sintashta cultural sites and tombs have been found in the vast area between the Ural River and the Tobol River, one of the tributaries of the Irtysh River (Litvinenko 2002) (Fig. 2.6). Approximately thirty Sintashta settlement sites have been found in the Chelyabinsk region, displaying distinctive features with house sites in varied shapes of oval, round, and square. They have the characteristics of permanent settlements with regard to size and organization (Natalia 1998). The settlements are well organized, each consisting of dozens of semi-underground wooden houses. It is notable that the residential settlements are equipped with defensive trenches and double walls all around (Fig. 2.7). Most sites contain traces of metallurgical production, including copper slag, molds, and sometimes metal castings (Masson 2013). Tombs of the Sintashta culture were usually gathered in several large mounds that were round and varied in size. As many as 40 tombs were buried under the large mounds and nearly a dozen under small ones. The pits in these tombs all contained bottomless wooden crate chambers, with one skeleton or two or more. Various burial styles were practiced, the most common of which was the deceased being placed on their side in a flexed position (Fig. 2.8: 2) and oriented in the same direction as the graves. Animal sacrifices were often placed on the covers of the wooden coffins and in the grave fill, some of which were arranged in order (Fig. 2.8: 1). The Sintashta culture is of great significance in many ways. The horses and chariots found in the tombs are significant for the study of the origin of Eurasian steppe horses and light carriages.

54

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.7 The Arkaim settlement of the Sintasta culture. 1 The outer defensive walls; 2 the inner defensive walls; 3 houses; 4 circular streets with drainage system; 5 central square; 6 main entrance; 7 trenches; 8 courtyard; 9 interior room; 10 other entrances; 11 gate stones

The most unusual discovery is the bone plate-shaped psalia with a circular perforation in the middle and four small conical feet below (Fig. 2.9). Approximately a dozen have been found in the Sintashta tombs alone. Large numbers of animal sacrifices are an important characteristic of the Sintashta tombs. Among the 130 tombs, 100 (77%)1 tombs contained animal

1

It is also estimated that the animal sacrifices in Sintashta tombs account for 90% of the sacrifice. See Grigoryev (2002).

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

55

Fig. 2.8 Plan of M2 at the Sintashta CM cemetery; 1 Sacrifices on the cover of the wooden coffin; 2 plan of the tomb bottom

Fig. 2.9 The bone cheekpieces from the Sintashta cemetery; 1, 2 M11; 3 M5

sacrifices, mainly horses, cattle and ibexes. The ratio of livestock in some of the better-preserved tombs selected is 22% for cattle; 35% for ibexes; 38% for horses; 1% for pigs; 3% for dogs; and 1% for wolves (Kosintsev 2002). Judging from the animal types, the skeletal parts and positioning of the bones, we can conclude that the burial and sacrificial ceremonies were quite complicated. Complete skeletons (horses, cattle, ibexes, and dogs), as well as disarticulated parts (heads, jawbones, and limbs), were discovered in the tombs. The animal sacrifices suggest highly-developed animal husbandry in the Sintashta culture, and the large-scale

56

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.10 Carriages from the Sintashta cemetery

defensive settlement sites demonstrate a sedentary way of life among its people. A mixed economy of farming and animal husbandry might have been practiced in the Sintashta culture, with cattle as the main livestock. The proportions of cattle, horses, and ibexes found from the Arkaim settlement during the early period of the Sintashta culture were 60.4, 15.2, and 24.4% (Zdanovich and Gayduchenko 2002), and the proportions of the latter two gradually increased over time (Masson 2013). The emergence of light-duty carriages endowed the Sintashta people with strong mobility hence the rapid expansion of the culture, which had a far-reaching impact on the subsequent Andronovo culture complex. Traces of burial vehicles were found in many Sintashta tombs (Figs. 2.10 and 2.11: 1), particularly light combat vehicles with two wheels 90–100 cm in diameter,

Fig. 2.11 Carriage remains and their reconstruction plan from the Sintashta cemetery; 1 Carriage Remains from M28; 2 reconstruction plan of a vehicle from Sintashta (Littauer and Crouwel 1996)

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

57

Fig. 2.12 Vessels from the Sintashta cemetery; 1–5 M6; 6 M18; 7, 8, 11. M14; 9, 12, M12 (6 made of stone, and others ceramics)

and 120 cm apart and with ten spokes on each wheel. This type of light and flexible combat vehicle replaced the bulky carriage that used four solid wheels (carved out of a piece of wood). The shape and type of the burial vehicles have been restored (Fig. 2.11: 2) based on trace remains. Additionally, the vehicles were no longer drawn by slow-moving cattle or camels but by horses whose skulls and even entire skeletons were found in the tombs. The skull and leg bones of two horses were found in a tomb. On top of the grave chambers, horse skeletons were often laid, usually two or four and up to seven in a tomb (Masson 2013). Burial objects at Sintashta sites are abundant, including vessels, bronze tools and weapons, stone tools and bone harnesses. They were usually placed in the chamber and on top of the tomb, sometimes together with human bones. Pottery is relatively simple in shape and type, mostly handmade flat-bottomed jars with everted shoulders and flared mouths with the surfaces fully decorated with simple motifs of continuous zigzag lines or triangles (Fig. 2.12: 1–5, 7–12). Stone vessels with engraved vertical lines were also unearthed (Fig. 2.12: 6). The pottery of Sintashta belongs to the flat-bottomed gang-shaped ware system, similar to that of Andronovo. The pottery of both cultures displays similar shapes, with zigzag and triangular patterns on their surfaces. The only difference is that the Sintashta wares have everted shoulders, while the Andronovo wares have sloped shoulders. These differences might shed light on the distinctive features of cultures of different times. A large number of bronze tools and weapons were also found at Sintashta sites, including daggers with awl-shaped hilts (Fig. 2.13: 6–12), socketed axes (Fig. 2.13: 1, 2), awls (Fig. 2.13: 17–19), forged socketed spearheads (Fig. 2.13: 3, 4), adzes

58

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.13 Metal tools and weapons from the Sintashta cemetery. 1, 2 Socketed axes; 3, 4 forged socketed spearheads; 5 sickles; 6–12 short swords; 13, 14 adzes with wide butt end; 15, 16 hook-shaped artifacts; 17, 18 awls (with 1, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18 unearthed from M3; 2, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16 from M39; 5, 9, 17 from M11; 3, 12 from M30; and 4 from M18)

with wide butt ends (Fig. 2.13: 13, 14), hook-shaped artifacts (Fig. 2.13: 15, 16), and sickles (Fig. 2.13: 5). Approximately 120 metals unearthed from the Sintashta tombs have been analyzed by spectroscopy, 80% of which are arsenic bronzes, 5% copper wares (mostly metal bars used to repair pottery and wooden vessels), and approximately 6–7% tin bronzes found in a single tomb, including two small knives and necklaces for the rest (M10) (Chernykh 1992, pp. 231–233). With regard to shape, most Sintashta copper wares have counterparts in the Andronovo culture complex. However, there are obvious differences between them in the composition of the copper alloys. Sintashta features arsenic bronze, while the Andronovo bound in tin bronze, which is related to the geographical location and mineral resources available to the two cultures. The current carbon-14 data from Soviet laboratories are diverse concerning the date of the Sintashta culture. Some researchers date the Sintashta settlement site and tombs to approximately the 17th to 16th centuries B.C. (Gening 1992), while some claim the 18th–17th B.C. (Zdanovich and Gayduchenko 2002) and others date the culture further back to the 2nd millennium B.C. (Anthony 1995) E. N. Chernykh analyzed data obtained from the Sintashta tombs and believed that the culture was earlier than the Andronovo culture complex. The data also suggested a connection

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

59

between the Sintashta culture and the Alakul culture of the Andronovo culture complex. In recent years, the carbon-14 analysis on the Crivozero cemetery of the Sintashta culture by the University of Arizona’s laboratory has brought the date of the Sintashta culture to the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C.2: 1918–1888 B.C. and 2136–2072 B.C. (checked data from the No. 1 horse skull at grave 1, Kurgan 9 at Crivozero) and 2110–2036 B.C. and 1876–1781 B.C. (checked data from the No. 2 horse skull at grave 1, Kurgan 9 at Crivozero). The above data suggest that the Sintashta culture dates back approximately to the 22nd to 18th–17th centuries B.C. Regarding the characteristics of the artifacts, the Sintashta culture was inherited by the subsequent Andronovo culture complex, but the two cultures belong to different development phases of the Eurasian Steppe. Metallurgical production occurred only in the developed defensive settlements of the Sintashta culture. Despite its mixed economy of farming and animal husbandry, the Sintashta culture underwent the same early form of urbanization as the agricultural civilizations in the southern areas but at a much slower rate. Achievements during this period include light chariots, developed cast bronze tools and weapons, defensive settlements and knight tombs with burial chariots. After the Sintashta culture, the Andronovo people abandoned the early form of urbanization and completely departed from the developmental mode of the southern agricultural civilizations, which marked the turning point from early urbanization to nomadism on the Eurasian Steppe. Defensive settlements disappeared, tombs with burial horses and carriages were no longer seen, and specialized metal production shifted to family workshops. Cast molds were discovered from small Andronovo settlement sites, indicating that metal manufacturing had been popularized in small villages. The Andronovo culture complex presented the characteristics of a pastoral culture complex after the end of the early urbanization. The transition of the Andronovo culture complex from steppe husbandry to nomadism was better accommodated to the steppes. The battle for copper resources was over. People formed larger groups and lived in relatively stable conditions. With an ecology of proper humidity and temperature on the steppes around 1500 B.C., the steppe people adopted sedentary grazing as their way of living. The population expanded due to the extension of the steppes and the development of dairy products, which caused a new round of steppe crises. Moreover, the extreme expansion together with the deterioration of the environment, the emergence of iron artifacts and archery led to warfare. Knights on horseback appeared, and tribal unions turned into a tribal federation. States had formed on the steppe (Yang 2006).

2.1.1.2

Main Characteristics of the Andronovo Culture Complex

Most of the Andronovo tombs are not covered with mounds. The tombs of the early and middle periods are often surrounded with circular walls on the ground with the

2

Quoted from Anthony (1995, pp. 94–109).

60

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.14 Examples of the Tomb structures of the Andronovo culture

grave pits at the center and piled with stones or planks against their inside walls (Fig. 2.14: 1, 2). The tombs usually contain only one individual laid on their side in a flexed position or two bodies in one pit, but multiple burials also occur occasionally. A married couple might be buried together face to face (Fig. 2.14: 3). Among the Andronovo tombs, the Fedorovo culture is characterized by cremation. Flat-bottomed gang-jars are a feature of the Andronovo culture complex. Its pottery combination in the early period resembles that found in the southern Urals among the Sintashta culture. Pottery constitutes the dominant find, mostly brown sand-tempered pots that are handmade and flat-bottomed. The pottery types are mostly guan-jars with large mouths, round bellies and small bottoms or gang-jars with straight walls and slightly bulging bellies, the surface of which is fully

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

61

Fig. 2.15 Ceramics of the Andronovo culture

decorated with zigzag lines, wavy lines and triangles. The everted shoulder is common for these types of pottery (Fig. 2.15: 1–10). The booming period saw pottery decorated with various geometrical patterns on the surface, such as zigzag and triangular lines and broken stripes popular in the Alakul culture (Fig. 2.15: 11– 18) and rows of triangles, zigzags and rhombic lines popular in the Fedorovo culture (Fig. 2.15: 19–26). By the declining period, the pottery had been modified to be slightly thinner and taller, with few motifs on the surface and sometimes with appliqué patterns on the neck (Fig. 2.15: 27–32). The metallurgical industry of the Andronovo culture complex was highly developed, with most metals concentrated in the inhabited area and few metals, usually ornaments, in burials. Andronovo bronzes mainly included socketed axes, bronze spears, bronze daggers, bronze chisels, flat bronze axes, bronze cones and flared earrings (Fig. 2.16). Most of these bronzes were made of high quality tin bronze, with tin content generally ranging from 3 to 10%. The proportion of these high-quality tin bronzes was more than 90% of all the bronzes. At the same time, the Andronovo people smelted artifacts according to their usage. A large amount of tin was added to bronze weapons to increase their hardness and strength, while for

62

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.16 Bronzes of the Andronovo culture

ornaments, the amount of tin was minimized to ensure plasticity. Research on the Andronovo remains in the south Ural region and the middle and northern parts of Kazakhstan conducted by Chernykh shows that differences existed between the two places. Comparison of these areas with neighboring regions shows that these differences can be understood in the following ways. First, the socketed axes in the southern Ural region near the Black Sea were highly developed, while in the eastern region of Kazakhstan they are seldom found. This indicates that the battle-axes of the Andronovo culture complex were the result of the influence of the Black Sea region, but they were not popular in the eastern part of the culture. Second, the flared earrings common in the Northern Zone of China were mainly distributed in the eastern Andronovo culture complex, which includes Kazakhstan and the Minusinsk Basin. According to recent research, the Andronovo culture complex in the Minusinsk Basin dates to 1715 ± 65–1420 ± 40 years B.C. (Gorsdorf et al. 2001, 2004), which conforms to the time of the spread of flared earrings. Copper resources in the Andronovo culture complex were abundant, which made it possible for the rapid development of the metallurgical industry of the culture. Hundreds of mineral resources were discovered in the southern Urals region, the Kazakh region, and the Altai and northern Central Asian region of the former Soviet Union. These mineral resources were rich in oxygenated copper ore, and almost all of these resources were exploited during the Andronovo period. These copper mines yielded enormous quantities of metal. The weight of copper smelted from the Kenkazgan copper mine in central Kazakhstan was approximately 30,000–50,000 tons (Chernykh 1992, pp. 210–215). Not only a large number of mining and smelting tools (Fig. 2.17) but also complex tunnels inside copper mine

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

63

Fig. 2.17 Artifacts from the Kargaly site. 1 Copper ore; 2 slag; 3, 4 metallurgical tools; 5, 6 Molds

were found at Kargaly copper mine in the southern Urals region. These dense working tunnels indicate that copper core exploitation at that time was already quite developed (Fig. 2.18). The economic mode, the settlement sites and the numerous agricultural production tools and crops indicate that agriculture occupied an important position in the Andronovo culture complex. At the same time, the animal husbandry economy of this cultural group was highly developed. Although the geographical environment of the Andronovo culture complex was diverse, including mountains, deserts and plateaus, the Kazakh steppe occupied the largest area, which provided excellent conditions for the development of animal husbandry in the Andronovo culture complex. With regard to animal remains at the sites and burials, 60–70% of the remains are cattle, 20–30% are horses, and 10% are ibexes (Kuzmina 1996). Archaeologists discovered a large number of domesticated livestock remains near the Kargaly copper mine. The number of bones excavated from 1000 m2 reached 2.3 million, 80% of which were cattle. At that time, these animals might have been used in barter exchanges for ore. This was also a manifestation of the developed animal husbandry economy of the Andronovo culture complex. Although the animal husbandry economy was highly developed, the Andronovo culture complex had not yet entered the nomadic stage (Phillips 1957), as can be concluded from the proportion of livestock. The proportion of ibexes in a real nomadic economy should be very high. Therefore, in general, the Andronovo culture complex probably belongs to a mixed economy society of farming and animal husbandry. The Andronovo culture complex outside of China was widely distributed and included many categories, while the Semirechye was the closest to China

64

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.18 Aerial photo of the Kargaly mineral site and a map of its internal tunnels

geographically. The main region of the Semirechye outside of China included the Semirechye Basin and the Fergana Basin. Most of the burials did not have mounds above the ground but were surrounded by stone fences, with rectangular tomb chambers located in the center of enclosing fences. The burials were vertical earthen pits, and the method of burial was for one individual to be laid on their side in a flexed position. In addition, multiple burial chambers could share the same fence. The Semirechye culture can be divided into two phases, the early phase and the late phase. The early phase was equivalent to the boom period of the Andronovo culture complex, in which the number of remains discovered has been small and the remains mainly show the characteristics of the Federovo culture type. The pottery had rich decorative patterns on the surface, and ordinary artifacts usually have decorative patterns on the entire body (Fig. 2.19: 1–8). The late phase was equivalent to the declining period of the Andronovo culture complex, in which many remains have been discovered. Ground burials were the main form, with a small number of cremations. Ornamentation on the pottery is only at the mouth or on the shoulders, and much pottery has no ornament at all (Fig. 2.19: 9–18). In addition, many bronze hoards were discovered for the late phase. Socketed axes, bronze sickles, bronze chisels, hollow-headed axes and bronze shovels were the most important artifacts (Fig. 2.20).

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

65

Fig. 2.19 Ceramics from the Semirechye-type tombs. 1 Prigorodnoe; 2 Issyk-Kul; 3, 4 Arpa; 5, 6 Dzhaylyau III; 7, 8 Tamgaly I; 9–14, 15–18 Usunbulak I; 15 Tegermen-say

Fig. 2.20 A hoard of bronzes from the Semirechye areas and bronzes from other sites. Group A: Shamshi; Group B: Sululuk; Group C: Issyk-Kul; Group D: Ivanovka; Group E: Novo-Pavlovka; Group F: Sadovoe; Group G: Beshkek; Group H: Bronzes from other sites (1 Kairak-Kumy site; 2 The Chu River; 3 Preobrazhenka; 4 Tup; 5 Valleys in the upper Syr Darya; 6 Kant; 7 Ringitam 8, 9 Tashtube; 10 Dun Bei)

66

2.1.1.3

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Socketed Battle-Axes in the Steppe

The socketed ax is a type of weapon that was once widely distributed in the Eurasian Steppe region and was also commonly used in the Andronovo culture complex. The axes and the bronze ge dagger, which were common in the Xia, Shang and Zhou periods in the Central Plain, belonged to two different systems. The blade of the bronze ge dagger was flat. Therefore, the handle was fixed outside of the na-tang. The blades of socketed axes were thick, so the handle was inserted through the qiong-eye to be fixed. The two methods of fixing the handles represent different casting techniques. The former did not require internal molds in the casting process, while the latter required both internal and external molds. The Eurasian Steppe can be divided into a European part and the Asian part by the Ural Mountains. The socketed axes first appeared in the European part of the Eurasian Steppe in the Copper Age of the 5th millennium B.C., and after that time, they were gradually distributed throughout the Asian Steppe. As the most important weapon of the early steppe population, socketed axes were widely distributed and were rich in number and category, with the Eastern European Steppe, the northern Caucasus, the Kazak steppe, the upper and middle reaches of the Yenisei River and the Altai region, and Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China as the major distribution areas. A large number of socketed axes were also found in the Transcaucasian and Near Eastern regions outside of the Eurasian steppe. (1) Classification of the axes with a tubular socket Because the socketed axes were distributed in a vast area for a long time, a large number of categories exists. To explain their development and distribution process from a broader perspective, the socketed axes in the Copper Age and Bronze Age can be divided into the following three classes based on current information available. Class A: The nearly circular qiong-eye was almost in the middle of the body of the ax, and most of the qiong-eyes did not protrude from the body. The body of the ax was thick, most had flat edges at both ends, and the edge lines at both ends positively intersected (Figs. 2.21: 1–4 and 2.22: 1, 3). Most of the socketed axes had both chopping and planing functions. Additionally, some of them were cylindrical at both ends, and the top was flat as a hammer. They were also temporarily classified into Class A (Figs. 2.21: 5, 6 and 2.22: 2), but their primary function was hammering. Class A axes are copper artifacts. Class B: The nearly circular qiong-eye was near one end of the body of the ax. The ax was thick and had a flat blade, which was an isosceles triangle viewed from above. Its primary function was chopping. The upper and lower ends of the early qiong-eye section did not protrude from the body, and the upper and lower edges were almost flush with the body. In the process of development, the upper edge of the qiong-eye section gradually followed a downward arc, and the lower edge gradually protruded. According to the position of the qiong-eye section, the axes can be divided into four types: Type I, in which the upper and the lower ends of the

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

67

Fig. 2.21 Socketed battle-axes and other coexisting Artifacts from the second half of the 5th millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. 1–6 Class A battle-axes; 7 the predecessor of the Class B battle-axes; 8 bronze sword; 9 bronze chisel (5 from Eastern European steppes; 6 from Transcaucasia others from the Tripoliye-Kukutani culture)

qiong-eye section did not protrude from the body and were almost in the same line as the body (Fig. 2.22: 4–17); Type II, in which the upper and lower edges of the body changed from straight lines to arcs and the position of the qiong-eye section moved downward (Fig. 2.23, 1–9); Type III, in which the blade of the ax was more visible, the body of the ax was relatively narrow, and the lower end of the qiong-eye section protruded to form a cylindrical-shaped short tubular socket (Fig. 2.23: 10– 15); and Type IV, in which the ax also had a short tube with a hole, and the tube connected smoothly with the body of the ax; most had ridges on the lower edge of the qiong-eye section (Fig. 2.23: 16–21). Class C: Also known as the socketed ax, it was not as heavy as Class A or B. The qiong-eye section was near one side of the body of the ax. The qiong-eye section of most axes was tubular and protruded from the body, with an elliptical or oblate qiong-eye. The body of the ax was flat, with a flat blade on one end and a columnar or flat rectangular protrusion on the other end. The primary function of these axes was chopping. They can be divided into three sub-classes, Ca, Cb and Cc. Both ends of Ca axes did not protrude from the body (Fig. 2.47: 1–3); the lower end of sub-class Cb axes protruded from the body (Fig. 2.47: 4–6); and both ends of sub-class Cc axes protruded from the body (Fig. 2.47: 7–17). (2) Development and spread of socketed battle-axes in the steppe areas outside of China As early as the end of the 5th millennium B.C. to the 4th millennium B.C., developed socketed battle-axes appeared in the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Editorial Board of Archaeology of Encyclopedia of China 1986, pp. 522–523) in the north of the Black

68

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.22 Socketed Battle-Axes and Other Coexisting Artifacts from the Middle of the 4th millennium B.C. to the End of 3rd millennium B.C. 1–3 Class A battle-axes; 4–17 Class B Type I battle-axes; 18, 23 Bronze swords; 24–27 Bronze chisels (3, 8, 9, 22, 23, 27 from the Afanasievo culture; 10–14 from the Maikop culture; 15–17 from the Kuro-Araks culture; others from the Pit Grave culture)

Sea. After that time, socketed battle-axes spread gradually in the steppe area and evolved continuously over thousands of years to become one of the most important weapons in the steppe area. According to the characteristics of the battle-axes of different regions in different ages, their development can be divided into five phases. Phase I: From the second half of the 5th millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. This phase is dated to the Copper Age of the Eurasian steppe. During this period, the number of copper artifacts discovered was relatively small, differences among different regions were large, and the development of the metallurgical technology was unbalanced. In most areas, large quantities of ground stone tools were still in use, especially in China in the eastern part of Eurasia, where only sporadic small pieces of copper artifacts appeared (Bai 2002). However, at this time, relatively developed copper cultures existed in the southeastern part of the Caspian Sea, southern Eastern Europe and the Transcaucasian region, with the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province as the most prosperous area. The central area of this metallurgical province

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

69

Fig. 2.23 Socketed Battle-Axes and Other Coexisting Artifacts from the End of the 3rd millennium B.C. to the Beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. in Regions beyond China; 1–9 Class B Type II battle-axes; 10–15 Class B Type III battle-axes; 16–21 Class B Type IV battle-axes; 22–30 Bronze swords; 31–50 Battle-axes from other regions (1–3, 10 from the Poltavka culture; 4, 23, 24 the Sintashta culture; 5, 6 the Abashevo culture; 7–9 the Catacomb culture; 10, 11 the Timber Grave culture; 12–30 the Andronovo culture complex; 31–36 Northern Caucasus; 31–50 Transcaucasia)

was located in the Carpathian Mountains and the middle reaches of the Danube, while the eastern edge of the metallurgical province was located in the Eastern European Steppe from the Dnieper River to the lower reaches of the Volga River. Nearly all socketed battle-axes discovered in this phase were produced in this metallurgical province. The metallurgical province harbored many cultures, among which the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture was the most important. More than 500 pieces of copper artifacts of this culture were discovered (Chernykh 1992). Most of the socketed battle-axes in this period were related to this culture and belonged to Class A, which can be further divided into two sub-categories. One of the sub-categories was battle-axes with a flat blade at both ends, which was typical in the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Fig. 2.21: 1–4); the other was a battle-ax with both ends like hammers, which was mainly discovered in the Eastern European Steppe and the Transcaucasia (Fig. 2.21: 5, 6). In addition, one battle-ax that was special in shape and structure was discovered in this culture. This battle-ax also had a qiong-eye (socket) in the middle but only had a blade on one end. It had the characteristics of both Class A and Class B battle-axes in shape and structure (Fig. 2.21: 7) and appeared earlier than the Class B Type I battle-ax; therefore, this battle-ax can be seen as the predecessor of the Class B battle-ax, and it reflected the connection between the

70

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and the Pit Grave culture that appeared later. Although they were different in shape and structure, all the battle-axes were made of copper with similar alloy composition, indicating that the copper material might come from the same area. The large copper artifacts that coexisted with the battle-axes were only copper swords and copper chisels (Fig. 2.21: 8, 9). Other copper artifacts were mostly small ornaments such as earrings and pendants. In general, the metallurgical technology of the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province spread eastward to the Eastern European Steppe and the Transcaucasia region from the second half of the 5th millennium B.C. to the Copper Age of the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. Under its influence, the earliest form of socketed battle-axes appeared in the Eastern European Steppe. Phase II: From the middle of the 4th millennium B.C. to the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. From the middle of the 4th millennium B.C., the Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province collapsed, and most of the developed cultural centers declined. To the east of the province, a new metallurgical province named the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province emerged, and the Eurasian Steppe had entered the Early Bronze Age. Thus the formation of new metallurgical province not only lead to the transformation of metallurgical centers but also produced many new cultural elements and caused great changes in the shape of the metal tools. In this stage, the Class B socketed battle-axes were the main type, but the axes of Class A could also be found. In addition to a small number discovered in the Eastern European Steppe (Fig. 2.22: 1–3), Class A axes were also distributed in the Iranian Plateau along the southern coast of the Caspian Sea (Schmidt 1982). In the Eastern European Steppe, most of the socketed battle-axes were used by the group of people coming from a new culture, the Pit Grave culture (Morgunova 2002). The culture was widely distributed from the southern Ural in the east to Moldova in the west and from North Caucasus in the south to the middle reaches of the Volga in the north. In the Pit Grave culture, the shape of the battle-axes was basically the same, mainly Class B type I (Fig. 2.22: 4–7), with a small number of Class A battle-axes (Fig. 2.22: 1, 2). The existence of Class A battle-axes indicates that although the metallurgical province had undergone fundamental changes, a connection still existed between the Pit Grave culture and the culture of the previous stage. Further proof of this connection is the coexistence of large-scale weapons and tools along with socketed battle-axes. The weapons and tools were mainly bronze swords (Fig. 2.22: 18–21), bronze adzes (Fig. 2.22: 24–26), bronze chisels and bronze cones. The bronze swords obviously have a close relationship with the typical bronze swords (Fig. 2.21: 8) in the Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province but with a more obvious hilt. In addition to the Eastern European Steppe, this type of ax was found in the Asian part of the Eurasian Steppe for the first time. Some axes (Fig. 2.22: 3, 8, 9) and several other tools and weapons (Chernykh 2004, pp. 19–22) (Fig. 2.22: 22, 23, 27) found in the Afanasievo culture in the Altai Region shared almost the same shape as those discovered in the Pit Grave culture, so it is quite likely that they were from the Pit Grave culture.

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

71

During this period, the only bronze culture that can be confirmed in the Altai region is the Afanasievo culture. The axes found in the Afanasievo culture indicated the close connection between it and the Pit Grave culture. In addition to the Pit Grave culture in the steppes, during the same period, a large number of socketed battle-axes, similar in shape to those of Class B type I (Fig. 2.22: 10–17), were found in the Maikop culture of North Caucasus and the Kuro-Araks culture of Transcaucasia. Although at this stage the socketed battle-axes of the Eastern European Steppe were similar in shape to those of North Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the alloy composition of the bronzes varied dramatically. Most of the artifacts of the Pit Grave culture were made of pure copper containing no arsenic or other elements due to the abundant copper mine in the reaches of the Ural River along the south part of Ural. The bronzes in the Maikop culture and the Kuro-Araks culture were mainly made of high-quality arsenic bronze with 1–6% arsenic. In general, the prevailing battle-axes in this stage share the same shape. Most of them are Class B type I, with only a few of Class A battle-axes bearing some characteristics of the previous stage. At the end of this stage, Class A battle-axes had spread to the Iranian Plateau in the south of the Caspian Sea. Along with the spread of socketed battle-axes in the Eastern European Steppe, the distribution center shifted eastward (Fig. 2.52). In addition to the Eastern European Steppe to the west of the Ural, battle-axes with the same shape were also found in the Altai region, indicating connection between the two places. This might be the starting point of the eastward expansion of the European area to the Asian area in the Eurasian Steppe. However, it should be noted that socketed battle-axes were not found in the Kazakh steppes between the Eastern European Steppe and the Altai region during this stage. The large distribution of Class B socketed battle-axes in North Caucasia and Transcaucasia shows that in addition to eastward expansion, socketed battle-axes also crossed the Caucasus Mountains and expanded southward. Phase III: From the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. By the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., the Pit Grave culture of the Eastern European Steppe collapsed, and was replaced by the Cata Comb culture to the west of the Volga River. In the regions along the eastern part of the Volga River, the Poltavka culture emerged and was later replaced by the Abashevo culture (Chernykh 1992). In the South Ural region, the Sintashta culture prevailed. The socketed battle-axes used in these four cultures fell into Class B type II (Fig. 2.23: 1–9), which evolved from Class B type I. The two pieces of socketed battle-axes discovered in the Sintashta culture are unique in shape. The protruding socket parts (Fig. 2.23: 4) shared by them may have been a unique design by local craftsmen. Coexisting with socketed battle-axes, bronze swords are another important type of weapon akin to their counterpart of the Pit Grave culture in shape (Fig. 2.23: 22–24). Most socketed battle-axes in the North Caucasus region resembled those in

72

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

the Eastern European Steppe (Fig. 2.23: 31–34), but slight differences can be seen in battle-axes with wider blades (Fig. 2.23: 35–36). Unlike that in the Northern region, the shape of the socketed battle-axes of the Transcaucasia region in this stage underwent dramatic changes. The battle-axes in this region were significantly different from the typical Class B axes, seen in the socketed battle-axes with longer and thinner bodies (Fig. 2.23: 37–40) and with wider blades (Fig. 2.23: 41–44). During this stage, the socketed battle-axes in the agriculture-based Transcaucasia region began to differentiate from those in the steppe regions. In the cultures where socketed battle-axes were discovered, only the artifacts of the Poltavka culture were pure copper wares, while their counterparts in other cultures were made of arsenic bronze. Small amounts of tin bronzes were found in the Sintashta culture and the North Caucasus region. In general, the socketed battle-axes in the Eurasian steppe region during this period evolved from those in the Pit Grave culture. The distribution areas of this type of battle-ax were steadily expanding eastwards. By the 17th century B.C., the socketed battle-axes, similar in shape to the Class B battle-axes, had reached the Tobol River along the tributary of the Eerqisi River. The battle-axes unearthed from the tombs of the Sintashta culture were proof of its eastward expansion. However, the socketed battle-axes found in the Transcaucasia region were different in shape from the those found in the steppe regions. Phase IV: From the 18th century B.C. to the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. From the 18th century B.C., the Eurasian Steppe entered the late period of the Bronze Age. As the eastwards expansion of the steppe population, the Timber Grave culture and the Andronovo culture complex became the most developed cultural alliance in the steppe region. The Timber Grave culture was distributed along the entire Eastern European Steppe, while the distribution areas of the Andronovo culture complex were even wider, reaching eastward to the Sayan-Altai region and the central part of Xinjiang and profoundly influencing many cultures in Xinjiang and the regions in the north (Kuzmina 2007a). During this period, the socketed battle-axes in the steppe region were Class B axes, with a continuous evolution in shape. In terms of the changes in shape, the battle-axes of this period can be divided into two stages, the early stage and the late stage. The early stage dated from approximately the 18th century B.C. to 15th century B.C. when the Timber Grave culture and the Andronovo culture complex were in the booming stage. Class B type III battle-axes prevailed during this stage (Fig. 2.13: 10–15). The late stage dated from the 14th century B.C. to the 9th century B.C., which witness the decline of the bronze culture alliance in the steppe region. Class B type IV battle-axes were popular weapons during this stage (Fig. 2.23: 16–21). Bronze swords continued to be prominent weapons together with battle-axes (Fig. 2.23: 22–30). The composition of the bronze wares in the Timber Grave culture and the Andronovo culture complex varies dramatically. The bronze wares in the Timber Grave culture were mainly made of low-quality

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

73

arsenic-antimony alloy bronze from the Ural region, and the tin bronzes accounted for only 25–30%. In contrast, more than 90% of the bronzes in the Andronovo culture complex consisted of high-quality tin bronze with 3–10% tin (Chernykh 1992). This indicates that from the Andronovo culture complex, the steppe region officially entered the Tin Bronze Age. During the same period, the shape of the socketed battle-axes in the Transcaucasia region had undergone significant changes, and born no similarity with Class B battle-axes in the northern steppe region. The battle-axes with a wider and crescent-shaped blade gradually lost their function as a weapon but were used as ritual artifacts. This phenomenon may have been influenced by the Near East culture in the south (Fig. 2.23: 45–50).

2.1.1.4

Socketed Battle-Axes in the Near East

Consisting of Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Iran, the ancient Near East is a traditional agricultural area. The socketed battle-axes were mainly distributed in this area, with a large number found in Luristan, Iran. The socketed battle-axes unearthed from this area may have derived from the Caucasus region and later formed their own characteristics, with more complex types and shapes in the development process. Based on the previous research findings Moorey (1971), the dates of these battle-axes can be divided into three stages. In the first stage, from the beginning to the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., most of the battle-axes were L-shaped, with the upper edge of the ax head straight, the handle-connecting part of tubular socket sticking out, and the lower edge of the ax concave and curved (Fig. 2.24: 1–6). In addition, some battle-axes with a crescent shape (Fig. 2.24: 7) prevailed throughout the Near East (Li 2011, Figs. 3.6-5 and 3.6-6). In the second stage, from the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. to the 15th century B.C., the upper and the lower edges of most battle-axes had openings, and there were curved flanges behind the tubular sockets (Fig. 2.24: 8–11). The crescent-shaped battle-axes were further developed (Fig. 2.24: 12, 13). In the third stage, from the 15th century B.C. to 700 B.C., the most popular battle-axes had tubular sockets sticking out on one side or needle-shaped nails on the back. They had curved wide blades with a drooping edge (Fig. 2.24: 14–17). The crescent-shaped battle-axes also changed significantly in shape, with narrower and longer bodies (Fig. 2.24: 18–19).

2.1.2

Characteristics, Dating and Population of the Seima-Turbino Remains

The Seima-Turbino complex in the Eurasian Steppe is one of the most important archaeological research topics due to the quick decline of the culture. Because the Seima-Turbino complex shared no cultural coexistence with other cultures

74

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.24 Socketed battle-axes from the Near East. 1–27 Collection of the Ashmolean museum

represented by the pottery, little is known about its population, who moved around without specific migration routes. The bronzes with fine casting and a delicate shape were found in the Seima-Turbino remains, and were widely distributed. Since the excavation of the Seima cemetery in 1912, many scholars have proposed their views concerning this culture. However, the excavations of these burial sites were not professional in the early days, which led to great damage to the cemetery and the lack of detailed information on the excavation sites of the burial objects. The excavations in the later period were mainly stray finds, and there have been few publications on the burial sites (Chernykh 1987). Therefore, there were no in-depth studies on the Seima-Turbino complex, despite the great interest of many scholars

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

75

in it. By the end of the 1980s, a comprehensive summary and analysis of the Seima-Turbino complex was conducted by Cherneh. This Russian scholar proposed the concept of Seima-Turbino “transcultural” phenomena Chernykh and Kuzmineh (2010) (it was first publish in 1989 in Russian, now has been translated in Chinese and got published), Chernykh (1992, pp. 215–234), which laid the foundation for the recent studies on Seima-Turbino complex.

2.1.2.1

Key Features of the Seima-Turbino Remains

Data related to the Seima-Turbino complex are mainly derived from five large cemeteries, namely, Seima cemetery, Turbino cemetery, Satga cemetery, Reshnoe cemetery, and Rostovka cemetery, along with excavations and stray finds of bronze relics unearthed from Kanin cave, Borodino and other small tombs. According to Cherneh’s statistics, more than 500 metal artifacts and 40 casting molds have been discovered 3. The Seima-Turbino remains were located adjacent to large rivers, and distributed across large regions, from Altai to the east of Finland in northern Europe, with approximately 3,000,000 km2 (Fig. 2.25). Most of the information obtained is scattered; therefore, we investigated the Seima-Turbino complex based on relatively rich data on the three cemeteries: Seima cemetery, Turbino cemetery, and Satga cemetery. The Seima and Turbino cemeteries were discovered at the beginning of the 20th century (1912–1914). Seima cemetery is located on the left bank of the Oka River in Gorky States, Russia, near Seima station, close to the confluence of the Oka River and the Volga River. No information about the unearthed sites of all the artifacts was recorded because of the non-professional excavations. There were more than 50 graves in the cemetery, with the dead buried alone in shallow graves without tombs. The Turbino cemetery was located on the right bank of the Kumar River near Turbino Village in the outskirts of Perm city, Russia. Despite seasons of excavations after World War II, very little information has been published. Based on the currently published data, the two cemeteries shared a striking similarity and a large variety of bronze weapons, mainly daggers (Fig. 2.26: 1–7, 20–25), knives (Fig. 2.26: 8, 26), socketed battle-axes (Fig. 2.26: 9, 29), hollow-headed axes (Fig. 2.26: 13–15, 33–36), spears (Fig. 2.26: 16–19, 37–40) and bronze serrations (Fig. 2.26: 10), in addition to hooks (Fig. 2.26: 32), ring ornaments (Fig. 2.26: 11, 30–31) and fine stone tools such as stone knives and stone arrowheads. Rostovka cemetery was located on the second floor on the left bank of the Orka River, the right tributary of the Irtysh River, Omsk County, Omsk state. The cemetery was discovered in 1965. From 1966 to 1969, B.H. Makeushenko executed the excavation and found a total of 38 tombs and several groups of artifacts. Based on B.H. Makeushenko’s excavation report published in 1988 (Matyushchenko and Sinitsyna 1988), the tombs are in rectangle shape (Fig. 2.30). Some of the tombs

3

(Chernykh 2004, pp. 25–30).

76

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.25 Distribution of the Seima-Turbino complexes

Fig. 2.26 Bronzes from the Seima and Turbino cemeteries. 1–7, 20–25 Bronze daggers; 8, 26 bronze knives; 9, 29 socketed axes; 10 serrated edge bronze artifact; 11, 30, 31 ring-shaped ornaments; 13–15, 33–36 axes; 16–19, 37–40 bronze spears; 32 hooks

was observed to have burn marks, and many tombs had been destroyed in ancient time, with the graves being dug, the skulls broken into pieces, and the upper bodies disrupted. Since the valuable artifacts were scattered out of the pits, the purpose of

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

77

Fig. 2.27 Bronzes from the Rostovka cemetery. 1–6 Bronze daggers; 7 bone-hilt bronzes; 8, 9 bronze knives; 10 stone casting mold for axes; 11–14 axes; 15–19 bronze spears

the destruction of the cemetery was not for the valuable artifacts. Burial goods mainly include quality tools and weapons, which were mostly made of bronze and microlith. Most bronzes were tools and weapons, including axes (Fig. 2.27: 11–14), bronze spears (Fig. 2.27: 15–19), knives (Fig. 2.27: 8, 9), daggers (Fig. 2.27: 1–6), chisels, tapers and bone-hilt bronzes (Fig. 2.27: 7). In addition, many other burial goods were found here, such as ring ornaments, stone and pottery molds for bronze casting (Fig. 2.27: 10), some stone tools such as stone arrowheads, stone knives and stone chips, and a certain number of bone armors, jade ornaments, and pottery fragments. We can derive the cultural features of the entire Seima-Turbino complex mainly from the above three cemeteries. The burial goods in the three cemeteries are mainly an assemblage of bronze tools and weapons of the same types, which can be further classified into two groups. The first group, which is widely distributed in Seima-Turbino remains but rarely seen in other cultural relics, consists of four types

78

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.28 Seima-Turbino type bronze tools and weapons. 1–4 Knives; 5–10 daggers; 11–15 spears; 16–21 axes (4 from the Elunino cemetery; 1, 5–7, 11, 16, 17 from the Seima cemetery; 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18 from the Turbino cemetery; others from the Rostovka cemetery)

of artifacts, namely, socketed fork spears (Fig. 2.28: 11–15), hollow-headed axes (Fig. 2.28: 16–21), daggers with a hilt (Fig. 2.28: 7–10) or without a hilt (Fig. 2.28: 5, 6), and bronze knives with animal patterns on the pommel (Fig. 2.28: 1–4). These four types of artifacts constitute more than 70% of all the bronzes. The socketed fork spear features a split rod connected to the blade with a small half ring attached to its side. This type of socketed fork spear, with unique features, is seldom seen in the surrounding Timber Grave culture and the Andronovo culture complex. A great number of hollow-headed axes with various sizes and decorations were found in the Seima-Turbino remains. Some are decorated with additional small rings on one or both sides, and some are not. Most of the hollow-headed axes are decorated with bowstring lines, diamond or triangle patterns, with round or oval sockets. The dagger with no handle is another unique Seima-Turbino bronze artifact. As a tool with multiple purposes, it needs to be connected with an additional wood, bone or metal handle when put into use. Bronze knives showed the advanced development of Seima-Turbino bronze manufacturing technology. This type of knife, though found in a small number, is often decorated with realistic animal

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

79

patterns on the pommel, such as horses or ibexes. Each piece is unique with very high artistic value. The second group includes artifacts observed in a small number in the Seima-Turbino remains but with extensive distribution in other cultures. These bronzes include socketed axes (Fig. 2.26: 9, 29), daggers with hilts (Figs. 2.26, 5, 6, 24, 25; and 2.27: 5, 6), non-fork socketed spears (Fig. 2.26: 16–18, 37, 38), awls and chisels, which prevail in the southern Timber Grave culture and the Andronovo culture complex to the south of the Seima-Turbino remains. Despite the great similarity of artifacts found in various cemeteries of the Seima-Turbino complex, significant regional differences exist. Specifically speaking, the Seima-Turbino complex can be divided into the western region represented by the Seima and Turbino cemeteries and the eastern region represented by Rostovka cemetery with the Ural mountains as the dividing line. The main differences between the two regions lie in the composition, type and shape of the artifacts. Chernykh conducted comparative analysis (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010) and spectral analysis of more than 70% of the metal products in the Seima-Turbino remains. According to the analysis, seven types of composition are included, mainly copper, arsenic bronze, arsenic-antimony bronze, copper-silver alloy, tin bronze and tin-arsenic bronze, with tin bronze and tin-arsenic bronze in higher proportions in both regions, while other compositions are observed only in the western region. In addition, axes with a tubular socket are not observed in the eastern region, but the casting molds are found in a large number. Except for the typical Seima-Turbino artifacts, fewer other types of artifacts were found in the eastern region in comparison with that in the western region. Several remarkable phenomena can be found through the comparison of the eastern region and the western region. First, Seima culture is divided into typical and atypical cultures, with the atypical culture greatly under the influence of external factors. The culture in the eastern region are basically typical and are representative of the culture. Second, the Seima culture differs from the Andronovo culture complex mainly in the representative existence of hollow-headed axes instead of socketed axes. The hollow-headed axes are nearly round in the eastern region and nearly rectangular in the western region. The earlier hollow-headed axes in the Asian steppes found in the site of Garin-Bor also have a round socket. Therefore, the round shape may be from an earlier age, which is in accordance with Chernykh’s assumption that Seima spread from Altai to northwest Finland. The bronze spears in the eastern region have curved barbs (Fig. 2.27: 16–19), and the bronze spears in Northern Zone of China also have barbs. When the Seima-Turbino complex spread to the northwest, it also spread to the south, affecting Northern Zone of China, but it was rarely discovered in the Minusinsk Basin to its east. Finally, a bronze knife with a bone hilt was traditional in the eastern steppes (Fig. 2.27: 7), with its earlier form as bone-hilt brass awl and the later form as back-folded knife from the Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk Basin. All these reflect the continuity of the tradition in the eastern steppe and forest steppe regions.

80

2.1.2.2

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

The Dating of the Seima-Turbino Remains

Many scholars have proposed their own views on the dating of the Seima-Turbino complex. Early researchers identified the date by comparing it with other cultures. According to Russian scholar Chlenova, the Seima-Turbino complex dated to the 11th century B.C. to the 8th century B.C. based on similarities between its short swords and knives and that found in the Karasuk culture (Членова 1972). However, according to Chernykh, most other scholars proposed the dating of the culture to be between the 16th and the 13th century B.C. He confirms that on the basis of these studies the Seima-Turbino complex prevailed in the 16th–15th centuries B.C. and presumably came into being in the 17th century B.C. He also notes that the culture lasted no more than 200 years from their distribution to their termination (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010, pp. 190–194). However, in recent years, with the carbon-14 data obtained in the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures (Anthony 1998), many scholars have become convinced that the steppe bronze cultures can be traced to a much earlier age. In 1995, the American scholar Lousia G. Fitzgerald-Huber proposed the Seima-Turbino remains dated to the beginning of the 2nd millennium B. C. (Louisa and Fitzgerald-Huber 1995). In Chernykh’s recent study, he abandoned his prior conclusion and those of several other archaeologists regarding the dating of the Seima-Turbino complex. Instead, he argues the culture dated from the 22nd century B.C. to the 18th or 17th century B.C. according to the newly obtained carbon-14 data (Chernykh 2004, pp. 25–30; Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010, pp. 251–268). In fact, the carbon-14 data used to determine the date of Seima-Turbina in the previous studies are mostly derived from the Abashevo and the Sintashta cultures rather than from the Seima-Turbino remains themselves. In earlier studies, only four carbon-14 data of artifacts found in the Seima-Turbino remains were obtained, including two pieces of artifacts from the eastern region, one from the Elunino cemetery dated to 1680 ± 75 B.C. and the other from Korovya Lristan, dated to 1610 ± 30 B.C. However, these data haven’t been seriously considered by scholars for being fragmented and unsystematic. In recent years, new Seima-Turbino sites have been found along with new dating results (Lin 2014), although no details have been published. Controversy still exists regarding the carbon-14 dating measurement due to the selection of different data. Our study on the time span of the Seima-Turbino complex is based on the archaeological comparison between its bronzes and that in other cultures. Specifically, Seima-Turbino bronzes are more mature in their shape, texture, and bronze-casting technology than those of the Sintashta culture and the Abashevo culture, and the most typical artifacts in Seima-Turbino remains, such as hollow-headed axes, socketed fork spears, and bronze knives, are not seen in the Sintashta and Abashevo cultures. Some scholars have noted connections between the Seima-Turbino complex and the Andronovo culture complex, especially the Fedorovo culture type in the eastern region. Their close relationship is manifested in the area of culture distribution, the source of tin and animal pattern decorations on artifacts (Kuzmina 2007a, pp. 178–183). The shape and form of axes with tubular sockets (Fig. 2.29) found in the Seima-Turbino remains reveal that they are more likely to fall into the

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

81

Fig. 2.29 Socketed battle-axes from the Seima-Turbino remains. 1–3 The Turbino cemetery; 4–6 the Seima cemetery; 7 No. 1 cemetery of Murjiha; 8 the Sokolovka cemetery

Class B Type III in the 18th–15th century B.C. (Fig. 2.23: 10–16) than to the Class B Type II in the early 2nd millennium B.C. (Shao 2014) (Fig. 2.23: 1–9). Based on the discussion above, it seems that the time when bronzes got prevailed in Seima-Turbino complex was later than that in the Sintashta and the Abashevo culture; therefore, the 22nd–18th or 17th century B.C. may be too early for the Seima-Turbino complex. In contrast, the popularity of the Seima-Turbino complex and the prosperity of Andronovo culture complex might occurred roughly at the same time, with the absolute date between 1800 and 1400 B.C. Consequently, the formation of the Seima-Turbino remains appears to be slightly earlier than it.

2.1.2.3

Ethnic Groups of the Seima-Turbino Remains

The question of the original place and people of the Seima-Turbino complex have perplexed scholars in the academic community. Chernykh believes that the Seima-Turbino complex were formed by the people who lived on fishing and hunting in the Baikal region and the horse backers and metallurgists in the Altai Mountains. He speculates that the absence of metallurgical traditions in the Altai Mountains attracted alien craftsmen. Without the constraints of tradition, the craftsmen were

82

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

more creative, and made tremendous technical innovation during the period and then expanded rapidly (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010, pp. 200–206). Kuzmina believes that the culture is the result of interactions between the Eastern European culture and the Andronovo culture complex in East Kazakhstan (Kuzmina 2007a, pp. 251–266). In 2003, the German scholar Paltinger proposed that the Seima-Turbino phenomena is a made-up one, and the bronzes found in the Seima-Tulbino remains were actually the products of the most developed metallurgical center at that time (Paltinger 2003). The views of these scholars provide an important reference for the further study of the Seima-Turbino remains, but the issue of where these people came from remains perplexing. Maybe we can find some clues to the Seima-Turbino people from the published papers about cemeteries, with the Rostovka cemetery as the most important one. The published information on this cemetery is relatively comprehensive. The M38 in the Rostovka cemetery are all vertical earthen pit grave with a single body in the extended position. Although most of the tombs were damaged in ancient time, artifact assemblage can be easily identified based on some well-preserved tombs (Figs. 2.30 and 2.31). According to the information collected from these tombs, the assemblage of burial goods in these tombs are consistent. Pottery in complete form has rarely been found. Most of the burial goods are tools and weapons, mainly fork-shaped bronze spears, hollow-headed axes, bronze daggers, awls and stone arrowheads, among which the bronze spears, bronze daggers, and stone arrowheads could be used as

Fig. 2.30 The plan and artifacts from the Rostovka cemetery M34. 1 bronze spear; 2 bronze axes; 3 bronze dagger; 4 ceramic shard; 5 bronze ring-shaped ornament; 6, 7 stone arrowheads; 8 bone awl; 9, 10 bronze artifacts with a bone hilt

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

83

Fig. 2.31 The plan and artifacts from the Rostovka cemetery M8. 1, 2 bronze spears; 3 bronze axes; 4 bronze dagger; 5 bronze awl; 6 stone arrowheads; 7 stone blades; 8–12 stone artifacts 13 bone artifacts

weapons in warfare. This assemblage of burial goods with a very strong military vibe is common throughout the cemetery. Additionally, bone armor fragments unearthed from some tombs in the Rostovka cemetery further demonstrate the developed militarization of the culture. It should be noted that weapons such as spears, daggers, and arrowheads unearthed from the Rostovka cemetery belong to the weapon system for thrusting and stabbing. This culture is different from other previous and contemporary cultures, especially the contemporary steppe culture. During this period, the residents of the steppe area used axes with a tubular socket as their main weapon. Axes with a tubular socket belong to the weapon system for slashing, which prevailed not only in the steppe area but also in the Caucasus and Asia Minor. The use of different weapon systems is sufficient to demonstrate the particularities of the Seima-Turbino people. Using the stabbing weapon system and being highly armed are the prominent features of the population based on the evidence collected from the Rostovka cemetery. Among the burial goods, microlith tools and weapons were also highly developed. They prevail not only in the Rostovka cemetery but also in other cemeteries in Seima-Turbino remains. The vast majority of these microlith artifacts, mainly arrowheads together with scrapers and knives, are made of flint. The use of microlith artifacts is generally associated with the hunting economy of the ancient fishing and hunting culture in the forest area, where microlith artifacts were highly developed. Almost all the Seima-Turbino remains are distributed in the forest steppe along the river with many animal. The use of a large number of hollow-headed axes also indicates that the people here often cut down trees. Stabbing weapon systems such as bronze spears, bronze daggers, and stone arrowheads are also associated with the hunting economy because the three weapons are perfect hunting tools. Therefore, we speculate that the Seima-Turbino

84

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

people lived by hunting. They apparently did not stay in a fixed area but led a mobile life. Although no burial horses and harnesses have been discovered in the tombs, the unearthed bronze knife hilts are decorated with images of people pulling horses. This indicates that these people had mastered horse riding, which might ensure their mobility. Judged by the distribution of the Seima-Turbino remains, they moved mainly along rivers such as the Irtysh River, the Ob River and the Ural River. Judging by the metallurgical products, they also spread tin bronze along the river, which might be the “Tin Road” connecting Asia and Europe. Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that the Seima-Turbino people were highly armed hunters in the forest steppe area. With developed metallurgical technique, they could cast high-quality tools. Their migration along rivers posed a great threat to the surrounding cultures and even encroached on or destroyed the territory of other tribes. Many tombs in Rostovka cemetery were dug, the skulls were broken, the upper bodies were disrupted, and some of the tombs were burned. However, it is obvious that the damage was not intended to obtain precious artifacts because the relics were not lost but were thrown outside the tomb. This may indicate the revenge of hostile tribes against them. Notably, differences existed between the Seima-Turbino bronze remains in the eastern region and the western region. Taking the Ural Mountains as a boundary, the western culture was represented by the Seima-Turbino cemetery, and the eastern culture was represented by the Rostovka cemetery. The small amount of pottery unearthed from each cemetery are also very different. This may indicate that the Seima-Turbino remains included several sub-ethnoses, which may have resulted in the formation of certain regional characteristics in the development of different areas.

2.1.2.4

Hollow-Headed Axes in Seima-Turbino Remains

If the battle-axes with the tubular socket was the most representative bronzes in the steppe from 3500 B.C., hollow-headed axes became the most representative bronzes after the 2nd millennium B.C., which are also called straight socketed axes or vertical socketed axes. These two types of artifacts are different not only in the time of their appearance but also in their geographical distribution. The battle-axes with tubular socket were mainly used in the steppe area in the south, while the hollow-headed axes were used in the forest steppe area in the north. The largest number of the most typical hollow-headed axes were found in the Seima-Turbino remains in the forest steppe area. Metallurgical production in this area required a large amount of wood for fuel. Abundant tree resources and frequent deforestation activities might contribute to the popularity of the hollow-headed axes. The hollow-headed axes in this area all had a round or elliptical socket, but the ax bodies were decorated with a variety of styles, such as the plain style (Fig. 2.32: 1–4), the single bowstring line (Fig. 2.32: 5–8) and the horizontal “ladder pattern” (Fig. 2.32: 9–12, 32), as well as a combination of a bowstring lines, triangle pattern, lozenge pattern and horizontal “ladder pattern” (Fig. 2.32: 13–31, 33–36). The ax decorated

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

85

Fig. 2.32 Axes from the Seima-Turbino remains. 1–10, 13 the Turbino No. 1 cemetery; 11, 12, 14–19 the Seima cemetery; 20 Zarniago; 21 Usti-Sorbakino; 22 Beikosye; 23 Tarsma; 24 Altai; 25–33 Rostovka; 34 Mikopuchegay River; 35 Socorovo; 36 Smolenskier

with animal pattern (Fig. 2.32: 27) was also found in the Rostovka cemetery. The axes with plain style and single bowstring line were only found in the western area, where the axes with the single horizontal “ladder pattern” was also popular. The decorations which combine different patterns, such as triangle patterns and diamond patterns, mainly prevailed in the eastern area. These hollow-headed axes can also be divided into eared and earless systems. The earless system prevailed mainly in the western area, where only two axes with double ears and one ax with single ear were found here. 42 axes from the Turbino No. 1 cemetery were all earless. Fewer hollow-headed axes were found in the eastern area, among which the proportion of eared axes was more than 60% (Fig. 2.32: 29–36). These can be further divided into single-eared axes (Fig. 2.32: 29–32) and double-eared axes (Fig. 2.32: 33–36). Although the number of double-eared axes was greater than that of single-eared axes, both of them were undoubtedly very popular in the eastern area during this period. In addition to the Seima-Turbino remains, a limited number of similar hollow-headed axes of the same period of time were discovered in the Andronovo remains. These axes also reflect the connection between the Seima-Turbino people and the Andronovo people. The hollow-headed axes were not prevalent in the

86

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

steppe areas of the same period or later period due to the economic and environmental conditions there. However, they got prevalent in the western and northern forest steppe areas and forest areas after the Seima-Turbino complex. They were also widely distributed in the northern region of the Samus-Kizhirovo culture, which was believed to be succession of the Seima-Turbino (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010, Vol. 7, pp. 104–116) culture. The distribution area of the axes was to the east of the Ural Mountains, and moved further north compared to the settlement of the Seima-Turbino complex. The hollow-headed axes unearthed here had a double-eared system (Fig. 2.33: 16–24), with double or triple rows of diamond patterns (Fig. 2.33: 18–22). Some of the axes were short and wide (Fig. 2.33: 21– 22). Although the hollow-headed axes of the Samus-Kizhirovo culture differed from the typical Seima-Turbino hollow-headed axes to some extent, they displayed a clear inheritance relationship with that of the Rostovka culture in the eastern region. The proportion of eared hollow-headed axes, especially those with double ears, increased greatly during the late Seima-Turbino phenomemon in the area to the west of the Urals. However, the position of the attached ears of most axes was different from that of the previous Seima-Turbino axes or the Samus-Kizhirovo axes in the eastern region (Fig. 2.33: 1–8, 12–15). In addition, hollow-headed axes here seemed to be wide and short with a body that was mostly plain or with a simple diagonal line pattern decoration; a complicated combination of triangle and diamond patterns is rarely found (Fig. 2.33: 1–15). It can be concluded from these characteristics that these hollow-headed axes to the west of the Urals might not

Fig. 2.33 Axes of the post-Seima-Turbino Age. 1–8 Eastern Ukraine and the Don river; 9–11 lower reaches of the Dnieper river; 12, 13 the Volga basin; 14, 15 Bulgaria 16 former Kalganski village; 17 Sigaevo (Cигaeвo); 18 Kizhirovo; 19 Kosikha; 20 Voynovka-Gilevia; 21 Sobakina (Coбaкинa); 22 Kubekovo (Кyбeкoвo); 23 Kizhirovo; 24 Middle vacugan (Cpeдний Bacюгaн)

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

87

have been directly inherited from the Seima-Turbino complex but were deeply influenced by the culture. The hollow-headed axes with a double-eared system occupied a dominant position after a long period of application and selection. The reason the hollow-headed axes could continue to be prevalent in these areas might be due to abundant forest resources existed in the western and northern regions, and a large number of logging activities. Additionally, it is speculated that the expansion of animal husbandry culture of the southern steppes, especially the Andronovo culture complex in East Kazakhstan and Central Kazakhstan, may be one of the reasons that forced the northward and westward migration.

2.1.2.5

Seima-Turbino Bronze Spears

The emergence and development of socketed spears in the Eurasian steppe area lasted thousands of years, from initial forging to casting and from the unclosed socket to the closed socket (Fig. 1.10). The most developed and distinctive socketed bronze spears of the 2nd millennium B.C. were mainly found in the Seima-Turbino remains in the northern Eurasian forest steppe areas. The socketed spear is one of the most distinctive bronzes in the Seima-Turbino remains. The most popular of the remains is a special shaped bronze spear that incorporates a shaft (a middle ridge) directly extending to the edge of the spearhead (shaped like a leaf), a short ridge on each side of the middle ridge root, and a chapped pipe shank of the fork-shaped socketed spear connecting the blade (Fig. 2.28: 11–14), which is also known as the mountain-shaped ridged bronze spear (Li 2005a). Because this bronze spear is the most abundant in the Seima-Turbino remains, it is named “the Seima-Turbino bronze spear” for convenience. In the eastern part of the Seima-Turbino remains, some of the Seima-Turbino bronze spears have an extra hook-shaped barb below the spears (Fig. 2.27: 16–19). Four pieces of the spears were excavated from the Rostovka cemetery, and similar bronze spears have been found in many parts of China.

2.1.2.6

Bronze Knives of Seima-Turbino

The bronze knives in the Eurasian Steppe at that time were very delicate. The complete animal decoration at the pommel of the knife reflected the highly developed casting technique, the curve of the hilt and the blade were consistent, and the entire body was integrated as a whole, and the back of the wide blade was in curve (Fig. 2.28: 1–3). This knife may have developed from a single-edged knife unique to the Asian steppes. The knives that coexisted with the ax with the tubular socket of the European Steppe were mainly double-edged knives. The excavation of the Rostovka cemetery showed that in most tombs the bronze assemblage consists of a spear and a hollow-headed ax (see Figs. 2.30 and 2.31), and the knife with animal pommel was rare of the time.

88

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

We conducted detailed discussions above regarding the remains of the Andronovo culture complex and the related battle-axes with tubular socket and the Seima-Turbino remains and related hollow-headed axes, bronze spears and bronze knives in the steppes beyond China in the 2nd millennium B.C. The analysis of these remains provide us with more precise and in-depth knowledge of the relevant remains of the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang.

2.1.3

Relationship Between the Two Types of Remains

When Seima-Turbino complex prevailed, the Andronovo culture complex also enjoyed its golden age. There was a long period of coexistence and communication between the two cultures. From a geographical perspective, the eastern region of the Seima-Turbino complex located further north and might be adjacent to the south of the Andronovo culture complex with some overlap. Both had relatively developed bronze metallurgical technique and some bronze products in similar shape. Tin bronze dominated both types of remains. As east Kazakhstan and the Altai region were the most important tin mines of the time, it can be speculated that the tin mineral resources used by the Seima-Turbino complex and Andronovo culture complex were also mainly from these two regions. Moreover, similar patterns prevailing in the Seima-Turbino complex, such as the triangles and lozenges on the hollow-headed axes, can be found on the pottery of the Andronovo culture complex. Additionally, these two types of remains are divided into two areas, east and west, respectively. There are four representative artifacts in Seima-Turbino’s remains: daggers, knives with animal-shaped pommel, hollow-headed axes and socketed fork spears. In addition to these artifacts, there are a small number of axes with a tubular socket, flat axes, single-edged knives, socketed spears and hooks in the west. These artifacts, which are different from those in the eastern region, are common in the Andronovo culture complex, indicating that the western region of the Seima-Turbino complex has a close connection with the Andronovo group. The axes with the tubular socket of the eastern region of the Andronovo culture complex are not well developed. The different artifacts used in the two cultures revealed that the Andronovo culture complex and the Seima-Turbino complex are two completely different archaeological cultures: the former is represented by an ax with a tubular socket and the latter by a hollow-headed ax. This difference is attributed to the natural environment and the level of social development of the two cultures. The Andronovo culture complex is distributed in the vast steppes, and the Seima-Turbino complex is distributed in the forest steppes. In the forest steppe area, cutting trees requires a highly skilled hilt-equipping technique to obtain a high-efficient hollow-headed ax. In the steppes, only simple flat-plate axes are used, and the knife is a simple hiltless single-edged knife. The weapons used in the wars of the two cultures are also very different. The battle-ax with the tubular socket of the Andronovo culture complex was mainly for slashing and killing, while in the

2.1 Andronovo Culture Complex and Seima-Turbino Complex

89

Seima-Turbino complex, spears were widely used for stabbing and killing. Considering the origin of the representative artifacts from these two cultures, Andronovo’s ax with a tubular socket was gradually introduced into the Asian steppes from Europe and belongs to the Eurasian steppe system. On the other hand, the hollow-headed ax of the Seima-Turbino remains is a unique device in the Asian steppes belonging to the Asian system, and no counterpart was found in the European Steppe. Currently, most foreign scholars emphasize the expansion of the European Steppe to the Asian steppes in the Early Metal Age. However, these studies does not conform to historical evidences as they do not take time and space into consideration. The metals of the European Steppe appeared much earlier than that of the Asian steppes. However, after the mid Bronze Age, it is likely that after accepting the influence of the European Steppe, the Asian steppes gradually developed a bronze culture which was even more advanced than that of the European Steppe. The short-life Seima-Turbino complex provide the evidence of the advancement. The knife with animal-shaped pommel is the most dazzling artistic masterpiece of the steppes with regard to its craftsmanship and artistic style, and it is the prototype of the curved-hilt sword with animal-shaped pommel in the Asian steppes.

2.2

Relevant Remains in China

In the 2nd millennium B.C., some remains in Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China were more closely related to the Andronovo and Seima-Turbino remains with the socketed battle-axes, hollow-headed axes and other bronzes of the steppes. A detailed analysis of these remains will help us further explore the relationship between the people of the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang in the Bronze Age and the people of the steppes beyond China.

2.2.1

Relevant Remains of the Andronovo Culture Complex Found in Xinjiang

According to the available data, the cultures that may belong to the Andronovo culture complex in Xinjiang are mainly concentrated in the Tashkurgan area, the Ili area, the Bortala Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture and the Tacheng area. There are also sporadic discoveries in Urumqi, Fukang, Jimusar and other places (Fig. 2.34), including the Tacheng Health School site (Li 1991a, b), the Ancient Tomb of Sazitun Village in Tori County (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 1996)., the Daxigou cemetery in Huocheng County (Zhang 1991; Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Relics Survey Office and Yili Area Relics

90

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.34 Distribution of the Andronovo culture complex in Xinjiang. 1 The Tacheng Health School Site; 2 the Tomb of Sazitun Village in Tori County; 3 the Adunqiaolu Site and Graveyard in Wenquan County; 4 the Daxigou site in Huocheng County; 5 the Karasu Site in Nileke County; 6 the Nilekqiongkeke Site; 7 the sacrifice sites and cemetery at Hojiretai in Nileke County; 8 the Tomballesayi Graveyard; 9 the Ayousaigoukou Site in Xinyuan County; 10 Tomb No. 2 of Kukesuxi in Turks County; 11 the Xiabandi Cemetery in Tashkurgan County

Survey Working Force 1990)., the Karasu site in Nileke County (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2008), the Ayousaigoukou site in Xinyuan County (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2013), the Adunqiaolu site and Graveyard in Wenquan County (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences et al. 2013), the Nilekqiongkeke site (Liu and Guan 2002), the Hojiretai Worship site and Tomb in Nileke County (Ruan and Hu 2013), the Tomballesayi graveyard in Nilek County (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2012a), and M2 of Kukesuxi in Turks County (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2012b). In addition to the above cultures, there is a published excavation report (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2004; Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2012c) about the Xiabandi cemetery in Tashkurgan County. Most of these remains belonged to the decline phase of the Andronovo culture complex, and some were as early as the boom phase of the Andronovo culture complex. Typical remains will be analyzed below.

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

2.2.1.1

91

Xiabandi Cemetery in Tashkurgan

Xiabandi cemetery is located in Xindi and Xia Baldir Villages, Tashkurgan Tajik Autonomous County, Kashgar, Xinjiang, approximately 40 km southwest of the County. In 2001, the Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology discovered 13 cemeteries (Guo 2002) in the inundated area of the Xiabandi Water Control Project. In 2003, 150 tombs of five cemeteries on the northern bank of Tashkurgan were excavated. Most of the tombs in the A II cemetery are believed to be related to the Andronovo culture complex. A total of 118 tombs were excavated from the A II cemetery, most of which are marked by stone piles or stone fences. The tombs are small, and the layout is very irregular (Fig. 2.35: 1). The tombs are dominated by vertical earthen pit grave (Fig. 2.35: 2, 3), and some entrances of the tombs are covered with wooden boards or wooden sticks (Fig. 2.35: 3). There are two types of funeral customs, earth burial and cremation, with 87 tombs of earth burials and 18 tombs of cremations. There is no obvious difference between the two burial methods in terms of the burial goods. Most of the earth burial tombs are primarily single-skeleton burials with the body laid sideways in a bending position and the legs of the corpse bent to a large degree. A small number of tombs adopted double-skeleton burials. In the tombs, burial goods are scarce and mainly include pottery, mostly for living supplies. They are handmade, plain, mostly sand-grey pottery or terracotta, and some pottery contains food, such as ibex bones. The artifacts are mainly earless

Fig. 2.35 Examples of distribution and burial structures at the Xiabandi AII cemetery. 1 Burial distribution (partial); 2 burial ground M20; 3 burial ground M25

92

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.36 Diagnostic types of pottery and metals from the Xiabandi AII cemetery. 1 AIIM001:1; 2 AIIM052A:1; 3 AIIM030:1; 4 AIIM042:1; 5 AIIM005D:1 6 AIIM041:1; 7 AIIM059:1; 8 AIIM035:1; 9 AIIM113:1; 10 AIIM062:3; 11 AIIM062:4; 12 AIIM062:7; 13 AIIM032:6; 14 AIIM032:5; 15 AIIM042:2; 16 AIIM004:1② 17 AIIM032:4; 18 AIIM032:3; 19 AIIM004:2② 20 AIIM004:2① 21 AIIM005A:1; 22 AIIM042:5; 23 AIIM039:3 (1–12 are pottery, 17, 18 silver wares, others bronze wares)

flat-bottomed pottery jars (Fig. 2.36: 1–6) and pottery bowls (Fig. 2.36: 7–12) with generally irregular shape. The pottery jars have a wide flared mouth and constricted neck, and some have reverted shoulders (Fig. 2.36: 4–6). In addition to pottery, a number of metal bracelets and earrings were unearthed from the cemetery. The bracelets are bent into a ring with one piece of copper in crescent shape(Fig. 2.36: 13–16). The earrings are available in both copper and silver and are bent into a circular shape with a thin wire. The ear hooks are sharp, and the eardrops are trumpet-shaped (Fig. 2.36: 17–23). The A II cemetery in Xiabandi is undoubtedly one of the the Andronovo culture remains based on its structure, the burial method (which is dominated by earth burial supplemented by cremation), and the pottery shape. In addition, it is worth noting that a certain number of copper and silver earrings with trumpet-shape ends were unearthed from the A II cemetery in Xiabandi. These earrings are very common in the eastern Andronovo culture complex. According to current findings, these earrings first appeared in the golden age of the Federovo culture type and prevailed in the second phase and third phase of the Federovo culture type of the eastern region (Fig. 2.37: 1–7). Similar earrings are found in Xinjiang (Fig. 2.37: 8–12) and the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 2.37: 13–18). This type of artifact has also attracted the attention of both domestic and international scholars. Professor Lin Yun suggested that the trumpet-shaped earrings unearthed from the Northern Zone of China may originate from the Andronovo culture complex (Lin 2002) of the Kazakh steppes. Ms. Emma C. Bunker, an American scholar who studies the archaeology of the Eurasian Steppe, holds the same view. She believes that not only

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

93

Fig. 2.37 Flared earrings from different places. 1, 2 Dun Bei; 3 Kupukhta; 4 Dzhartas; 5 Tash-Tyube; 6 Rublevo VIII; 7 Dzham; 8 Adunqiaolu; 9, 10 Xiabandi cemetery; 11, 12 Tangbalesayi cemetery; 13 Ganguya cemetery; 14 Lintan Mogou cemetery; 15 Pingding Mountain in Fuxin; 16 Liujia River in Pinggu; 17 Ping’an Fortress in Zhangwu; 18 Xiaoshandong Village in Qian’an

the eastward movement of the trumpet-shaped earrings but also the use of early golden instruments were introduced by non-businessmen from Central Asia to the Central Plain (Bunker 1998) in the late half of the 2nd millennium B.C. However, Kuzmina does not agree with this point of view because, according to her research, the Federovo type was in the 15th–13th centuries B.C. in the steppe area (Kuzimina 2007b), and the trumpet-shaped earrings in the Northern Zone of China appeared earlier in the 2000–1600 B.C. Small numbers of these prevailing trumpet-shaped earrings have been found in the Northern Zone of China, and there is no obvious changes In contrast, the earrings found in the Andronovo culture complex in Xinjiang and abroad are in a large number and widely distributed. Thus, we agree that trumpet-shaped earrings in the Northern Zone are associated with the Andronovo culture complex. Nevertheless, different regions witness the differences in the shape of similar artifacts. In the Northern Zone of China, the popular earrings have flat trumpet-shaped ends with a hook shape (Fig. 2.37: 13–18). Although those types can also be found in the Andronovo culture complex, most of the earrings have rounded trumpet-shaped ends with a round shape (Fig. 2.37: 1–12). We speculate that the reason for this phenomenon is that the earrings in the Andronovo culture complex may not have had a fixed shape during the initial formation stage, and the types are relatively rich, such as tubular shape, flat trumpet shape and round trumpet shape. The shape of the earrings and technique have been spread to the Northern Zone of China during this period and the trumpet-shaped earrings evolved locally in the Northern zone. In the course of development, the earrings with round trumpet shaped became prevailing in the Andronovo culture complex.

94

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

The earliest trumpet-shaped earrings in the Northern Zone are mostly spread from the Early Bronze Age culture and can also be found in the Siba culture, the Qijia culture and the Lower Xiajiadian culture. These cultures dated as early as the Xia period and the early Shang period of the Central Plain. These earrings may also come from the late stages of the cultures mentioned above. Taking the western Siba culture as an example, the only trumpet-shaped earrings found so far are from the Ganguya cemetery (Fig. 2.37: 13). According to existing research, the Ganguya cemetery belongs to the late Siba culture (Li 1993; Shui 2001), dating from 1850 to 1500 B.C. (School of Archeology and Museology in Peking University, Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Gansu Province 2012) according to the latest carbon-14 dating data. The trumpet-shaped earrings found in the Qijia culture are also from the late Mogou culture (Chen 2012; Yuan 2012) of the Siba culture. Therefore, although we cannot specify the time of the earliest earrings appeared in the Northern Zone of China, it should not be later than the mid 2nd millennium B.C. In addition, we can see that the trumpet-shaped earrings seems to show a certain trend of development. In the boom phase of the Federovo culture type, the mouth of the trumpet is smaller, and the mouth becomes larger when it comes to the declining phase. This was further proved by comparing the earrings found in Xinjiang and that in the Northern Zone of China. The trumpet-shaped earrings in Xinjiang are mainly unearthed from the Adunqiaolu cemetery (Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science et al. 2013), the Xiabandi cemetery (Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang 2012a) and the Tangbalesayi cemetery (Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang 2012b). Among these cemeteries, the Adunqiaolu cemetery dates the earliest, and the mouth of the trumpet of earring found there is smaller than that found in the other two cemeteries (Fig. 2.37: 8–12). The trumpet-shaped earrings unearthed from the Northern Zone of China have flat mouths, and similar changing patterns can also be observed. The late Pinggu Liujiahe (Beijing Cultural Relics Task Force 1977) and Qian’an Xiaoshanzhuang (Cultural Relics Management Office in Tangshan and Cultural Relics Management Office in Qian’an County 1997) witnesses earrings with larger flat mouth of the trumpet than the Siba culture, the Qijia culture and the Lower Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 2.37: 13–18). It is showed that the tube of the trumpet of the earrings became thinner and thinner with the time goes by. Therefore, judged from the shape the trumpet, the trumpet-shaped earrings in the Xiabandi A IIcemetery belong to a late form. In addition, the pottery in the Xiabandi A IIcemetery is plain without any decorations on the surface, which resembles that found in the Andronovo remains in the declining phase of the culture. The closest type of pottery is unearthed from the remains of the late Semirechye culture type (Figs. 2.19: 9–18 and 2.20: H, 8–11).

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

2.2.1.2

95

Tangbalisay Cemetery in Nilka County

Tangbalisay cemetery is situated in the pastoral area east of the Kartopa town of Karwoy Village, Tekes County. Andronovo tombs were concentrated in the eastern part of the cemetery, where seven tombs were excavated from 2010. The tombs, covered by yellowish earth round mounds, are the vertical earth pit grave. The tomb chamber is nearly square in shape, facing west. Some tombs have one or two skeletons (Fig. 2.38: 4), and some have traces of cremation (Fig. 2.38: 1). The occupants of the tomb are lying on one side in a bending position with arms crossed and legs folded up to the chest, with the head facing west and feet facing east. The burial goods were normally found beside the head, usually plain handmade grey sandy pottery with ring foot or flat bottom (Fig. 2.38: 2, 3, 5–7). A few of the bodies wore bronze earrings (Fig. 2.38: 8, 9), bronze bead bracelets, and bead chains on their feet (Fig. 2.38: 10–12). Judged from pottery and the trumpet-shaped bronze earrings unearthed from the tombs, the Tangbalisay cemetery dated to the declining phase of the Andronovo culture complex, around the time of the Semirechye culture type beyond the border of China.

2.2.1.3

The West Koksu River No. 2 Cemetery in Tekes County

The West Koksu River No. 2 cemetery is situated 20 km south of Tekes County, on the terrace to the west of the West Koksu River. Seven tombs of the Andronovo culture complex clustered in the center of the cemetery. The tombs can be divided into two types in terms of their structures. The first is the earth pit grave in the east-west direction, with a simple wooden chamber around the bottom. There is a side chamber in the western side of the chamber, where buried one person lying sideways in a bending position with arms crossed and legs folded up to the chest and the head facing north. One piece of pottery was found beside the head (Fig. 2.39: 6). The other type of tomb is nearly square in shape. A short sloping passage led to the western side of the chamber, and the walls of the chamber were piled with pebble up to the entrance of the tomb. A wood structure was found within the chamber, where one or two bodies lying sideways in a bending position with arms crossed and legs folded up to the chest and the heads facing west were buried. The burial goods were placed around the bodies, including two to four pottery and some horse ribs (Fig. 2.39: 1). Most of the pottery were polished grey sandy wares with a folded shoulder, deep belly, and ring foot (Fig. 2.39: 2–5, 7, 8). In terms of burial goods, the tombs resemble that of the Semirechye culture type belonging to the late Andronovo culture complex.

2.2.1.4

Cemetery in Sazi Village of Toli County

Four tombs were found in the cemetery in Sazi Village, Toli County. The tombs are covered by cairns made of various-sized pebbles and sand (Fig. 2.40: 1). The tomb

96

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.38 Typical Tombs of the Bronze Age at Tomballesayi Graveyard in Nileke county. 1 plan of M16; 2, 3 pottery guan-pots in M16; 4 plan of M17; 5–7 pottery pots; 8, 9 bronze earrings 10– 12 bronze foot chains (5–12 from M17)

chambers consist of vertical earth pit graves and stone chambers (Fig. 2.40: 2). The number of burial goods unearthed from this cemetery is quite small. Two pieces of grey gang-urn were excavated at the M3. One piece of gang-urn with a false ring foot but no lid is decorated with awl-shaped patterns all around, a diagonal line pattern within the water ripple patterns on the upper part, and two rows of V-shaped patterns within the triangular patterns in the middle part of the gang-urn (Fig. 2.40: 3). In terms of the patterns on the wares, this gang-urn is a typical artifact bearing the characteristics of the Andronovo culture complex. The false ring foot is also one of the symbols of the Semirechye culture type (Fig. 2.19: 1, 2, 6). Thus, the cemetery in Sazi Village, Toli County dates to the time of the Andronovo culture complex and probably the early period of the Semirechye culture type.

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

97

Fig. 2.39 Typical Tombs of the Bronze Age of No. 2 Tomb Cluster at Kuokesuxi, Tekes county. 1 Burial ground M53; 2–5 pottery from M53; 6 burial ground M83; 7, 8 pottery from M83

2.2.1.5

Daxigou Cemetery in Huocheng County

Daxigou cemetery is located on an open area at the foot of the mountain to the south of Daxigou, and it is 32 km northwest of Huocheng County. When the National

98

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.40 Tomb M3 at Sazi Village of Tori county

Cultural Relics Census was conducted, one ceramic vessel (Fig. 2.41: 1) and two ceramic cups (Fig. 2.41: 2) were unearthed from one destroyed tomb. They are handmade grey sandy pottery with a large mouth and flat bottom and are typologically identical to the pottery unearthed at Tomb A II in Xiabandi. Eight stone balls (Fig. 2.41: 3) and some ceramic sherds with awl-shaped patterns or raised bosses along the mouth rims were also found in the tomb. Because the excavated ceramics resemble to the ones in Xiabandi Tomb A II, it is estimated that the tomb belonging to the the declining period of the Andronovo culture complex can be found in Daxigou cemetery.

2.2.1.6

Adunqiaolu Site in Wenquan County

The Adunqiaolu sites and tombs, found in 1988, are located in Wenquan County, northwest of Xinjiang. The north of the sites cross the Tianshan Mountain and are bordered with Huocheng County. The Xinjiang Archaeological Institute of Cultural Relics (Li and Lv 2003) found many tombs in the sites, with distinctive signs on the ground, namely stone-surrounded tombs, stone-piled tombs and mount tombs. More than 100 stone-surrounded tombs were found. Between 2011 and 2014, the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Science conducted a

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

99

Fig. 2.41 Some Artifacts from Daxigou Huocheng

massive excavation in the Adunqiaolu sites, and published data on sites of F1, F2, F3 and SM4 (Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science et al. 2013). The F1 site is regular in shape with a rectangular enclosure (22 m in length, 18 m in width). The F2 and F3 sites were constructed to the north of F1 site and were joined with F1 site. The shape of F2 is irregularly oblong, while F3 is semi-circular with the longer side from south to north (Fig. 2.42: 1). The SM4 tomb is located in the northern section of the cemetery, and is surrounded by stone slab fences of 0.5 to 0.8 m high above the ground. In the center of the stone slab fences, two coffin pits (SM4-1 and SM4-2) were found side by side in east-west direction with stone coffins in it (Fig. 2.42: 2). Inside one stone coffin in SM4-1, some wooden burial goods were found. The occupant was a male, lying sideways in a bending position with arms crossed and legs folded up to the chest and the head facing west. A ceramic vessel (Fig. 2.42: 3), bronze earrings covered by a thin layer of gold (Fig. 2.42: 4), and ibex bones were placed beside the body. From the shape of the trumpet-shaped earrings and its carbon-14 dating analysis, it is estimated that the Adunqiaolu sites might belong to the boom period of the Andronovo culture complex.

2.2.1.7

Karasu Sites

The Karasu sites are located 3 km south of Xiaokalasu Village, Karasu Township, Nilka County. In 2007, the Xinjiang Archaeological Institute of Cultural Relics excavated 475 m2 at this site. The site can be divided into four layers with overlay relationships. F1 site was excavated from the fourth layer (Fig. 2.43: 1).4 Although the size of the excavation is relatively small, it is the first scientific excavation of the inhabited sites of the Andronovo culture complex in Xinjiang. Many stone wares and ceramic sherds were found in F1 site and the fourth layer, mainly stone grinders, stone pestles, whetstones, and stone hoes (Fig. 2.43: 15–17). Among them, the number of stone grinders were largest (8 pieces) (Fig. 2.43: 15). Most of the 4

(Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang 2008).

100

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.42 Architectural remains, tombs and artifacts from the Adunqiaolu site. 1 Plan of F1–F3; 2 plan of SM4; 3 pottery pots from SM4; 4 bronze earring covered with a thin layer of gold from SM4

Fig. 2.43 Burial ground of F1 and Some Artifacts from the Karasu site. 1. burial ground of F1; 2– 14 pottery fragments; 15 Millstone; 16, 17 stone pestle

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

101

ceramic sherds are handmade plain grey sand ceramics with porous textures, while a small part of them are embellished with incised patterns. The ceramics are gangurl with a flat base (Fig. 2.43: 2–14). The published materials suggest that this site might date to the declining period of the Andronovo culture complex.

2.2.1.8

The Ayousai Goukou Site

The Ayousai Goukou site is located in Xinyuan County, Ili region. In 2012, a trial excavation of 180 m2 found remains such as a house site (F1), pits, and stone stoves at the site. The unearthed artifacts consist of bronze knives, ceramic sherds, stone wares, and animal bones. The ceramic assemblages are mainly plain gang-url with a flat base, including folded-shoulder jars without ears, contracted-mouth jars, and high-necked jars. A few ceramic sherds have imprinted and incised patterns along the mouth rim and belly, mainly with patterns of parallel lines, fingernails, and raised bosses. The stone wares are a saddle-shaped stone grinder and whetstone (Fig. 2.44). From these artifacts, it is estimated that the Ayousai Goukou site dated to the declining period of the Andronovo culture complex.

Fig. 2.44 Artifacts from the Ayusaigoukou site. 1 Shoulder folding pot(T1③:1); 2 pottery cup (F1:5); 3–12 pottery fragments (T1③:19, T1③:15, T1③:9, T1③:8, T1③:12, T1②:1, T1③:7, T1③:13, T1③:5, T1③:4) 13 bronze knife (F1:2) 14 millstone (F1:1)

102

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.45 Bronzes of the Andronovo culture type in Xinjiang. 5 Woxuete Township, Tori County 6 Jimsar county 12, 13 Fukang 24 Banfanggou, Urumqi 34 Urumqi Academy of Agricultural Sciences

2.2.1.9

Bronzes: Hoard and Stray Finds

In addition to the above-mentioned sites and cemeteries, a large number of bronzes5, mainly socketed axes, bronze sickles, bronze chisels, hollow-head axes, bronze shovels, bronze knives, and bronze swords (Fig. 2.45), were unearthed from the Ili region, Tacheng area, and other regions in Xinjiang. Similar bronzes have also been found in the eastern Kazakhstan and Semirechye regions (Fig. 2.20). These bronzes approximately dated to the third phase of the Andronovo culture complex from the 13th century B.C. to the 9th century B.C. Kuzmina (1998). In comparison with the counterparts beyond the border, it is estimated the bronzes in Xinjiang also come dated to this period, with the exception of two bronze sickles unearthed from Fukang city. With long and curved blades, the bronze sickles might have appeared earlier than other bronzes (Fig. 2.45: 12, 13) around the same period as the Tacheng Health School site. In terms of the above analysis, except for the Xiakalangguer site in Tacheng city, most of the other remains fell into the category of the Andronovo culture complex, which is consistent with the Semirechye type beyond the border. These remains can be divided into two categories, namely, the remains in the early period and the remains in the late period. The remains in the early period were few in number, with the characteristic of various incised patterns on ceramics. The remains in the 5

The information of these bronzes mainly derived from the following references: Wang (1987, 1989), Li and Dang (1995), Xinjiang Cultural Relics Administration et al. (1999) and Li (2005b).

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

103

Tacheng Health School site are examples of this type. The remains in the late period were distributed extensively. They can be found in the Ili region, Tacheng area, Tajik Autonomous County of Taxkorgan, and even in Urumqi, Fukang city, and Jimusaer County. Among all the unearthed bronzes, only two pieces of bronze sickles might be from the early period, while the others are all from remains in the late period. With regard to the datingof the two periods, the early period dated to the boom phase of the Andronovo culture complex, while the late period to the declining phase.

2.2.1.10

Other Remains of the Same Period in Xinjiang

In addition to the above-mentioned remains, some remains in Xinjiang were influenced by the Andronovo culture complex, with the Xintala remains in Yanqi Basin (Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang 1988; Autonomous Region Museum, Heshuo County Cultural Center 1986), the Kuchehaladun remains (Huang 1983), and the North Niya type remains (Zhang and Yu 1996; Yue and Yu 1999) as the most important ones. The Xintala remains possess two types of cultural elements. One type descended from culture in possession of eastern painted ceramics, and the other type borrowed from culture in possession of ceramics with an imprinted or incised running design of triangles and dot patterns. The second type of culture is seldom seen in the eastern Gansu and Qinghai regions but prevails in the Andronovo culture complex (Fig. 2.46: 1–3). During this period, the Andronovo culture complex had already expanded to the Ili region and Tacheng area in Xinjiang. Although separated by the Tianshan Mountain and many gullies such as the Kaidu River, the Yanqi Basin and the Ili region are not far in distance, which facilitated the spread of Andronovo cultural elements of Andronovo from the Ili region to the Yanqi Basin. Thus, the imprinted and incised ceramic sherds in the Xintala remains may have been influenced by the Andronovo culture complex. The ceramics in the Haladun remains in Kuche and the North Niya type remains are characterized by bowstring patterns of zigzags and triangles, which are commonly seen in the Andronovo culture complex (Figs. 2.19: 5–8 and 2.46: 4–6). Due to the short distance between between the Haladun remains in Kuche and the Ili region, ceramics with bowstring patterns of zigzags and triangles may have been influenced by the Andronovo culture complex. Although the Xintala remains in Yanqi Basin, the Kuchehaladun remains, and the North Niya type remains borrowed some elements from the Andronovo culture complex, these remains are imbued with their own characteristics. Taking this into consideration, we did not classify them into the Andronovo culture complex.

104

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.46 The Pottery of the Xintala type, the Northern Niya type and the Haladun type under the influence of the Andronovo culture. 1–6 Andronovo pottery from Kazakhstan area

2.2.2

Socketed Battle-Axes in Xinjiang and the Northern Zone

Socketed battle-axes in the Northern Zone of China emerged quite late and prevailed during the late period of the 2nd millennium B.C. Most of them are categorized as Type C (Fig. 2.47) with diversified shapes. This type of socketed battle-ax prevailed in the Northern Zone of China during the late Shang period (the late period of the 2nd millennium B.C.) and declined during the middle Western Zhou period (the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C.). Some scholars have classified socketed battle-axes into two types, eight shapes, and three regions of distribution, and they have elaborated on the sequences and genealogy of these axes (Zhu 2003). The socketed battle-axes of Subtype Ca is the fewest in number, with long but narrow handles similar to the qi unearthed at Erlitou (Fig. 1.11: 18), indicating that the Ca type emerged quite early in time. The shape of the Ca socketed battle-axes is quite distinctive among Type C axes, with a relatively concentrated distribution mainly in Guanzhong (Fig. 2.47: 1–3). The socketed battle-axes of subtype Cb is larger in number compared with Ca, with short tubular sockets (Fig. 2.47: 4–6). It is distributed mainly in Shanxi and Shaanxi Plateau and northeast of the Yanshan Mountain. The socketed battle-axes of subtype Cc is the largest in number, with one kind of axes bearing long tubular sockets and the other kind short tubular sockets (Fig. 2.47: 7–14). It is mainly distributed in the center and south of Inner Mongolia, Shanxi and Shaanxi Plateau, Guanzhong, the middle reaches of Huangshui River in Qinghai, and Xining Basin (Fig. 2.47: 15–16). In

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

105

Fig. 2.47 C-Type socketed battle-axes from the northern zone of China during the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. 1–3 Ca type Battle-Axes; 4–6 Cb type Battle-Axes 7–16 Cc type Battle-Axes; (1 Shijiayuan, Chunhua; 2 Heidouzui, Chunhua; 3 Beipo, Chunhua; 4, 5 Xicha, Qingshuihe; 6 Chaodaogou, Qinglong; 11 Linzheyu, Baode; 8 Laoniuwan, Qingshuihe; 9 Shangdong Village, Ji County; 10 Caojiayuan, Shilou; 12 Chenshantou, Luan County; 13 Gaohong, Liulin; 14 Panjialiang, Huangzhong; 15 Shangsunjia, Datong, Qinghai; 16 Qianyingzi, Qinghai; 17 Mongolia)

terms of age, axes of subtype Ca emerged the earliest, while Subtype Cc might be the latest, as indicated by the barbs at the back of the long tubular socket. It seems that there might be evolving trend from the socket inside to the socket on both sides (Yang 2008). In addition to the Northern Zone of China, Type C socketed battle-axes can be found in the Mongolia region (Erdenechuluun Purevjav 2011) (Fig. 2.47: 17). A large number of images of Type C battle-axes in the Shang and Zhou periods have been engraved on deer stones in Mongolia (Pan 2008). The type and distribution of socketed battle-axes in Xinjiang are quite complicated. Type B IV socketed battle-axes (Fig. 2.48: 1–4), typologically resemble the ones in the Andronovo culture complex (13th century B.C. to 9th century B.C.), are

106

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.48 Socketed battle-axes from Xinjiang. 1–5 Class B Type IV Battle-Axes; 6–8 Class C Battle-Axes (1–3 Aga’ersheng, Gongliu; 4 Woxuete, Toli County; 5 Jimsar; 6 Nanwan Cemetery; 7, 8 Yanghai Cemetery No.1)

found in the eastern Ili region (Wang 1989; Li and Dang 1995), Tacheng city, Fuyun County, Changji Hui autonomous prefecture, Fukang city, Jimusaer County (Fig. 2.48: 5), and Hami city 6. Type C socketed battle-axes, typologically similar to those in the Northern Zone of China, are found in Hami city (Wu et al. 2001) and Turpan city (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2004; Shao 1983). This type of ax is relatively light and thin, with a long tubular socket (Fig. 2.48: 6–8). They are typologically similar to the battle-axes with long tubular socket of Subtype Cc (Fig. 2.47: 9–10), indicating the influence of the socketed battle-ax in Shanxi and Shaanxi Plateau. The earliest Type C socketed battle-axes found in the Northern Zone are without tubular sockets or with short tubular sockets, while in the late period, long tubular sockets prevailed. Thus, even if the earliest socketed battle-axes emerged in the Near East region, it is not likely that they spread into the Northern Zone of China via Xinjiang. Based on the above analysis, socketed battle-axes first emerged in Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China in the 2nd millennium B.C. These battle-axes can be classified into two types, namely, Type B and Type C. Type C is the largest in number and richest in shapes in the Northern Zone. In Xinjiang, the Type B battle-ax is mainly distributed in the west and Type C in the east, with overlaps in the distribution areas. It is speculated that the Type B battle-ax might have prevailed in the Ili region and Tacheng city since the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. and then spread from west to east reaching Hami, while the Type C battle-ax may have first emerged in the eastern part of Xinjiang during the late 2nd millennium B.C. and the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. and then spread from east to west

6

Most of these socketed battle-axes are collected with no accurate excavation information and exhibited in local museums.

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

107

reaching Turpan city. Hami and Turpan are the overlapped distribution areas of these two types of battle-axes.

2.2.3

Hollow-Head Axes in Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China

The history of the hollow-head ax in China can be traced back to the Shang period, but their shape and design vary among different regions. In the Central Plain, most of the Shang period hollow-head axes bear similar features and thus belong to the same system. These axes bear square or rectangular socket and no ear, with decoration a zoomorphic mask motif and inverted triangle motif (Fig. 2.49: 2–3) and cross or eye pattern motifs on the body (Fig. 2.49: 1, 4, 6). This type of earless square-socket hollow-head ax remained prevalent in the Western Zhou period, but the body of the ax was wider and shorter compared with those of the Shang period. In addition, the previously popular decorations, motifs of zoomorphic masks and

Fig. 2.49 Axes from the central plain and the northern zone of China during the Shang and Zhou periods. 1 Erligang, Zhengzhou; 2 Anyang; 3 Tianhu Lake, Luoshan; 4 Lingbao; 5, 6 Yin Ruins; 7–9 Western Zhou Cemetery, Zhangjiapo; 10 Beiyao, Luoyang; 11, 12 Longtoushan; 13 Qianjinyingzi, Aohan; 14, 15 Fengjiacun, Suizhong; 16 Lijiayingzi, Aohan; 17, 18 Donggoudaoxia, Fengning 19, 20 Baifu, Changping; 21 Suide; 22, 23 Shilou; 24, 25 Great Wall Belt, Inner Mongolia; 26 Zhukaigou Site; 27 Qingshuihe County; 28 E221 Erdos; 29 Xinglin Site, Minxian County; 30 Qijiaping, Guanghe; 31 Tuchangtou, Minhe; 32 Nuomuhong Site; 33 Xiabanzhuwa, Hualong County (16, 18, 26 are stone molds)

108

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

crosses (Fig. 2.49: 7–8), can no longer be observed on the axes of the Zhou period, and some single-eared axes emerge (Fig. 2.49: 9–10). The western Liaoning region is an important distribution area of ancient bronze culture in China, as a large number of hollow-headed axes have been found here. According to the previous studies, the earliest hollow-headed ax found in this region belongs to the Upper Xiajiadian culture around the time of the early and mid-Western Zhou period. These hollow-headed axes resemble those in the Central Plain of the Western Zhou period in shape and style. They bear square socket but no ear and no intricate motifs except for some raised ridges near the socket (Fig. 2.49: 11–15), and a small number of them are decorated with triangle motifs (Fig. 2.49: 12). In addition to these axes, a set of stone-made casting molds of hollow-headed axes has been excavated from Lijiayingzi Aohan Qi, Inner Mongolia (Shao 1983). In view of its shape, it was clearly designed to mold a double-eared hollow-head ax (Fig. 2.49: 16). According to Wuen, this casting mold should be associated with the Weiyingzi cultural group (Wu 2008, p. 102). The discovery of this set of stone-made molds indicates that, in the early Western Zhou period, eared hollow-headed ax could also be found in the western Liaoning region. Nonetheless, the dominant type of hollow-headed ax in this region was earless. While no hollow-headed ax of the Shang period has been found in the northern Hebei region, most of the axes found in this region belong to the Western Zhou period. Because this region is the distribution area of the Upper Zhangjiayuan culture, the hollow-headed axes unearthed from this region probably belong to this culture. These axes resemble those of the Central Plain in shape, as most of them have a square socket but no ear (Fig. 2.49: 17–19), a very limited number of axes bear a single ear on one side (Fig. 2.49: 20). The majority of the Shang period bronze axes in the region of central and southern Inner Mongolia, the center area of the Northern bronze culture, bear similar shapes and styles with those in the Central Plain. They both belong to the earless square-socket system. Axes of this system are usually decorated with a cross, eye pattern, straight-line pattern and other motifs.7 (Fig. 2.49: 21–25). However, one stone-made mold of bronze ax (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2000) excavated from the Zhukaigou remains dating to Shang period bears a single ear on one side (Fig. 2.49: 26) as well as net pattern and triangle pattern motifs. The shape and design of the ax produced by this stone-made mold is quite different from those of the Central Plain and belongs to another system. Only a small number of hollow-headed axes dating to the Western Zhou period have been found in this region, and most of them are stray finds from other places. The axes consists of two kinds, one with ear and the other with no ear. One earless ax collected from Qingshuihe County is associated with the Xicha culture (Cao 2001) (Fig. 2.49: 27). Another ax from Ordos with double ears, a round socket and no decoration is also associated to the Xicha culture by some researchers, although there is no clear evidence of coexisting artifacts (Han 2008) (Fig. 2.49:

These five hollow-headed axes refer to Egami and Mizuno (1935), Lin (1998).

7

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

109

28). In fact, the book Suiyuan Bronze documented a number of double-eared hollow-headed axes (Egami and Mizuno 1935), but their excavation sites are unknown. A small number of early hollow-headed axes is found in Gansu and Qinghai, which revealed the cultural connections between these two regions and the overseas areas. This has attracted the attention of both domestic and international scholars (Fitzgerald-Huber 1995; Mei and Gao 2003). The eared hollow-headed axes found in the Qijiaping remains in Guanghe County (An 1981; Li 2009) and the Xinglin remains in Min County (Gansu Provincial Cultural Center 1985) are both made of copper instead of bronze (Sun and Han 1997). The Qijiaping hollow-headed ax is thick and heavy with a square socket and two ears (Fig. 2.49: 30), while the Xinglin ax is single eared with no decoration (Fig. 2.49: 29). Scholars generally agree that the these axes belong to the late Qijia culture. Early studies suggest that the Qijia culture dated to 2200 B.C.–1800 B.C. However, the artifacts unearthed from the Mogou cemetery in Lintan County of Gansu Province call for a reconsideration of the Qijia culture. The situation in the Mogou cemetery is quite complicated. Numerous pottery unearthed there look like the pottery of the Qijia culture but also show features of a later age. Recently, some researchers have argued that the Mogou site did not belong to the Qijia culture but instead to another culture that existed 3500 years ago or even later (Ye 2010). Therefore, the axes from Xinglin and Qijiaping might date to the early Shang period. Both earless axes (Fig. 2.49: 31–32) and single-eared axes (Fig. 2.49: 33) were found in the later remains in this region, although they are not large in number. Xinjiang is located between the Northern Zone of China and the steppe areas outside China. Its special geographical location makes it a frontier of cultural exchanges between the East and the West. According to the excavators, the earliest hollow-headed ax in this region, unearthed from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery, dated to the 19th–13th century B.C. (Lv et al. 2001; Qian et al. 2001), but the official excavation report has not yet been released. The published materials show that this ax is thin, earless, and of primitive style, distinctively different from the later axes in this region and the nearby areas (Fig. 2.50: 1). Despite the slight difference in shape, axes unearthed from Xinjiang at a later time all belong to the double-eared type with a round or oval socket (Fig. 2.50: 2–8). Three bronze axes unearthed from the Xintala site in Heshuo County, the northern Niya remains (Shao 2009b) and the Liushui cemetery (Xinjiang Department, Institute of Archeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 2006) were dated between the middle of the 2nd millennium B. C. and the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. By the first half of the 1st millennium B.C., the hollow-headed axes in Xinjiang had undergone major changes in shape and style, bearing a round socket and a single ear on the wide side of the ax. This is clearly shown by a well-preserved ax with a wooden handle unearthed from the Yanghan No.1 cemetery (Fig. 2.50: 9–12).

110

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.50 Early period axes from Xinjiang. 1 Tianshanbeilu Cemetery; 2 Hami Museum; 3 Xintala, Heshuo; 4 Northern Niya; 5 Liushui Cemetery; 6 Ili Region; 7 Tekesi County; 8 Ili Museum; 9 Tacheng; 10 Tomb No. 4 at Chawuhu; 11 Tekesi County; 12 Tomb No.1 at Yanghai; (6 is stone mold.)

2.2.4

Bronze Spears with Seima-Turbino Characteristics Found in China

In addition to socketed battle-axes and hollow-headed axes, bronze spears with Seina-Turbino characteristics have been found in China. They are distributed in various regions, including Qinghai (Wang 1995), Shaanxi, Shanxi (Collected

2.2 Relevant Remains in China

111

Fig. 2.51 Seima-Turbino bronze spears from China. 1 Shenha, Qinghai; 2 Shaanxi; 3 Shanxi; 4 Xichuan, Henan; 5 Chaoyang, Liaoning

respectively in Shaanxi Museum and Shanxi Museum), Henan (Institute of Archeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences et al. 2009) and western Liaoning Province (Li 2005a). These bronze spears bear a hook-shaped barb (Fig. 2.51: 1–4), similar to the Seima-Turbino ones, except for those from western Liaoning Province (Fig. 2.51: 5). Compared with the Seima-Turbino spears, however, these spears do not have sharp points. The points of the five spears from the Shenna remains of Qinghai and Xiawanggang, Xichuan County (Fig. 2.51: 1, 4) are so blunt that it is even suspected that they were not designed for combat.

2.3

The Cultural Relations Between China and the Steppe Zone During the 2nd Millennium B.C.

In the first two sections, we discussed the distribution and basic characteristics of several similar remains in the Northern Zone of China, Xinjiang, and the steppe areas outside China. Through the comparative analysis of these remains, we can see more clearly how the steppe culture impacted the Northern Zone and Xinjiang regions in the 2nd millennium B.C.

112

2.3.1

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Expansion of the Andronovo Culture Complex in Xinjiang

The expansion of the Andronovo culture complex has interested archaeologists worldwide. This culture originally formed in the Southern Urals and the Kazakh steppe region. Covering a very limited area in its first stage, the culture began to expand northward to the Minusinsk Basin at the middle reaches of the Yenisei River and southward to the southern part of Central Asia in its second stage approximately the 18th–14th centuries B.C.. It also had a profound impact on the Syrac culture in northeastern Iran and the Namazgar culture in Turkmenistan (Shang 2007). It was also in this period that the Andronovo culture complex expanded eastward to the Semirechye region and the western part of Xinjiang. Many scholars have analyzed the expansion of the Andronovo culture complex by associating it with the migration of the ancient Aryans. The Russian archaeologist Kuzmina believes that the Andronovo people and the Timber Grave people had close relationships with the Indian-Iranians, and the former were more likely to be ancestors of the Indian-Iranians. She notes that the Aryans arrived in the southern part of Central Asia with the migration and expansion of the Andronovo and Timber Grave populations and later differentiated into two branches around the end of the 2nd millennium B.C. (Kuzmina 2007a). One branch of the Aryan people entered the Indian subcontinent and became the Indian Aryans, and the other reached the Iranian Plateau and became Iranians. To substantiate her argument, Kuzmina also combines some of the research results of ethnology and linguistics and cites the ancient Persian Avesta8 and the Indian Vedas.9 The proof she provides includes the spreading of horses and carriages, developed animal husbandry, similar metallurgical products and pottery, and some shared cognate words between the Persian Avesta and the Indian Vedas. In fact, archaeological culture highly involved with issues of ethnic groups, languages and ethnic groups. To relate an archaeological culture to these factors, archaeologists need to provide sufficient and systematic evidence. In particular, it is very difficult to match archaeological cultures to the ethnic groups recorded in historical documents. Nonetheless, such research provides clues for the analysis of the expansion of the Andronovo culture complex. The Andronovo tribes, with well-developed animal husbandry, relied heavily on cattle. However, the steppe is a low-energy ecological environment in which one square kilometer can feed only 6–7 cattle. A pasture will be run out within 20– 25 years, while the recovery of a pasture takes approximately 50 years. Therefore,

8

The Avesta Sutra, the classic of ancient Persian Zoroastrianism (Zoroastrianism). The Avesta is said to contain all the wisdom of the universe, but most of it was destroyed by Alexander the Great. The rest of the book was rearranged around the 3rd century A.D. to about 21 volumes, but to this day, only one volume has been fully preserved. The book consists of four parts: Yasna, Khorda Avesta, Visperad, and Vendidad. 9 The Vedic scriptures are the most important and fundamental scriptures of Brahminism and modern Hinduism. Vedas means “knowledge” and “revelation”.

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

113

with the increase in population and their preferred diet of meat and milk foods, the Andronovo cultural people were forced to migrate continuously because of the short of steppes (Yang 2006). At the same time, their developed metallurgical industry, the use of light chariots and a large number of domesticated horses (Kuzmina 1998; Anthony 1998) enabled the Andronovo people to have large-scale expansion. According to archaeological discoveries, the second stage of the Andronovo culture features a large number of sites and a vast distribution area but a thin strata and a small number of tombs, which can justify this hypothesized lifestyle. By analyzing the Andronovo-related remains in Xinjiang, we find that only a very small number of these remains belong to the flourishing stage of the Andronovo culture complex, and most of them can be attributed to the very late stage of the Andronovo community. A large number of late-stage remains have been found in a vast area covering almost the entire region of western Xinjiang, even including the Tashkurgan area of southern Xinjiang. Moreover, the types of remains include not only residential sites and cemeteries but also a large number of cellaring bronzes, mainly socketed axes, sickles, chisels, hollow-headed axes and shovels. The Andronovo community declined in the third stage. Typical Andronovo remains, such as the Araku type and the Federovo type of the third stage, were rarely found. In this stage, new cultural factors appeared in different types of remains of different regions, while the traditional features were maintained. Despite the features of the tomb structure, burial posture or assemblage of pottery, metal artifacts and cellaring bronzes, the Andronovo remains in Xinjiang show a high level of similarity with the Semirechye type. Another feature shared by the two regions is that they both have fewer remains of the early stage Andronovo culture complex but more remains of the late stage. In addition, considering that the two regions are adjacent, we believe that most of the remains of the Andronovo community found in western Xinjiang should also be attributed to the Semirechye type. Although they are now on different sides of the country border, there is no geographical traffic obstacle between the Semirechye area outside Xinjiang and the Ili Prefecture in Xinjiang. The Ili River valley served as an important channel for cultural exchange between the two places. Furthermore, both the Andronovo remains in the two regions and the remains of the later Sudabrak stage show similar cultural characteristics. The discovered remains indicate that the Andronovo culture complex might have expanded into Xinjiang through the following three routes. The first and most important corridor is the natural corridor from the Semirechye region via the Ili River valley to the Ili region. The second route enters Tacheng and other areas from the Emin River Valley in East Kazakhstan. The third route reaches the Tashkurgan area through the Ferghana Basin and the Pamirs. Because the Andronovo remains found in the Tashkurgan region are of the latest stage of the culture, the third route may have appeared later than the other two (Shao 2009b; Lin 2011). Generally, there are three different levels of cultural expansion. The first level is that similar bronzes exist between cultures, including similarities in bronze design and manufacturing technology. This is very common in the steppe area outside

114

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

China and the Northern Zone. The spread of bronzes may be realized by point-to-point communication between distant cultures or by indirect contact via some type of intermediary group. In other words, there may be no large-scale contact between cultures as different cultures have very few similar bronzes. The appearance of similar bronze artifacts across the Eurasian Steppe was explained by Lin with his “whirlpool theory” (Lin 1998). The discovery of tubular bronze adzes and trumpet-shaped earrings in the Northern Zone is a reflection of the first level of cultural expansion (Lin 2002). The second level of expansion is reflected in the existence of similar pottery among different cultures. In contrast to bronze, pottery is fragile and not suitable for long-distance transportation. Thus the existence of similar pottery in two cultures shows a direct and close connection between the two cultural populations. The discovery of some Andronovo-characterized pottery in the relics of Xintala, Haladon and northern Niya in Xinjiang indicates that there is a direct link between the population of the Andronovo culture complex and the population of the above three sites, which reflects the second level of cultural expansion. The last level of expansion is reflected in similar tomb structures and burial methods, which is likely due to the expansion of cultural community. The remains in western Xinjiang, typically the Xiabandi A II burial site, show the influence of the Andronovo system on the burial rituals, including similar cultural features, tomb structures, burial supplemented by cremation, and features of the funerary products. The Andronovo cultural system might have expanded to Xinjiang through people’s migration because in the Ili area of Xinjiang, evidence of indigenous peoples earlier than the Andronovo culture complex has not been discovered. After reaching the Xinjiang region, these Andronovo people quickly occupied vast areas in western Xinjiang and continued to expand to the east. The Andronovo cultural elements seen in the remains of the Xintala, the remains of the Kurraun in the Kuqa, and the northern type of the Niya remains are the best evidence of this expansion. It seems that the Andronovo population had a sweeping expansion in Xinjiang. Archaeological evidence shows that this expansion process witnessed resistance from either local culture in Xinjiang or cultures originating from Gansu and Qinghai with oriental traditions. One piece of evidence is the painted-pottery culture found in the Xintala remains in the Yanqi Basin, the emergence of which might be due to the expansion of the Nanwan culture in the Balikun area. A saddle-shaped millstone, stone grinding stick, pierced stone ax, and stone rings excavated from Xintala are also related to the Nanwan cultural remains. Though influenced by the Andronovo culture complex, many artifacts excavated from the northern-type Niya remains have Kayue cultural features, such as double-eared jars, sloping shoulder jars, and bronze cutter. The westward expansion of these cultures with oriental tradition, namely, Kayue culture and the Nanwan remains, may be the reason why the eastward expansion of the Andronovo culture complex stopped at middle Xinjiang (Shao 2009a).

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

2.3.2

115

The Spread of Socketed Battle-Axes

In the following section, we illuminate the origination and spread of three types of axes by examining the distribution and evolution of the socketed bronze battle-ax before and during the 2nd millennium B.C. in the steppe area outside China, the Northern Zone of China, and Xinjiang.

2.3.2.1

Three Types of Battle-Axes: Origination and Evolvement

The first class (Class A) of socketed bronze battle-axes appeared very early. Their widespread use began in the late 5th millennium B.C. in the Carpatho-Balkan Metallurgical Province of Europe. The current findings of this type of axes are all made of pure bronze. In the Eastern European steppe, only a small number of the first type have been found, which show obvious features of European tradition. Similarly shaped battle-axes were discovered in the Transcaucasian region and may have also existed in the Iranian Plateau in the late 3rd millennium B.C. However, among the first type, battle-axes discovered from different areas are slightly different in shape. The typical battle-axes with edges intersected at both ends in the Carpathian-Balkan metallurgical area were seldom found in the Transcaucasian region and the Iranian Plateau (Fig. 2.21: 1–4). Class A battle-axes with both ends in the shape of a cylinder from the Eastern European Steppe were not found in the cultures of the Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province (Figs. 2.21: 5 and 2.22: 2). This may indicate that these socketed battle-axes in the steppe area were produced locally and, although influenced by foreign traditions, had their own characteristics. After the middle of the 4th millennium B.C., with the collapse of the Carpathian-Balkan Metallurgical Province, the Class A battle-ax gradually declined in the steppe area. The widespread use of the second class (Class B) of battle-axes in the steppe area began from the Pit Grave culture, which occurred after the middle of the 4th millennium B.C. Its predecessor may be the battle-ax found in the Tripoliye-Kucuteni culture with features of both classes (Fig. 2.21: 7), which indicates that Class B inherited some features of Class A and that the Tripoliye-Kucuteni culture was related to the Pit Grave culture. The Class B type I socketed battle-axes found in the Altai region also had a direct connection with the Pit Grave culture in the Eastern European Steppe. In addition, given the basic forms of battle-axes and coexisting artifacts, it is very likely that the Pit Grave cultural people brought the Class B type I battle-axes to the Altai region during their migration. In the 3rd millennium B.C., in addition to the Pit Grave culture in the Eastern European Steppe, similarly shaped Class B type I battle-axes existed in the North Caucasus and the Transcaucasia regions. Both of them and the Pit Grave culture belong to the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province. At the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., the Pit Grave culture declined, while the Class B socketed battle-ax continued to develop in the steppe area, and continually expand to the

116

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

east. The shape of the battle-axes gradually evolved from Type I to Type II, Type III and Type IV. These four types of battle-axes developed in succession. By the 16th century B.C.—early 1st millennium B.C., the spread of the Class B battle-axes had reached the Xinjiang region. Because no Class B battle-axes have been found in the Gansu-Qinghai region and Inner Mongolia, we speculate that the eastern spreading boundary of the Class B battle-ax should be in the Hami region of eastern Xinjiang. From the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., the battle-axes in the Transcaucasus region and those in the steppe area began to differentiate. In the Transcaucasus region, battle-axes became thinner with a wide blade and long thin tube. By the mid 2nd millennium B.C., the Class B battle-ax had basically disappeared in the Transcaucasia region, and the shape of the battle-axes in this area became more complicated. At the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C., nomadic pastoralism superseded animal husbandry in the steppe area, and Class B battle-axes gradually disappeared in the process. The third type (Class C) of battle-ax was prevalent in the North zone of China but was not found in the steppe areas. More than 60 pieces of Class C battle-axes have been found in the Northern Zone, mainly from the north and south of the Yanshan Mountain, the shores along the branch of the Yellow River (a southern branch of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi ), and Ningxia and Qinghai. This type of battle-ax became prevalent in these areas from the end of the 2nd millennium B.C. and basically disappeared after the mid 1st millennium B.C. (Zhu 2003). In addition to the Northern Zone, similarly shaped Class C battle-axes have been found in the Hami and Turpan regions of Xinjiang. However, in western Xinjiang and the steppe areas outside China, few similar battle-axes have been found. With regard to the origin of the Class C battle-axes, scholars have presented speculations that have not yet been confirmed by archaeological findings (Wu 2008, pp. 41–47; Zhu 2003; Yang 2008). The Near East region is one of the areas most examined by scholars when exploring the origins of the Class C battle-axes. Among the battle-axes from the ancient Near East region (Fig. 2.24), those that are similar in shape to the Class C battle-axes from the Northern Zone are mainly prevalent in the first stage. The first stage battle-axes of the Near East region (Fig. 2.24: 1) are similar in shape to the Class C battle-axes in the Northern Zone (Fig. 2.47: 1–3) but prevailed in an earlier time. In addition to the Class C battle-axes, a half-moon-shaped socketed battle-ax (Yue) has been found in the Heidouzui site of Chunhua County in Shaanxi Province. Similarly shaped battle-axes (Yue) have also been found in the earlier period in the Near East (Zhang and Lin 2004). These findings indicate that the earliest socketed battle-ax in the Northern Zone of China may have a connection with the Near East. However, no evidence of intermediate links or media has been found between the Northern Zone and the Near East, especially in the Oasis of southern Central Asia and in the steppe area between the two regions. Some scholars suggest that, if some types of socketed battle-axes in the Northern Zone originated from the Near East and there was a cultural connection between the two regions, the interaction between them must have been intermittently and gradually built (Zhu 2003).

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

117

In addition, it is noteworthy that although the earliest Class C battle-axes found in the Northern Zone of China date to the late Shang period, the feature of “socketed” as a non-Central Plain tradition appeared much earlier in China. A case in point is the socketed beak-dagger-ax excavated from an early Shang period tomb in Taixi Gaocheng, Hebei Province (Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics 1985). From this perspective, the socketed ax may have been introduced into China as early as the early Shang period. Class C battle-axes of the early Shang period or even earlier are quite likely to be found in future archaeological excavations in the Northern Zone of China.

2.3.2.2

Exploring the Relationship Among the Steppe Area, the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang Through Studies of Socketed Battle-Axes

In the Eurasian Steppe region, there are many important distribution areas of battle-axes, such as the Eastern European steppe, the Kazakh steppe, Southern Siberia and Sayan-Altai, Xinjiang and Northern zone of China. The battle-axes of these areas can be divided into two different systems, namely, the European system and the Asian system. With regard to the origin, these battle-axes can be categorized into at least two broad types: primary and secondary. The primary type of battle-axes refers to those that were not influenced by any external cultural factors during their production processes, such as Type-A and Type-B battle-axes of the European system. The secondary type of battle-axes refers to those that were influenced by various external cultural factors or that combined characteristics of other artifacts in production, such as the Type-C battle-axes of the Asian system (Fig. 2.53). Type-A battle-axes appeared very early but did not spread to the east of the Urals. Type-B battle-axes were discovered in large numbers and lasted for the longest time. Feature changes can be observed in their evolution. After the middle of the 4th millennium B.C., they became widespread in the Eastern European steppe and then spread to the southern Caucasus and Eastern Asia. In the 3rd millennium B.C., Type-B battle-axes were already prevalent in the South Caucasus. However, from the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., the development of battle-axes in the Transcaucasian region began to differentiate from those in the steppe areas. The emergence of the socketed battle-axes in the Kazak steppe area was obviously the result of the eastward spreading of Type-B battle-axes of the Eastern Europe steppe in the 2nd millennium B.C. Although the early Type-B style-I battle-axes were found in Southern Siberia and the Sayan-Altai region at the end of the 3rd millennium B.C., they were only regarded as the belongings brought directly by the groups of people of the Pit-Grave culture from Eastern Europe, where these axes did not prevail. With the expansion of the Andronovo culture complex in the late 2nd millennium B.C., Type-B socketed battle-axes reached this area (Fig. 2.52). Type-C battle-axes are of uncertain origin and began to prevail in the Northern Zone of China in the late 2nd millennium B.C. and later spreading westward to

118

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.52 Distribution of socketed battle-axes on the steppe (from the second half of the 5th Millennium B.C. to the end of the 3rd Millennium B.C.)

Fig. 2.53 Distribution of the B-Type and C-Type socketed battle-axes (from the end of the 3rd Millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 1st Millennium B.C.)

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

119

Xinjiang. This type of battle-axes, probably related to those in the Near East, have distribution in the Northern Zone of China. In terms of their distribution areas, the battle-axes of Type-B, diagnostic of the European tradition that first appeared in the Eastern Europe steppe, overlap with those of Type-C, diagnostic of the Asian tradition prevalent in the Northern Zone of China. They have both been found in Xinjiang. Specifically, more Type-B battle-axes have been discovered much more frequently in the western part than in the eastern part of Xinjiang. In contrast, Type-C battle-axes have mainly been found in the eastern part as well as the central part of Xinjiang but have never been found in the western part. This distribution shows that the battle-axes of the western and eastern traditions spread in different directions in Xinjiang. Specifically, the battle-axes of the European tradition expanded from west to east, while those of the Asian tradition spread from east to west, with the two distributions overlapping at Hami and Turpan (Fig. 2.53). Transcaucasia and, the Near East beyond the Eurasian Steppe are all agricultural areas. The earliest battle-axes in Transcaucasia originated in Eastern Europe but later developed and spread to the Near East. In the Near East, bronze techniques were mainly used to produce artifacts for ritual events in the society of a developed agricultural civilization (Yang 2009). Therefore, many types of socketed battle-axes gradually lost their practical functions and became ritual artifacts. The early battle-axes that prevailed in this area share certain similarities with some of the Type-C battle-axes in the Northern Zone of China but are much earlier than the Type-C. However, the necessary intermediate links and media between the two have not yet been found. Xinjiang is situated in the hinterland of the Eurasian continent. Its special geographical position makes it the forefront of the early cultural exchanges between the East and the West. Battle-axes of both the European and Asian traditions have been found in the Hami and Turpan areas of Xinjiang, which indicates that the eastern and western cultures met and merged in Xinjiang even before the Han period. However, neither the influence of the artifacts from the Northern Zone of China spreading westward to Xinjiang nor the influence of the European steppes spreading eastward was exerted beyond Xinjiang to either the west of Xinjiang or the Hexi Corridors, respectively. The status of Xinjiang as a “channel” for cultural exchanges between the East and the West was probably established in the late Warring States period. For example, elements of the Semirechye culture from Central Asia in the Warring States cemetery at Majiayuan, Gansu, were introduced along the Tianshan Mountains. From then on, the connecting channel between China and other parts of the Eurasian continent evolved from a steppe road to a desert oasis road (Yang 2010). The process of conflict and integration between the eastern and western cultures along the road helped to forge the Silk Road. The Northern Zone of China is at the crossroads of agriculture and animal husbandry, and its culture has been influenced by both the cultures of the Central Plain in the south of China and the steppe area outside China. From the perspective of socketed battle-axes, the Northern Zone of China was not substantially

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

120

influenced by Eastern Europe and the Kazakh steppe region. However, this area is of great significance to the origin and development of the battle-axes of the Asian tradition.

2.3.3

Spread of Axes

Based on the introduction to and the analysis of the Seima-Turbino bronze axes and the Northern Zone axes, the early axes of this type found in China can broadly be categorized into two systems, namely, the earless system and the eared system. The earless ax system mainly involves square-socketed axes,which were discovered in their earliest stage only in the Central Plain, Inner Mongolia, and the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau region. In 1982, Lin proposed that this type of earless ax might have originated in the Yellow River Basin and spread to the Baikal region through the Northern Zone of China and became popular in the southern part of the Great Forest. The “Angara-Yenisei” bronze axes were found there (Fig. 2.54: 1–3) and li (three-legged pottery cauldrons for cooking) with snake designs are the best illustrations of this relationship (Lin 1998). Later, some scholars maintain that “the axes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture originated from the axes of Erligang-Yin Ruins in the Central Plain.” (Qi 1994) The bronze axes in the region along the middle

Fig. 2.54 Axes of Angara-Yenisei and the Karasuk culture. 1–3 Angara-Yenisei; 4–8 the Karasuk culture

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

121

section of the Great Wall are also believed to have been influenced by the Shang culture in the Central Plain instead of the Seima-Turbino bronze culture (Wu 2008, pp. 77–82). Based on the above analysis, it is believed that the earless square ax system appeared first in the Yellow River Basin and then spread northwards and probably contributed to the emergence of the earless square axes in the Northern Zone in the Western Zhou period. In the Shang period, eared axes appeared in Xinjiang, Northwest China and south-central Inner Mongolia. Later in the Western Zhou period, they influenced the axes in the Central Plain, northern Hebei and western Liaoning. In addition to one primitive-style ax excavated from a burial in Tianshanbeilu, double-eared axes were the most prevalent in Xinjiangin in the 2nd millennium B.C. In the 1st millennium B.C., single-eared axes became popular. They were quite different from the previous single-eared axes in other regions in that the single ear was installed in a different position, which can be regarded as an alteration in the form of axes by the ancient inhabitants of Xinjiang. It is believed that the source of these eared axes should be explored in areas outside of China, but the route along which the earliest eared axes spread to China can be considered to have run from Xinjiang to Gansu and Qinghai and finally to Inner Mongolia. The same is true of the Karasuk culture in the middle reaches of the Yenisei River (13th–8th century B.C.). The bronze axes there can also be broadly categorized into two systems: a system of earless square-socketed axes decorated with vertical lines and nipple-shaped patterns (Fig. 2.54: 4–6) and a system of double-eared round-socketed axes with no other decorations except for two ridged lines (Fig. 2.54: 7, 8). The two forms of axes also show features from different sources. The earless square-socketed axes may be related to the Yenisei-Angara axes, while the double-eared and round-socketed axes may share the same origin as with the eared axes in China. Some bronzes include bronze spears, bronze knives, and axes (Fig. 2.55) (Parzinger and Hermann 2006), which were also found in the Baikal region before the Stone Slab Grave culture. A similarly shaped bronze spear was found in the Seima cemetery (Fig. 2.26: 18). However, bronze spears in Baikal are long and slim in shape (Fig. 2.55: 1). The bronze knives there all have a ring-shaped pommel, a relatively primitive feature. Some knives not only have a warped point but a concave handle as well (Fig. 2.55: 3), which appeared later than the warped point knives of the Xia period (Fig. 1.17). Although later than those of the Karasuk culture, the axes in the Baikal region can also be broadly categorized into earless square-socketed axes (Fig. 2.55: 5, 6) and double-eared round-socketed axes (Fig. 2.55: 7). The square-socketed axes with decorations may be related to their counterparts in the Central Plain and the Northern Zone of China. The double-eared round-socketed axes may share the same origin with their counterparts in the Karasuk culture. One ax excavated from a site of the Andronovo culture complex at Xintala of Heshuo County, Xinjiang (Fig. 2.50: 3), shows a high level of stylistic similarity with an ax of a Baikal site (Fig. 2.55: 7). Therefore, they may belong to the same historical period and share the same origin. Conservatively, the Baikal bronzes may date from the mid-2nd millennium B.C. to the early 1st millennium B.C.

122

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Fig. 2.55 Early bronzes in the Baikal Region. 1 Bronze spears; 2–3 bronze knives; 5–7 axes

Based on the analysis of the Seima-Turbino axes, it is believed that the origins of the eared axes in Karasuk, China, and Baikal may be related to the eastern Seima-Turbino type of axes, which are typically represented by the Rostovka axes. It has been previously concluded that the axes of Seima-Turbino mainly spread westward and northward and that the eared axes in Karasuk and China show no Seima-Turbino style ornament. Therefore, the origins of these two types of eared axes probably has no direct relation to the eastward spread of the Seima-Turbino culture. The Andronovo culture complex may have served as a bridge between the Seima-Turbino culture and the other two cultures in the spread of axes. In the 2nd millennium B.C., the Andronovo culture complex expanded unprecedentedly, exerting pressure on the Seima-Turbino people and spreading to the Minusinsk Basin and Xinjiang, China. According to Professor Kuzmina, the Seima-Turbino people were closely related to the Federovo type of Andronovo people to the east (Kuzmina 2007a). Perhaps the eared axes were introduced to China, the Minusuksk Basin and Baikal along with the expansion. If earless square-socketed axes are considered a feature in the Central Plain culture and eared ones a feature in the Eurasian Steppe culture, it can be concluded that the two cultures began to compete in the Northern Zone of China early in the Shang period. As seen at the Zhukaigou site, both bronze ge typical of the Central Plain culture and eared axes with Eurasian steppe features (Fig. 2.49: 26) were unearthed from the site of the Shang period. Also, what is considered the earliest bronze short sword in China was excavated at this site (Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 2000). All these excavations show that the Zhukaigou culture complex, as one of the best representatives

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

123

of the indigenous cultures of the Northern Zone of China, was influenced by both the Central Plain and the Eurasian Steppe. That is also a portrayal of the culture of the Northern Zone of China during the pre-Qin period. It was under the combined influences of the Central Plain and the Eurasian Steppe that the indigenous cultures in the Northern Zone of China continued to divide and merge and eventually form a distinctive cultural belt in the Northern Zone of China.

2.3.4

Seima-Turbino-Type Bronze Spears

With regard to the bronze spears found in China, academia generally believes that they are related to the Seima-Turbino site, but their date is still under debate. The bronze spear unearthed at the Shenna site in Xining, Qinghai Province, was originally considered to belong to the Qijia culture (Wang 1995), and it is one of Huber’s most important pieces of evidence for her arguments for the influence of the Seima-Turbino culture on the Qijia culture (Fitzgerald-Huber 1995). The connection between the Shenna bronze spear and the similar ones in Seima-Turbino sites cannot be denied. However, no coexisting artifacts of the Shenna bronze spear have ever been reported in the literature, and no consensus has been reached on the date of the spear. Some scholars believe that this bronze spear may belong to the Kayue culture. In addition, four similar bronze spears were unearthed at the Xiawanggang site in Xichuan, Henan Province, in 2008. Zhu found that the dating of these bronze spears and the Shenna bronze spear may be later than the Erlitou culture but earlier than the Western Zhou period, which is equivalent to the Shang period (Gao 2009). Currently, the Qijia culture is argued to have lasted longer than previously presumed. Even if the Shenna spear belongs to the Qijia culture, it should have existed at the late stage of the Qijia culture, which is consistent with the conclusion that the Seima-Turbino culture was popular roughly between 1800 and 1400 B.C. The Seima-Turbino-type bronze spears could not reach China too early. In addition, it should be noted that there are certain differences between bronze spears of this type found in China and the diagnostic Seima-Turbino-type bronze spears, especially in the sharpness of the spearhead. Therefore, these Chinese spears are local imitations rather than being imported directly as finished products. Although no such bronze spears have been found in Xinjiang, the Seima-Turbino-type spears were likely introduced into China along the natural channel of the Irtysh Valley. This channel played an important role at an earlier time. According to Lin Yun, in the early 3rd millennium B.C., the Khemck culture in the Altay region and the Xiaohe culture in the southern Tarim Basin were dominated by traditional western cultural factors, and these western cultures probably had entered Xinjiang through the Irtysh River channel (Lin 2011).

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

124

2.3.5

Summary

What has been mainly discussed and contrasted are some of the closely related artifacts of the 2nd millennium B.C. in Xinjiang, the Northern Zone of China and the steppe areas outside China. The following aspects have been focused on the Andronovo culture complex, the Seima-Turbino site, and the related socketed battle-axes, axes, and Seima-Turbino-type bronze spears. Based on these analyses, the relationship among the cultures of Xinjiang, the Northern Zone of China and the steppe areas outside China in the 2nd millennium B.C.can be summarized as follows. In the 2nd millennium B.C., Seima-Turbino sites in the forest steppe and the Andronovo culture complex in the steppe region were both at their peak of expansion. The Seima-Turbino culture was prevalent during the prosperous stage of the Andronovo culture complex. Due to the long coexistence between the two types of cultures, there must have been some exchanges between them. The Andronovo culture complex was originally formed in the steppe areas of the southern Ural and Kazakh and then expanded outward rapidly, spreading northward to the Minusinsk Basin on the middle reaches of the Yenisei River, southward to the southern part of Central Asia, and eastward to the Semirechye region and western Xinjiang. Artifacts such as the Type-B socketed battle-axes and flared earrings of the Andronovo culture and the eared axes and bronze spears of the Seima-Turbino culture influenced Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China during the eastern expansion of the steppe culture in the Late Bronze Age. Xinjiang is located in the hinterland of Eurasia. Due to its special geographical position, it became the forefront of early cultural exchanges between the East and the West. In this process, Irtysh Valley, Emin Valley and Ili River valley were important channels of cultural influences to Xinjiang. The Andronovo battle-axes of European tradition and the Northern Zone of China battle-axes of Asian tradition as well as Seima-Turbino-type eared socketed battle-axes have been found in Hami and Turpan of Xinjiang, which shows that the eastern and western cultures converged at Xinjiang even before the Han period. After the mid-2nd millennium B.C., the Semirechye culture of the Andronovo culture complex dominated Ili, Tacheng, and Kashgar in western Xinjiang. At the same time, it had an important impact on the bronze culture of Yanqi and other places in the middle of Xinjiang. Although the Andronovo culture complex expanded throughout in Xinjiang, as archaeological evidence shows, this process was resisted by the traditional eastern culture originating from Gansu and Qinghai and the local culture in Xinjiang. The westward expansion of the traditional eastern culture may have blocked the eastward expansion of the Andronovo culture complex at central Xinjiang. The Northern Zone of China, as a transitional area of agriculture and animal husbandry, was under the influence of both the southern Central Plain culture and the steppe culture beyond the frontier of ancient China. The flared earrings represent the influence of the Andronovo culture, and the axes and bronze spears chiefly display the influence of the Seima-Turbino culture. The earless axes in the Central

2.3 The Cultural Relations Between China …

125

Plain also spread to the Northern Zone of China, as shown by the popularity of the two types of axes in the Northern Zone of China. With regard to socketed battle-axes, the Northern Zone of China was the intermediary for the influence of the Central Plain culture on the culture of Southern Siberia. It was of great significance to the inheritance and development of traditional Asian battle-axes. Under the joint action of the cultural factors of the Central Plain and the steppe areas, the indigenous cultures of the Northern Zone of China continued to divide and merge and finally formed a distinctive cultural belt in the Northern Zone of China.

References An, Z. (1981). Zhong guo zao qi tong qi de ji ge wen ti [A few issues on the early bronzes of China]. Kaogu xuebao, 3, 269–286. Anthony, D. W. (1995). Horse, wagon and chariot: Indo-European language and archaeology. Antiquity, 69, 554–565. Anthony, D. W. (1998). The opening of the Eurasian steppe at 2000 BCE. In The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia (pp. 94–110). Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. Autonomous Region Museum, Heshuo County Cultural Center. (1986). Heshuoxian xintala, quhui yuanshi wenhua yizhi diaocha [Investigation of the original cultural sites of Xintala and Quhui in Heshuo County]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1, 1–5 (in Chinese). Bai, Y. (2002). Zhongguo zaoqi tongqi de kaogu faxian yu yanjiu [Archaeological discovery and research of early bronze wares in China]. In Chinese archaeology and world archaeology in the 21st century (pp 180–202). Beijing, China: China Social Science Press (in Chinese). Beijing Cultural Relics Task Force. (1977) Beijingshi pinggu liujiahe shangdai muzang [The tombs of the Shang period in Pinggu liujiahe Beijing] (Vol. 11). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Bunker, E. C. (1998). Cultural diversity in the Tarim basin vicinity and its impact on Ancient Chinese culture. In The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of Eastern Central Asia (pp. 604–608). Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. Cao, J. (2001). Qingshuihexian zhengji de shangzhou qingtongqi [Shang and Zhou Period Bronzes Collected from Qingshui county] (pp. 79–80). Hohhot, China: Yuanfang Press (in Chinese). Chen, X. (2012). Hexi zoulang ji qi linjin diqu zaoqi qingtong shidai yicun yanjiu – yi Qijia, Siba wenhua wei zhongxin [Research on the early Bronze Age remains in the Hexi Corridor and its adjacent areas: focusing on Qijia and Siba cultures]. (Doctoral dissertation, Jilin University, 2012) (in Chinese). Chernykh, E. N. (1987). Kuzminykh Memorial Seimico-Turbine type in Eurasia. In Bronze Age of the forest belt of the USSR (pp. 84–105). Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russia). Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient metallurgy in the USSR (S. Wright, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chernykh, E. N. (2004). Ancient metallurgy of northeast Asia: From the Ural to the Saiano-Altai. In K. M. Linduff (Ed.), Metallurgy in the ancient eastern Eurasia from the Ural to the Yellow River. New York, USA: The Edwin Mellen Press. Chernykh, E. N., & Kuzmineh, S. V. (2010). Ouya dalu beibu de gudai yejin: Saiyima-Tuerbinnuoo xian xiang [Ancient Metallurgy in the northern Eurasia: Seima-Turbino Phenomenon]. Beijing: Zhonghua Press (in Chinese).

126

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Chernykh, E. N., & Kuzmineh C. B. (2010). Ouya dalu beibu de gudai yejin: Saiyima— Tuerbinnuoo xianxiang [Ancient metallurgy in Northern Eurasia: Seima-Turbino phenomenon] (Vol. 7, pp. 104–116). Beijing, China: Zhonghua shuju (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Management Office in Tangshan, Cultural Relics Management Office in Qian’an County. (1997). Hebei qian’anxian xiaoshandongzhuang xizhou shiqi muzang [Western Zhou tombs at Xiaoshandong, Qian’an, Hebei]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Editorial Board of Archaeology of Encyclopedia of China. (1986). Zhongguo dabaike quanshu (kaogujuan) [Encyclopedia of China, archaeology volume]. Beijing, China: Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu Press (in Chinese). Egami, N., &, Mizuno, S. (1935). Suiyuan qingtongqi (Bronzes in Suiyuan). In Neimenggu changcheng didai [The great wall area in inner Mongolia]. Dongfang kaogu xuehui zhuankan (Special issue of the oriental archaeological society) the 2nd type (Vol. 1, Figure 5) (in Japanese). Erdenechuluun Purevjav. (2011). The sword of heaven-culture of bronze artifacts of the Bronze Age and Hunnu Empire (p. 345). Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Fitzgerald-Huber, L. G. (1995). Qijia and Erlitou: the question of contacts with distant culture. Early China, 20, 18–65. Gansu Provincial Cultural Center. (1985). Gansu Minxian Xinglin Qijia wenhua yizhi diaocha [A report on the Qijia culture site at Xinglin in Min county, Gansu]. Kaogu, 11, 977–979 (in Chinese). Gao, J. (2009). Henan Xichuan Xiawanggang yizhi chutu tongmao guanmo zuotanhui jiyao. [Minutes of the symposium on bronze spears unearthed at Xiawanggang site in Xichuan, Henan]. Zhongguo wenwu bao, 6 (Issue March, Beijing). Gening, V. F. (1992). Sintashta—Archeological sites of Aryan Tribes of the Ural-Kazakh Steppes. Chelyabinsk. Goersdorf, J., Parzinger, H., & Nagler, A. (2001). New radiocarbon dates of the north Asian steppe zone and its consequences for the chronology. Radiocarbon, 43(2B), 1115–1120. Gorsdorf, J., Parzinger, H., & Nagler, A. (2004). Carbon-14 dating of the Siberian steppe zone from Bronze Age to Scythian time, impact of the environment on human migration in Eurasia. New York, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Grigoryev, S. A. (2002). The Sintashta culture and the Indo-European problem. In: Complex societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium B.C. (pp. 149–160). Washington D.C. Guo, J. (2002). Tashenkuergan xiabandi shuiku qu wenwu diaocha [The investigation of cultural relics in the Xiabandi reservoir area of Tashenkuergan]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3–4, 67–68 (in Chinese). Han, J. (2008). Zhongguo xibei diqu xianqin shiqi ziran huanjing yu wenhua fazhan [The development of the natural environment and culture in northwest China in pre-Qin period] (pp. 238–240). Beijing China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics. (1985). Gaocheng Taixi Shangdai yizhi [The Shang period remains at Taixi Gaocheng] (p. 133). Beijing China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Huang, W. (1983). Xinjiang Kaogu fajue baogao 1957–1958 [Excavation report in Xinjiang from 1957 to 1958] (pp. 93–118). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2000). Zhukaigou: qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao [Zhukaigou: excavation report on the early Bronze Age site] (p. 64). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Institute of Archeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, et al. (2009). 2008 Nian Henan sheng Nanshuibeidiao gongcheng wenwu baohu xiangmu Xichuan Xiawanggang yizhi fajue xinshouhuo [Latest findings from the excavation of the Xiawanggang archeological site in Xichuan as part of the Historic Preservation Project in the South-to-North Water Diversion Project in Henan province in 2008] Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan gudai wenming yanjiu zhongxin tongxun, 17 (in Chinese).

References

127

Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science, et al. (2013). Xinjiang wenquanxian adunqiaolu yizhi yu mudi [Adunqiaolu site and graveyard in Wenquan County, Xinjiang Province]. Kaogu, 7 (in Chinese). Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang. (1988). Xinjiang heshuo xintala yizhi fajue jianbao [Xinjiang Heshuo Xintala Site Excavation Briefing]. Kaogu, 5, 399–476. Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang. (2012a). Xinjiang xiabandi mudi [Xinjiang Xiabandi Cemetery]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang. (2012b). Nilekexian tangbalesayi mudi kaogu fajue baogao [Archaeological excavation report of the Tangbasayi cemetery in Nileke County]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. (2000). Zhukaigou: qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao [Excavation report on the Bronze Age sitesat Zhukaigou]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Koryakova, L. N. (2002). The social landscape of Central Eurasia in the Bronze and Iron Age: Tendencies, factors, and limits of transformation. In: Complex societies of central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C. (Vol. 2, pp. 97–117). JIES Monograph Series Nos. 45, 46, Washington D.C. Kosintsev. P. A. (2002). Animals in the burial rite of the population of the Volga-Ural area at the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. In: Complex societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C. (pp. 232–247). Washington D.C. Kuzmina, E. E. (1996). Qingtong shidai de zhongya caoyuan: andeluonuowo wenhua [Central Asian steppe in the Bronze Age: the Andronovo culture]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2, 112–118 (in Chinese). Kuzmina, E. E. (1998). Cultural connections of the Tarim people and pastoralists of the Asian steppes in the Bronze Age. In: H. M. Victor (Ed.). The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia (pp 63–93). Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man. Kuzmina, E. E. (2007a). The origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. Kuzmina, E. E. (2007b). Relation of the Andronovans with the population of Xinjiang and other regions of China in the Bronze Age. Ouya Xuekan, 7, 1–28 (in Chinese). Li, G. (2005a). Zhong xi qingtongmao bijiao yanjiu [A comparative study of Chinese and Western bronze spears]. Zhongguo lishi wenwu, 6 (in Chinese). Li, G. (2011). Zhongguo beifang qingtongqi de ouya caoyuan yinsu [The Eurasian elements in the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, S. (1993). Siba wenhua yanjiu [Research of Siba culture]. In Kaoguxue wenhua lunji [Academic papers of archeology Volume III], Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, S. (2005b). Xinyuanxian chutu yizu qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed in Xinyuan county]. Beijing, China: Zhongguo wenwubao (in Chinese). Li, S. (2009). Xibei yu zhongyuan zaoqi yetongye de quyu tezheng ji jiaohu zuoyong [Regional features of the early copper metallurgy in the northwest and the Central Plains and the interactions between the two regions]. In Dongfeng xijian: Zhongguo xibei shiqian wenhua zhi jincheng [From east to west: the prehistory cultural evolution in northwest China] (pp. 246– 293). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, X. (1991a). Xinjiang tacheng shi kaogu de xin faxian [New discoveries of archaeological studies in Tacheng, Xinjiang]. Xiyu YanJiu, Issue 1. Li, X. (1991b). Tachengshi Weisheng Xuexiao gumuqun ji yizhi [Ancient tombs and site of Tacheng Health School]. In Yearbook of Chinese archaeology (pp. 328–329). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, X., & Dang, T. (1995). Zhunge’er pendi zhouyuan diqu chutu tongqi chutan [Preliminary study on bronzes unearthed from the periphery of Junggar Basin]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2, 40–49 (in Chinese). Li, J., & Lv, E. (2003). Wenquanxian adunqiaolu yicun de kaogu diaocha he yanjiu [Archeological investigation and research on Adunqiaolu site in Wenquan county]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1 (in Chinese).

128

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Lin, M. (2014). Ouya Caoyuan wenhua yu shiqian sichouzhilu [Eurasian Steppe culture and prehistoric Silk Road]. In: Xinjiang Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture Cultural Relics Bureau (Ed.), Sichouzhilu Tianshan Langdao [Silk Road and Tianshan Corridor]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998). Shang wenhua qingtongqi yu Beifang diqu qingtongqi guanxi zhi zai yanjiu [Re-study on the relations between bronzes of Shang culture and bronzes from Northern China]. In: Lin Yun xueshu wenji [Lin Yun’s Academic Collection] (pp. 262–288). Beijing, China, China Encyclopedia Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2002). Xiadai de zhongguo beifangxi qingtongqi [The Northern bronzes during the Xia period]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu, 1, 1–12 (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2011). Silu kaitong yiqian xinjiang de jiaotong luxian [Pre-silk road traffic routes in Xinjiang]. Caoyuan wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Littauer, A., & Crouwel, H. (1996). The origin of the true chariot. Antiquity, 70, 934–939. Litvinenko, R. A. (2002). Chronological correlation between Sintashta and MRC. In: Complex societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C. (p. 171). Washington D.C. Liu, X., & Guan, B. (2002). Xinjiang Yili hegu shiqian kaogu de Zhongyao shouhuo [Important findings of prehistoric archaeology in Ili River valley, Xinjiang] Xiyu yanJiu, 4, 106–108 (in Chinese). Lv, E., et al. (2001). Xinjiang qingtong shidai kaogu wenhua qianlun [On the archeological culture of the Bronze Age in Xinjiang]. In: Su Bingqi yu zhongguo dangdai kaokuxue [Su Bingqi and contemporary archeology in China] (pp. 172–193). Kexue Press. Masson, V. M. (2013). Qingtong shidai wenming de shuailuo yu buluo qianyi [The decline of civilization and tribal migration in the Bronze Age]. In: Zhongya wenmingshi [The history of civilizations of Central Asia] (Vol. 1, pp. 250–265). China Translation & Publishing Corporation. Matyushchenko, V. I., & Sinitsyna, G. V. (1988). The cemetery near the village of Rostovka near Omsk. Tomsk: Tomsk University. Mei, J., & Gao, B. (2003). Saiyima-Tubinuo xianxiang he xibei diqu de zaoqi qingtong wenhua [Saiyima-Turbino phenomenon and the early bronze culture in northwest China]. Xinjiang wen wu, 1, 47–57 (in Chinese). Moorey, S. (1971). Catalogue of the ancient Persian bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum (pp. 37– 65). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Morgunova, N. (2002). Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) Culture in the south Urals Area, complex societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C. (2 Vols., pp. 251–268). JIES Monograph Series Nos. 45, 46. Washington D.C. Natalia. (1998). The Steppe and Sown: Interaction between Bronze Age Eurasian nomads and agriculturalists. In: V. H. Mair (Ed.), The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of Eastern Central Asia (pp 222–237). Paltinger, J. (2003). Saiyima-Tuminuo xianxiang he xiboliya dongwu wenshi de qiyuan [The Seima-Tubino Phenomenon and the Origins of Siberian Animal Ornaments]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1, 102–113. Pan, L. (2008). Lun lushi de niandai ji xiangguan wenti [On the dates of Deer Stones and the related questions]. Kaogu xuebao, 3, 311–335 (in Chinese). Parzinger, H. (2006). Die frühen Völker Eurasiens Vom Neolithikum zum Mittelalter. Munich: C.H. Beck. Phillips, E. (1957). A further note on aristeas. Artibus, 20(2/3), 159–162. Qi, X. (1994). Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua kongshou qingtongfu ji xiangguan wenti [The bronze axes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the related issues]. In Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji [Collected archaeological works on cultural relics in Inner Mongolia) (pp. 317–325). Beijing, China: China Encyclopedia Press (in Chinese). Qian, W., et al. (2001). Xinjiang Hami Tianshan beilu mudi chutu tongqi de chubu yanjiu [A preliminary study of the unearthed bronze objects from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery in Hami, Xinjiang]. Wenwu, 6, 79–89.

References

129

Ruan, Q., & Hu, W. (2013). Xinjiang nileke xian faxian de ande luonuowo wenhua yicun [The remains of Andronovo culture discovered in Nileke county, Xinjiang]. Zhongguo Wenwu bao, Issue of 3rd December 2013, 8th edition (in Chinese). Schmidt, E. (1982). TepeHissar-noelithische und kupferzeitlicheSiedlung in Nordostiran, dargestellt von Paul Yule. School of Archeology and Museology in Peking University, Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Gansu Province. (2012). Jiuquanganguya mudi de fajue yu shouhuo [The excavation and findings of the Ganguya cemetery in Jiuquan]. Kaogu xuebao, 3 (in Chinese). Shang, L. (2007). Jiedu Lihai yanan shehui fuzahua jincheng [On the process of social complexity along the Caspian coast]. Liaoningsheng bowuguan guankan, 3 (in Chinese). Shao, G. (1983). Neimenggu Zhaowudameng aohanqi lijiayingzi chutu d shifan [Stone fan unearthed from Lijiayingzi of Aohanqi Zhaowudameng Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 11, 1042– 1043 (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2009a) Dongxifang wenhua zaoqi de pengzhuang yu ronghe—cong Xinjiang shiqian shiqi wenhua geju de yanjin tanqi [Collision and fusion of early Eastern and Western cultures: based on the evolution of cultural patterns in prehistoric times in Xinjiang]. Shehui kexue zhanxian, 9 (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2009b). Xinjiang diqu andeluonuowo wenhua xiangguan yicun tanxi [A study on the Andronovo cultural remains in Xinjiang]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu, 8, 81–97 (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2014). Yindu -Yilangren de qiyuan pingjie [Comments on the origin of Indo-Iranians]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu, 16 (In Chinese). Shui, T. (2001). Ganqing diqi qingtong shidai de wenhua jiegou he jingji xingtai yanjiu [Studies on the change of culture and economic modes and their relations with the environmental change during the Bronze Age in the Gansu–Qinghai area]. In Zhongguo xibei diqi qingtong shidai kaoguxue lunwenji [Collected essays on the Bronze Age in China’s Northwest]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Sun, S., & Han, R. (1997). Gansu zaoqi tongqi de faxian yu yelian zhizao jishu de yanjiu [Research on the early bronzes in Gansu]. Wenwu, 7, 75–84 (in Chinese). Wang, B. (1987). Xinjiang jinshinian daxian de yixie tongqi [Bronzes unearthed in Xinjiang in the recent ten years]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1, 45–51 (in Chinese). Wang, B. (1989). Xinjiang gongliuxian chutu yipi qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed in Gongliu county, Xinjiang] (Vol. 8, pp. 95–96). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Wang, G. (1995). Xining Shenna Qijia wenhua yizhi [The Qijia cultural sites at Shenna in Xining]. In The 1993 Chinese Archaeology Almanac. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2008). Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua bijiao yanjiu [A comparative study on the archeological cultures on the Northern steppes]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wu, E., Chang, X., & Wang, B. (2001). Xinjiang qingtong shidai kaigu wenhua qianlun [On the archaeological culture of the Bronze Age in Xinjiang). In B. Su (Ed.), Su Bingqi yu dangdai zhongguo kaoguxue [Su Bingqi and the contemporary archaeology in China]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Xinjiang Cultural Relics Administration, et al. (1999). Xinjiang wenwu guji daguan [Xinjiang cultural relics and historical sites] (pp. 365–375). Xinjiang, China: Xinjiang Meishu Sheying Press (in Chinese). Xinjiang Department, Institute of Archeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (2006). Yutianxian liushui mudi kaogu fajue jianjie [A report on the excavation of the Liushui cemetery in Yutian]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2, 38–43 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2004). Tashenkuergan xian xiabandi mudi kaogu fajue baogao [The report on the archaeological excavation of Xiabandi cemetery in Tashenkuergan county]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2012a). Nileke xian tangbalesayi mudi kaogu fajue baogao [The archaeological excavation report of the Tangbasayi cemetery in Nileke county] Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese).

130

2 The Expansion of Steppe Culture During …

Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2012b). Tekesi xian kuokesuxi 2 hao muqun fajue jianbao [The briefing report on the excavation of No.2 tombs in Kuokesuxi, Takesi county] Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2012c). Xinjiang xiabandi mudi [The Xiabandi Cemetery in Xinjiang]. Beijing, China: Wen Wu Press (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2013). Xinyuan xian ayousai goukou yizhi kaogu fajue jianbao [A briefing report on the archaeological excavation of the Ayousaigoukou site in Xinyuan county]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2008). Nileke xian kelasu yizhi kaogu fajue jianbao [A briefing report on the archaeological excavation of Kalasu site in Nileke county]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3 & 4 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2004). Shanshanxian Yanghai yihao mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation report on the No.1 cemetery at Yanghai of Shanshan county]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1, 1–27 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (1996). Tuoli Xian Sazi Xian gumuzang [Ancient tombs in Tuoli county and Sazi county]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2, 14–22 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Relics SurveyOffice, & Ili Area Relics Survey Working Force. (1990). Yili diqu wenwu pucha baogao [A survey report of cultural relics in Ili area]. Xinjiang Wenwu, 2, 5–6 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2006). Xintashita: Ouya caoyuan zaoqi chengshihua guocheng de zhongjie [Sintashta: the end of early urbanization of the Eurasian Steppe]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu, 5, 216–225. Yang, J. (2008). Shang Zhou shiqi Zhongguo Beifang yejinqu de xingcheng — Shang Zhou shiqi beifang qingtongqi de bijiao yanjiu [The formation of the Chinese northern metallurgical province during the Shang and Zhou periods: a comparative study on the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China during Shang and Zhou periods]. In Gongyuanqian er qianji de Jin Shan gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei [Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and the north and the south of Yanshan Mountains in the 2nd millennium B.C.] (Vol. 5, pp. 221–255). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2009). Ouya dalu qingtong wenhua xitong huafen chutan [A Preliminary Study on the Systematic Division of Bronze Culture in Eurasia]. In Xinguoji – qingzhu Lin Yun xiansheng qishi huadan lunwenji [Paper Collection of Xinguo—to Commemorate Lin Yuan’s Seventieth Birthday] (pp. 274–280). Beijing: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2010). Zhangjiachuan muzang caoyuan yinsu xunzong—Tianshan tongdao de kaiqi. [Tracing the steppe factors of Zhangjiachuan burials: the opening of Tianshan passage]. Xiyu yanjiu, 4 (in Chinese). Ye, M. (2010). Gansu lintan mogou mudi bushi qijia wenhua de yicun [Mogou cemetery in Lintan, Gansu: non-Qijia culture]. Zhongguo wenwu bao, 15th October (in Chinese). Yuan, J. (2012). Shengye xingqi—wenming jincheng zhong de wugu liuchu baigong [The rise of the industry which people live on—Grains, domestic animals and workers from various walks of life]. Zhongguo wenhua yichan, 4, 44 (in Chinese). Yue, F., & Yu, Z. (1999). Xinjiang minfengxian niya yizhi yibei diqu 1996nian kaogu diaocha [Archaeological investigation in the area north of Minfeng Niya Site, Xinjiang in 1996]. Kaogu, 4, 11–17 (in Chinese). Члeнoвa, H. Л. (1972). Xpoнoлoгия пaмятникoв кapacyкcкoй эпoxи (p. p318). Mocквa: Hayкa. Zdanovich, D. G., & Gayduchenko, L. L. (2002). Sintashta burial sacrifice: The Bolshekaragansky in focus. In Complex societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st millennium B.C. (pp. 202–231). Washington D.C. Zhang, T., & Yu, Z. (1996). Xinjiang minfeng niya yizhi yibei diqu kaogu diaocha [Archaeological investigation in the area north of Minfeng Niya Site, Xinjiang]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1, 16–21 (in Chinese).

References

131

Zhang, W., & Lin, Y. (2004). Heidouzui leixing qingtongqi zhong de xi lai yinsu [Western features on the Heidouzui-type bronzes]. Kaogu, 5, 65–73 (in Chinese). Zhang, Y. (1991). Yilihe liuyu de wenhua kaogu xin faxian [New discoveries of archaeological studies in the Ili River valley]. Wenbo, 6, 44–49. Zhu, Y. (2003). Zhongguo beifang de guanqiongfu [Axes with tubular socket in the Northern Zone of China]. Zhongyuan wenwu, 2, 30–44 (in Chinese).

Chapter 3

The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone of China

In the northern part of the Eurasian continent, from the 5th millennium B.C. to the 10th century B.C., the metallurgical manufacturing center gradually moved eastward, extending first from the Carpathian-Balkan region to the Caucasus, further to the Eastern European steppe, and finally over the Ural Mountains to the Yenisei River valley. In this process, bronzes from the Eurasian Steppe began to be known in the Northern Zone of China. When the Eurasian Steppe entered the late period of the Bronze Age in the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C., the Shang culture in the Central Plain of China gradually declined with the metallurgical industry while nomadic life further developed. By the late Shang period, the borders of the Shang culture and the northern indigenous culture had moved southward, which provided space for the development of the bronze culture in the Northern Zone of China. The combination of highly developed bronze manufacturing in the Shang culture and the distinct way of life and production in the Northern Zone of China promoted the emergence of bronzes with characteristics particular to the Northern Zone of China. Influencing and subsequently merging culturally with the Eurasian Steppe, the Northern Zone of China began to adapt to nomadism, represented by such dynamic martial cultural types as Baifu (Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office 1976) and Baode (Wu 1972a).

Part of the figures in this chapter are adopted from Han J (2015) Xia Shang Xizhou zhongyuan de beifang qingtongqi yanjiu (A study on the Northern bronzes of Central Plain in the Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou periods) Shanghai guji Press, Shanghai, China (in Chinese) Fig. 3.23 adapted from Fig. 2.11; Fig. 3.24 adapted from Fig. 2.12; Fig. 3.25 adapted from Figs. 2.13 and 2.14; Fig. 3.35 adapted from Fig. 2.15; Fig. 3.38 adapted from Fig. 4.13; Fig. 3.39 adapted from Fig. 5.2; Fig. 3.40 adapted from Fig. 4.14; Fig. 3.41 adapted from Fig. 4.2, Fig. 3.42 adapted from Fig. 4.19. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3_3

133

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

134

3.1

Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

3.1.1

Northern Bronzes During the Early Shang Period

Emerging in the early Shang period, the Northern bronzes began to boom in the late Shang period. Two bronze systems represent a close association with the ones in the Northern Zone of China. The first is the Northern bronzes at the Zhukaigou site in Inner Mongolia, and the other is bronzes of the Taixi type, the northern variant of early Shang culture.

3.1.1.1

Bronzes of the Northern Zone Culture- Zhukaigou Culture

The Zhukaigou site is located at Nalinta Township of EjinHoro Banner in the east of YekeJuu League (now Ordos City) of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Since the end of the 1970s, archaeologists have conducted four seasons of excavations in this region, during which a large number of artifacts have been unearthed. The site endured for a long time, from the late Longshan culture to early Shang culture (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1988, 2000b). Bronzes of the third and fourth phases of this site are presented in Chapter One. Bronzes of the fifth phase, corresponding with the early Shang period, can be sorted into two categories namely, bronzes of the Shang culture and those related to the Northern Zone of China. The first category, Shang bronzes, includes the ding (Chinese tripod) (Fig. 3.1: 7) and ge (Chinese dagger) (Fig. 3.1: 8–10). This damaged bronze ding with a thin body was unearthed from a pit at the Zhukaigou site. In the Central Plain of China ding were not left in the pits but were buried with the dead, indicating that the Zhukaigou people used ding in a different manner and on different occasions compared with people from the Central Plain. However, the appearance of these bronzes also indicates the influence of the Shang culture on the Zhukaigou people. Moreover, the influence is not only observable on bronzes but also on pottery, specifically on the plate-shapeddou-stemmed bowl with a thickhandle, the whirl and thunder patterns, and the li vessels with thick rim. Burials with only pottery from the Shang culture have even been found at Zhukaigou. The above evidence shows that the Zhukaigou culture shared the same practices with the Shang culture in terms of weapons, and some ritual vessels. The two cultures even merged to a certain degree, which can be seen from the whirl and thunder patterns on pottery and the li vessels with thick rim. The second category, bronzes related to the Northern Zone of China, was also found at the Zhukaigou site. Among these bronzes, an earliest sword unearthed in China to date was found. The sword has a straight hilt with marks of cords, a ring-shaped pommel and a “ ”-shaped guard, under which the blade is slightly indented on both sides (Fig. 3.1: 1, Plate 2: 2). It appears to have stylistically developed from the straight-hilt swords from Baifu, Changping, but there seems to

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

135

Fig. 3.1 Bronzes dating back to early Shang period from Zhukaigou site. 1—Bronze dagger, 2— bronze knife, 3—the stone casting mold of the ax, 4—bronze mou, 5—ring, 6—Earring, 7— bronze ding, 8–10—bronze ge

have been no direct adoption from the curved-hilt swords in the late Shangwithan animal-head or bell-shaped pommels and the guards in the shape of the Chinese character “一.” The ring-shaped pommel knife unearthed from the Zhukaigou site has a long blade, curved up at the tip and with a lan, a guard-like ridge projecting from the cutting side. Under the ridge, the blade is also slightly indented, as shown on the ring-shaped pommel sword mentioned above (Fig. 3.1: 2). Stone mold of the

136

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

socketed ax was also unearthed from the stratum of the Shang period at the Zhukaigou site, which had not only handles but also net patterns (Fig. 3.1: 3). Also, bronze mou—functioning as a shield (Fig. 3.1: 4), ring (Fig. 3.1: 5) and earring (Fig. 3.1: 6) were discovered at the Zhukaigou site. Generally speaking the Northern bronzes from the Zhukaigou site are not the direct source for their late Shang, which is evidence that the Northern Zone of China had been capable of producing bronzes with their characteristics in the early Shang period.

3.1.1.2

Taixi Type—The Northern Variant of Early Shang Culture

The Taixi site is located in Taixi Village, 10 km west of Gaocheng city, Hebei Province. In 1973, it was excavated by the Department of Cultural Affairs of Hebei Province, and more than 3000 artifacts were unearthed (Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics 1985), some of which were bronzes bearing Northern cultural characteristics. The ge and zhuoge (a ge with a pointed tip for thrusting) from the Taixi site displayed an obvious evolutionary relationship. The diagnostic ge is symmetrical with an oval isometric shape (Fig. 3.2: 1). Similar to zhuoge the ge developed into an unsymmetrical body with a median ridge, the lower edge straight and the upper edge curved. Ge has a flat diamond isometric view (Fig. 3.2: 2). Similar to ge the zhuoge developed in a way that is generally similar to the one above but displays a more explicit median ridge that evolved into a socket (Fig. 3.2: 3). The zhuoge

Fig. 3.2 Bronzes from Taixi sites in Gaocheng city. 1, 2—Bronze ge, 3, 4—zhuoge, 5—ram-head pommel dagger, 6—bronze knife, 7, 8—bronze arrowheads

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

137

developed further, with the front part bending slightly downward and the median ridge stronger, but the overall shape is still similar to the ge, with the butt end much closer to the socket (Fig. 3.2: 4). It finally evolved to become an extended type with the socket located in the middle. What was found at Chaodaogou (Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics Work Team 1962) was diagnostic of this type. A ram-head-shaped pommel dagger was unearthed from the Taixi site (Fig. 3.2: 5). The ram-head-shaped pommel dagger evolved into the one with a snake-shaped pommel from Shilou (Fig. 3.5: 2, 3) and bell or human-head-shaped pommels from the north of the Yanshan Mountains. The ram, a herbivore, occurred as an animal-head-shaped pommel ornament at the Taixi site of the early Shang, which was probably the origin of the Northern animal-head-shaped pommel bronzes of the Shang and Zhou periods. This speculation is based on the following three aspects. First, a ram-head-shaped pommels have been found in both Taixi and the Northern Zone of China. However, the Taixi ram-head-shaped pommel appeared quite different in form from its counterpart in the late Shang. Second, they both exhibit a perfect junction between the pommel and the hilt, with the animal’s neck functioning as the hilt, and they are bent into the same angle, with the pommel leaning forward and the artifact curved as a whole. Seima artifacts of the same or earlier times are the ones with animal-head-shaped pommels. There was an obvious separation between the hilt and the pommel (Fig. 2.27: 9). Third, the artifacts both in Taixi and the Northern Zone of China had rows of square patterns typical of the Northern bronzes from south of the Yanshan Mountains. Given its early date and the location between the Central Plain and the Great Wall Belt in the north, the Taixi site might have played a significant role in the emergence of the Northern bronzes. A similar site has never been discovered within the Northern Zone or beyond it. Therefore, the Taixi site is probably the birthplace of the Northern bronzes. As a site of the Shang culture that embraced the characteristics of Northern Zone of China, Taixi also produced artifacts typical of the latter, such as ring-shaped pommel knives and socketed arrowheads (Fig. 3.2: 6–8) the socket of which is distinctive of the Eurasian Steppe, while those from the Central Plain had tangs. On the one hand, the difference remained in the installation of shafts between the steppes and the Central Plain. On the other hand, although shafted in a way characteristic of the steppes, Taixi arrowheads were stylistically typical of the Central Plain, which reveals the cultural integration of the two regions (Jumahe Archaeology Team 1988). The earliest Northern bronzes most likely emerged from the combination of people’s need for bronzes and the superior casting techniques of the Shang. The ram-head-shaped pommel dagger from Taixi is the earliest artifact found to date adorned with an animal-head-shaped pommel. This ornament is common in the Tomb of Fuhao at Yinxu of the late Shang (Anyang Work Team of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1977), in which the pommels of bow-shaped artifacts were adorned in the form of an animal-head-shaped pommel, bell-shaped pommel or snake pommel, all distinctive of the Northern Zone. That indicates that the Northern bronzes were more closely associated with the Shang culture by the time of Yinxu.

138

3.1.2

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Northern Bronzes from the Late Shang to West Zhou

Since the late Shang cultural convergence occurred from west to east along the Great Wall Belt in the Northern Zone, the cultures display similarities, which indicate more frequent regional interactions. Floral-rim li and li with snake designs and Northern bronzes spread widely during this period. Bronzes with distinct regional features appeared (Fig. 3.3) bearing typological and stylistic resemblance. Bronzes of this period can be roughly classified into four regional brackets: both sides of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi, the Hetao region, northern Hebei, and north of the Yanshan Mountains. The discoveries can be put into eight assemblages according to the type and style of the artifacts, their association with Central Plain culture, and the context. Assemblage 1 is located in the Jinzhong region (the central part of Shanxi Province). The only discovery is the Shang cemetery at Jingjie, Lingshi County, Shanxi Province (Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Lingshi Cultural

Fig. 3.3 Locations of the eight assemblages in the Northern zone of China. Assemblage 1— Lingshi. Assemblage 2—Shilou, Yong he, Xixian, Suide in Shaanxi, Qingjian, Yanchuan, Yanchang, Zichang and Wubu. Assemblage 3—Caiji in EjinHoro Banner, Ganquan County, Baode County, Liulin County, Shilou County, Ji County and Yanchuan County. Assemblage 4— Qingshuihe County. Assemblage 5—Huai’an and Zhangbei in Zhangjiakou, Beijing, Qinglong, Suizhong, Xingcheng, Xinmin in Shenyang, Faku, Fushun and Aohan. Assemblage 6—Qian’an, Luan County, Lulong County, Zunhua and Ji County. Assemblage 7—Changping, Xinglong and Chaoyang in Shenyang. Assemblage 8—Chaoyang and Chifeng. Other locations: Zhuanglang County in Gansu, Gaocheng City in Hebei, Fenyang in Shanxi and Taigu

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

139

Fig. 3.4 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Jingjie, Lingshi County

Institue 1986; Shanxi Sheng Kaoguyanjiusuo 2006). Three burials were found, one in 1976 and the other two in 1985, with significant similarities. Burial goods were dominated by the Central Plain bronzes, including ge with straight na (内), arrowheads with tangs, and bronze vessels including you ding, gui, jue, and gu. Among these, jue and gu constitute the majority with ding and gui as important additions, a practice similar to that seen in the tombs of the late Shang at Anyang (Fig. 3.4: A). Bronzes characteristic of the Northern Zone were also discovered, such as bronze ram-head-shaped pommel knives, socketed yue (a battle-ax) and ge (Fig. 3.4: B). The finds comprised pottery li as well, specifically Shang li and li with the cylindrical bellies, the latter stylistically characteristic of the Xinghua cemetery of late Shang representing the Baiyan culture in the Jinzhong region (National Cultural Heritage Administration, Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Archaeology Department in Jilin University 1998). This assemblage indicates that this is an aristocratic tomb of local Jinzhong people who admired the Shang hierarchy or intermarried with the Shang aristocrats. The socketed yue and ge resulted from the cultural integration of the Central Plain and the Northern Zone (Fig. 3.4: C). This close association with the Shang culture reveals a friendly relationship between the locals and the Shang. Referring to the similarity between the pottery li from the Jingjie and the Xinghua (National Cultural Heritage Administration, Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Archaeology Department in Jilin University 1998) cemeteries, some scholars have speculated that those interred at Jingjie might have been upper-class aristocrats of the archaeological culture represented by Xinghua (Zhang et al. 1994). It is worth noting a figure of a long-eared onager on the stand of a bronze ring-foot gui unearthed from M1. The shape is reminiscent of a pair of delicate jade wild horses (Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1980a) from the tomb of Fuhao at Yinxu and a pair of bronze horses found at Yanjiagou, Ganquan County, Shaanxi Province (Wang et al. 2007a) (Fig. 3.6: 10). The three sites, roughly dated within the same period, are all characterized by the coexistence

140

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

of the Central Plain culture and the Northern Zone culture. Because of their stocky figure, erect manes and fluffy tails Professor Linduff considers the equids from Jingjie and Fuhao to both be wild horses, which are physically quite different from the long-legged and slim-figured horses found in the tombs and sacrificial pits at the Yinxu of Anyang, the capital of the late Shang (Linduff 2003). That suggests that domesticated horses were taken as sacrificial animals at Anyang in the late Shang, while in the tombs of Fuhao and the Jinzhong region where the Northern Zone cultural traits occurred frequently, wild horses were employed. The coexistence of domesticated horses and wild horses suggests a special relationship between the late Shang and the Northern Zone of China during this period. Assemblage 2 was distributed in northern Shanxi and Shaanxi along both sides of the Yellow River, comprising as many as 37 sites in Shilou [The major findings in Shilou County: (a) Yang (1959); (b) Guo (1962a); (c) Shanxi Provincial Cultural Relics Management Committee (1958); (d) Shilou County People’s Cultural Center (1972); (e) Shanxi Lvliang Cultural Relics Studio (1981a); (f) Xie and Yang (1960)], Yonghe [The major findings in Yonghe county: (a) Yang (1977); (b) Zhao and Liang (1999)] and Xixian (The major finding in Xi Xian: Xi xian Xiaoxitian Cultural Relics Management Office 1991) of Shanxi Province and Suide [The major findings in Suide: (a) Hei and Zhu (1975); (b) Suide County Museum (1982a); (c) Suide County Museum (1984); (d) Wu and Yu (1988)], Qingjian [The major findings in Qingjian County: (a) Shaanxi provincial institute of archeology, Shaanxi Provincial Cultural Heritage Administration Committee, Shaanxi History Museum, et al. (1979); (b) Dai (1980); (c) Gao (1984); (d) Gao and Wang (1983); (e) State Administration of Cultural Heritage (1998)], Yanchuan [The major findings in Yanchuan: (a) Ji (1992); (b) Fan (1995)], Yanchang [The major findings in Yanchang County: Ji (1994)], Zichang [The major findings in Zichang County: (a) Dai (1993); (b) Qi (1989)], Wubu (The major findings in Wubu County: State Administration of Cultural Heritage 1998), and Chunhua [The major findings in Chunhua County: (a) Suihua County Cultural Center, Yao Shengmin (1986); (b) Yao (1990)] of Shaanxi Province. Together they formed a bronze complex represented by the Shilou site of Shanxi Province. A large number of bronze items were unearthed, including ding, yan, lei, pan, jue, jia, gu, ge with straight na, yue with straight na, and arrowheads with tangs, exemplifying the influence of the Central Plain culture. The assemblage features a combination of wine vessels-jue, gu and jia, a similar pattern to what appears in the Yinxu burials of different periods featuring gu and jue. It is evident that the aristocrats among the inhabitants representative of this assemblage identified with the ritual beliefs of the Central Plain and adopted their convention to establish social status. However, some of these unearthed products were relatively rough, and the technical level was obviously low. A pottery mold plug was also collected from an ancient cultural site near Shilou County, indicating that some products were probably locally made (Jiang 2008a). Northern bronzes consisted of the ax with a tubular socket and straight lines, adzes, ram-head-shaped pommel knives, single-ring-shaped pommel knives, snake-head-shaped pommel daggers (Plate 43: 4), knives with three sockets, and ornaments such as cloud-shaped earrings and bow-shaped accessories. The

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

141

Fig. 3.5 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Shilou. 1–3—Dagger (from Xiaoyaopo in Qingjian, Chujiayu in Shilou, Houlanjiagou in Shilou respectively), 4, 5—knives (from Yantou Village in Suide County and Houlanjiagou in Shilou respectively), 6—spoon (from Xiejiagou in Qingjian), 7–9—bow-shaped artifacts (from Heidouju in Chunhua, Chujiayu in Shilou and Houlanjiagou in Shilou respectively), 10—long knife (from Houlanjiagou in Shilou, 11–13—earring ornaments (from Xiaxinjiao in Yonghe, Taohuazhuang in Shilou and Taohuazhuang in Shilou respectively)

assemblage included a basic set of tools with a certain number of ornaments and nearly no weapons (Fig. 3.5). In addition to bronzes specific to the Northern Zone, fusions of the Northern Zone and the Central Plain were discovered, including socketed ge, a long knife with tubular sockets, a frog or animal-head-shaped pommel spoon (Plate 43: 1, 3), a pot with a narrow neck, you (a wine jar) with chain-link handles, gui decorated with straight lines, and gong (a spouted wine vessel). The vessels were similar in shape to diagnostic Central Plain bronzes but showed differences in decoration or specific subtle features. These bronzes can be roughly divided into three periods, corresponding to the three phases of Yinxu. This assemblage, overlapping with the Lijiaya culture in time and space, might be attributed to the Lijiaya culture. This bronze complex reflects its close relationship with the Central Plain culture, and the dominance of tools among the artifacts indicates the underdevelopment of armaments. Assemblage 3: the number of distribution locations is smaller in comparison to Assemblage 2, but the distribution range is broader. The find locations are mainly the following nine sites: stray finds in EjinHoro Banner (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986), Yanjia Village in Ganquan County (Wang et al. 2007), Linzheyu in Baode County (Wu 1972b), Gaohong in Liulin County (Yang 1981a), Caojiayuan in Shilou County (Shanxi Lvliang Cultural Relics Studio 1981b), Shangdong Village in Ji County (Jixian Cultural Relics Workstation 1985), and Qutou Village in Yanchuan County (Yan and Lv 1988). These sites can be considered as constituting the bronze assemblage represented by Baode. Bronze vessels

142

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.6 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Baode. 1–3—Short swords (from Caojiayuan in Shilou County, Gaohong in Liulin County and Qutoucun in Yanchuan County respectively), 4—knife (from Gaohong in Liulin), 5—cheekpiece (from Caojiayuan in Shilou County), 6—awl (from Linzheyu in Baode), 7—bow-shaped ornament (from Linzheyu in Baode), 8—boot (from Gaohong in Liulin County), 9—lingdou (from Linzheyu in Baode), 10—horse status (from Yanjia Village in Ganquan County), 11–13—socketed axes (from Gaohong in Liulin, Qutou Village in Yanchuan and Caojiayuan in Shilou County respectively), 14—spear (from Gaohong in Liulin County), 15—helmet (from Gaohong in Liulin County)

with Central Plain characteristics were unearthed only in Linzheyu, Baode County. The vessels consisted of ding, yan, gui, you (a wine jar) with a chain-link handle, du and hu, but there were few wine vessels. The assemblage of bronze ritual vessels unearthed from Baode was quite random. In contrast to Assemblage 2, the casting techniques of these Central Plain bronzes were highly advanced and extremely exquisite. They were likely cast in the Central Plain rather than being locally copied like Assemblage 2. The ritual bronzes of Yanjiagou Village are an assemblage of four ding and five gui. Most of them are bronzes with Northern Zone characteristics. The bronzes consist of bell-shaped pommel swords, socketed axes with long tubular bodies (the tops of the tubular sockets are higher than the ax bodies), tubular socketed yue, spoon-shaped cheekpieces with rings, long-leaf spears, knives with double-ring-shaped pommels, boot-shaped bronzes, bronze bells, helmets, duoshaped vessels (a duo is a type of large bell used in ancient China as an instrument), tubular ornaments, pao conchos, gold bow-shaped ornaments, bell-shaped ornaments, and bronze horses (Fig. 3.6; Plate 3: 3, 4; Plate 4: 6). Dou-stemmed bowl is a combination of the unique bell (an instrument in ancient China) of the local area

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

143

and the dou-stemmed bowl. Compared with Assemblage 2, this assemblage has fewer cultural factors from the Central Plain but more from the Eurasian Steppe. This assemblage of bronzes can also be divided into three periods, from the latest period of the Yinxu to the around the middle Western Zhou period. The temporal and spatial distribution of this assemblage coincides with the distribution of the Lijiaya culture but with a wider distribution range. The people of Assemblage 3 were highly armed and mobilized, as evidenced by the well-developed weapons, spoon-shaped cheekpieces, and bronze horses with saddles. There was also a difference in the scales between the settlement of the Lijiaya site, at Qingjia Shaanxi [(a) Zhang and Lv (1988); (b) Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology (2013)] and that of the rammed earth platform at Gaohong, Liulin Shanxi (Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archeology 2006). More materials are needed to establish whether this assemblage could be classified into the Lijia culture. Recently, some scholars have questioned the date of the Baode type (Assemblage 3) as well as the division of the Shilou type (Assemblage 2) from the Baode type (Chang 2014). First, it is pointless to use the date of the first stage of Linzheyu in Baode to determine whether the ending date of this assemblage could be dated to the Western Zhou period. Second, the long socketed axes in the late period of this assemblage were quite similar in shape to those in the elephant tombs in Yinxu, indicating that more evidence is needed to determine whether this assemblage can be dated to the late Shang period. William Charles White noted that he did not witness the excavation of the artifacts but obtained the information from others’ descriptions (William Charles White 1956). Third, according to the Lijiaya Report, the site of this type can be dated to the Western Zhou period. The division of the Shilou type and the Baode type was only a way of explaining the existing site. Approximately forty artifacts can be classified into the Shilou type and approximately six into the Baode type (Jiang 2008b). The number of the artifacts from the site was not precise because a large number were stray finds. The bronzes unearthed from Yanjiagou, Ganquan Village and Lijiaya can all be classified into the Shilou type, with only one or two pieces classified into the Baode type. However, these findings are not sufficient to deny this division. If this division is not precise, then it is impossible to classify the fifty sites in this assemblage. Additionally, it would be unreasonable if the two types were completely separated without any contact or interaction. Any hypothesis is a reasonable inference from the existing information, and this division should be further verified if new excavations are conducted. Assemblage 4: mainly distributed in the Hetao area, with only one site, the Xicha site in Qingshuihe County Inner Mongolia [(a) Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (2001); (b) Cao (2003)] has been found. A small number of bronzes with Northern Zone characteristics were unearthed from pits and tombs. The bronzes mainly consisted of socketed axes, axes and spring-shaped earrings (Fig. 3.7). The artifacts unearthed form this site also included the pottery molds of straight-hilt swords, short socketed axes, axes and knives with ring-shaped pommels. However, the above artifacts were not influenced by the Central Plain culture.

144

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.7 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Xicha. 1–3—Socketed axes (from M10 in Xicha, chance finds in Qingshuihe and collected in Qingshuihe respectively), 4, 5—earrings (from M3 in Xicha), 6—chisel (from M9 in Xicha), 7—ax (chance finds in Qingsh)

The date of this assemblage can be dated from the late Shang to the early Western Zhou period based on the socketed axes unearthed from this site. The bronzes and the pottery molds were unearthed from the tombs and pits of the Xicha site. Therefore, they were considered bronzes from the Xicha culture. Assemblage 5: located in the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains, it had a long and narrow distribution from east to west. In the west, the distribution area started from Huai’an (Liu 1988a) and Zhangbei (Zheng 1984a) in Zhangjiakou. It stretched eastward through Beijing (Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office 1978) and Chaodaogou (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1962), then along the Liaoxi corridor to the northeast to Fengjiafu in Suizhong (Wang et al. 1996) and Yanghe in Xingcheng (Jinzhou Museum 1978) and northward to Xinmin in Shenyang (Kazuo County Cultural Center et al. 1977), Wanliu in Faku (Department of Archaeology, Department of History, Liaoning University, Tieling City Museum 1989) and Wanghua in Fushun (Fushun City Museum 1981a). This assemblage is regarded as the bronze group represented by Chaodaogou. These artifacts were mostly from hoards. In the north of the Yanshan Mountains, neither bronzes of the Central Plain nor the tubular socketed ge, the combination of the cultural elements of Northern China and the Central Plain, were found. The representative bronzes in this assemblage were animal-head-shaped pommel swords with curved hilts and zhuoge. The other weapons consisted of short socketed axes, tubular socketed yue and animal-head-shaped pommel, bell-shaped pommels, and ring-shaped pommels knives with curved hilts (Fig. 3.8; Plate 4: 1, 5).

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

145

Fig. 3.8 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Chaodaogou. 1—Short sword (from Chaodaogou), 2–7—knives (from Chaodaogou, Chaodaogou, Chaodaogou, Wanghua in Fushun, Yanghe and Fengjiafu respectively), 8—socketed ax (from Fengjiafu), 9—socketed yue (from Fengjiafu), 10, 11—zhuoge (from Fengjiafu and Yanghe respectively)

The dates of the bronzes in the different sites of this assemblage varied greatly. The earliest bronzes found in the south of the Yanshan Mountains were in Chaodaogou, in Qinglong, while in the north of the Yanshan Mountains, they were in Dahongqi, Xinmin. The latest ones were integrated with elements of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. This assemblage consisted of tools and weapons, but no vessels from the Central Plain were found. However, the artifacts combining the cultural elements of the Central Plain, such as the tubular socket ge and bow-shaped artifacts, were found in the south of the Yanshan Mountains, while no cultural elements of the Central Plain were found among any artifacts in the north of the Yanshan Mountains. Because the time and space of this group of bronzes are beyond the scope of any archaeological culture, they probably represent bronzes from several archaeological cultures. For example, the bronzes found at the site of Wanliu, Faku, are likely to belong to the local Gaotaishan culture. Assemblage 6: this assemblage was distributed in the Tangshan areas of Tianjin, such as Mashao Village in Qian’an (Li and Yin 1995), Chenshantou in Luan County (Meng and Zhao 1994), Donghan’gezhuang in Lulong County (Hebei Provincial Cultural Relics Management Office 1980), Xisanli Village in Zunhua (Liu 1995), Xiaoshandongzhuang in Qian’an (Tangshan City Cultural Relics Management Office, Qian’an County Cultural Relics Management Office 1997), Zhangjiayuan in Ji County (Archaeology Department of Tianjin Museum of History 1993), and Houqianyi in Luan County (Zhang 2003). This assemblage is considered to be represented by bronzes from the Zhangjiayuan tombs. These bronzes were unearthed from the tombs and were found alongside with local pottery. Ding

146

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.9 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Zhangjiayuan. 1, 5—Socketed axes (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an and Chentoushan in Luan County respectively), 2—zhuoge (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an), 3—socketed ge (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an), 4—bow-shaped artifacts (from Chentoushan in Luan County), 6—armlet (from Xiaoshandong in Qian’an), 7— earring (from Zhangjiayuan in Ji County)

and gui were the major bronzes with elements of the Central Plain, while short socketed axes, zhuoge, tubular socketed yue, axes and armlet-shaped earrings carry elements of Northern China. The tubular socketed ge was an artifact containing both the elements of the Central Plain and local indigenous elements (Fig. 3.9). Most of these bronzes are dated to the late Shang period, but the dates of the bronzes in Xiaoshandongzhuang in Qian’an can be established as the Western Zhou. The Weifang III culture existed during this period; thus, this site can be considered part of the Weifang III culture. Both the Assemblage 6 and the Weifang III culture spread in the east. Since the sites from the east are later than those from the west, the Assemblage 6 is the bronzes of the Weifang III culture, which expanded eastward as a result of the decline of the Upper Zhangjiayuan culture. Assemblage 7: distributer in Changping (Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office 1976), Xinglong (Wang 1990a) in Hebei, and Chaoyang (Jianping County Cultural Center, Chaoyang District Museum 1983) in Liaoning, this assemblage can be considered to be represented by Changping, Baifu. This assemblage had a large distribution range, but the number of bronzes in this assemblage was relatively small and mainly from tombs. Bronzes with Central Plain elements were found in the south of the Yanshan Mountains. A great number of bronzes dated to the Western Zhou period were found in tombs in Baifu, Changping. No artifact with Central Plain elements was found in the north of the Yanshan Mountains. In this assemblage, weapons were the largest in number among the bronzes with Northern China elements. Among the weapons, there were various types of short swords, mostly straight-hilted short swords with mushroom-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.10, 1,

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

147

Fig. 3.10 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Baifu tombs. 1–5—Swords, 6—dagger 7—spear, 8, 9—socketed axes, 10—socketed ge, 11—socketed ge, 12–15—knives, 16—helmet (5 and 13 are from Xiaohe’nan in Xinglong while others are from Baifu in Changping)

4, 5). The animal-head-shaped pommel short sword had a straight socketed hilt and animal head (Fig. 3.10, 2, 3). The bell-shaped pommel sword had a curved hilt and a wider and more slender bell-shaped pommel (Fig.3.10, 6). Other weapons included spears, helmets, and ge and ji with Central Plain elements (Fig.3.10, 7, 16, 10 ,11). The number of knives was quite small. One was a knife with a dull animal-head-shaped pommel (Fig.3.10, 13, 14) and another with a bell-shaped pommel (Fig.3.10, 12). Ten bronzes were unearthed from Xiaohenan, Xinglong. They are socketed swords with mushroom-shaped pommels and straight hilts, a bell-shaped pommel knife, a cow-head-shaped pommel knife, a spear, three-socketed ge, a ge with a triangular upper blade edge, a socketed yue and a vessel lid. A socketed mushroom-shaped pommel sword with a straight hilt, an awl, a button, and flora and bead ornaments were unearthed from M1 in Dahuang Village, Shaoguozi Township, Chaoyang. Xinglong and Chaoyang were located in the south and north of the Yanshan Mountains, respectively. There were socketed ge, a combination of the Central Plain culture and the north culture, in the south of the Yanshan Mountains. However, bronzes with Central Plain elements were rarely found in the north of the Yanshan Mountains. The most representative artifact in Assemblage 7 is the socketed mushroom-shaped pommel sword with a straight hilt (Fig. 3.10). The date of this assemblage of bronzes was in the Western Zhou period. The most representative tombs from this assemblage are the Baifu tombs in Changping, where a large number of bronzes with Central Plain elements were unearthed. The

148

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.11 Northern bronzes represented by artifacts from Chaoyang Chifeng Assemblage. 1, 2— Dagger (from Chaoyang), 3—zhuoge (from Chaoyang), 4—lid (from Chaoyang), 5—horse-head pommel artifact (from Chaoyang), 6–9—knives (from Shi’erjiazi in Jianping, Chifeng, Chaoyang and Chifeng respectively)

socketed mushroom-shaped pommel sword with a straight hilt was one of the most representative weapons with Northern Zone elements. Similar swords can also be found in Xiaohenan in Xinglong and Shaoguoyingzi in Chaoyang. However, no artifacts with a combination of Central Plain and Northern Zone culture were found in the north of the Yanshan Mountains. The culture of Yan state was the major culture in Beijing during the middle of this period, and the indigenous culture was the Upper Zhangjiayuan culture. Based on the distribution of time and space, Assemblage 7 may be the remains of the Upper Zhangjiayuan culture. Assemblage 8: distributed in Chifeng (Guo 1993a) (Fig. 3.11), this assemblage consisted of various bronzes with complex types and shapes. Bronzes of the Central Plain were not found, but the bronzes had local indigenous and immigrant cultural characteristics, reflecting the multi-dimensional structure of this assemblage. The localized bronzes consisted of the lids of vessels, daggers with the human-head pommels, horse-head-shaped pommel artifacts, and oddly-shaped short socketed axes. The bronzes influenced by the immigrant cultural factors were animal-head-shaped pommel knives (Plate 4: 2), bell-shaped pommel knives, and tip-ring-shaped pommel knives. The bronzes of this assemblage, with their specific local characteristics of vessel lids with millet-spotted saw-toothed patterns and horse-shaped wares (Fig. 3.11, 4, 5), were influenced by the southward or northward spread and development of other assemblages. The earliest date of this assemblage can be determined by a dagger similar to the animal-head-shaped pommel dagger unearthed from Taixi in the early

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

149

Shang (Fig. 3.11, 2). The latest dating can be judged by the animal-head-shaped pommel knife of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 3.15, 8, 9). In the north of the Yanshan Mountains, the Weiyingzi culture was the only culture during this period. Therefore, the bronzes of this assemblage would have been used by the people of the Weiyingzi culture. However, they were quite different from the bronzes in the Central Plain. Therefore, this assemblage might go beyond the time and space of the archaeological culture. The above eight assemblages represent the basic features of the bronzes of Northern China from the late Shang to the Western Zhou. The emergence of these bronzes made the northern part of China one of the most important distribution areas for the Eurasia bronze culture. These bronze assemblages also represented different ethnic groups throughout Northern China. These ethnic groups had always maintained close ties with the southern plains. In addition to these bronzes, they were reflected in the Oracle inscriptions of the Wu Ding period in Yinxu. Zhu Fenghan analyzed the northern ethnic groups depicted in the Wu Ding period and found that the Shang were affected by the ethnic groups from the north and northwest, including some powerful tribes during the Wu Ding period in the Shang and after. The Shang obtained various northern bronzes during frequent wars with these ethnic groups, drawing on the beneficial components of Northern-style bronzes and refining their appliances (Zhu 2013). Some of the bronze assemblages mentioned above would have been retained by the northern indigenous groups recorded in the oracle inscription of the Shang culture.

3.1.3

Evolution of the Major Bronzes

3.1.3.1

Swords

The swords among the northern bronzes are many in type but these had specific characteristics. The type of swords can be categorized based on the following five aspects: the pommel, the hilt, the guard, the blade and the length of the hilt and the blade. The bronze swords in the Shang and Zhou periods were mainly topped with animal, bell and mushroom pommels. The hilts mainly consisted of two types, curved ones decorated with a check pattern and straight ones with hollow rectangular holes and rectangular grooves. The guards of this period were mainly two types. One was a protrusion in the “一” -shape, and the other had a recess at the junction between the hilt and the blade. The blades can be categorized into two types: short isosceles triangles with non-parallel edges and long parallel edges that from the shape of a willow leaf. Most of the blade profiles were a columnar ridge shape, and a small number of them had flat ovals. With the sword guard as the boundary, the length of the hilt and the blade were divided into two types: in the first type, the hilt and the blade shared equal lengths; in the other type, the sword hilt was shorter than the blade.

150

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.12 Swords with animal-head pommel. 1—From Chaodaogou, 2—from Yinxu, 3—from Zhangbei, 4, 5—from Baifu

(a) The Animal-Head-Shaped Pommel Sword The animal-head-shaped pommel sword was mainly distributed in the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains. One sword of this type was unearthed from Yinxu (Karlgren 1945). However, this type rarely occurred on the banks of the Yellow River in the south and has not been found there yet (Fig. 3.12). The animal-head-shaped pommel sword unearthed from Chaodaogou, Qinglong, Hebei can be dated to an early date (Plate 4: 1). It was characterized by a very realistic animal-head-shaped pommel. There was a small ring button at the junction of the animal-head-shaped pommel and the hilt. The hilt was curved and decorated with a strip of small squares. The hilt profile was a convex lens shape, and the sword guard was convex. The blade was a long isosceles triangle, and the length of the blade was roughly equal to that of the hilt. It may be more appropriate to consider this sword a dagger. The date of the animal-head-shaped pommel swords unearthed from the Baifu tombs in Changping, Beijing was relatively late, indicating the development of this sword. The animal-head-shaped pommel was not realistic. The hilt was straight, with many rectangular hollow holes and grooves. There was a recess at the junction between the guard and the blade. The blade was in the shape of a slender willow leaf. (b) Bell-Shaped Pommel Swords Bell-shaped pommel swords, although distributed widely, had various characteristics at different times. The bell-shaped pommel was mainly of two shapes, either in a ball shape (Fig. 3.13:1, 2 Plate 4: 4) or a crown shape (Fig. 3.13: 3–5 Plate 3:

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

151

Fig. 3.13 Swords with bell-shaped Pommel. 1—From EjinHoro Banner, 2—from Yanjia Village, 3–5—from Baode, 6—from Shuiquan in Aohan, 7—from Baifu, 8—from Zhuanglang

3), with the latter most likely to be influenced by the mushroom-shaped pommel. The earliest ball-bell-shaped pommel was similar to the bell-shaped pommels found on both ends of the bow-shaped artifacts of the Shang period, with fewer petals (Fig. 3.13: 6) or a slender body (Fig. 3.13: 7). Most of the hilts found were bent to different degrees, and guards in a “一” shape. It enjoyed great popularity at that time, with only one exception, the bell-shaped pommel sword unearthed from the tomb of Liujia Village, Shuiluo Township, Zhuanglang County, Gansu Province in 1983. This was a sword with a straight hilt and a notch between the guard and sword (Liu and Wu 2006), similar to the swords in Baifu Changping County (Fig. 3.13: 8). (c) Mushroom-Shaped-Pommel Sword Only a small number of mushroom-shaped pommel swords were discovered in the Northern Zone of China, and they were mainly distributed in the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains. They all had straight hilts with a perforation or recessed grooves and a notch between the guard and sword (Fig. 3.14). Based on the distribution area and the shape of the swords, this type of sword was made mainly during the early period and the middle period of the Western Zhou, corresponding to the date of the Baifu tombs in Changping and Jiuzhan in Heshui (Wang 1997).

3.1.3.2

Knives

Knives were discovered in a great number and can be divided into four types, namely, animal-head-shaped pommel, bell-pommel, ring-pommel and mushroom-pommel knives. Each type differed in shape.

152

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.14 Swords with Mushroom-shaped Pommel. 1—From Shaoguoyingzi in Jianping, 2, 4— from Baifu in Changping, 3—from Xiaohenan in Xinglong, 5—from Jiuzhan in Heshui

(a) Animal-Head-Shaped-Pommel Knives The development of animal-head-pommel knives was identical to that of animal-head-shaped pommel swords with regard to the changes of shape but the knives were greater in number and had wider distribution and a clearer evolution. The earliest animal head pommel knife was an ibex-shaped pommel knife unearthed from Chaodaogou, Hebei [also known as the deer-pommel knife (Editorial Committee of Bronze Treasures Series (1995)] (Fig. 3.15: 1, Plate 4: 5). The convex-lens-shaped hilt was like the hilt of the daggers unearthed there. Similar ones were also found in Yantou Village, Suide County (Fig. 3.15: 2), the Fuhao’s Tomb of Yinxu (Fig. 3.15: 10), Huai’an, Zhangjiakou city and other places, indicating that this type of knife was widely distributed along the Great Wall. The animal-head-shaped-pommel knives discovered in Chaodaogou were curved in the hilt and blade but connected. The blade was wide but flat with a convex line on the back, which was quite similar to the knives surmounted by animals unearthed from

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

153

Fig. 3.15 Knives with animal-head Pommel. 1—From Chaodaogou, 2—from Yantou Village, 3 —from Ershijiazi, 4—from Dongli, 5—from Tazigou, 6—from Wushijiazi, 7—from Xiaohenan, 8 —from Reshuitang, 9—from Shilizi, 10—from Fuhao Tomb, 11–13—from Xiaotun (M181, M1713 and M20 respectively)

the Seima-Turbino sites (Fig. 2.28: 1–3). Considering that the knives of Seima-Turbino sites were diagnostic Asian one-edged knives and were earlier than the animal-head-shaped-pommel knives of the Northern Zone, it is probable that they were the original types of the latter knives in China. However, the pommels of the latter in Northern China were decorated with animal heads, not like the standing animals of Seima-Turbino, so the animal-head-shaped pommels likely came from the ram-pommel daggers of Taixi. The inference can be confirmed by the fact that the earlier the animal-head-shaped pommel knives in Northern China were (Fig. 3.15: 1, 2; Fig. 3.34: 1–3, 7), were more similar they were to the knives surmounted by an animal discovered at Seima-Turbino sites. However, how the two were connected site is unknown. Similar to the knives unearthed in Chaodaogou were the animal-head-shaped pommel knife in Ershijiazi Village, Chaoyang, Liaoning Province (Jianping County Cultural Center, Chaoyang District Museum 1983) and the knife in Dongli, Tongliao, Inner Mongolia (Li 1983) (Fig. 3.15: 3, 4). These two knives retained the knob but with a relatively straight back blade. The knob on the animal-head-shaped pommel knife of Tazigou (Wang 1994a) disappeared, but the convex-lens-shaped hilt remained (Fig. 3.15: 5, Plate 4: 2). The goat-head-pommel knife of Wushijiazi, Aohan Banner, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia (Shao 1993a) and the ox-head-pommel knife of Xiaohenan, Xinglong, Chengde, Hebei Province had obscured guards on their relatively straight blades (Fig. 3.15: 6, 7). The horse head and ox-head pommel knives discovered in Reshuitang, Aohan (Shao 1993a) and Shilizi M741 of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Jianping County Cultural Center, Chaoyang District Museum 1983)—were decorated with patterns of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 3.15: 8, 9) and thus were bronze tools of this

154

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

culture. This animal-head-shaped-pommel knife had undergone a similar evolution process in Yinxu (Liu 1993) (Fig. 3.15: 10–13). However, this was a convergence phenomenon of two places developing similar features in complete isolation. After Yinxu, this type of knife disappeared but developed in the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the northeast of China. (b) Bell-Shaped Pommel Knife The bell-shaped pommel of the knife was round, similar to that of the bow-shaped artifacts but different from the crown-pommel prevailing in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau. The bell-shaped pommel has not been discovered in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau, but it enjoyed great popularity among other artifacts more commonly in the north and south regions of the Yanshan Mountains. The earliest bell-pommel knife was discovered in Chaodaogou, with a small ring on the bell that made it convenient for hanging. The bell-shaped pommel had six petal-like ornamental features. On the bell-pommel knife unearthed from Xiaohenan, Xinglong, the small ring disappeared, the bell-shaped pommel was lengthened, and it only had five petals. In the chance finds in Chifeng and Wanliu, the bell-shaped pommels were ball-shaped and had four petals. These characteristics reflected the simplification process of the bell-shaped pommel’s development (Fig. 3.16). Based on the unearthed lengthened

Fig. 3.16 Knives with bell-shaped pommel. 1— From Chaodaogou, 2—from Xiaohenan, 3—collected from Chifeng, 4—from Wanliu

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

155

bell-pommel knives and mushroom-pommel swords, it can be concluded that those of Xiaohenan were of the same period as those of Baifu, Changping, and were parallel in time with the bell-pommel knives discovered in Chifeng and Wanliu, dating to around the middle of the Western Zhou period. (c) Ring-shaped pommel knife Ring-shaped pommel knives were the largest in number among all the unearthed knives. They can be divided into several sub-categories. The first sub-category is ring-shaped pommel knives with an upturned point, which were unearthed from Dongli of Naiman Banner (Li 1983), Niugutu (Shao 1993a), Dapaozi of Ongniud Banner (Jia 1984) and Chifeng (Guo 1993a) (Fig. 3.17: 1–4). The knives of Dongli were unearthed from the ruins of the Lower Xiajiadian culture, where there were sandy layers in the strata. Another knife of this type was recently excavated at the Huoshiling site in Yulin, Shaanxi Province (Fig. 1.17: 7). Similar in shape, these two knives can be dated to the Xia period because both sites underwent serious desertification in ancient times and were located in the north. Knives of this type were also found in Transbaikal (Grishyn 1981) (Fig. 3.17: 5). The knives of this shape were first made in the Xia period, earlier than the eight assemblages of knives that were discussed above. They were mainly distributed in the northernmost region of the Northern Zone at the junction of the European and Asian steppes. For the ring-pommel knife with an upturned point, the change was at the boundary between the hilt and the blade. Among these, the early ones (the knives of Dongli and Niugutu) had outer arc curves in the hilts and clear downward convex demarcations between the blades and the hilts approximating an “S” in shape. The late ones (the knives of Dapaozi and Chifeng), with straight hilts and obscure demarcations between the blades and the hilts, were mainly discovered in the Northern Zone, with only a few (Fig. 3.17: 6) found in Mongolia (Volkov 1967, Table 3-33). Because both had undergone a similar evolution process, it can be concluded that the knives were widely distributed between the northern tip of China and the Mongolian Plateau. Additionally, knives of this kind were slightly concave in the joint part between the hilt and the blade, like a concave lens in profile. The knife of Dapaozi was unearthed, possibly from the same burial, together with a socket-pommel sword and saw-toothed knife, which were typical of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. That suggests that the northern bronzes influenced the local Upper Xiajiadian culture, although the knife of this type did not become one of the main artifacts of the culture. The second sub-category is the knife with a three-stud ring-shaped pommel. The earliest form of this type had a wide, slightly curved hilt and blade, complicated decoration on the hilt, a slightly upturned point, a clear demarcation between the hilt and the blade, and a small ring at the junction of the pommel and hilt. Knives of this type were found in M539 (Anyang Work Force of the Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1992) at Dasikong Village of Anyang as well as at Wanghua in Fushun (Fig. 3.17: 7, 8). According to the artifacts unearthed from the tomb, the bronze knife of M539 can be dated to about Phase II of the Yinxu period. The small ring disappeared, and the tip went downward in the development process of this type of knife. The knives were also found in

156

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.17 Ring pommel knives. 1–6—Knives with upturned points (from Dongli, Niugutu, Dapaozi, Chifeng, Transbaikal and Mongolia respectively), 7–13—knives with a three-stud ring pommel (from Dasikong, Wanghua, Houlanjiagou, Chaodaogou, Yanghe, Fengjiafu and Onon River respectively), 14–17—ring pommel knives (from Chaodaogou, Yanghe, Fengjiafu and southern Gobi of Mongolia respectively)

Houlanjiagou of Shilou, Chaodaogou of Qinglong, and Yanghe of Xingcheng (Fig. 3.17: 9–11), with the Shilou type dating to the period of Yinxu. Finally, knives of this type were nearly straight in shape with an unclear demarcation between the hilt and the blade, such as the knife unearthed from Fengjia, Suizhong (Fig. 3.17: 12). They had undergone an evolution that saw a gradually simplified pommel and hilt with an increasingly less distinctive disappearing boundary between the hilt and the blade. This type of knife was also found around the Onon River in Siberia (Fig. 3.17: 13). The third sub-category is the ring-pommel knives discovered in Chaodaogou, Yanghe and Fengjiafu (Fig. 3.17: 14–16), whose starting date and changing pattern were the same as the knives with three-stud ring-shaped pommel. A knife of this type was also found in the southern Gobi of Mongolia (Novgorod 1989) (Fig. 3.17: 17). (d) Mushroom-Shaped-Pommel Knife A small number of mushroom-pommel knives were also found in this area, such as the Ordos (Tian and Guo 1986a), M1 Heidouzui of Chunhua County in Shanxi (Yao 1986), Fengjiafu of Suizhong (Wang et al. 1996), Chifeng (Guo 1993a), and Houqianyi of Luannan (southern Hebei Province) (Zhang 2003). In addition, there have been a sporadic chance finds in Inner Mongolia and Hebei (Zheng 1994). As for the shape, this type of knife was a diagnostic Karasuk type, which was popular mainly in the early Western Zhou period.

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

157

The above is an introduction to the shapes of various knives with various pommels. Bronzes of this period shared the features of curved hilts with the widest junction and a clear demarcation between the blade and hilt in addition to a convex shape in the back of the blade. The earlier the knives, the more obvious these features are. Compared with the bronze knife discovered at the Zhukaigou site of the early Shang period (Fig. 3.1: 2), the blade was wider and more curved and was closer to the knives found at Seima-Turbino sites (Fig. 2.27). However, other aspects, such as the way the animal-head-shaped pommel was combined with the hilt of the knife, were inherited from the ram-pommel dagger unearthed at the Taixi site (Fig. 3.31). Because the bronzes of the Seima-Turbino site can be dated earlier than those of the Northern Zone of the late Shang period, it is possible that the latter was influenced by the former, but more data are needed for final confirmation.

3.1.3.3

Socketed Axes

Socketed axes of this period had been found in a great number (Zhu 2003). Based on the same type of artifacts unearthed from the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and the north and south areas of the Yanshan Mountains, these axes can be divided into several groups. The first group (Fig. 3.18: 1, 2) consisted of axes with a narrow but long blade, a straight edge, flat blade sides, and a 90-degree-angle between the blade and the tubular socket. The tubular sockets were decorated with cylindrical nipple-like design at the top and aligned with the blade of the ax. The second group (Fig. 3.18: 3–7) was axes with a slightly wider blade. Among them, some had positive edge radians. The blades and the tubular sockets were at an angle of 90°, with only a few less than 90° due to the tapering blade. The tubular sockets were still decorated with cylindrical nipple-like design at the top and aligned with the blade of the ax (Fig. 3.18: 5, 6). The third group (Fig. 3.18: 8–14) was axes with a much wider blade and decorative cylindrical or flat “内”-shaped protrusions at the top of the tubular socket, which was either aligned with the blade or not. Some had an arched edge (Fig. 3.18: 8–11) with an angle of less than 90° between the blade and the socket due to the concave shape on both sides of the blade, while others had an angle of 90° because the blade remained flat. Similar to the axes of the third group,the axes of the fourth group (Fig. 3.18: 15–17) had arc edges and were concave on both sides of the blades, with decorative flat “内”-shaped designs at the top of the tubular socket that were longer than the blade. There was an angle of less than 90° between the blade and the tubular socket. The fifth group (Fig. 3.18: 18–21) were axes with a wider blade, with both sides of the edge unwrapping into the shape of a fan. The sixth group (Fig. 3.18: 22–25) was axes with a blade that was either wide and short or long and rectangular, mostly with a long tubular socket and three decorative nipple-like ornaments at the top of the socket. No. 22 was an exception in shape, but because its blade was similar to that of No. 23, it was classified into this group. The socketed axes had undergone a trend of a long and narrow blade evolving into a wider and shorter one; a flat blade evolving into an arc or a fan-shaped blade on both sides of the axe; flat sides evolving into concave ones between the socket; the blade, an angle

158

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.18 Socketed axes. 1–3—From Dahongqi in Xinmin, 4—from Yanghe in Xingcheng, 5— from M539 in Dasikong, Anyang, 6—from Fengjiafu in Suizhong, 7—from Chaodaogou in Qinglong, 8—from Wanliu in Faku, 9—from Xicha in Qingshuihe, 10—from Linxi, 11—from Laoniuwan in Qingshuihe, 12—from Chenshantou in Luan County, 13—from Laoniuwan in Qingshuihe, 14—from Houqian in Luannan, 15—from M6122 in Qu Village, 16, 17—from Linzheyu in Baode, 18—from Gaohong in Liulin, 19—from M6123 in Qu Village, 20—from Baifu in Changping, 21—from M6231 in Qu Village, 22—from Xiaoshandongzhuang in Qian’an, 23—from Qutou Villiage in Yanchuan, 24—from Shangdong Village in Ji County, 25—from Caojiayuan in Shilou

of 90° evolved into one of less than 90° at the top of the tubular socket; decorative cylindrical protrusions evolving into flat “内”-shaped ones and the top of the socket aligned with the blade evolving into the top gradually becoming longer than the blade. The lengthening of the socket ensured the stability of the hilt in the socket

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

159

of the ax. Indeed, the changes in these features were not all synchronous. Different parts of an artifact sometimes present the characteristics of different periods, but the evolutionary trend of these characteristics was parallel. The tubular socketed ax of the second group unearthed from M539 (Fig. 3.15: 5) in Dasikong Village was confirmed to be from the piece in Phase II of the Yinxu period. Thus, the date of the bronzes of the second group could also be in Phase II of the Yinxu period. The bronzes of the first group, which were earlier in history, shared great similarities with those in Erlitou (Fig. 1.11: 18), indicating that the date of the first group was Phase I of the Yinxu period or even earlier. The tubular socketed ax (Fig. 3.18: 12) of the third group unearthed from Chenshantou can be from the late phase of the Yinxu period based on the coexisting bronzes of the Central Plain. The tubular socketed ax (Fig. 3.18: 15) of the fourth group was unearthed from M6122 in Qu Village (Zou 2000). The excavation report said that its date was the early Western Zhou period, which could be confirmed as the date of the bronzes of the fourth group. The tubular socketed ax (Fig. 3.18: 21) of the fifth group was unearthed from M6231 in Qu Village. The excavation report said that its date was the early stage of the Western Zhou period. However, based on the hoof-footed tripod and gui-tureen with a tile-patterned lid, some scholars believe that it is a bronze of the mid-Western Zhou period (Zhu 2003a). The authors consider this reasonable. With regard to the other axes of this group, the date of the one unearthed at Baifu, Changping County (Fig. 3.18: 20), can be dated to at least the mid-Western Zhou period. Therefore, the fifth group is in the mid-Western Zhou period. As for the date of the sixth group, there is no reference. However, because the date of the Baode type socketed axes unearthed at Gaohong (Fig. 3.18: 18) was slightly earlier than the date of the axes of the sixth group unearthed at Caojiayuan, Shilou County and Shangdong Village, Ji County (Fig. 3.18: 24, 25), the date of the sixth group is at least no earlier than the late mid-Western Zhou period. The ax of the sixth group, with a round hole (Fig. 3.18: 23), was likely to be the source of the socketed axes of the later Kayue culture.

3.1.3.4

Zhuoge

The number of zhuoge was small, and their distribution was more concentrated spatially and temporally. Zhuoge first appeared at the Taixi site of the early Shang period (Hebei Province Institute of Cultural Relics 1985). They were similar in shape to the ge of the Shang period (Fig. 3.2), short in length, flat and straight on both ends, with a short part behind the socket (Fig. 3.19: 1, 2). With its further development, zhuoge completely lost the shape of ge and became longer, bending downwards at both ends, and with the front and rear ends demarcated at the socket and similar in length. One such zhuoge was found at Chaodaogou in Qinglong and one at the Yanghe remains in Xingcheng (Fig. 3.19: 3, 4), thirteen at Fengjiafu in Suizhong (Fig. 3.19: 5, 6), and one at Xiaoshandongzhuang in Qian’an (Fig. 3.19: 7). With regard to its emergence, some scholars have suggested that it is a product that combines the ge of the Central Plain and the socketed axes and zhuo-type

160

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.19 Zhuoge. 1, 2—From Taixi, 3—from Chaodaogou, 4—from Yanghe, 5, 6—from Fengjiafu, 7—from Xiaoshandong

artifacts of the Northern Zone (Lin 1987b). Because zhuoge has been traced to the Taixi site of the early Shang period, the socketed ax or zhuoge may also be found in the early Shang period or earlier.

3.1.3.5

Cheekpiece with an Animal Head

The number of unearthed cheekpieces with animal heads was quite small, but this type of cheekpiece represented the distinctive decorative style in the Northern Zone. The earliest found cheekpiece with an animal head had a snake head at the top, and the bottom was in shape of a spoon. It was named the spoon-shaped artifact because its function was uncertain. This type of cheekpiece has been excavated from three tombs belonging to the Baode type, namely, the tomb in Shangdong Village, Ji County (Jixian Cultural Relics Workstation 1985), the tomb in Waizhuang Village, Shilou County (Yang 1976a), and the tomb in Caojiayuan Village (Shanxi Lvliang Cultural Relics Studio 1981). Among these three, the tomb in Shangdong Village was excavated scientifically, and the cheekpieces unearthed were in pairs. The cheekpiece (9 cm to 13.8 cm in length) was topped with the head of a snake and was shaped like a spoon on the bottom part, with the spoon and the snake head facing opposite directions. Because the head and the spoon protrude forward, the cheekpiece was in the shape of the letter “S” from the side view. The handle of the spoon had three knobs with rings covered in a leaf pattern. The collected spoon-shaped cheekpiece with the animal heads (11.7 cm in length) in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, also had knobs with leaf pattern rings on the handles (China Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics and Archaeology Institute, Korea Goguryeo Research Foundation 2006). A pair of cheekpieces (16.5 cm to 19 cm in length) excavated from tomb M8061 in Xiaoheishigou, Ningcheng County, Inner Mongolia, which belonged

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

161

Fig. 3.20 Cheekpieces with animal-head pommel. 1—From Caojiayuan, 2—chance finds from the Ordos, 3—from Xiaoheishigou

to the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Ningcheng County Cultural Center et al. 1985), have thinner bodies with deer heads on top and they are embellished with flat raised linear openwork bead ornaments instead of knobs with leaf pattern rings (Fig. 3.20).

3.1.3.6

Casting Mold

The cast bronzes unearthed from various places were relatively small in number and not systematically categorized. These types of artifacts were not observed in some archaeological assemblages, and it is sometimes difficult to categorize some of the casting molds into specific archaeological assemblages. It is still possible, however, to identify bronze-casting traditions in various places in different periods. In terms of the unearthed casting molds, ceramic casting molds were found on the Shanxi and Shaanxi plateaus as well as the Hetao region, while stone casting molds were found in the south and north parts of the Yanshan Mountains. The casting molds belonging to the Xicha culture in the Hetao region and the Weiyingzi culture in the northern part of the Yanshan Mountains have been analyzed extensively (Fig. 3.21). Stone casting molds were in a dominant position during the Lower Xiajiadian culture and the Upper Xiajiadian culture, with the exceptions of one ceramic casting mold in the Lower Xiajiadian culture and one ceramic casting

162

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.21 Casting molds. 1—From Lijiaying, 2—from Xicha

mold as well as one bronze-casting mold in the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Ceramic casting molds were used in the Erlitou culture during the Xia period in the Central Plain (Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science 1999), while stone casting molds were found at the Dongxiafengsite (National Museum of China, Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology 1988), indicating that both ceramic and stone casting molds were used during the Xia period. However, since the early Shang period, bronze casting in the Central Plain had utilized ceramic casting molds. Thirty-six ceramic casting molds with distinctive shapes were unearthed from one bronze-casting site at Nanguanwai, which belonged to the upper Erligang culture. Among them, thirty-two pieces were tools, while the rest were weapons and vessels (Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science 2003). The differences in the casting molds in various places in the Northern Zone of China indicated that the Shanxi and Shaanxi plateaus and Hetao region shared great similarities and were influenced by the Central Plain culture. In the above discussion, bronzes in the early Shang period and eight types of bronze artifact assemblages from the late Shang period to the Western Zhou period as well as the major evolution of the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China were introduced and analyzed. It is quite certain that from the late Shang period, the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China were in their first period of prosperity, featuring curved hilts, straight guards, herbivore head pommels, bell-shaped pommels, and snake head ornaments. Among the eight types of bronzes, four types originated from the west of Taihang Mountain and four originated from the east, with slight differentiation between west and east according to the dates. The bronzes with delicate and realistic animal decorations unearthed from Chaodaogou Village, Qinglong County, are the most frequently published pieces, and they belonged to a comprehensive assemblage of all the bronzes in eight types. Their date was the earliest of the artifacts indicated. By analyzing these bronzes, a discussion can be conducted about the origin and the start and end date of these bronzes in the late Shang period in the Northern Zone of China. The cross-sections of the knife hilts and animal-headed sword hilts (Fig. 3.8: 3, 1) were in the shape of a convex mirror

3.1 Emergence of the Northern Bronzes

163

(Plate 3: 1, 2, 5), which were completely different from the cross-sections of the bronze knives that prevailed in the northern part of the Xia period and the Mongolian Plateau which were shaped like concave mirrors. Thus, the bronze knives were not derived from the knives and swords with animal heads. The above discussion considered the similarities between the Seima-Turbino site and the bronze knives represented by the ones unearthed from Chaodaogou that featured curved hilts, wide blades, and protruding backs as well as the relationship between the combination of animal heads and hilts and the site in Taixi during the early Shang period. These similarities and this relationship were indicated the integration of the grassland steppe and the northern Shang culture (Fig. 3.57). The bronze knives unearthed from the Fuhao’s Tomb, which date to Phase II of Yinxu, were quite similar to those unearthed from Chaodaogou. Both the knives with three-stud ring-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.17: 7) and the tubular socket axes of the second group (Fig. 3.18: 5) were unearthed from M539 in Dasikong, dating to Phase II of Yinxu. The tubular socket axes of the first group date to Phase I of Yinxu or even earlier. From the above analysis, it can be assumed that the date of the bronzes in the late Shang period could be Phase II of Yinxu (the early 13th century B.C.).1 It is worth noting that the ceramics that coexisted with these bronzes share great similarities as well. Floral-rim li and li tripods with snake design serve as the best example. After analyzing the floral-rim li tripods and the distribution of the related ceramics and bronzes, Han Jiagu discovered one significant phenomenon in ancient culture in the Northern Zone of China 3000 years ago. There was a cultural belt stretching thousands of miles closely connected to the north and west part of the Shang. The location of this cultural belt coincided with the location of the Great Wall built during the Warring States and the Qin and Han dynasties. Thus, this belt was named the Great Wall Cultural Belt (Han 1990). The formation period of the Great Wall Cultural Belt started during the late Shang period. From that time, the Shanxi and Shaanxi plateau, as well as the south and north part of the Yanshan Mountains, became the center in the Northern Zone of China, gradually forming bronze cultures with their own characteristics and spreading outward. In the Shanxi and Shaanxi plateaus, weapons were well developed, among which swords were the most abundant and long tubular socket axes prevailed due to their lethality. In the south and north part of the Yanshan Mountains, weapons, with knives being the greatest in number and shape, were not as well developed compared with those in the Shanxi and Shaanxi plateaus. The battle-ax with the upper edge of the tube parallel with the body did not upgrade its slashing force by increasing its weight. The special weapon zhuoge in the south and north part of the Yanshan Mountains was not found in the Shanxi and Shaanxi Plateau. In terms of decoration, the artifacts in the Shanxi and Shaanxi Plateau were usually decorated with a bell-shaped pommel, while those in the south and north parts of the Yanshan Mountains had animal heads. As the differences between the ancient cultures of the

1

Referred to Zhongguo kaoguxue xiashangjuan (Chinese archaeological—Xia and Shang), on P664 “the stage of Yinxu culture and its Carbon-14 data”.

164

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

north and south gradually broadened, the similarities between the east part and the west part increased. After approximately 1000 years, an ancient cultural belt with its characteristics was formed in the Northern Zone of China, which served as a contrast with the ancient culture in the Central Plain region.

3.2

Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

The boom period for the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China coincided with the late period of the Bronze Age in the Eurasian Steppe beyond the border. During this period, well-developed Bronze Age sites began to decline. In the Kazakh steppe and the Eastern European steppe, the Timber Grave culture and the Andronovo culture site began to disintegrate, while the well-developed Seima-Turbino site disappeared. However, in the meantime, the cultures in the west of the Altai Mountains and those in the forest-steppes had strengthened their interaction. Because this period was later than the prevailing period of the Seima-Turbino sites, it is referred to as the post-Seima period. Although contact between cultures in the west part of the Altai Mountains and the Asian steppes became intensive, this culture did not continue its expansion eastward like the Andronovo culture, and its interaction with the bronze culture in the steppes of the Northern Zone of China did not strengthen. During this period, the major regions that were in intensive contact with the Northern Zone of China were the Sayano-Altai, Minusinsk Basin, and Mongolian region. Among these, the Karasuk culture and early Bronze Age sites in Mongolia are worth noting.

3.2.1

The Kazakh Steppes, Eastern European Steppe, and Forest Steppes in the Post-Seima Period

In the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C., Timber Grave culture sites and the Andronovo culture site began to decline (Fig. 2.4). The well-developed ceramic decorations had gradually become simplified as the two cultural systems disintegrated. A type of pottery named “Valikovaya pottery” had emerged, with applied patterns or a mustache-shaped pattern belt on the mouth rim, neck, and shoulder. The surface of the applied patterns was either smooth or refined, while the ending part of the belt faced downward in the shape of a human mustache. Although the proportion of this type of pottery at different sites varied from 15–40%, the distribution ranges were quite wide. Based on the research conducted by Chernykh, the distribution area of this type of pottery extended to the Altai Mountains in the east and reached the northwest part of the Balkan Peninsula, the lower reaches of

3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

165

Fig. 3.22 The distribution of the Valikovaya Pottery (cited from Chernykh 1992, Fig. 79). 1— Pshenichevo-Babadag, 2—Coslogeni, 3—Noua and Moldavian ‘Thracian Hallstatt’, 4— Belogrudovka and Chernoles, 5—Sabatinovka and Belozerka, 6—‘Scrubnaya-Khvalynsk’-basins of the Don, Volga and eastern Ural region, 7—Kobyakovo, 8—Sargary culture, 9—settlements of the Beghazy-Dandybai type, 10—sites of the Trushnikovo type, 11—Amirabad culture, 12—Yaz I-Tillya-tepe-type sites, 13—inferred borders of the community

the Danube, and the east part of the Carpathian Mountains to the west. To the north, it extended to the east part of Europe and the forest steppes in West Siberia, while to the south, it reached the Crimea Republic and the lower reaches of the Don River as well as the deserts in Central Asia, which originally belonged to the former Soviet Union, the north part of Afghanistan, and the northeast part of Iran (Chernykh 1992) (Fig. 3.22). Typologically similar pottery had been unearthed from tombs in the eastern part of the Mongolian region (Kuzmina 2007, Fig. 109-19). Even at the Xiangyangling site in Yi County in the northeast part of China, one excavated ceramic li dated to the late Shang period (Dong 2000), which was also the prevailing period of applied decoration pottery, is embellished with a mustache-shaped pattern belt (Liaoning Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1999). The applied pattern pottery with similar features became stylistically diagnostic of the horizon and represented the intensive contact among peoples in various regions, which can also be observed in the unearthed bronzes. The bronze tools, weapons, and decorations that are typologically similar are commonly found in these regions. The bronzes mainly consist of bronze daggers, bronze sickles, bronze chisels, and hollow-head axes with two ears (Fig. 3.23), among which bronze sickles are found in nearly every region (Fig. 3.23). In general, in the early stage of the post-Seima period, the central locations of mining and metallurgy did not change, and mining and metallurgy were still at a fairly high level of development. This is quite obvious in the forest-steppe region in

166

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.23 Metal implements from areas East to the Altai Mountains dating back to post-Seima period (cited from Chernykh 1992, Fig. 81). 1–10—From Danube (1,3,4,6,9,10 from Romania, 2, 5, 7, 8—from the Republic of Bulgaria), 11–27—from Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukraine and Don River, 28–37—Unearthed along Volga River, 38–49—from East of the Ural Mountains and the Republic of Kazakhstan, 50–62 from the central Asia part of the former Soviet Union

western Siberia in the eastern part of the Ural Mountains. Taking the Samuxi IV site as an example, a large number of cast axes and casting molds of spear heads were excavated. From the shape of the casting molds, they possess the characteristics of the Seima-Turbino culture (Fig. 3.24). In the late stage, mining and metallurgy in various regions declined rapidly, with a decrease in bronze tool and weapon production, a decrease in the amount of casting molds, and a reduction in remains from settlement sites, tombs, and hoards. This phenomenon is common in the Asian steppes in the west of the Altai, the east Europe steppe, the Carpathian-Balkan region, and the Danube.

3.2.2

Early Bronzes from the Mongolian Region

The Mongolian region adjacent to the Northern Zone of China had a large number of remains in the Bronze Age. The bronzes in many Mongolian museums are typologically similar to the ones unearthed from the Northern Zone of China. These

3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

167

Fig. 3.24 Part of casting molds from Samuxi IV site

bronzes, however, were stray finds or collected, and they are from various periods. Research on these bronzes has rarely been conducted, so explicit research on the dating, distribution, and attribution of these bronzes is lacking. According to some early research, these bronzes were related to the Karasuk culture or the Slab Grave culture (Wu 2005). A large number of bronzes were closely related to the Slab Grave culture in the Mongolian region. However, there were also some bronzes belonging to earlier dates. At the beginning of the 21st century, Alexey Kovalev conducted a series of archaeological studies and trial excavations in the southern part of Mongolia and named a new Bronze Age culture: the Tevsh Culture (13th century B.C. to 10th century B.C.) (Kovalev and Erdenebaatar 2009). The date of many early bronzes coincides with the Tevsh Culture. Due to severe grave robbing, however, the significance and distribution of the Tevsh Culture have yet to be studied in depth. In recent years, a large number of excavation funds have been provided for archaeological work in Mongolia. These funds have been used to excavate some sites and tombs from the Bronze Age. Although a large proportion of the bronzes have been robbed,2 up-to-date published materials (Батасайхан цэндийн Монгол нуттаас олдсон эртний нccдэлчдий урлагийн дрсгал 2004) concerning some of 2

In April 2012, Professor Chagan Turbat from Institute of Archaeology in Mongolia Academy of Sciences delivered a report entitled “Introduction to Archaeological Studies of the Institute of Archaeology in Mongolian Academy of Sciences in recent years”.

168

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.25 Bronze knives of Shang and Zhou periods from Mongolia. 1—From Govi-Altai aimag, 2—from Töv aimag, 3—from Govi-Altai aimag, 4—from Khovd aimag, 5—from Sükhbaatar aimag, 6—from Ömnögovi aimag, 7—from Töv aimag, 8—from Orkhon aimag, 9—from Dornogovi aimag, 10—from Sükhbaatar aimag, 11—from Dundgovi aimag, 12—from Övörkhangai aimag, 13—from Ömnögovi aimag, 14—from Ömnögovi aimag, 15—from Dundgovi aimag, 16—from Khovd aimag, 17—from Töv aimag, 18, 19—unknown, 20—from Bayankhongor aimag

the bronzes have provided more explicit information on early bronzes in the Mongolian region. Among the early bronzes unearthed from the Mongolian region, bronze knives and swords were the most common. Most of the bronze knives can be categorized into knives with lan (the bulge between the handle and the blade) and knives without lan (Fig. 3.25). In terms of pommels, the bronze knives usually have an animal-head-shaped pommel, ring-shaped pommel, or mushroom-shaped pommel, among which the ring-shaped pommel and animal-head-shaped pommel were the largest in number. Based on the evolution of the bronze knives in the Northern Zone knives with lan and without lan can be dated from the early Shang period to the Western Zhou period. In the early Shang, bronze knives without lan were replicas of the former bone knives (Fig. 3.25: 1, 2) but with vertical triangular patterns on the hilt (Fig. 3.25: 1). The bronze knives with lan were embellished with the same patterns (Fig. 3.25: 3). The knives in the late Shang period always had upturned points. Compared with the bronze knives, the bronze swords, which were relatively smaller in number, can be categorized into swords with notched guards and swords with lan guards (Fig. 3.26). Based on the evolution of the bronze short swords in the Northern Zone of China, the terminus post quem of the two types of bronze short

3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

169

Fig. 3.26 Bronze swords of Shang and Zhou periods from Mongolia. 1—From Bayankhongor aimag, 2, 6—from Khövsgöl aimag, 3—from Zavkhan aimag, 4, 7—from Ömnögovi aimag, 5—from Khovd aimag

swords unearthed from Mongolia was not earlier than the date of the bronze short swords unearthed from Chaodaogou Village, Qinglong County, which can be dated to Phase II of Yinxu. The terminus ante quem was not later than the date of the bronze short swords unearthed from Baifu Village, Changping County, which can be dated to the middle Western Zhou period. Thus, these bronze short swords existed during the late Shang period and the Western Zhou period. Among them, the short swords with animal-head-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.26: 1, 4) and bell-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.26: 3) can be dated to the late Shang period, while the swords with mushroom-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.26: 5, 6) prevailed during the Western Zhou period.

170

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.27 Other Bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods from Mongolia. 1—Battle ax, 2, 3—helmets, 4, 5—axes, 6, 7—spoon-shaped ornaments, 8—bronze pendants

In addition to bronze knives and bronze short swords, the early bronzes unearthed from the Mongolian region consisted of tools and weapons, including socketed battle-axes (Fig. 3.27: 1), axes, bronze awls, and decorations, including spoon-shaped ornaments and a large number of pendants. The spoon-shaped ornaments (Fig. 3.27: 6, 7) prevailed in the Northern Zone of China, representing the ancient cultural tradition of the eastern part of the Mongolian Plateau and the Northern Zone of China. The webbed-shaped pendants of the Karasuk Culture in the Minusinsk Basin were the most distinctive among all the decorations (Fig. 3.27: 8). In addition, many pieces of bronze helmets (Hudiakov and Erdene-Ochir 2010) (Fig. 3.27: 2, 3), which are typologically similar to the ones in the Northern Zone of China, have been found in the Mongolian region in recent years. They serve as good materials for the study of cultural contact between Mongolia and the Northern Zone of China.

3.2.3

The Karasuk Culture in the Minusinsk Basin

The Karasuk culture, as one of the more well-known late bronze cultures in the Eurasian Steppe, has attracted Chinese scholars’ attention because a large number of similar Bronze Age sites were found in the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang. The Karasuk culture was first proposed by Teplauh of in the 1920s. After analyzing tombs at five sites in the Minusinsk Basin, he named the tombs after the Karasuk River near the Batieni Village cemetery of the Khakas region, which provided the most abundant information. Later, many Soviet scholars conducted in-depth research on the Karasuk culture (Kiselev 1949a; Vadetskaya 1986a).

3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

171

Based on the current findings, the center of its cultural distribution was in the Minusinsk Basin in the middle of the Yenisei River and its periphery, and similar site were distributed in the southern Sayan-Altai region. According to Chernykh’s statistics, more than 2000 tombs (Chernykh 1992, pp. 264–271) have been excavated from the Karasuk culture. Because the tombs of the Karasuk culture are not covered by mounds and quadrilateral designs surrounded by slabs are visible on the surface, it is easy for grave robbers to find the burial bronzes. Therefore, most of the tombs have been robbed or destroyed, and the main targets were tools and weapons that are consequently now rarely found in the tombs later. Most of the bronzes wares were collected stray finds, and artifacts similar to these chance finds were found in Mongolia, the Northern Zone of China, and the vast area east of the Minusinsk Basin. These bronzes wares are known as “Karasuk bronzes”. The archaeological sequence of the Karasuk culture were rarely mentioned by early researchers, but differences have been noted among the southern, central and northern parts of the Minusinsk Basin were noted. In 1961, Kilenova suggested that there was a “Lugavskaya culture” that differed from the Karasuk culture in the southern part of the Basin. Later, Gryaznov, Maksimenkov and others proposed that there was no “Lugavskaya culture” (Maksimenkov 1983), and the site belonged to the late stage of the Karasuk culture. They divided the Karasuk culture into two stages: the early stage is the Karasuk period, and the late stage is the Kamenniy Log period. This view was accepted by most scholars. The Karasuk culture is rich in bronzes, among which the most representative are bronze knives (Fig. 3.28), mainly curved one-edged knives (Fig. 3.28: 2–4), knives

Fig. 3.28 Bronze knives and other tools and weapons of the Karasuk culture. 1–13—Bronze knives, 14—bronze sickle, 15—bronze spear, 16—ge, 17, 18—axes 19, 20—bone artifacts, 21— stone arrowheads, 22–24—bow-shaped artifacts

172

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

with ring-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.28: 9, 11, 12), knives with mushroom-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.28: 5–7) and animal-head-shaped pommel knives (Fig. 3.28: 8, 10, 13). Among them, the curved one-edged knives are unique to the Minusinsk Basin and have been found in considerable numbers. Their prototype may have originated from a composite tool with a copper or bronze blade tip inserted into the bone handle (Fig. 3.28: 1). This type of artifact was also found in the Okunevo culture and the Seima-Turbino culture. Therefore, it is possible that it developed simultaneously with and independently of the knives with upturned points of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province during the budding period (Fig. 3.51). Professor Lin Yun believes that this curved one-edged knife with a folded back originated in the Okunevo culture and the Glazkovo culture in the Baikal region (Lin 1998a). From the early to the late period, the blade of this knife gradually turned from a severe arc to a gentle one. Based on its morphological the evolution, the bronze curved one-edged knife was likely to appear in the Karasuk period. The knife with a mushroom-shaped pommel is another type of bronze with unique characteristics in the Karasuk culture. The style of the mushroom-shaped pommel is also the most prevalent in the Minusinsk Basin. The number of unearthed knives with animal-head-shaped pommels is relatively small, and most of them are stray finds. The animal modeling on the pommel is simple and is not as real and vivid as the same type in the Northern Zone of China. The decorations of the Karasuk culture, with their special features, are the most abundant among the burial goods. These decorations include headwear, breast ornaments, necklaces, earrings, bracelets and rings as well as shellfish ornaments and many beads (Fig. 3.29). Among them, the pediform pendant is the most unusual type (Fig. 3.29: 1, 2, 14). This type of ornament was used in different ways, and the metal foil ornaments are found on necklaces, braided into pigtails and on shoes. The pediform pendant decorations braided into the hair of some tomb occupants in the Kamenniy Log period were replaced with triangular foil decorated with points (Fig. 3.29: 15, 16). The most common type of bracelet was a band-shape ornamented with points (Fig. 3.29: 5, 17, 18). The shape of the ring was also unique, with double protrusions on the ring (Fig. 3.29: 6, 7, 20). These decorations are the unique artifacts of the Karasuk culture. In addition, the number of copper bubbles, bead ornaments and spoon-shaped ornaments in the Kamenniy Log period increased, and these became popular in Mongolia, Baikal and the Northern Zone of China. The spoon-shaped ornaments (Fig. 3.29: 24) appeared only in the Kamenniy Log period, perhaps indicating that the late stage of this culture was influenced more by the east. In addition to the bronzes mentioned above, bronze in the Karasuk culture includes short sword bow-shaped artifacts, ge with a tubular socket, bronze sickles, copper spears and socketed axes (Fig. 3.28: 14–24). Among them, bronze short swords were the largest in number (Fig. 3.30), and most of them were stray finds. Most of the short swords had a concave guard, and a small number had the guard a “一”-shaped guard, which may have appeared late in the Karasuk culture. Based on the similar bronze short swords unearthed from the Northern Zone of China, the short swords with “一”-shaped guards were popular in the late Shang period, and short swords with a concave guard were prevalent in the Western Zhou period.

3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

173

Fig. 3.29 Ornaments of the Karasuk culture. 1, 2, 14—Pediform pendants, 3, 4, 21—bronze plague ornaments, 5, 7, 17—bracelets, 6, 7, 20—rings, 8, 9, 22, 23—pao conchos, 10—comb, 11, 12, 19—earrings, 13—shellfish ornaments, 15, 16—triangle-shaped ornaments, 24— spoon-shaped ornaments, 25—mirror-shaped ornament, 26—necklace

Fig. 3.30 Bronze short swords of the Karasuk culture (from Altai and Minusinsk Basin)

174

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

The date of the Karasuk culture has mainly been determined by comparison of the bronzes of the Central Plain of China and the Ural region. The results differ because the selected materials are inconsistent with the artifacts that have been compared. C. A Jiepulohof believed that the Karasuk culture dated to between the 10th and the 8th century B.C. which he concluded based on a comparison of the bronze knives of the Zhou period and those in the Karasuk culture. In the 1950s, C. B. Kiselev emphasized in his book The Ancient History of Southern Siberia that the Karasuk culture may have been formed by the integration of immigrants from the southeast with local residents. The date of the Karasuk-type bronze knives unearthed from Anyang could be from the13th to the 11th century B.C. The knives spread northward to the middle stream of the Yenisei River around the 12th century B.C. The transition from the Karasuk culture to the Tagar culture occurred around the 7th century B.C., so Kiselev defined the date of the Karasuk culture as the 12th to 8th centuries B.C. (Kiselev 1949b). Later, many scholars proposed multiple chronological changes. For example, Gilenova limited Karasuk’s date up to the 14th century B.C., but she emphasized that most materials dated to from the 11th and 10th centuries B.C. to the 9th and 8th centuries B.C. (Chylenova 1972a. Cited in Chernykh 1992, pp. 246–271) Based on the current situation, the popularity of the Karasuk culture’s prime was mainly between the 13th and the 8th century B.C., which has been accepted by most scholars. However, with regard to the internal sequences of the Karasuk culture, there is still a shortage of supporting data. Maximenkov limited the date of the Kamenniy Log period up to the 2nd millennium B.C. and the 1st millennium B.C. The carbon-14 dates for the sites of the Kamenniy Log period further support this date division. Moreover, bronze knives, short swords, bow-shaped artifacts and other bronzes similar to those in the Karasuk culture found in the Northern Zone of China belonged to the late Shang and early Western Zhou dynasties period. Therefore, the current sequence and date of the Karasuk culture are that the Karasuk period occurred from the 13th to the 11th century B.C. and the Kamenniy Log period occurred roughly in the 10th to 8th century B.C. (Vadetskaya 1986b). Although the Karasuk culture boasts a permanent settlement site, the number of sites is relatively small and the cultural layer was relatively thin compared with the tombs, indicating that some residents of Karasuk were likely to have moved seasonally. In addition to pigs, other livestock were found in the tombs of the Karasuk culture as burial goods, with ibexes the most prevalent, followed by cattle and horses. Based on the animal skeletons unearthed from the site, ibexes accounted for 50% of all livestock, cattle for 23%, horses for 16%, and goats for 11% (Legrand 2006). The livestock unearthed at the site were consistent with the burials in the tombs, which also reflected the basic structure of the herds and the population in the Karasuk culture. This structure of the herds shows that the Karasuk culture had well-developed animal husbandry. In addition, remains of plants and grain porridge were found in the pottery of the Karasuk culture. A small number of animal bones (mostly the skeletons of roe deer and juvenile deer) and millstones and sickles were unearthed from the tombs and settlement sites, indicating that there were also agricultural and hunting economies in this culture. Overall, the economy of the

3.2 Eurasian Steppe at the End of the 2nd Millennium B.C.

175

Karasuk culture was likely dominated by animal husbandry that existed simultaneously with agricultural production and a small hunting economy. Regarding the ethnicity of the Karasuk cultural inhabitants, the early researcher Gebitz found that their physical characteristics were similar to that of the Okunev culture. They belonged to the Mongolian population. However, in recent years, some scholars have proposed different opinions. They suggest that the physical characteristics of the residents of the Karasuk culture indicate the Europoid ethnic group mixed with some factors of the Mongolian population (Parpola 1998) and a general tendency toward the Pamir-Fergana population (Wu 1986). Based on the results of these studies, the Karasuk cultural population potentially has multiple origins. The metalware of Karasuk has been studied intensively through spectroscopic analysis. The main alloy type is arsenical bronze, and tin-copper alloy constitutes less than 10–15% of the total number of samples analyzed. Very few Karasuk metal wares do not contain arsenic, and some arsenical bronze alloys may be natural. Several copper-arsenic sedimentary mineral deposits were exploited in Tuva in the Kaeasuk period, and archaeologists tend to set the date of the Karasuk culture as between the 12th and the 8th century B.C. In addition, a large number of ancient mineral deposits were discovered in the Minusinsk Basin. Although their date was set as the Tagar period, they were likely to have been exploited during the Karasuk period. In the northwestern and northern parts of Mongolia, especially in the Altai Mountains, there are also a large amount of copper and other polymetallic deposits, and residents of the Karasuk culture could easily access abundant raw materials (Chernykh 1992, pp. 268–271). There has been controversy regarding the origin of the Karasuk culture, and various discussions have centered on the relationship between the Karasuk culture and the Andronovo culture, the Okunev culture, Seima-Turbino and the bronze culture of the Northern Zone of China. In the middle of the 20th century, in the book Ancient History of Southern Siberia, Kiselev suggested that some diagnostic bronzes in the Karasuk culture were brought to the Yenisei River by people from the Northern Zone of China. In the 12th century B.C., bronzes from the southeast and the Northern Zone of China spread widely northwards, and residents in the southeastern part of the Northern Zone began to move to the Minusinsk Basin. Kiselev stressed that the pottery of the Karasuk culture might be autochthonous (Kiselev 1981, pp. 69–72). However, many scholars later emphasized the influence of the Seima culture on the Karasuk culture and did not agree that the Anyang area affected the Minusinsk Basin (Loehr 1949). Kiselev also changed his original view and emphasized that the Seima culture influenced certain artifacts of the Shang period, which then spread to the middle reaches of the Yenisei River (Kiselev 1960). Attaching great importance to the site of Seima-Turbino, Chernykh, in the book Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR, proposed the hypothesis that the Seima-Turbino phenomenon was the internal motivation (Chernykh 1992, pp. 268–271) for many metallurgical industries of the Karasuk center in the Sayan-Altai, Mongolia and many parts of Central Asia. Gilenova defined the earliest appearance of the Karasuk culture as the 14th century B.C. She believed that the famous Seima-Turbino bronze knife was derived from the Karasuk culture (Chylenova 1972b). However, her view

176

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

on this subject was not taken up by other scholars. In fact, although the site of Seima-Turbino seems to be related to some artifacts of the Karasuk culture, the number of objects that can be connected is very small, and there is no obvious evolutionary trend. Overall, the contact was still very limited. The cultures to have had the closest relationships with the Karasuk culture were likely the Andronovo culture and the Okunev culture. Many scholars have noted the connection between them (Brentjes 1993; Askarov et al. 2002). Some scholars believe that the Karasuk culture was formed (Vadetskaya 1986b) from the Andronovo culture and the Okunev culture. Recently, it has even been suggested that the Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk Basin was directly derived from the previous Andronovo culture. This cultural transformation was not due to the integration of new people but was caused by the transformation of the economic form and lifestyle (Legrand 2006). The Karasuk culture certainly inherited many factors from the Andronovo culture, and the Andronovo culture was undoubtedly an important source, but this does not mean that the Andronovo culture was its only source. Because there are many different characteristics in the Karasuk culture that come from the Andronovo culture, it is difficult to determine whether the difference is due only to the transformation of the economic form and lifestyle of the same people. The Karasuk culture likely also incorporated other cultures into the formation process. The Karasuk culture is closely related to the bronze culture of the Northern Zone of China in its development process, which can be proved by the existence of a large number of similar bronzes and can also be explained as the interaction between different cultures (Wu 1986). These common cultural features evolved gradually and did not develop at once; their formation must have involved rather complicated historical processes. In short, the origin of the Karasuk culture is very complicated. The Andronovo culture is likely an important source. Some cultural factors were inherited from the cultural traditions of the Okunev culture. In addition, the Karasuk culture may have integrated some cultural factors possessed by immigrants in its formation process. It had a close relationship with the Northern Zone of China during its entire development process. The Karasuk culture developed into the later Tagar culture in the 7th century B.C., and a small number of sites in the transitional period between the two cultures were found in the Minusinsk Basin (Kiselev 1981, p. 89).

3.3

The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

From the late Shang period, Northern China entered the prosperity period of bronzes production. Under the dual influence of the superior technology in bronze ritual vessels in the southern Central Plain and the types and shapes from similar social-economic types to the culture in the northern Minusinsk Basin, a unique bronze assemblage was formed. After its rise, the northern Chinese bronzes system continuously widespread. It not only influenced the culture of the Central Plain in the south but also reached to the north of the Yanshan Mountains, the Mongolian Plateau and even further to the Minusinsk Basin.

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

3.3.1

177

The Influence of Northern Bronzes on Central Plain Culture

The culture of the southern Central Plain played an important role in the rise of northern bronzes. At the same time, the communication between the two peoples clearly shows the influence of northern bronzes on the bronzes of the Central Plain during the Shang and Zhou dynasties. The main manifestation of this influence is the appearance of original northern artifacts in the Central Plain. The “authentic northern artifacts”3 are those that may have been imported from the north into the Central Plain and can be observed in the north in the same shape as those found in the Central Plain or a distinctive northern style. In addition, there are imitations of northern bronzes and “fusion bronzes”. “Fusion bronze”4 refers to an artifact containing characteristics of the two cultures of the Central Plain and the North. They will be discussed in this section for convenience, though it is difficult to determine which influenced the other.

3.3.1.1

Authentic Northern Artifacts

The early Shang period in the Central Plain witnessed a small number of authentic northern artifacts, with the goat-shaped-pommel dagger unearthed at the Taixi site and the bronze spear with barbed hooks unearthed at the Xiawanggang site, Xichuan, as diagnostic examples. The goat-shaped-pommel dagger unearthed at the Taixi site reveals strong northern characteristics (Fig. 3.31: 1) with all elements observed in the northern bronzes in the late Shang period, although no similar bronze daggers have been found in the north. The goat-shaped-pommel dagger is typologically similar to that of the Shilou type (Shanxi Luliang Cultural Relics Studio 1981a) (Fig. 3.31: 3). The double-ring horns and tubular eyes of the goat-shaped pommel are almost the same as those in the northern bronze (Suide County Museum (1982b) (Fig. 3.31: 4). The half-ring button and small ring at the lattice are also seen on the spoon-shaped cheeckpiece of the Baode type (Shanxi Luliang Cultural Relics Studio 1981) (Fig. 3.31: 5), with the small, short lines on its hilt commonly seen on the hilts of knives (Fushun City Museum 1981b) and daggers (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1962) in the north (Fig. 3.31: 6, 7). Its hilt and pommel are very similar to the spoon of Xiejiagou in Qingjian (Fig. 3.31: 2). Unlike bronze daggers, bronze spears with barbed hooks may originate from the remote steppes outside of China, although both types may have been introduced from the north. Only four bronze spears were unearthed from

This concept is discussed in a doctoral thesis from Jilin University written by Han, Jinqiu. “Xia Shang Xizhou shiqi zhongyuan wenhua zhong de beifang wenhua yinsu yanjiu. (Study on the northern cultural factors in the Central Plains culture in Xia, Shang and Zhou periods)” 2009.6. 4 This concept refers to a doctoral thesis from Jilin University written by Han, Jinqiu. “Xia shang xizhou shiqi zhongyuan wenhua zhong de beifang wenhua yinsu yanjiu. (Study on the northern cultural factors in the Central Plains culture in Xia, Shang and Zhou periods” 2009.6. 3

178

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.31 Comparisons between the Taixi daggers with goat-head pommel and their counterparts of the Northern bronzes. 1—Taixi M112:11, 2—Xiejiagou Qingjian County, 3—Chujiayu Shilou County, 4—Zhangbei, 5—Caojiayuan Shilou County, 6—Wanghua Fushun, 7—Chaodaogou Qinglong County

the Central Plain of China, specifically from Xiawanggang site. Their shape is similar to that from Shena in Xining, Qinghai (Wang 1995), in a smaller size with a larger barbed hook. Similar artifacts can be found in both Shaanxi and Shanxi museums (Mei 2005) (Fig. 2.51: 2, 3). In the second chapter, we discussed this type of spear, also called Seima-Turbino bronze spears, which may have been introduced from the Northwest to the Central Plain. The number of authentic northern artifacts significantly increased in the Central Plain after the late Shang period, such as bronze knives, bronze short swords, socketed axes and tubular socketed yue (an ax-shaped weapon). The bronze knives are found in the largest number and have the greatest variation in types. Of these, some of the knives with the ring-shaped pommels, three-stud ring-shaped pommels, animal-head-shaped pommels and bell-shaped pommels, obviously fall into the northern system. First, knives with ring-shaped pommels in the Central Plain can be found in similar shapes in the north. The knives with the ring-shaped pommels unearthed at Xiaotun and Zhaoyao (Fig. 3.32: 1, 2) resemble those in Fengjia (Wang 1991) (Fig. 3.32: 3), Wanliu (Section of Archaeology of Department of History of Liaoning University 1989) (Fig. 3.2: 4), and Ordos (Tian and Guo 1986b) (Fig. 3.32: 5). The other two types of ring-pommel knives unearthed from Yinxu (Fig. 3.32: 6, 7, 11, 12) were also discovered in the north (Fig. 3.32: 8–10, 13–15). There are a small number of ring-pommel knives in the Shang culture. They display no Shang cultural characteristics due to their earlier date and can be regarded as authentic northern artifacts.

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

179

Fig. 3.32 Comparisons between the Knives with Ring Pommel Knives from the Central Plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Xiaotun M5:1125, 2—Zhaoyao M201, 3—Fengjia SFJ1:6, 4—Liuwan, 5—Inner Mongolia Museum collection (stone outer model), 6—Houjiazhuang M1461, 7—Houjiazhung M1716, 8—Lijiata, 9—Ordos E
164, 10—Panjialiang M221:208, 11—Wuguancun North Sacrifice Pit M202, 12—Houjiazhuang M1546, 13—Chujiayu, 14—Ordos E
159, 15—Transbaikal

180

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.33 Comparisons between the Knives with a three-stud ring pommel of the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Houlanjiagou, 2—Wanghua Fushun, 3—Minusinsk Basin, 4—Mongolia, 5—Xiaotun M164:13:2853, 6—Dasikong M539:37

One type of knife with the special ring-shaped pommel, the three convex ring-shaped-pommel knife (Fig. 3.33: 5, 6) unearthed from the late Shang sites in the Central Plain, is recognized as a northern bronze artifact and is similar in shape to those discovered in Shilou (Guo 1962b; Preservation Group of Shanxi Cultural Relics Management Committee 1958) (Fig. 3.33: 1), the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains (Fushun City Museum 1981b; Wang 1996b; Jinzhou City Museum 1978a) (Fig. 3.33: 2), the Minusinsk Basin (Fig. 3.33: 3) and Mongolia (Fig. 3.33: 4). The knives with a three convex ring-shaped pommel have three convex rings of exquisite shapes and are found in the largest numbers and among the bronzes in the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains, which is assumed to be the origin for this type of knife. Knives with the three convex ring-shaped pommels in Yinxu fail to display any Shang characteristics. Instead, their northern features are quite obvious, with long, narrow blades, sharp lower guards and northern decorative patterns. Similar features for every piece can be found in the north. The second type of knife is the one with animal-head-shaped pommels, which are widespread throughout the entire northern region. It is the most distinctive artifact among the northern bronzes and is primarily concentrated in the northern and southern Yanshan Mountains, with the greatest variety of animal mask-shaped guards. Sporadic findings of knives with animal-head-shaped pommels have been observed in other areas and are mostly of one kind. They can be traced for the early Shang period to the daggers of Taixi site, the northern style in the Shang period. The knives with animal-head-shaped pommels in other regions likely spread from here or were influenced by them. The knives with ibex-head pommels unearthed from Yinxu are diagnostic northern types (Fig. 3.34: 7) and are identical to similar types of artifacts excavated from Huayuan, Hami County, Xinjiang (Wang 1986) (Fig. 3.34: 1), Xinjiang and Chaodaogou, Hebei (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1962) (Fig. 3.34: 2). The subsequent degeneration of animal-head-shaped pommels coincides with the evolution of the northern knives with animal-head-shaped pommels (Fig. 3.34: 6, 10). Knives with dual-horn coiled

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

181

Fig. 3.34 Comparisons between the Knives with animal-head pommel knives from the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Huayuan township, 2— Chaodaogou, 3—from Hunting Magic in the Animal Style, 4—Tazigou, 5—from The horseback tribe—the bronzes of Northern Zone of China, 6—from Erdos bronzes, 7—Xiaotun M5:690, 8— from a work of Klas Bernhard Johannes Karlgren. 9—Huayuanzhuang M54:300, 10— Huayuanzhuang M54:373

ibex-head pommels (Fig. 3.34: 8) are not as apparent as similar northern ones, in obvious accordance with the style of Tazigou, Inner Mongolia (Wang 1994b) and of recorded knives (Fig. 3.34: 3, 4). Thus, this can be identified as an authentic northern artifact. Only one of the knives with the horse mask-shaped guard (excavation site unknown) resembles the recorded ones (Gao 1997) (Fig. 3.34: 5). The types of northern bronzes that are diagnostic in shape, decorative design, and style suggest the emergence of knives with horse-head pommels in contemporary northern culture. In addition, the blades and hilts of the knives with mushroom-shaped pommels excavated from Yinxu are similar to those in the Northern Zone of China, and the bowstring lines on the hilt are commonly seen on the northern bronzes (Fig. 3.35: 5). Knives with mushroom-shaped pommels in Northern China have been excavated from the Ordos (Tian and Guo 1986b), Heidouzui, M1 Chunhua (Yao 1986b) (Fig. 3.35: 4), Fengjiafu, Suizhong (Wang 1996c) (Fig. 3.35: 3), Chifeng (Guo 1993b) (Fig. 3.35: 2), Houqianyi, Luannan (Zhang 2004) (southern Hebei Province) (Fig. 3.35: 1) and other areas in Jibei (Zheng 1994) (northern Hebei

182

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.35 Knives with mushroom-shaped pommel and the their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Houqianyi 99T1③:17, 2—Chifeng, 3—Fengjia 87SFJ1:12, 4—Heidouzui M1, 5—Xiaotun M238

Province). The round bow-shaped blade is the diagnostic shape for knives in Northern China. The last type is the knife with the bell-shaped pommel. This important type of bronze knife in the north is distributed throughout the northern region and is identical to those excavated from Suiyuan and Inner Mongolia (Zheng 1994, Fig. 34) (Fig. 3.36: 3), Chaodaogou, Hebei (Fig. 3.36: 4), Wanliu, Liaoning (Cao 1988) (Fig. 3.36: 5), Chifeng (Guo 1993c) (Fig. 3.36: 6), and Mongolia (Wu 1985a) (Fig. 3.36: 7) in the late Shang period. These knives are not cast with warped points, unlike those with a warped points in the Hohhot cultural artifacts market (Li 2011) (Fig. 3.36: 2). The sword with the bell-shaped pommel from Yinxu (Quoted from Wu 1985b) (Fig. 3.36: 1) exhibits another form for the northern knives with bell-shaped pommels. In addition to bronze knives as tools, bronze daggers and socketed axes are the most notable weapons. Bronze short swords are important northern bronze artifacts. The late Shang period witnessed the first peak in the development of various short swords with the existence of bell-shaped pommels, animal-head-shaped pommels and mushroom-shaped pommels, among which the bell-shaped pommels and animal-head-shaped pommels were the main shapes in the northern regions. Shapes similar to those of the two short swords (Fig. 3.37: 1, 2) excavated from Yinxu

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

183

Fig. 3.36 Ring pommel knives and the their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1— Yin Ruins (without archaeological provenience), 2—Hohhot Cultural relics market, 3—Suiyuan (without archaeological provenience), 4—Chaodaogou, 5—Wanliu, 6—Chifeng, 7—Mongolia

Fig. 3.37 Comparisons between bronze short swords of the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—2005AGM3, 2—from a work of Klas Bernhard Johannes Karlgren, 3—Gaohong of Liulin county, 4—Zhangbei

have also been discovered in the north. The short sword 2005AGM3 from Xiaotun resembles the one from Baode (Yang 1981bb) (Fig. 3.37: 3), with the mushroom-shaped pommel also observed in knives of the northern region. The short sword with an animal-head-shaped pommel among William Charles White’s chance finds is similar to that found at Zhang Bei (Zheng 1984b) (Fig. 3.37: 4). Compared with the similar apparatus in the north, the two late Shang short swords more or less present a trend of simplification. The less vivid animal-head-shaped

184

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.38 Comparisons between the tubular axes of the central plain and their counterparts from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Yanghe of Xingcheng county, 2—Heidouzui M2, 3—Panjialiang M117:1, 4—Caojiayuan of Shilou county, 5—Dasikong M539:4, 6—Laoniupo 86XLIII1M7:1, 7 —Anyang (without archaeological provenience), 8—from a work of William Charles White

pommels and the simplified or even missing gilt ornament are in accordance with the characteristics of the late northern short swords and knives, which suggests their late origin in the Shang period. The tubular socketed ax is another important northern-type bronze from the late Shang period to the Western Zhou period that was popular throughout the northern region and had several local styles. Most of the socketed axes found in the Central Plain can be tracked to their typological prarallels in the north. The decoration pattern of Dasikong M539: 4 is similar to that of undercellar storage in Yanghe, Xingcheng, Liaoning (Jinzhou City Museum 1978a) (Fig. 3.38: 5, 1). The Laoniupo socketed axes from tomb M41 are diagnostic artifacts of the Heidouzui type (Yao 1986c) (Fig. 3.38: 6, 2). A bronze ax from Anyang (Li 1990) is almost identical to diagnostic Kayue axes (Qinghai Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1944) (Fig. 3.38: 7, 3). The long tubular socketed ax in White’s description is one of the unique Baode types (Shanxi Luliang Cultural Relics Studio 1981) (Fig. 3.38: 8, 4). These socketed axes are presumed to have been introduced from the north to the Central Plain.

3.3.1.2

The Imitation of Northern Bronzes

The northern artifacts that were imitated by the Central Plain are simplified in shape or other aspects or differ from those of the same kind in the north. This classification consists of bronze pi (which is a type of weapon in the shape of a short sword), socketed axes, and axes and spears.

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

185

Fig. 3.39 Comparison between Bronze Pi of the Shang culture and the short swords and knives from Zhukaigou. 1—Panlongcheng PYWM11:44, 2— Panlongcheng PWZH6:2, 3— Zhukaigou M1040:2, 4— Zhukaigou M1040:3

Pi is generally believed to have been the traditional weapon in the Central Plain, with many discovered and dated to the Warring States period. It features a socket at the end of the flat hilt and is regarded as a barbed weapon with bi. The two unearthed at the site of Panlongcheng are the earliest in the Central Plain (Fig. 3.39: 1, 2). The analysis of the shape suggests that pi is derived from stone javelins or stone spears, but it seems that such artifacts have not been found at Neolithic sites in the Central Plain. By comparing these with other weapons of the same dates, some scholars have determined that the bronze pi from Panlongcheng is very similar to daggers in the Zhukaigou culture (Han 2009). The length of the body, blade and hilt are similar to that of those found at Zhukaigou sites. The edges of the blade below the cross-guard are inward, and their hilts are similar. Specifically, the hilt of M1040:2 at Zhukaigou (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2000a, Fig. 192: 2) features irregular perforated ends as wide as its shank, which is completely different from the ring-pommel of the knife in the bronze assemblage. Similar circular protrusions are observed on the cross-guards of the knives from both places (labeled in Fig. 3.39), with the knife M1040:3 from Zhukaigou as another example. However, this characteristic has not been discovered in the bronzes from other areas and seems to be a unique feature of the northern

186

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.40 Origin of the AII tubular axe. 1—Dasikong M539, 2—the western part of Yin Ruins, 3 —Dasikong M24:2, 4—Anyang Museum

bronzes in the middle of Inner Mongolia. Based on their great similarities, the pi at Panlongcheng can be inferred to have developed from the short sword of the Zhukaigou culture. The most significant difference between the pi and the short sword from Panlongcheng lies in its lack of decoration and the lack of a pommel on the hilt. That was the decisive step in transforming the dagger into pi in the Shang period. The flat and smooth hilt is easy to insert into the bamboo pole, and the cross-guard has a similar function as the nails outside the spear, tying the pi and bi tightly through the cords. This pi has the same function as the spear, with the hilt as long as that of the spear at that time. This type of transformation suggests that the pi of the short sword became a Chinese cultural artifact and quickly lost northern cultural characteristics. The two socketed axes unearthed from the Yinxu are additional types of bronzes, clearly revealing that artifacts in the Central Plain culture imitated the northern bronzes. These two items contain cultural characteristics of the Shang period, mainly manifested in their similarities with the bronze ge. The blade point of artifact M24:42 is cast in the shape of equilateral triangle. A tubular socketed ax (Yang 1985) in the Anyang Museum has internal incised bowstring lines with barbs beneath, obviously borrowed from the bronze ge (Fig. 3.40). There is no tubular socketed ax in Central Plain culture. The obvious Shang style in these two pieces of socketed axes shows the Shang’s imitation of the northern socketed axes.

3.3.1.3

The Blended Bronzes

The socketed ge unearthed from the Central Plain is a representation of the blended bronzes. Lin Yun proposed that this type of bronze is a combination of the ge with na from the Central Plain and the socketed bronze from the north (Lin 1987a), which has been generally recognized by academia. However, the bronzes used as examples of socketed axes from the north are those in the late Shang period. These

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

187

Fig. 3.41 Evolvement of the Tubular Ge. 1—Taixi M79:3, 2—Taixi M38:3, 3—Guojiazhuang M160:307, 4—Taixi M17:2, 5—Fengjiafu 87J1:25, 6—Xiaoshandongzhuang M1:6

two pieces, with very long sockets surpassing the width of the ge, are largely different from the socketed ge in the Central Plain, especially in the early to late Shang period. No socketed axes have been traced to as early as the early Shang period. Therefore, we speculate that the artifacts combined with ge in the Central Plain are probably represented by the socketed ge unearthed from the Taixi site (Fig. 3.41), which was the predecessor of the zhuoge found in the cellars at Chaodaogou and Yanghe, Xingcheng, in the late Shang period. Research has shown that the long-body knife unearthed from Yinxu demonstrates the fusion of the cultures of the Central Plain and the north (Han 2008) (Fig. 3.42: 3; Plate 4: 2) and can be regarded as a combination of the coiled knife in the Central Plain and the three-socketed knife (Fig. 3.42, 1) of the Shilou type. The coiled knife of the Central Plain appeared in the tombs of the Penglongcheng type during the early Shang culture (Historical Relic and Archaeology Research Institute of Hubei Province (2001)), with many discoveries from the Yin period [The unearthed fromstitutions: (a) Huayuanzhuang M54, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Anyang Work Team (2004); (b) Guojiazhuang M160, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (1998); (c) Guojiazhuang bei M6, Anyang Cultural Relics Work Team (1991); (d) Qijiazhuangbei M269, Anyang Cultural Relics Work Team (1991); (e) Houjiazhuang M1355, Guo B (1961)] (Fig. 3.42: 2). There is a fixed rectangle bi of wood on the back of this type of coiled knife, with the back narrower than its blade.

188

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.42 Evolvement of long knife. 1—Hourenjiagou of Shilou county, 2—Huayuanzhuang M54:87, 3—the western part of Yin Ruins M1713:94

Two knives in the west part of Yinxu (M1713) integrate with the socket and the raised bosses on their counterparts of the Shilou type on the basis of the traditional shape in the Central Plain (Fig. 3.42: 3). After the appearance of this integrated knife, the traditional coiled knife of the Central Plain declined in use. In summary, there were very few authentic northern artifacts in the Central Plain in the early Shang period. Some of these artifacts, despite being practical objects with counterparts in the Central Plain culture, were not absorbed by the Central Plain culture. Instead, imitated and fusion ones were accepted by the Central Plain and became widespread throughout the entire Shang cultural distribution area. These artifacts, previously unavailable in the Central Plain, were practical tools and weapons without an ethnic affiliation. After their assimilation by the Shang culture, these types took root and grew in the Central Plain as Central Plain artifacts. Since the late Shang period, the northern artifacts and their imitations in the Central Plain have involved tools, weapons, ornaments, and assorted artifacts. Most of these are tools, mainly knives, while weapons include almost all the categories of northern culture at that time. This phenomenon reveals the comprehensive and profound contact between cultures in the Central Plain and the north, which explains the appearance of most northern bronzes in the Central Plain. The few varieties of blended artifacts include weapons, mostly socketed ones, observed as innovated local weapons with regard to northern socketed weapons. Thus, the conscious absorption of the Shang culture in northern characteristics and the conscious transformation of local artifacts, especially the absorption of socketed weapons’ characteristics into local weapons, led to an impact on the Western Zhou period. In short, the absorption and blending in the culture of the Central Plain are preserved in practical tools and weapons and are mainly reflected in the introduction of knives and the sources of socket features. The selective absorption of the northern cultural factors into the Central Plain derives from cultural identity and traditions and the need for conscious introduction and imitation. A small number of

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

189

artifacts, though not in accordance with traditions, were transformed into those with some characteristics of the Central Plain.

3.3.2

The Influence of Northern Bronzes on the North of the Yanshan Mountains

The influence of northern bronzes on the north of the Yanshan Mountains is mainly reflected in the northern characteristics of the bronzes from the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The golden age of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, from the late Western Zhou period to the early Spring and Autumn period, falls into the next stage. Therefore, in this section, our discussion only focuses on the source of northern factors in Upper Xiajiadian bronzes. The main cultural significance and evolution will be left to Chap. 4. Some bronzes in the Upper Xiajiadian culture obviously inherited the cultural tradition of northern bronzes in the late Shang and early Zhou dynasties. They can be divided into three parts based on their origins: on both sides of a southern branch of the Yellow River in the Shang and Zhou periods the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains around Xiajiadian in the late Shang period; and the south slope of the Yan Mountains at roughly the same time.

3.3.2.1

The Bronzes from Both Sides of the the Yellow between Shanxi and Shaanxi River in the Late Shang and Early Zhou Dynasties

It can be confirmed that northern bronzes of the late Shang and early Zhou periods, which are closely related to the bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, mainly came from the Baode bronze group which were distributed on both sides of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi (Yang and Jiang 2008). A Baode bronze helmet (Fig. 3.43: 2) was unearthed at the Gaohong site in Liulin County of Shanxi. Several others were excavated from Upper Xiajiadian culture sites. As the dates of these helmets have been confirmed, a morphological comparison among them reveals the patten of change: for the Central Plain bronze helmet of the late Shang period from Yinxu, no rear opening was observed, only a front opening is observed, (Fig. 3.43: 1). In contrast, the Gaohong helmet of the Baode northern bronze group dates the end of the Shang period to the middle of the Western Zhou period and it has a rear opening, which is the most significant difference between the Central Plain style and the northern style. The Gaohong helmet, as the earliest northern bronze helmet that has ever been seen, carries a rather low front opening. The helmets unearthed from the Baifu tombs (Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office 1976) of the middle of the Western Zhou period (Fig. 3.13: 3) had taken the

190

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.43 Influences of bronzes of the area along the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi during the Shang and Zhou periods. 1—HoujiazhuangXibeigang M1004:R15338, 2—Gaohong cemetery of Liulin county, 3—Baifu M2:6 of Changping county, 4—Xiaoheishigou M8061:212 of Ningcheng county, 5—Wafangzhong M791:188 of Ningcheng, 6—Xizishanbeizui M7501:13 of Ningcheng, 7—Caojiayuan of Shilou county, 8—Erdos (collected), 9. 10—Xiaoheishigou 8061:210 of Ningcheng, 11—western part of Yin Ruins M1713:94, 12—Houlanjiagouo of Shilou, 13—Baifu M2:24 of Changping

trend of the front opening further, making it larger than that on the Gaohong helmet, with the opening extending progressively further towards the top of the helmet. A morphological comparison among the bronze helmets of these different periods suggests that one basic principle in the change of the helmet is that the cover space became smaller for greater comfort and flexibility for the wearer. The elevated front opening and the low back opening on the helmet unearthed from Baifu tombs can be regarded as characteristics of helmets from Yinxu in the Central Plain. Based on the difference in shape, the bronze helmets from the Upper Xiajiadian culture can be divided into two types. Type A has a similar shape to those from Gaohong, with the front opening forming an arc shape (Fig. 3.43: 4, 5). Type B, with the arc tip at the top center of the front face opening [(a) Liu (2000); (b) Wang 2010)] (Fig. 3.43: 6), is similar to the helmets unearthed from Kelermes tombs, Kuban, in the Eurasian Steppe along the Pontic area (Galanina 1997) and contains steppe culture characteristics (Fig. 3.44, Fig. 4.3: 56). According to the previous analysis, the helmets evolved from a low to high front opening. Therefore, the helmets of the Upper Xiajiadian culture can be divided into two phases: the early phase is represented by Xiaoheishigou’s M8061, with a low front face and back opening (Fig. 3.43: 4),

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

191

Fig. 3.44 Bronze helmet from Kelermes

while the late phase is represented by M791 in Wafangzhong, with a higher front and back opening and narrowing internal capacity (Fig. 3.43: 5). The helmets in the early phase belong to the Nanshangen type of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, while those in the late phase belong to the Dongnangou type (The cemetery of Dongnangou in Hebei province is representative: Hebei Province Museum, Hebei Province Administration of Cultural Relics 1977). The Dongnangou type, as the last type of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, spread southward to the north of Hebei Province. Through the analysis of these helmets, the distribution of the bronze helmets of Northern China becomes apparent, spreading from areas near the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi to the northeast, arriving at the Changping region south of the Yanshan Mountains, then spreading to the Upper Xiajiadian culture

192

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

and reaching the northern Mongolian Plateau. This formed a route for the distribution of northern bronzes running along the length of the Great Wall, connecting the inner Great Wall regions to areas beyond the wall and even the Mongolian Plateau. Another artifact of the Upper Xiajiadian culture with similarities to the Baode bronze group is the cheekpiece representing an animal-head shape. Published discoveries of these cheekpieces belonging to the Baode type originate from three locations: Shandong Village (Ji County Cultural Relics Workstation (1985) of Ji County, Waihuang Village (Yang 1976b) of Shilou and Caojiaoyuan (Shanxi Luliang Cultural Relics Studio 1981), all in Shanxi Province. Of these discoveries, the spoon-shaped artifacts of Caojiayuan are stray finds, and those of Waizhuang Village were found while farmers were leveling the land in 1976. One artifact was obtained from each of the two locations. Only those from Shandong Village were the result of scientific excavation: two identical spoon-shaped artifacts were found on the left side of the tomb occupant’s waist area. These snaffle bits are consistently found in the shape of a snake-headed spoon with rings, published as “spoon-shaped artifacts”. Based on comparison with their counterparts of the Eurasian Steppe, they have been confirmed to be snaffle bits (Yang and Linduff 2008) (Fig. 3.43: 7). The cheekpieces of the Baode bronze group from the above three locations are between 9 cm and 13.8 cm in length, so they are likely to be objects with the same purpose. There are three buttons on the spoon handle, with the middle button to connect the snaffle bit and the other two to connect to the reins. A “horse spoon” collected in the Ordos, 11.7 cm long and 5.4 cm wide, is likely to have been for the same purpose (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Korea Koguryo Research Consortium 2006a, Fig. 47) (Fig. 3.43: 8). The two cheekpieces unearthed from Xiaoheishigou M8061 (Ningcheng County Cultural Museum, Northeast Archaeology Major, Department of Archaeology of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1985) in Ningcheng County, Inner Mongolia, of the Upper Xiajiadian culture are similar to those from Shandong Village and Ordos (Fig. 3.43: 9) but are longer and thinner. Their full lengths are 16.5 cm and 19 cm, respectively. They have deer heads instead of snake heads, four buttons instead of 3 buttons, and flat, hollowed-out, jointed, beaded ornaments instead of leaf rings connected to the buttonholes. This development of cheekpieces from short and thick to long and thin is the same as the process observed in the Pontic area. In the catalogue The Horseback Tribe—The Bronzes of Northern China (Tokyo National Museum 1997), we find some transitional variants between the spoon-shaped snake-headed cheekpieces of the Baode bronze group and the deer-headed snaffle bits of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. One of the animal-shaped pommel daggers is 10.2 cm long (Tokyo National Museum 1997, Fig. 27). Its overall shape is similar to that of the snake-headed spoon-shaped cheekpieces of Shandong Village, but it even more closely resembles an “S” shape. Its top part depicts an animal head instead of a snake head (Fig. 3.45: 2) and is similar to the horse-headed cheekpiece that was collected in the Ordos. The other cheekpiece is a slender bell-shaped one (Tokyo National Museum 1997, Fig. 28) whose overall

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

193

Fig. 3.45 Collection of cheekpieces at Japanese museum. Tokyo National Museum (1997, Figs. 27, 28)

shape resembles that of the one from Xiaoheishigou, with the lower end still retaining the spoon-shaped legacy (Fig. 3.45: 1). The two items of the collection in this catalogue provide a complete picture of the evolution of northern Chinese cheekpieces. The evolution and distribution of the cheekpieces of the Shang and Zhou periods in the north again confirm that the bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture inherited traditions from the northern bronze culture of the Baode bronze group. The route through which they spread also originated from the Yellow River between Shanxi

194

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

and Shaanxi along the Great Wall to the east, through the Ordos Plateau and to the north of the Yanshan Mountains. Knives with long blades (Han 2008) can also be used as secondary evidence to confirm this route of distribution. In Yinxu, there were more discoveries of this type of artifact with rectangular chuan and na shapes connecting the handle (Fig. 3.43: 11). These types of knives were eventually passed to Shanxi’s Shilou bronze group seen at Heidouzui site in Chunhua County, Shanxi (Fig. 3.43: 12). Socketed knives with long blades are a special type of item among the Shilou bronze group, which were combined with the northern cultural characteristics. These types of artifacts also spread from the Yellow River areas between Shanxi and Shaanxi to the east along the Great Wall. Currently, they have been found only in the Baifu cemetery, Changping (Fig. 3.43: 13). Although these artifacts are not observed in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, given that the Upper Xiajiadian culture absorbed many of the artifacts in the Baifu cemetery that combined the Central Plain characteristics with the northern ones, it is reasonable that this type of socketed knife with a long blade would appear in the remains of this culture.

3.3.2.2

Northern Bronzes from the Southern Flank of the Yanshan Mountains in the Late Shang Period

In the Upper Xiajiadian culture, the bronzes from the southern flank of the Yanshan Mountains in the late Shang are mainly knives with animal-shaped pommels. This is a type of northern bronze that was very popular along the Great Wall during the Shang and Zhou periods and was also found at the Yinxu. Its evolutionary process is clear. The first to be discovered was a deer-shaped pommel knife found in Chaodaogou (Fig. 3.46: 1) (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1962), similar to those in Yanghe, Xingcheng County (Jinzhou City Museum 1978b), Yantou Village, Suide, County (Suide County Museum 1982), Fuhao’s Tomb, Yinxu (Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1980), and Huai’an, Zhangjiakou (Liu 1988b). This shows that this type of knife was first distributed along the Great Wall, mainly in the eastern region, and later spread to the north. The knife of Chaodaogou shares a close resemblance to two animal-shaped-pommel knives, one from Ershijiazi, Chaoyang County (Jianping County Cultural Centre, Chaoyang District Museum 1983), and the other from Dongli, Naiman Banner (Li 1983) (Fig. 3.46: 2, 3). These two knives retain the ring knobs, but the bow-shaped back of the blade is not obvious. The ring knobs of the animal-shaped-pommel knife (Wang 1994c) of Tanzigou, Lindong. Inner Mongolia then disappeared (Fig. 3.46: 4). The goat-shaped-pommel knife (Shao 1993b) of Wushijiazi, Aohan Banner of Inner Mongolia and the ox-shaped pommel knife of Xiaohenan (Wang 1990b), Xinglong County of Hebei Province were localized; the horizontal separation between their handles and the blades are unambiguous (Fig. 3.46: 5, 6), and their shapes are straight. The knives with the horse-shaped and ox-shaped pommels from Reshuitang Aohan (Shao 1993a) and M741 (Jianping County Cultural Centre, Chaoyang District Museum 1983) at Shilazi Laonanchuan

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

195

Fig. 3.46 Northern bronze knives of the Shang and Zhou periods from the southern flank of the Yanshan mountains. 1—Chaodaogou, Qinglong, 2—Chaoyangshan, Ershijiazi, Jianping, 3— Dongli, Naiman, 4—Tagouzi, Lindong, 5—Wushijiazi, Aohan, 6—Xiaohenan, Xinglong, 7— Reshuitang, Aohan, 8—Shilashan, Laonanchuan, Jianping M741

both took on decorative features of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 3.46: 7, 8) and hence belong to the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The animal-shaped-pommel knives of the south foot of the Yanshan Mountains, such as the knives discovered in Ershijiazi, Dongli, Tazigou and Wushijiazi, are all located between the Lower Xiajiadian culture and the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Their archaeological culture remains unclear. However, it is clear that the animal-shaped pommel knives of the Upper Xiajiadian culture were derived from the northern bronzes of the late Shang period at the south flank of the Yanshan Mountains, represented by Chaodaogou, Qinglong County and Yanghe, Xingcheng County. They spread northward, reached the north of the Yanshan Mountains, and were later absorbed by the Upper Xiajiadian culture.

196

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

From the development of the animal-shaped-pommel knives, we can see that the earliest discovered northern bronzes of the late Shang and early Zhou periods are located along the Great Wall of the south Yanshan Mountains, which is close to the Central Plain culture. It is likely that this is the birthplace of the northern bronzes of the late Shang and early Zhou periods. They then gradually spread northward, through Chaoyang, Chifeng, and Bairin Left Banner to Naiman, before continuing into the Upper Xiajiadian culture.

3.3.2.3

Northern Bronzes from the Southern Flank of the Yanshan Mountains in the Zhou Period

The northern bronzes of the Changping Baifu burials are the most similar to the Upper Xiajiadian culture with regard to date, region and cultural features. For the Upper Xiajiadian culture, Baifu was like a relay center for cultural diffusion. On the one hand, it passed the northern bronzes, such as the bronze helmets of Gaohong from the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi to the Upper Xiajiadian culture. On the other hand, it widely distributed the new types of bronzes in the south of the Yanshan Mountains, passing the combined Central Plain bronzes and the Northern bronzes to the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Bronze ge and yue are the typical Central Plain bronzes. After being influenced by the foreign assembly method for tubular socketed axes that relied upon the handle, tubular socketed ge and tubular socketed yue gained popularity in the northern regions. However, this northern bronze with characteristics of the Central Plain culture did not cross the Yanshan Mountains earlier than the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Yang 2002). Only when the Upper Xiajiadian culture appeared, due to the strengthening of connections with the Central Plain culture, was this artifact passed to the Upper Xiajiadian culture north of the Yanshan Mountains. Among the Upper Xiajiadian cultures, typical artifacts that combined elements of the Central Plain were the tubular socketed ge and tubular socketed yue (Fig. 3.47: 1, 3). The tubular socketed axes here were wide and the blade was fan-shaped; they were clearly affected by those of the Central Plain (Fig. 3.47: 2). The shapes of these artifacts are most similar to those of the Baifu tombs (Fig. 3.47: 4–6). The tubular socket and the body had obvious boundaries, caused by the difference in thickness between the body and the tubular socket. This indicates that the tubular socket and the body were not well integrated, which is different from the typical northern tubular socketed bronzes. Therefore, it is possible that these artifacts of the Upper Xiajiadian culture were passed from Baifu. The most characteristic type of northern bronzes in the Baifu cemetery is the short sword with a mushroom-shaped pommel and straight hilt. These swords were found in Shaoguoyingzi (Jianping County Cultural Centre, Chaoyang District Museum 1983) and Xiaohenan (Wang 1990b) in the north of the Yanshan Mountains and Heshuijiuzhan (Wang 1997) in Gansu (Fig. 3.14), but the artifact assemblages at these locations are completely different. Therefore, a more reasonable explanation would be that this type of mushroom-shaped pommel along

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

197

Fig. 3.47 Influences of Northern bronzes of Western Zhou period from the Southern Piedmont of the Yanshan Mountains. 1—Stone grave at Nanshangen, Ningcheng, 2—M101: 47 at Nanshangen, Ningcheng, 3—M7501: 22 at Beishanzui, Xizi, 4—Baifu, Changping, 5—M3: 17 at Baifu, 6—Xiaohenan, Xinglong

with the Southern Siberian Karasuk bronzes (Fig. 3.28: 2, 3, 6, 7) was passed to Northern China, where it was adopted by the military chiefs of Baifu. The Baifu cemetery is located south of the Yanshan Mountains. The northern culture of this area during the Western Zhou period was the local Upper Zhangjiayuan culture. The Upper Zhangjiayuan culture and the Upper Xiajiadian culture are indigenous cultures distributed on the north and south sides of the Yanshan Mountains. They had close contact. This was only because of the continuous expansion of the Yan culture of the Western Zhou periods. The Upper Zhangjiayuan culture was gradually replaced by the Yan culture before reaching the same cultural heights as the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the north of the Yanshan Mountains. In this historical context, we can understand the close relationship between the Baifu cemetery and the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The above analysis examines the influence of northern bronzes on the bronze culture in the area north of the Yanshan Mountains. The stage represented by the northern bronze remains in the late Shang and early Zhou periods had an unsteady structure: indigenous culture was underdeveloped in the interim period between the Lower Xiajiadian culture and the Upper Xiajiadian culture with many exotic cultures and complex cultural situation. Additionally, the spatial and temporal distribution of each culture was relatively small. The reason for this situation was that the Lower Xiajiadian culture had declined. For these external reasons, the Yin and Zhou revolutions from the Central Plain and the cultures of the west and north had a great influence on this area. In this turbulent period, the next stage in the region was formed. The bronze-casting technology of the Central Plain and the casting

198

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

techniques of the tools and weapons of the north were absorbed so that a developed bronze civilization like the Upper Xiajiadian culture could appear.

3.3.3

The Relationship Between Northern Bronzes and the Mongolian Plateau

In the parts of Mongolia that lie adjacent to China’s Northern Zone, the bronzes of the Shang and Zhou periods share a high level of typological similarity with those of the Northern Zone. In this section, we analyze the connection between various types of early bronzes unearthed from Mongolia and their Northern Zone counterparts through examples of several representative types of bronzes. The first type of representative artifact is a bronze knife, the most common type in the early bronzes of the Mongolian region. These knives were first classified into ones with lan and without lan and were further categorized as having animal-shaped pommels, ring-shaped pommels, bell-shaped pommels, or mushroom-shaped pommels. Among them, the numbers of knives with ring-shaped pommels and animal-shaped pommels constitute the vast majority (Figs. 3.48, 3.25). In the Northern Zone, similarly shaped bronzes were found in addition to knives of more basic shapes. For example, the earliest knives with curved hilts and animal-shaped pommels were unearthed from the Chaodaogou site of Qinglong County, Hebei Province (Fig. 3.48: 7). In addition, the design of the ring-shaped pommel is believed to have originated from the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau of the Northern Zone. Bronze swords, the second type of representative early bronzes in the Mongolian area, are classified into two categories, notched cross-guard swords and cross-guard

Fig. 3.48 Bronze Knives from the Northern Zone of China and Similar to Those from Mongolia. 1—Chujiayu, Shilou, 2, 10—Fenjiafu, Suizhong, 3–5—collected from the Ordos, 6—Gaohong, Liulin, 7–9—Chaodaogou, Qinglong

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

199

swords with lan (Fig. 3.26). The pommels are further categorized into animal shapes, ring shapes, bell shapes and mushroom shapes. These types of swords are also common in the Northern Zone (Fig. 3.49). The earliest of the notched cross-guard swords was unearthed from the Zhukaigou site in the Ordos area of Inner Mongolia (Fig. 3.49: 1). Therefore, the Ordos area can be regarded as the birthplace of the notched cross-guard sword (Lin 2011a). The notched cross-guard swords of Mongolia might have originated from the Northern Zone. Other types of bronze swords, such as swords with animal-shaped pommels and bell-shaped pommels, were directly influenced by their counterparts in the Northern Zone. However, the prevalence of swords with mushroom-shaped pommels in the Western Zhou period may be the result of the influence of the Karasuk bronze culture to the west. Another representative artifact is a type of defensive weapon, the helmet. As previously discussed, its spreading route in the Northern Zone can be clearly depicted by drawing a line on the map from the Yinxu to the bank areas along the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi, then to the Baifu cemetery of Changping County, before finally reaching the area of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 3.43: 1–6). With a similar shape and date as the Upper Xiajiadian helmets, the helmets unearthed from Mongolia (Erdene 2004, Chap. VIII, Fig. 8.2A; Hudiakov and Erdene-Ochir 2010) (Fig. 3.27: 2, 3) belong to a relatively late stage. From the above analysis, we can see that in the Shang and Zhou periods, the Mongolian region and the Northern Zone were closely related and constituted the easternmost cultural zone in the Eurasian Steppe in the Bronze Age. To clearly illustrate the relationship between the two, we borrow the concept of “metallurgical province” from the Russian archaeologist Chernykh. In the book Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR (Chernykh 1992) Chernykh divides the metallurgical development of northern Eurasia during the period of the 5th millennium B.C. to the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. into several metallurgical centers and metalware-producing centers according to type, form, technique of production, chemical composition of the copper and bronze, production structures and social organization areas. According to the book, these centers were often directly linked to specific archaeological cultures and their variants. Further study can reveal an even more complex relationship between metallurgical centers and archaeological cultures. One metalware-producing center may match one, two, or three archaeological cultures. Several centers constitute a metallurgical province. Based on his research, Chernykh believed that the Early Metal Age (from the Copper Age to the Bronze Age) cultures in the Old World consisted of ten to twelve metallurgical provinces. The divisions between different metallurgical provinces are based on the following factors. The first factor is the morphology of all of complex, human-made artifacts because different artifacts represent features of different metallurgical provinces. As the most representative artifacts, tools and weapons have always received special attention from researchers.

200

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.49 Two types of bronze swords from the Northern Zone of China. 1—Hukaigou, 2— Shaoguoyingzi, Jianping, 3, 5—Baifu, Changping, 4—Xiaohenan, Xinglong, 6—Chaodaogou, Qinglong, 7—Zhangbei, 8—Baode, 9—Shuiquan, Aohan

The second factor is the technical similarities in producing these tools and weapons. The most important is the casting model and the production process. To define a metallurgical province, the researcher must find the casting or forging techniques commonly used at its various metallurgical centers or, at least, at its most prominent center. The use of the copper alloy in the metallurgical centers is not as important as it is in the production centers. Alloy making, especially alloys that represent mature technology such as tin bronze and arsenical bronze, is not only confined to the craft

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

201

tradition but also relates to the ore that the production center could obtain at the time, although the type and shape, as well as the production technique for the artifacts, are rarely affected by raw materials. Metallurgical centers usually form relationships within the metallurgical province. In this system, although metal-making centers can sometimes play a leading role, they are generally subordinate. Once a metallurgical province superseded another in terms of time and space, there were changes in metallurgical technique, production technology, alloy type and the form of major tools and weapons. The formation of a new metallurgical province was always accompanied by the expansion of an early metal culture, which also marked the beginning of a new era in the Old World. According to Chernykh’s division standards for the Eurasian continent, in the Northern Zone and the nearby area of the Mongolian Plateau, one independent metallurgical province,5 emerged and entered a prosperous era of bronze making after the late Shang period. Its representative artifacts include swords with animal-shaped pommels, ring-shaped pommels, and snake-shaped pommels and knives as well as cheekpieces, zhuoge and others. Because this metallurgical province bordered the Central Plain in the north, techniques, styles and concepts borrowed from the Central Plain can be observed in the Taixi remains of the early Shang period. It was also influenced by the cultures of the Eurasian forest-steppes, the Minusinsk Basin and Central Asia. Using local art motifs of these cultures as the top decoration of the tools and weapons, a new type and style of artifacts was formed in the Northern Zone and Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province, and these new inventions and artistic vocabulary spread to the steppe areas. The Northern Zone and Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province can be further divided into several metallurgical centers located in its western, middle and eastern parts. While their connections with the Central Plain and the steppe areas vary from center to center, the similarity of their artifacts indicates a close relation between them. Under the joint influence of both the south and the north, the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province developed unique artifacts and then spread to other areas. This metallurgical province basically corresponds with the distribution of bronzes referred to as “Northern Bronze” in the Shang and Zhou periods as well as the concept of the “Northern Zone”. The latter concept was proposed by Watson in the book Cultural Frontiers in Ancient East Asia (Watson 1971), which regards the border area of Northern China as a bronze production zone with distinct characteristics.

5

Shang Zhou shiqiZhongguobeifangyejinqu de xingcheng—Shang Zhou shiqibeifangqingtongqi de bijiaoyanjiu (The formation of the Chinese northern metallurgical province during the Shang and Zhou periods: a comparative study on the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China during Shang and Zhou periods). In: Gongyuanqianerqianji de Jin Shan gaoyuanyuYanshannanbei (Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and the north and the south of Yanshan Mountains in the 2nd millennium B.C.). Kexue press, Beijing, China (in Chinese), pp. 221–255 (in Chinese).

202

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

It is necessary for there to be substantial archaeological evidence for a metallurgical province. However, we currently know very little about the characteristics of metallurgical technology in this region. The tool and weapon casting models unearthed from Shilou and Xicha, like those in the Central Plain, are pottery models. In Chifeng, the eastern region of this metallurgical province, the casting models for producing tubular socket axes, similar to the ones unearthed from Xicha, are made of stone. The use of the stone casting model is more closely related to the metallurgical techniques of the steppe areas. The differences between the use of the pottery casting model and the stone casting model may reflect certain technique changes in metallurgy. Currently, however, the process of change remains unknown.

3.3.4

The Relationship Between Northern Bronzes and the Minusinsk Basin

The Minusinsk Basin is located in the south of Krasnoyarsk, Russia, on the middle reaches of the Yenisei River. Because of its rich culture remains of the Bronze Age and because it was archaeologically explored in an earlier time, for a large part of the 12th century, it was the center of archaeological work in the former Soviet Union. The chronological cultural sequence established in the region has also become the main reference point for Russian Bronze Age archaeology. Although archaeological findings in recent years have shown that the remains in this region do not cover all types of bronze culture found throughout Russia, the region still occupies a very important position in Russia Bronze Age archaeology. Archaeological findings show that the bronze remains of the Minusinsk Basin are closely related to many cultures, especially those of the Shang and Zhou periods in the Northern Zone. In the Minusinsk Basin, the core distribution area of the Karasuk culture, numerous Karasuk bronzes have been unearthed. These bronzes, especially tools and weapons, exhibit a high level of similarity in shape and design with their counterparts from the Northern Zone (Figs. 3.28, 3.29). Because of the great similarities between the two, questions have arisen regarding the origin and spread of these similarly shaped bronzes. One well-acknowledged view on this issue among scholars outside of China is that the Minusinsk Basin is the origination of the “Karasuk Bronze”. This view can also be seen in Karasuk Metallurgy: Technological Development and Regional Influence, authored by Legrand (Sophie 2004a). In this work, the author used a schematic diagram to illustrate the spread of the Karasuk culture and the Karasuk bronze knives (Fig. 3.50). The diagram shows that the Minusinsk Basin is the shared origin of the bronze knives of Mongolia, the Northern Zone and the Central Plain, which are similar to the Karasuk culture. However, we believe that this issue involves three aspects of research: the dating of the artifacts, the evolution of the shape of the artifacts and the route of transmission based on research on the former two. We discuss these three aspects in the following section.

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

203

Fig. 3.50 Distribution of Karasuk and Karasuk-type bronze Knives (quoted in Sophie 2004b, p. 152) Karasuk metallurgy: Technological development and regional influence. In M. L. Katheryn (Ed.), Metallurgy in Anceint Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River (p. 152))

In the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C., when the Central Plain was in the Xia period, one popular type of knife in the Mongolian Plateau and the Northern Zone was an upturned-point knife with a concave cross-section. However, at that time, the knife prevalent in the Minusinsk Basin was a folding knife, and no evidence of interaction between the two regions has been observed (Fig. 3.51). The knives and swords of the northern bronze system in the early Shang period mainly consisted of two categories. One was the straight-hilt sword with a notched cross-guard represented by the Zhukaigou site of the early Shang period. The other was the bent hilt sword with a bar cross-guard and animal-shaped pommel or bell-shaped pommel, represented by those unearthed from the Chaodaogou site of the late Shang period (Fig. 3.49). Although the two categories appeared in different ages, they have a mutually affecting relationship. In the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C., the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province expanded to the Minusinsk Basin.

204

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.51 Phase I of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province

Our discussion begins with the first aspect of the issue, the date of the artifacts. In the Minusinsk Basin, the prevalent notched cross-guard short swords (Fig. 3.30: 1–9) are dated to the Kamenniy Log period after the 10th century B.C. Most of them were collected with no clear provenience. This type of sword with a groove between the cross-guard and the hilt is also known as the Karasuk bronze sword because they were mainly unearthed from Karasuk. In contrast, the notched cross-guard short swords unearthed from the Northern Zone are mainly attributed to the Western Zhou period, with the earliest sword of this kind unearthed from the Ordos region (Fig. 3.49: 1), which can be dated to the Shang period. Therefore, this region is regarded as the birthplace of the notched cross-guard short swords (Lin 2011b, Fig. 6). The notched cross-guard swords prevalent outside of China feature mushroom-shaped pommels, with the folding knife unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin as the earliest artifact with a mushroom-shaped pommel (Fig. 3.28). The characteristic of the mushroom-shaped pommel is thus considered to have originated from the Minusinsk Basin. The swords with notched cross-guards and mushroom-shaped pommels might be a combination of swords from the Northern Zone and the Minusinsk Basin. Second, we focus on the distribution of the swords with animal-shaped pommels. This type of sword has been discovered across vast areas, including Southern Siberia, Transbaikal, Mongolia and the Northern Zone. Highly similar to the earliest of its kind in the Northern Zone unearthed from the Chaodaogou site in Qinglong County (Fig. 3.8: 1), the animal-shaped-pommel sword unearthed from Ömnögovi aimag of Mongolia (Volkov 1961; quoted from Wu 1985c) (Fig. 3.26: 4) near the Northern Zone is realistically made and is attributed to the late Shang period. One

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

205

animal-shaped pommel knife that coexisted with the sword from the Chaodaogou site resembles those of the Seima-Turbino culture. The animal-shaped-pommel swords discovered in the Minusinsk Basin, the Baikal region and the Central Plain are in a very small number, and their animal-shaped pommels are not realistically cast like those of the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 3.30: 11, 13– 15). All the swords unearthed in the Minusinsk Basin are dated to the Kamenniy Log period, which is later than those unearthed from the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau. Therefore, the earliest swords with animal-shaped-pommels probably emerged in the Northern Zone and the bordering area between Mongolia and China and then spread outward (Fig. 3.52a). Knives and swords, all with bell-shaped pommels, have been found in the Minusinsk Basin, Mongolia and the Northern Zone. In the Northern Zone, especially the Baode sites of the late Shang period in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau, numerous weapons with bell-shaped pommels have been excavated, and all of their pommels are large. This type of large pommel is similar to the pommels at both ends of the bow-shaped artifact of the Shang period. The development trend of the bell-shaped pommel indicates that the more petals a pommel has, the earlier the time to which it can be dated (Fig. 3.13: 1, 2; Fig. 3.16: 1). The sword unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin that exhibits the features of a four-petal bell-shaped pommel together with the straight hilt and a groove between the blade and the cross-guard is thus attributed to a later stage in its development (Fig. 3.30: 3, 7) (Wu 2007, Fig. 74: 2).This pommel is similar to the late-stage pommel of the Northern Zone (Fig. 3.16: 2–4). A pottery jar (in openwork with two balls inside, which can be shaken to sound like bells) (Li 2003) unearthed from the northwestern region of the Qijia culture can be dated to as early as the Xia period of the Central Plain, indicating that bell decorations appeared very early in the Northern Zone, especially the northwestern region. Therefore, the bell decorations on knives and swords might have originated from the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and then spread outward and reached the Minusinsk Basin in the north (Fig. 3.52b). Other artifacts reflecting the relationship between the Minusinsk Basin and the Northern Zone are referred to as bow-shaped artifacts. Many scholars have discussed the function of this type of artifact. Most of them agree with Lin that it is a type of horse-riding device, a rein-holder used to free the rider’s hands (Lin 1980a; 1998b; Sun 2001; Wu 1994). The rein-holders can be categorized as broadrein-holders and narrow-back rein-holders in terms of the width of the bow back. The narrow ones may have been hung on the rider’s waist, while the broad one may have been tied to the front of the carriage for holding reins (Teng 2011). Rein-holders unearthed from different regions show different features of decoration. Most of the early-stage rein-holders were unearthed from Yinxu. They are decorated with Shang-style motifs of the taotie design and cicada designs. However, the rein-holders unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin show motifs of a continuous small-checkered pattern and bosses, which are motifs commonly found on artifacts of the Northern Zone. Therefore, the rein-holders of the Minusinsk Basin may have

206

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.52 a Phase II of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (spreading routes of swords with animal-head pommel). b Phase II of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (spreading routes of swords and knives with bell-shaped pommel)

been introduced from the Northern Zone rather than being directly introduced from the Yinxu culture (Lin 1987a). The knives and swords with mushroom-shaped pommels were most common in the Minusinsk Basin (Fig. 3.30: 2, 6, 17–19, 22) and can be found in Mongolia and Baikal as well (Fig. 3.26: 5, 6). The mushroom-pommel knives and swords

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

207

Fig. 3.53 Phase III of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (spreading routes of swords with mushroom-shaped pommel)

unearthed from the Chinese Northern Zone were mainly concentrated in the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains. From the perspective of shape and structure, the mushroom-shaped pommel in the Chinese Northern Zone can be divided into two categories: one is mainly the mushroom-shaped pommel of the curved-handled knives with a flat pie-shaped pommel and a small button at the joint with the handle (Fig. 3.35); the other mainly decorates straight-handled swords, with a higher pie-shaped pommel (Fig. 3.49: 3, 4). As can be judged from the dating of the unearthed sites, the first category can be dated as early as the late Shang period, while the second category can be dated later than the late Shang period and earlier than the middle of the Western Zhou period. The pommels of the Minusinsk Basin can also be classified into the same two categories: flat pommels decorating the handle of back-folded knives or curve-handled knives (Fig. 3.28: 2–4, 7) and pommels decorating straight-handled swords (Fig. 3.30: 6). The style of the mushroom pommel was prevalent in the Minusinsk Basin but was seldom found in the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau. This style was likely the tradition of the Minusinsk Basin, and it may have influenced the appearance of the same artifacts in Mongolia, the Northern Zone and the Central Plain (Fig. 3.53). Through our analysis of the development and evolution of bronzes such as bronze knives and bronze swords, it can be seen that the transmission of the influence between the Minusinsk Basin and the Northern Zone and Central Plain regions was not in a single direction but was mutual. Among these bronzes, the concave-guarded swords, animal-shaped-pommel swords, bell-pommel swords and bow-shaped artifacts of the Minusinsk Basin were influenced by the Mongolian

208

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Plateau Metallurgical Province in the Northern Zone. These artifacts also experienced a process of spreading from the south of the Yanshan Mountains to the north of the Yanshan Mountains in the Northern Zone. In addition, a small number of three-legged egg-shaped weng urns were discovered in the Minusinsk Basin (Plate 5: 1) (Mikhail 1969). According to existing research, this artifact originated in the Jinzhong area in the late Longshan period and was widely distributed in the central and southern regions of Inner Mongolia near the Yellow River when it moved southward in the Jinzhong and Guanzhong areas (Jing 2006). Therefore, the three-legged egg-shaped weng urns unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin are undoubtedly evidence of the spread of Chinese Northern culture beyond the borders, while the mushroom-headed knives and swords of the Chinese Northern style may have been influenced by the Minusinsk Basin. From the perspective of date, the influence of the Northern Zone on the Minusinsk Basin may have occurred earlier and began after the late Shang period, while the influence of the Minusinsk Basin on the Chinese Northern Zone occurred later because the mushroom-headed artifacts that were characteristic of the Minusinsk Basin, did not prevail until the Western Zhou period in the Chinese Northern Zone. Therefore, the idea that the Chinese northern bronzes originated in the Minusinsk Basin requires detailed arguments and is debatable. In fact, as early as the middle of the 12th century, Kiselev argued in his book Ancient History of Southern Siberia that some typical Karasuk bronzes were brought to the Yenisei River by people from the Northern Zone. In the 12th century B.C., Northern bronzes spread widely northward, and residents in the southeast region also began to enter the Minusinsk Basin (Киселев 1949). The famous scholar William Watson mentioned in his book The Cultural Boundary of Ancient East Asia that the traditional eastern Karasak cultural group went westward to the Minusinsk Basin, replacing the Andronovo culture there, which was related to the West, so that Chinese culture could be introduced into the Minusinsk Basin (William 1971).

3.3.5

The Influence of the Northern Bronzes on the Steppes Beyond the Border, Taking the Bronze Short Sword as an Example

We have discussed the influence of the northern bronzes on the surrounding area, but this discussion may have separated the evolutionary trajectory of the artifact. In the following section, we take the most important short sword in the northern bronzes as an example to illustrate the cultural relationship between the Northern Zone and the surrounding areas. Two types of bronze short swords prevailed from the late Shang period to the Western Zhou period in the Northern Zone. One type had notched cross-guard swords, narrow blades and simple ornaments on the end of the hilt. The earliest notched cross-guard short sword was unearthed from Zhukaigou. Although this

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

209

type of short sword has not been discovered in the late Shang period, it did not disappear because it prevailed again in the Western Zhou period with a mushroom-shaped pommel. This type of sword was widely distributed, not only in the Northern Zone, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Altai and the Minusinsk Basin (Fig. 3.54: 10, 11, 20, 21) but also in Kiev, Ukraine (Quoted from: Lin 2011c, Fig. 6: 1) (Fig. 3.54: 9). In the middle of the Western Zhou period in the Changping Baifu cemetery, this sword again prevailed in the Northern Zone (Fig. 3.54: 17–19), so the sword earlier than the Baifu sword should be from the late Shang and early Zhou periods. In the late Western Zhou period and the early Spring and Autumn period, this type of recessed-grooved short sword began to decline, and its shape and structure changed. In the Upper Xiajiadian culture, the groove of the sword guard became larger, mostly with a flat pommel and various ornaments on the hilt (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Liaozhongjing Museum of Ningcheng County 2009; Ningcheng County Cultural Centre, Northeast Archaeology Major of Department of Archaeology, Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1977) (Fig. 3.54: 22, 23; Plate 2). In Tuva’s Arzhan I of the same period (Michail Petrovic Grjayznov 1984), the sword guard of the short sword became a narrow inverted-V shape (Fig. 3.54: 24, 25). This type of sword guard gradually developed into a thick inverted-V shape in the Eastern Zhou period. Another type was the short sword with the lan-style guard, curved hilt, wider sword guard and thinner ends, and various ornaments on the hilt head. This type of short sword first appeared in Chaodaogou, Qinglong County in the Northern Zone (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1962) (Fig. 3.54: 2). The animal-shaped-pommel knife unearthed at this site was similar to the bronze knife unearthed from the Fuhao’s Tomb,Yinxu (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 1980c). It belonged to the early stage of the late Shang period, no later than the second phase of Yinxu. Since this period, this type of short sword with a lan sword guard prevailed in the Northern Zone (Yang 2007) and regions across the border (Fig. 3.54: 6–8; Plate 4). However, this type of short sword prevailed mainly in the late Shang period and the early Western Zhou period. Most swords with animal-shaped pommels and bell-shaped pommels belonged to the late Shang period, while mushroom-pommel swords prevailed in the Western Zhou period. Due to the influence of short swords with notched cross-guards, the blade of the sword also became slender in the Western Zhou period (Fig. 3.54: 16). Regarding the origin of these two types of short swords, short swords with notched cross-guards were first discovered at Zhukaigou site. The knives and swords at Zhukaigou inherited some morphological features from the earlier Chinese knives and swords with a bone hilts and stone edges (Fig. 3.55), which were distributed along the Great Wall in the Northern Zone (Fig. 3.56), where the bronze knives and swords in Zhukaigou probably originated (Miyamoto 2000, Fig. 38–39). The origin of the short sword with a lan guard may be the early Shang period in the Northern Zone or even earlier in regions outside modern China’s borders. A goat-shaped pommel dagger was unearthed from the Taixi site (Fig. 3.57: 1). The goat on the dagger may have been the source of the bronze animal-shaped pommels in the Northern Zone in the Shang and Zhou periods. In

210

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

211

JFig. 3.54 Connection between the two types of Shang and Zhou bronze short swords of the

Northern Zone of China and Their Counterparts beyond China. 1—Zhukaigou, 2—Chaodaogou, 3, 8, 16, 20, 21—Minusinsk, 4—BayanhongorAymag, 5, 13—HövsgölAymag, 6— DzavhanAymag, 7, 14—ÖmnögovǐAymag, 15—East Kazakhstan, 17—Xiaohenan, 18, 19— Baifu, 22—Xiaoheishigou, 23—Tianjvquan, 24, 25—Arzhan I

Fig. 3.55 Zhukaigou knives and swords versus those with bone hilt and stone blade (after Miyamoto 2000: Fig. 38). 1, 3—M1040 at Zhukaigou, 2—M93 at Yuanyangchi, 4—M92 at Yuanyangchi

the late Shang period, bronze knives and swords with curved hilts and animal-shaped pommels prevailed in the Northern Zone, as typically shown in the bronzes unearthed at the Chaodaogou site (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1962) in Qinglong County. The goat-shaped ornament unearthed at Taixi was closely related to the animal-shaped pommel ornament unearthed from Chaodaogou, Qinglong County. First, both had animal-shaped pommels, although

212

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Fig. 3.56 Distribution of knives and swords with bone hilt and stone blade (after Miyamoto (2000): Fig. 39). 1—Zhujiazhai, 2—Yuanyangchi, 3—Huazhaizi, 4—Linjia, 5—Dadiwan, 6— Changshan, 7—Zhukaigou, 8—Ashan, 9—Xiyuan, 10—Shihushan, 11—Miaozigou, 12— BulageManghe, 13—Nantaizi, 14—Baiyinchanghan, 15—Nasitai, 16—Fuhegoumen, 17— Danangou, 18—Wugenbaoleng, 19—Xinglongwa, 20—Bashan, 21—Zuojiashan, 22— Ang’angxi, 23—Xinkailiu, 24—Xiaoyingzi, Yanji

they were quite different morphologically. Second, both animal-shaped pommels joined naturally with their hilts. Specifically, the necks of the animals formed the hilts of the artifacts. Third, the animal-shaped pommel tilted forward at the same angle, and the artifacts were bent (Fig. 3.32: 1, 3, 4). At the same time, the bronze swords at Chaodaogou had a lan sword guards that were morphologically similar to those of the bronze ge at Taixi and may have been inspired by the latter. Moreover, the blade of the bronze swords at Chaodaogou may have been influenced by the two edges of the ram-pommel daggers at Taixi and the midline ridge of the ge. The animal-shaped-pommel knives unearthed at Chaodaogou had a curved hilts and backs, with wide, flat blades and ridged backs that were clearly separated. Artifacts of the same type can be found in earlier Seima-Turbino remains on the Asian Steppe, which were developed bronze cultures (Shao and Yang 2011) prevailing in the forest steppe of northern Eurasia around 1800–1400 B.C. (Shao 2015). The zoomorphic ornaments on the hilt heads of the bronze knives in the Seima-Turbino remains were standing animals, and the top and the hilt of the knives were clearly separated (Fig. 3.57: 2). Therefore, the heads of the knives and swords at Chaodaogou bore a greater resemblance to the heads of the ram-pommel daggers. The sword hilt of the short swords at Chaodaogou was also curved, which was likely influenced by the Seima-Turbino bronze knives. It is worth noting that

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

213

Fig. 3.57 The origin of bronze swords of the late Shang period. 1, 5—Taixi, 2—Seima cemetery, 3, 4—Chaodaogou

the hilt profile of the knives and swords at Chaodaogou was in the form of a convex lens (Fig. 3.57: 3, 4), while that of the bronze knives in the Xia period was a concave lens. The Seima-Turbino remains were earlier than the late Shang period. Current studies have shown that the pronged spears with a sockets at Seima-Turbino were

214

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

once found in China. This type of barbed spear was mainly discovered in the eastern part of the distribution of Seima-Turbino remains; therefore, the bronze knives that influenced the Northern Zone probably came from the eastern region closer to China. However, we have no good understanding of how this influence occurred. The development of short swords with notched cross-guards and the short swords with lan did not occur independently. On the contrary, in the process of their development, they intertwined and affected each other. As a result, swords with multiple cultural elements appeared. These swords had features of the two types of swords, such as wide and short blades with notched cross-guards and curved hilts (Fig. 3.54: 3, 4, 5) or with notched cross-guards or lan guards and straight hilts (Fig. 3.54: 12–15). Under the influence of the sword with the lan, the sword guard of the straight-hilted sword with a notched cross-guard became wider (Fig. 3.54: 9–11). It is worth noting that among the short swords of the Northern Zone, the sword with a notched cross-guard appeared early but in small numbers, whereas the sword with a lan had an evolutionary sequence and occurred in large numbers. Swords with multiple cultural elements and whose with notched cross-guards influenced by the swords with lan were distributed mainly on the steppes outside the Chinese Northern Zone, mostly in Mongolia (Erdenechuluun 2011). (Fig. 3.54: 4, 5, 12–14) and some in Xinjiang, the Minusinsk Basin, eastern Kazakhstan, and even Kiev. According to the dating of Chaodaogou and Baifu, the swords with multiple cultural elements prevailed from the late Shang period to the early Western Zhou period and then basically disappeared with the decline of short swords with lan. The origin and development process of two main types of short swords in the Northern Zone and the steppes outside China during the Shang and Zhou periods have been discussed. The short swords with notched cross-guards originated in the early Shang period in the Northern Zone, and the short swords with lan appeared in the early stage of the late Shang under the double influence of the Taixi style in the Central Plain and the Seima-Turbino on the steppes continuing to develop in the Northern Zone. The two types of swords spread westward and northward to Xinjiang and the steppes outside China, where they fused with each other. During the mid-Western Zhou period, the short swords with lan disappeared, and the short swords with notched cross-guards were passed back to the Northern Zone of China. The development and distribution of bronze short swords in the Shang and Zhou periods were miniature representation of the cultural relationship between the Northern Zone and the surrounding areas during this period. The influence of the Northern Zone reached not only Mongolia and the Minusinsk Basin but also Kazakhstan and the Black Sea. In short, the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province were closely related to the people in the Minusinsk Basin during the Shang and Zhou periods. Considerable similarity existed between the bronze cultures of the

3.3 The Spread of Chinese Northern Bronzes

215

Fig. 3.58 Distribution of bronzes with Ibex Head (Quoted in Lin (2015, Fig. 11)). 1— Chaodaogou, Qinglong, 2—Zhangbei, 3—Niantoucun, Suide, 4—Shi’ertaiyingzi, Chaoyang, 5— Wanliu, Faku, 6—Yin Ruins, An’yang, 7—Huayuanxiang, Hami, 8—Taixi, Gaocheng, 9— Dongli, Naiman Banner, 10—Bayandalai, 11—BayanhongorAymag, 12—Nalintaile, 13—Balkan, 14—DornogovǐAymag? 15—Transbaikal, 16—Abakan

two places, especially in bronzes. This cultural commonality did not originate from a single region, nor did it come into being all at once. Its formation must have experienced a rather complicated historical process (Lin 1980b). This indicates that during the Shang and Zhou periods, the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Metallurgical Province were distributed most widely and even reached the Minusinsk Basin to the northwest. Recently, Lin Yun discussed the distribution of bronzes represented by the wild goat-headed knives at Chaodaogou, Qinglong County (Fig. 3.58) and noted that “in the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C., the distribution of bronzes with wild goat head ornaments might be used as one of the official signs of the metallurgical province.” This distribution pattern clearly manifests from the Northern Zone to the Mongolian Plateau and Southern Siberia.

216

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

References Anyang Work Force of the Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1992). 1980 nian henan anyang dasikongcun M539 fajue jianbao (A brief excavation report on M539 in Dasikong village, Anyang, Henan in 1980). Kaogu, 6. (in Chinese). Anyang Work Team of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1977). Anyang yinxu FuHao mu de fajue [Excavation of Tomb 5 at Yinxu, Anyang]. Kaogu Xuebao, 2: 3–6. (in Chinese) [Plate 15]. Archaeology Department of Tianjin Museum of History. (1993). Tianjin Ji xian Zhangjiayuan yizhi disanci fajue [The third excavation of the Zhangjiayuan site in Jixian county, Tianjin]. Kaogu, 4. (in Chinese). Askarov, et al. (2002). Gongyuan qian yiqianji chu de xumu yu youmu buluo [The animal husbandry and nomadic Tribes in the early first millennium B.C.]. In Zhongya wenmingshi (Vol. 1, pp. 352–363). Beijing, China: China Translation & Publishing Corporation. (in Chinese). Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office. (1976). Beijing diqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo—Changping Baifu Xizhou muguomu de xinqishi [The enlightenment from the Western Zhou timber graves at Baifu, Changping—the significant archaeological findings in the Beijing region]. Kaogu, 4. (in Chinese). Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office. (1978). Beijing shi xinzhengji de Shang Zhou qingtongqi; wenwu ziliao congkan [Shang and Zhou period bronzes newly collected in Beijing; Cultural Relics Series Vol. II]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Brentjes. S. (1993). Problem concerning the proto-types and forerunners of the animal style. In South Asian archaeology (pp. 115–124). Cao, G. (1988). Liaoning Faku xian Wanliu jie yizhi diaocha baogao [Investigation report of Wanliujie Site in Faku County, Liaoning Province]. Beifang Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Cao, J. (2003). Xicha wenhua chulun [Discussions of Xicha culture]. Master’s thesis, Jilin University. Chang, H. (2014). Shanxi Baode Linzheyu tongqimu niandai ji xiangguan wenti [Issues on the dating of the bronzes from Linzheyu, Baode, Shanxi]. Kaogu, 9. (in Chinese). Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient metallurgy in the USSR (S. Wright, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. China Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics and Archaeology Institute, Korea Goguryeo Research Foundation. (2006). Neimenggu zhongnanbu de e’erduosi qingtongqi he wenhua [Bronzes and culture of Ordos in central and southern Inner Mongolia]. (in Chinese). Chylenova, N. L. (1972a). Chronology of the monuments of the Karasuk era. Moscow: Science. Cited in Chernykh, E. N. (1992). Ancient metallurgy in the USSR (pp 246–271). Cambridge University Press. Chylenova, N. L. (1972b). Chronology of the monuments of the Karasuk era. Moscow: Science. Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau. (1962). Hebei Qinglongchaodaogoufaxianyipiqingtongqi [A batch of bronzes found in Chaodaogou, Qinglong County, Hebei]. Kaogu, 12. (in Chinese). Dai, Y. (1980). Shanbei qingjian, mizhi, jiaxian chutu gudai tongqi [Ancient bronzes unearthed from Qingjian, Mizhi, Jiaxian, Shaanxi]. Kaogu, 8. (in Chinese). Dai, Y. (1993). Shanbei he Jin xibei Huanghe liang’an chutu de Yin Shang tongqi ji qi youguan wenti de tansuo [Exploring the Yinshang Bronze Unearthed on Both Sides of the Yellow River in Northern Shaanxi and Northwestern Shanxi and Related Issues]; kaoguxue yanjiu—jinian shanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo chengli sanshi zhounian [Archaeological research: commemorating the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology]. Xi’an, Shaanxi: Sanqin Press. (in Chinese). Department of Archaeology, Department of History, Liaoning University, Tieling City Museum. (1989). Liaoning Faku xian Wanliu yizhi fajue (Excavation on archaeological sites in Wanliu, Faku county, Liaoning). Kaogu 12. (in Chinese).

References

217

Dong, X. (2000). Weiyingzi Wenhua Chubu Yanjiu [Preliminary studies of the Weiyingzi culture]. Kaogu Xuebao, 1. (in Chinese). Бaтacaйxaн цэндийн Moнгoл нyттaac oлдcoн эpтний нccдэлчдий ypлaгийн дpcгaл. – Улaaнбaaтap. (2004). Erdenechuluun, the Sword of Heaven:Culture of Bronze Artefacts of the Bronze Age and Hunnu Empire, Ulaanbaatar, 2011. Editorial Committee of Bronze Treasures Series. (1995). Zhongguo qingtongqi quanji: beifang minzu [Bronze treasures of China Vol. 15 northern ethnic groups]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Erdene, B. (2004). Burial materials related to the history of the Bronze Age in the Territory of Mongolia. In M. Katheryn (Ed.), Metallurgy in ancient Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River. Erdenechuluun. (2011). The Sword of Heaven: Culture of Bronze Artefacts of the Bronze Age and Hunnu Empire, Ulaanbaatar. Fan, J. (1995). Yanchuan xian chutu de jijian qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed from Yanchuan, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 5. (in Chinese). Fushun City Museum. (1981a). Liaoning Fushun shi faxian Yindai qingtong huanshoudao [Ring-shaped pommel knives of Yin period unearthed from Fushun City, Liaoning]. Kaogu, 2. (in Chinese). Fushun City Museum. (1981b). Liaoning Fushun shi faxian Yindai qingtong huanshoudao [The bronze knife with ring-shaped pommel of Yin period discovered in Fushun, Liaoning]. Kaogu, 2 (in Chinese). Galanina, L. K. (1997). Die Kurgane von Kelermes. Steppenvolker Eurasiens. Band I Moskau. Gao, B. (1997). Da caoyuan qima minzu [The horse-riding nation of the steppes]. Tokyo National Museum. (in Chinese). Gao, X. (1984). Shanxi qingjianxian you faxian shangdai qingtongqi [New discovery of Shang period bronzes in Qingjian County, Shaanxi Province]. Kaogu, 8. (in Chinese). Gao, X., & Wang, J. (1983). Qingjianxian you chutu shangda iqingtongqi [New discovery of Shang periodbronzes in Qingjian County, Shaanxi Province]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 3. (in Chinese). Grishyn, Y. S. (1981). Neolithic monuments of the Bronze and early Iron Ages of the forest. Moscow: Zabaykalya. (in Russia). Guo, Y. (1962a). Shilou Houlanjiagou faxian Shangdai qingtongqi jianbao [A brief report on the discovery of Shang period bronzes at Houlanjiagou, Shilou County] (pp. 4–5). Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Guo, Y. (1962b). Shilou Houlanjiagou faxian Shangdai qingtongqi jianbao [Briefing on the Shang period Bronzes in Lanjiagou, Shilou). Wenwu, 4, 5. (in Chinese). Guo, D. (1993a). Liaohe liuyu Beifang shi Qingtongqi de faxian he yanjiu [The bronzes of the northern style from the Liao River valley]. Neimenggu Wenwu Kaogu, 1&2. (in Chinese). Guo, D. (1993b). Liaohe liuyu beifang shi qingtong daozi de faxian yu yanjiu [The discovery and study of northern style bronze knives along the Liaohe River Basin]. Mongolia wenwu kaogu. (in Chinese). Guo, D. (1993c). Liaohe liuyu beifang shii qingtongqi de faxian yu yanjiu [The discovery and study of the North-style bronzes in Liaohe River basin]. Mengolia wenwu kaogu, 1–2. (in Chinese). Guojiazhuang M160, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1998). Anyang Yinxu Guojiazhuang Shangdai muzang 1982–1992 kaogu fajue baogao [The cemetery of Shang period in Guojiazhuang, Yinxu, Anyang-1982–1992 archaeological excavation report]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. (in Chinese). Guojiazhuang bei M6, Anyang Cultural Relics Work Team. (1991). Anyangshiguojiazhuangcunbeifaxianyizuoyinmu [The discovery of Yin tomb in Guojiazhuang, Anyang City]. Kaogu, 10. (in Chinese). Han, J. (1990). Huabian li xunzong—tan woguo beifang changcheng wenhuadai de xingcheng [The search of li with flora pattern—the formation of Changcheng culture belt in Northern

218

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

China]. In neimenggu dongbuqu kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu wenji [Anthology of archaeological culture in the eastern part of Inner Mongolia]. Beijing, China: Ocean Press. (in Chinese). Han, J. (2008). Shang zhouchangtidaoqiyuanzaiyanjiu [Re-study of the long-body knife from Shang and Zhou periods]. In Gongyuanqian liangqianji de JinshaangaoyuanyuYanshannanbei [Plateau of Jinshaan and North and South of Yanshan Mountains in the 2nd millennium B.C.]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Han, J. (2009). Xia Shang Xizhou shiqi zhongyuan wenhua zhong de beifang wenhua yinsu yanjiu [The study on Northern cultural factors of the Central Plains culture in Xia, Shang and Xizhou periods] (Vol. 6). A doctoral dissertation of Jilin University. (in Chinese). Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics. (1985). Gaocheng Taixi Shangdai yizhi [The site of Shang period at Taixi village, Gaocheng. Hebei]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics Work Team. (1962). Hebei qinglong xian chaodaogou faxian yipi qingtongqi [A group of bronzes found at Chaodaogou, Qinglong County, Hebei]. Kaogu, 12. (in Chinese). Hebei Provincial Cultural Relics Management Office. (1980). Hebei sheng chutu wenwu xuanji [Selected works of unearthed cultural artifacts in Hebei Province]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Hebei Province Institute of Cultural Relics. (1985). Gaocheng Taixi Shangdai yizhi [Shang sites in Taixi, Gaocheng]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Hei, G., & Zhu, J. (1975). Shaanxi suide yantoucun faxian yipi jiaocang shangdai tongqi [Shang Period Bronze Artifacts Discovered in a Hoard at Yantou Village in Suide County, Shaanxi Province]. Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Historical Relic and Archaeology Research Institute of Hubei Province. (2001). Panlongcheng: 1963–1994 kaogu fajue baogao (Panlongcheng: the excavation report from 1963 to 1994). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Houjiazhuang M1355, Guo, B. (1961). Yinzhou de qingtong wuqi [The bronze weapons of Yin and Zhou periods]. Kaogu, 2. (in Chinese). Huayuanzhuang M54, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Anyang Work Team. (2004). Henan Anyang shi Huayuanzhuang 54 hao Shangdai muzang [The cemetery of Shang period in Huayuanzhuang No. 54, Anyang City, Henan Province]. Kaogu, 1. (in Chinese). Hudiakov, Y. S., & Erdene-Ochir, N. (2010). Bronze helmet recently discovered in Mongolia. Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 1(38), 53–60. Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1988). Neimenggu zhukaigouyizhi [Zhukaigou site in Inner Mongolia]. KaoguXuebao, 3. (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2000a). Zhukaigou–qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao [Zhukaigou—excavation report of the early Bronze Age site]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2000b). Zhukaigou—qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao [Zhukaigou: A report on the excavation of an early Bronze Age site]. Beijing: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2001). Qingshuihe xian Xicha yizhi fajue jianbao; Wanjia zhai shuili shu’niu gongcheng kaogu baogaoji [A brief report of excavation of Xicha site in Qingshuihe County; The acheological report on Wanjia Hydraulic project]. Inner Mongolia, China: Yuanfang Press. (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Korea Koguryo Research Consortium. (2006). Neimengguzhongnanbu de E’erduosiqingtongqi he wenhua [Bronzes and culture of Ordos in central and southern Inner Mongolia]. (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Liaozhongjing Museum of Ningcheng County. (2009). Xiaoheishigou—xiajiadianshangcengwenhuayizhifajuebaogao (Xiaoheishigou [Xiaoheishigou—the excavation report of the remains of the Upper Xiajiadian culture]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1986). E’erduosi shi qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed in Ordos]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese).

References

219

Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1980a). Yinxufuhao [The tomb of Fuhao in Yinxu]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1980b). Yinxu fuhao mu [The tomb of fuhao in Yinxu]. Wenwu Press, Plate 66: 1. (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (1980c). Yinxu fuhao mu [The tomb of fuhao in Yinxu] (p. 103). Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science. (1999). Yanshi Erlitou [Erlitou in Yanshi]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology Chinese Academy of Social Science. (2003). Zhongguo kaoguxue Xia Shang juan [Chinese archaeological—Xia and Shang]. Beijing, China: China Social Sciences Press. (in Chinese). Ji, N. (1992). Shanxi Yanchuan chutu yipi Shangdai qingtongqi [Shang periodbronzes unearthed from Yanchuan, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwum, 4. (in Chinese). Ji, N. (1994). Shanxi Yanchuan chutu yipi wanShangdai qingtongqi [The bronzes of late Shang period unearthed from Yanchuan, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Ji County Cultural Relics Workstation. (1985). Shanxi Jixianchutushangdaiqingtongqi [The bronzes of Shang periods excavated in Ji County, Shanxi Province]. Kaogu, 9. (in Chinese). Jia, H. (1984). Wenniute qi Dapaozi qingtong duanjianmu [Tombs wirh bronze daggers at Dapaozi, Wengniuteqi]. Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Jiang, G. (2008a). Nanliu Huanghe liang’an chutu qingtongqi de niandai yu zuhe yanjiu, Gongyuan qian erqianji de Jinshan gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei [Study on the dating and combination of bronzes unearthed on both branch of the sides of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi; Jinshaan plateau and the north and south of Yanshan in the 2nd B.C.]. Beijing, China: Science Press. (in Chinese). Jiang, G. (2008b). Nanliu Huanghe liang’an chutu qingtongqi de niandai yu zuhe yanjiu, Gongyuanqian erqianji de Jinshan Gaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei [Study on the dating and combination of bronzes unearthed on both sides of the branch of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi; Jinshan plateau and the north and south of Yanshan mountains in the 2nd B.C.]. Beijing, China: Science Press. (in Chinese). Jianping County Cultural Center, Chaoyang District Museum. (1983). Liaoning jianpingxian de qingtong shidai muzang ji xiangguan yiwu [The tombs of the Bronze Age and related relics in Jianping County, Liaoning Province]. Kaogu, 8. (in Chinese). Jing, Z. (2006). Danxingwengyanjiu [The study of wengin egg shape]. Kaoguxuebao, 4. (in Chinese). Jinzhou City Museum. (1978a). Liaoning Xingcheng xian Yanghe faxian qingtongqi [The bronzes discovered from Xingcheng County, Liaoning Province)]. Kaogu, 6. (in Chinese). Jinzhou City Museum. (1978b). Liaoning XingchengxianYanghefaxianqingtongqi [The bronzes discovered in Yanghe, Xingcheng, Liaoning). Kaogu, 6. (in Chinese). Jinzhou Museum. (1978). Liaoning xingchengxian yanghe faxian qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed in Yanghe, Xingcheng County, Liaoning]. Kaogu, 6. (in Chinese). Jixian Cultural Relics Workstation. (1985). Shanxi Jixian chutu Shangdai qingtongqi (Bronzes of Shang period from Jixin, Shanxi). Kaogu, 9. (in Chinese). Jumahe Archaeology Team. (1988). Hebei sheng Yi xian Laishui guyizhi shijue baogao [A report on the pilot excavation at the ancient site of Laishui at Yi county in Hebei province]. Kaogu Xuebao, 4. (in Chinese). Karlgren, B. (1945). Some weapons and tools of the Yin period (Vol. 17). Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, Bulletin. Kazuo County Cultural Center, et al. (1977). Liaoning sheng kazuo xian shanwanzi chutu yinzhou qingtongqi [The Shang and Zhou bronzes excavated from Shanwanzi, Kazuo county, Liaoning]. Wenwu, 12. (in Chinese). Kiselev, C. B. (1949a). Ancient history of Southern Siberia. Moscow: Nauk. (in Russian). Kiselev, C. B. (1949b). Ancient history of Southern Siberia. Moscow: Science.

220

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Kiselev, C. B. (1960). Sulian jingnei qingtong wenhua yu zhongguo Shangwenhua de guanxi [The relationship between bronze culture in the Soviet Union and Shang culture in China]. Kaogu, 2, 51–53. Kiselev, C. B. (1981b). Nan xiboliya gudaishi [Ancient history of southern Siberia]. Xinjiang shehui kexueyuan minzu yanjiusuo [Xinjiang Institute of Social Sciences]. Киceлeв, C. B. (1949). Дpeвняя иcтopия Южнoй Cибиpи. Mocквa: Hayк. Kovalev, A. A., & Erdenebaatar, D. (2009). Menggu qingtong shidai wenhua de faxian [Discovery of new cultures of the Bronze Age in Mongolia]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu (Vol. 8, pp. 246– 279). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Kuzmina, E. E. (2007). The origin of the Indo-Iranians. Boston. Legrand, S. (2006). The emergence of the Karasuk culture. Antiquity, 80, 843–859. Li, D. (1983). Kulun, Naiman liangqi Xiajiadian xiaceng wenhua yizhi fenbu yu nahan [Distribution and connotation of the lower Xiajiadian culture in Coulomb and Naiman]. Wenwuziliaocongkan (Vol. 7). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Li, J. (1990). Yinxu tongqiwu zhongji ji xiangguan wenti [The five types of bronzes from Yinxu and the related issues]. In: Liji kaogu lunwen xuanji (pp 522–546). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Li, D. (2003, September 7). Zhuanglang guan cang jingpin—zhe jian loukong xiangling guan [Zhuanglang collection—the jar with everted shoulders in openwork sounding like bells]. Zhongguo Wenwu Bao. (in Chinese). Li, G. (2011). Zhongguo beifang qingtongqi de ouya caoyuan wenhua yinsu [cultural factors of bronzes from the Eurasian Steppe in the northern zone of China]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Li, Z., & Yin, X. (1995). Hebei sheng Qian’an xian chutu liangjian Shangdai tongqi [Two pieces of Shang bronzes unearthed from Qian’an county, Hebei]. Wenwu, 6. (in Chinese). Liaoning Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1999). Liaoning sheng Yi xian Xiangyangling qingtong shidai yizhi fajue baogao [Excavation report of the sites in Xiangyangling, Yi xian County, Liaoning Province]. In Kaoguxue jikan (Vol. 13). Beijing, China; Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1980a). Guanyuqingtonggongxingqi de ruoganwenti [Several issues about bronze bow-shaped artifacts]. Jilin daxueshehuikexueluncong 2. Jilin daxueshehuikexuexuebaobianjibu, Jilin, China. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1980b). Guanyu qingtong gongxingqi de ruogan wenti (Several issues about bronze bow-shaped artifacts). Jilin daxue shehui kexue luncong, 2. Jilin daxue shehui kexue xuebao bianji bu, Jilin, China. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1987a). Shang wenhuaqingtongqiyubeifangdiquqingtongqi guanxi zhizaiyanjiu [Re-study on the relationship between bronzes of Shang culture and bronzes in Northern China]. In: Kaoguxue unwenji (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1987b). Shang Wenhua Qingntongqi He Beifang Diqu Qingtongqi Guanxi Zaiyanjiu [Studies on the relations between Shang bronzes and bronzes from zone of Northern China]. In Kaoguxue Lunwenji. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998a). Shang wenhua qingntongqi he beifang diqu qingtongqi guanxi zai yanjiu Zaiyanjiu [Studies on the relations between Shang bronzes and bronzes from Northern China]. In Linyun xueshu wenji [Collective papers of Linyun]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of Chinese Publishing House. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998b). Zailungua jiang gou [Further discussion on hanging hooks]. Qingguoji—Jilin daxuekaoguxijianxishizhounianjinianwenji. Beijing, China: Zhishi Press. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2011a). SilukaitongyiqianXinjiang de jiaotongluxian [Traffic routes in Xinjiang before the opening of the silk road]. Caoyuanwenwu, 1. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2011b).SilukaitongyiqianXinjiang de jiaotongluxian [Traffic routes in Xinjiang before the opening of the silk road]. Caoyuanwenwu, 1. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2011c). Silu kaitong yiqian xinjiang de jiaotong luxian [The traffic route of Xinjiang before silk road]. Caoyuan Wenwu, 1. (in Chinese).

References

221

Lin, Y. (2015). Lushou hu? Yangshou hu? [A deer head or an ibex head?]. In Zhongguobeifang ji MengguBeijia’erXiboliyadiqugudaiwenhua [Ancient cultures in the Northern Zone, Baikal, and Siberia]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press. Linduff, K. (2003). Walk on the wild side: Late Shang Appropriation of horses in China, Prehistoric Steppe adaptation and the horse in China. Cambrige University Press. Liu, J. (1988a). Hebei Huai’an Shizikou faxian Shangdai lushoudao [Deer pommel knife from Shizikou, Huan’an, Hebei]. Kaogu, 10. (in Chinese). Liu, J. (1988b). Hebei Huai’anShizikoufanxianshangdailushoudao [The knife with deer-shaped pommel]. Kaogu, 10. (in Chinese). Liu, G. (2000). Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua qingtongqi yanjiu [Study on bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture]. Kaogu Xuebao, 4. (in Chinese). Liu, J., & Wu, Q. (2006). Siwa wenhua lingshou tongduanjian [The short swords with bell-shaped pommel in Siwa culture]. Zhongguo Wenwu Bao. (in Chinese). Liu, Y. (1993). Yinxu qingtongdao (Bronze knives in Yinxu). Kaogu, 2. (in Chinese). Liu, Z. (1995). Hebei Zunhua xian faxian yizuo Shangdai muzang [A Shang period tomb discovered in Zunhua county, Hebei province]. Kaogu, 5. (in Chinese). Loehr, M. (1949). Weapons and tools from Anyang, and Siberian Analogies. American Journal of Archaeology, 53(2), 126–144. Maksimenkov, A. V. (1983). Guanyu Minuxinsike pendi qingtong shidai fenqi wenti de xianzhuang [The current situation regarding the periodization of the Bronze Age in the Minusinsk basin]. In Kaoguxue cankao ziliao [Archaeological reference materials] (Vol. 6, pp. 81–103). Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House. Mei, J. (2005). Guanyu zhongguo yejin qiyuan ji zaoqi qingtongqi yanjiu de jige wenti [Several questions about the origin of metallurgy in China and the study of early bronzes]. In Gudai wenming yanjiu (Vol.1). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Meng, Z., & Zhao, L. (1994). Hebei luan xian chutu wanshang qingtongqi [Late Shang bronzes unearthed from Luan County, Hebei]. Kaogu, 4. (in Chinese). Michail Petrovic Grjayznov. (1984). Der GroßKurganvon Arzanin Tuva, Südsibirien, Verlag C.H. Beck München. Mikhail, P. (1969). The Ancient Civilization of Southern Siberia. Cowles Book Company: New York. Plate 43. Miyamoto, K. (2000). Zhongguogudaubeijiangsh de kaoguxue de yanjiu [The archaeological study of the Northern Zone of China in Ancient times]. Beijing, China: Zhongguoshudian. (in Chinese). National Cultural Heritage Administration, Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Archaeology Department in Jilin University. (1998). Jinzhong Kaogu [Achaeology in Jinzhong region]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). National Museum of China, Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology. (1988). Xia xian Dongxiafeng [Dongxiafeng in Xia county]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Ningcheng County Cultural Centre, Northeast Archaeology Major of Department of Archaeology, Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1977). Ningcheng xian xin faxian de xiajiadian shangceng wenhua muzang ji qi xiangguan yiwu de yanjiu [The tombs of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the related studies of the remains discovered in Ningcheng County]. Kaogu, 1. (in Chinese). Ningcheng County Cultural Museum, Northeast Archaeology Major, Department of Archaeology of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1985). Ningchengxianxinfaxian de Xiajiadianshangcengwenhuamuzang ji qi xiangguanyiwu de yanjiu [A study on the burials of Upper Xiajiadian culture discovered in Ningcheng County and its related artifacts]. In Wenwuziliaocongkan (Vol. 9). Beijjing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Ningcheng County Cultural Center, et al. (1985). Ningcheng xian xin faxian de Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua muzang ji qi xiangguan yiwu de yanjiu [A Study on the tombs of Upper Xiajiadian culture and its related artifacts discovered in Ningcheng County]. In Cultural relics series (Vol. 9). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Novgorod, E. A. (1989). Ancient Mongolia. Moscow: Science.

222

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Parpola, A. (1998). Aryan language, archaeological cultures, and Sinkiang: Where did Proto-Iranian come into Being, and how did it spread. In V. H. Mair (Ed.), The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of Eastern Central Asia (pp. 114–147). Preservation Group of Shanxi Cultural Relics Management Committee. (1958). Shanxi shilou xian Erlangpo chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi (The bronzes of the Shang and Zhou periods unearthed form Erlangpo, Shilou county, Shanxi province). Wenwu cankao ziliao, 1. (in Chinese). Qi, T. (1989). Shanxi Zichang xian chutu de Shangdai qingtongqi [Shang period bronzes unearthed from Zichang County, Shanxi Province]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 5. (in Chinese). Qijiazhuangbei M269, Anyang Cultural Relics Work Team. (1991). Yixu Qijiazhuangdong 269 hao mu [The No. 269 cemetery in the east of Qijiazhuang, Yinxu]. Kaogu Xuebao, 3. (in Chinese). Qinghai Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1944). Qingtong Huangzhong Xiaxihe Panjialiang kayue wenhua mudi [The Panjialiang cemetery of the Kayue culture, at Huangzhong Xiaxihe, Qinghai Province]. In Kaoguxue jikan, (Vol. 8). Beijing, China: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Section of Archaeology of Department of History of Liaoning University. (1989). Liaoning Faku xian Wanliu yizhi de fajue [Excavation of Wanliu site in Faku county, Liaoning Province]. Kaogu, 12. (in Chinese). Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology. (2013). Lijiaya [Lijiaya]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Shanxi sheng kaoguyanjiusuo. (2006). Lingshi jingjie shangmu [Tombs of Shang period at Jingjie, Lingshi County]. Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Shanxi Luliang Cultural Relics Studio. (1981a). Shanxi Shilou Chujiayu Caojiayuan faxian Shandai qingtongqi [The bronzes of Shang period discovered in Chujiayu and Caojiayuan, Shilou, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 8. (in Chinese). Shanxi Lvliang Cultural Relics Studio. (1981a). Shanxi Shilou Chujiayu, Caojiayuan, Caojiayuan faxian Shangdai tongqi [Discovery of Shang period bronzes at Chujiayu, Caojiayuan, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 8. (in Chinese). Shanxi Lvliang Cultural Relics Studio. (1981b). Shanxi Shilou Chujiayu, Caojiayuan faxian Shangdai tongqi [Discovery of Shang period bronzes at Chuajiayu and Caojiayuan Villages in Shilou County, Shanxi Province]. Wenwu, 8. Shanxi Provincial Cultural Relics Management Committee. (1958). Shanxi Shilou xian Erlangpo chutu Shang Zhou qingtongqi [Bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods unearthed at Erlangpo, Shilou county, Shanxi]. Wenwu cankao ziliao, 1, 36–38. (in Chinese). Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology. (2006). 2004 Liulin Gaohong Shangdai hangtu jizhi shijue jianbao [The preliminary report of the 2004 excavation of the rammed earth foundation at the Gaohong site in Liulin], Sanjin kaogu (Sanjin archaeology, Vol III). Shanxi, China: Shanxi People’s Publishing House. (in Chinese). Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Lingshi Cultural Institue. (1986). Shanxi Lingshi Jingjiecun Shangmu [Tombs of Shang period at Jingjie, Lingshi County, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 11. Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Shaanxi Provincial Cultural Heritage Administration Committee, Shaanxi History Museum, et al. (1979). Shaanxi chutu shangzhou qingtongqi [Bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods unearthed from Shaanxi Province Volumn I]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2015). Yindu-yilangren de qiyuanpingjie [The review of India-Iranian origins]. In Bianjiangkaoguyanjiu (Vol. 16). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Shao, H., & Yang, J. (2011). Saiyima-tuerbinnuoyicunyukongshoufu de chuanbo [The spread of Seyma-Turbino remains and the hollow-headed axes]. Bianjiangkaoguyanjiu (Vol. 10). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Shao, G. (1993a). Neimenggu Aohan qi faxian de qingtongqi ji youguan yiwu [Bronzes and related artifacts found in Aohan banner, Inner Mongolia]. Beifang Wenwu, 1. (in Chinese). Shao, G. (1993b). NeimengguAohanqifaxian de qingtongqi ji you guan yiwu [Bronzes and other artifacts found in Aohan Banner, Inner Mongolia]. Beifangwenwu, 1. (in Chinese).

References

223

Shilou County People’s Cultural Center. (1972). Shanxi Shilou Yidie faxian shangdai tongqi [Shang period bronzes found in Yidie Town in Shilou county, Shanxi]. Kaogu, 4. (in Chinese). Sophie, L. (2004a). Technological development and regional influence. In M. L. Katheryn (Ed.), Metallurgy in the ancient Eastern Eurasia from the Ural to the Yellow River (pp. 139–156). New York. Sophie, L. (2004b). Karasuk metallurgy: Technological development and regional influence. In K. M. Linduff (Ed.), Metallurgy in Anceint Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River. State Administration of Cultural Heritage. (1998). Zhongguo wenwu dituji—shanxi fence [The Chinese cultural management atlas, Shaanxi Volume]. Xi’an, Shaanxi: Xi’an Map Press. (in Chinese). Suide County Museum. (1982a). Shaanxi Suide faxian he shoucang de Shangdai qingtongqi [Discovered and collected Shang period Bronze artifacts in Suide County, Shaanxi Province]. Kaoguxue jikan, 2. (in Chinese). Suide County Museum. (1982b). Shaanxi Suidefaxian he shoucang de shangdaiqingtongqi [Bronzes of the Shang period discovered and collected in Suide, Shaanxi]. In Kaoguxuewenji (Vol. 2). Beijing, China: Zhongguoshehuikexue Press. (in Chinese). Suide County Museum. (1984). Suide faxian liangjian qingtongqi [Two pieces of bronzes unearthed from Suide]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Suihua County Cultural Center, Yao Shengmin. (1986). Shanxi Chunhua xian chutu de Shang Zhou qingtongqi [The bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods unearthed from Suihua County, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 5. (in Chinese). Sun, J. (2001). Shang zhou de “gongxingqi” [The bow-shaped artifacts of Shang and Zhou periods]. Zhongguoguyufuluncong (zengdingben). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Tangshan City Cultural Relics Management Office, Qian’an County Cultural Relics Management Office. (1997). Hebei qian’an xian Xiaoshandongzhuang xizhou shiqi muzang [Tombs of the Western Zhou period from Xiaoshandong viilage, Qian’an county, Hebei province]. Kaogu, 4. (in Chinese). Teng, M. (2011). Ye tan gongxingqi de xingzhi ji xiangguanwenti [The typology of bow-shaped artifacts and the related issues]. Kaogu, 8. (in Chinese). The cemetery of Dongnangou in Hebei province is representative: Hebei Province Museum, Hebei Province Administration of Cultural Relics. (1977). Hebei Pingquan Dongnangou Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua muzang [The cemetery of the Upper Xiajiadian culture in Dongnangou, Pingquan, Hebei province]. Kaogu, 1. (in Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1986a). E’erduosi Qingtongqi [Ordos Bronzes]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1986b). Ordos shi qingtongqi [Ordos-styled bronzes] (p. 26). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Tokyo National Museum. (1997). Dacaoyuan de qimaminzu—zhongguobeifang de qingtongqi [The horseback tribe—the bronzes of Northern Zone of China]. Tokyo. (in Chinese). Vadetskaya, Б. B. (1986a). Archaeological monuments in the steppes of the middle Yenisei. Leningrad: Nauka. (in Russian). Vadetskaya, Б. B. (1986b). Archaeological monuments in the steppes of the middle Yenisei. Leningrad: Science. (in Russian). Volkov. (1961). Gebichutu de qingtongduanjian [The bronze short sword unearthed from Gobi]. Suliankaoguxue, 1 (in Chinese). Volkov, V. V. (1967). The Bronze and early Iron Age of Northern Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar. (in Russia). Wang, B. (1986). Xinjiang dongbu faxian de jipi tongqi [Several batches of bronzes found in eastern Xinjiang]. Kaogu, 10. (in Chinese). Wang, F. (1990a). Hebei xinglong xian faxian Shang Zhou qingtongqi jiaocang [A Hoarded bronzes cache of Shang and Zhou period in Xinglong, Hebei]. Wenwu, 11. (in Chinese). Wang, F. (1990b). Hebei Xinglongxianfaxianshangzhouqingtongqijiaocang [The cellar bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods discovered in Xinglong County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 11. (in Chinese).

224

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Wang, Y. (1991). Suizhong Fengjia faxian jiaocang tongqi [Hoarded bronzes found in Fengjia, Suizhong]. In Liaohai wenwu xuekan (Vol. 1). (in Chinese). Wang, W. (1994a). Neimenggu Lindong Tazigou chutu de yangshou tongdao [Bronze knives with a ram-shaped pommel unearthed from Tazigou in Lindong, Inner Mongolia]. Beifang wenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Wang, W. (1994b). Neimenggu lindong Tazigou chutu de yangshoudao [The knife with the ram-shaped pommel unearthed from Lindong Tazigou, Mongolia]. Beifang wenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Wang, W. (1994c). NeimengguLindongTazigouchutu de yangshoudao [The knife with the goat-shaped pommel unearthed from LindongTazigou, Mongolia]. Beifangwenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Wang, G. (1995). Xining shi shenna qijia wenhua yizhi [The cultural sites of Shenna qijia, Xining]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue nianjian (1993). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press. (in Chinese). Wang, Y. (1996b). Suizhong fengjia faxian jiaocang tongqi [Cachedbronzes found in Fengjia, Suizhong]. Liaohai Wenwu Xuekan, 1. (in Chinese). Wang, Y. (1996c). Suizhong fengjia faxian jiaocang tongqi [The hoarded bronzes found in Fengjia, Suizhong]. Liaohai Wenwu Xuekan, 1. (in Chinese). Wang, Z. (1997). Gansu Heshui Jiuzhan yizhi fajue baogao [Excavation report of Jiuzhan site, Heshui, Gansu]. In Kaoguxue Yanjiu (Vol. 3). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Wang, Y., Cui, F., & Li, Y. (2007a). Shaanxi Ganquan xian chutu wan shang qingtongqi [Bronzes of late Shang period unearthed from Ganquan, Shaanxi]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 3. (in Chinese). Wang, T. (2010). Zhongguo beifang Shangzhou shiqi tongzhou [Bronze helmets of Shang and Zhou periods from Northern China]. Journal of National Museum of China, 2. (in Chinese). Wang, Y., Wang, G., & Li, L. (1996). Suizhong fengjia Shangdai jiaocang tongqi [Hoarded bronzes of Shang period at Fengjia, Suizhong]. Liaohai Wenwu Xuekan, 1. (in Chinese). Wang, Y., et al. (2007). Shaanxi ganquanxian chutu wanshang qingtongqi [Late Shang bronzes unearthed in Ganquan County, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 3. White William Charles. (1956). Bronze Culture of Ancient China (pp. 15–75). University of Toronto Press. William Watson, W. (1971). Cultural frontiers in Ancient East Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wu, Z. (1972a). Baode xian xinfaxian de Yindai qingtongqi [Newly discovered bronzes of Yin period from Baode County]. Wenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Wu, Z. (1972b). Baode xian xin faxian de yindai qingtongqi [Bronze artifacts in Yin period unearthed in Baode County]. Wenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Wu, E. (1985a). Yin zhizhou chu de beifangqingtongqi [The north-style bronzes from Yin to the beginning of Zhou period]. Kaogu Xuebao, 2. (in Chinese) [note 58]. Wu, E. (1985b). Yin zhi zhouchu de beifang qingtongqi [The north-style bronzes from Yin to the beginning of Zhou period]. Kaogu Xuebao, 2, 135–155. (in Chinese). Wu, E. (1985c). Yin zhi zhouchu de beifang qingtongqi [The northern bronzes from Yin to the beginning of Zhou period]. Kaogu Xuebao, 2, p. 155. (in Chinese) [note 60]. Wu, E. (1986). Zhongguo beifangqingtong wenhua yu Kalasuke wenhua de guanxi [The relationship between Bronze Culture and Karasak Culture in Northern China]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu—xianai xiansheng kaogu wushi nian jinian lunwenji [Chinese archaeological research—Professor Xia Nai’s 50 Years of memorial] (pp. 135–150). Beijing, China: Science Press. Wu, E. (1994). Lungudai de zhanche ji qi xiangguanwenti [On the ancient chariots and related issues]. In Neimengguwenwukaoguwenji (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House Press. (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2005). Lun shibanmu wenhua de niandai ji xiangguan wenti [On the dating and the related issues of slab grave culture]. In Xinshiji de zhongguo kaoguxue. Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2007). BBeifangcaoyuankaoguxuewenhuayanjiu [A study of the archaeological cultures on the northern steppes]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese).

References

225

Wu, L., & Yu, Z. (1988). Shaanbei faxian Shang Zhou qingtongqi [Bronzes of the Shang and Zhou periods found in Northern Shaanxi Province]. Kaogu, 10. (in Chinese). Xie, Q., & Yang, S. (1960). Shanxi Lvliang xian Shilou zhen you faxian tongqi [Another discovery of bronzes at Shilou, Lvliang, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 7. (in Chinese). Xi xian Xiaoxitian Cultural Relics Management Office. (1991). Shanxi Xixian Pang cun chutu Shangdai qingtongqi [Bronzes dated to Shang period unearthed in Pang villiage, Xi County, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 7. (in Chinese). Yan, C., & Lv, Z. (1988). Shanxi Yanchuan xian wenhuaguan shoucang de jijian Shangdai qingtongqi [Bronzes of Shang period collected by Yanchuan Cultural Center in Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Yang, S. (1959). Shilou xian faxian gudai tongqi [Ancient bronzes unearthed in Shilou County]. Wenwu Press 3. (in Chinese). Yang, S. (1976a). Shilou xin zhengjidao dao de jijian Shangdai qingtongqi [Pieces of Shang bronzes accidentally found in Shilou, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Yang, S. (1976b). Shanxi ShilouChujiayuCaojiayuanfaxianshandaiqingtongqi [Several bronzes of Shang periods collected from Shilou, Shanxi]. Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Yang, S. (1977). Shaanxi Yonghe faxian Yindai tongqi [Bronzes dated to Yin period unearthed from Yonghe, Shaanxi]. Kaogu, 5. (in Chinese). Yang, S. (1981a). Shanxi liulinxian gaohong faxian shangdai tongqi [Shang periodbronzes found at Gaohong village in Liulin county, Shanxi]. Kaogu, 3. (in Chinese). Yang, S. (1981b). Shanxi Liulin Gaohong faxian Shangdai tongqi (The copper wares of Shang period discovered in Gaohong Liulin, Shanxi). Kaogu, 3. (in Chinese). Yang, X. (1985). Anyang shi bowuguan suocang de yipi Shangdai qingtong wuqi [A batch of Shang bronze weapons collected in Anyang city museum]. Zhongyuan Wenwu, 2, 99–102. (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2002). Yanshannanbeishangzhouzhijiqingtongqiyicun de fenqunyanjiu [The study on the grouping of bronze remains during Shang and Zhou periods in the Yanshan Mountains]. Kaoguxuebao, 2. (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2007). ShangzhoushiqiZhongguobeifangyejinqu de xingcheng–shangzhoushiqibeifangqingtongqi de bijiaoyanjiu [The formation of the metallurgical areas in the Northern Zone of China during the Shang and Zhou dynasties: A comparative study of the bronzes in the Northern Zhou periods]. In Bianjiangkaoguyanjiu (Vol. 6). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Yao, M. (1986a). Shaanxi Chunhua Chutu Shang–Zhou Qingtongqi (Bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods from Chunhua, Shaanxi). Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 5. (in Chinese). Yao, S. (1986b). Shaanxi Chunhua xian chutu de Shang Zhou qingtongqi [The bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods unearthed from Chunhua, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 5. (in Chinese). Yao, S. (1986c). Shaanxi Chunhua xian chutu de Shang Zhou qingtongqi [The bronzes unearthed from Chunhua County, Shaanxi Province]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 5. (in Chinese). Yao, S. (1990). Shanxi chunhuaxian chutu de shangzhou qingtongqi [The bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods unearthed in Suihua County, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wenwu, 1. (in Chinese). Yang, J., & Jiang, G. (2008). Gongyuanqian erqianji de Jinshaan gaoyuan yuYanshan nanbei [The Shanxi-Shaanxi plateau and the northern and southern sides of Yanshan Mountains in the 2nd millennium B.C.]. Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Yang, J., & Linduff, K. (2008). Shilunshaoxingqi de yongtu – jianlunJinshaangaoyuanshangzhouqin gtongqi de wuzhuanghuayuyidonghua [On the use of spoon-shaped artifacts—also on the arming and mobility of the bronzes of Shang and Zhou periods in the Jinshan Plateau]. In Gongyuanqianliangqianji de JinshaangaoyuanyuYanshannanbei [Plateau of Jinshaan and North and South of Yan Mountains in the 2nd millennium B.C.]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese). Zhang, W. (2003). Jidong diqu Longshan ji qingtong shidai kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu [Study on archaeological culture of Longshan and Bronze Age in Longdong Area]. Master’s thesis, Jilin University. (in Chinese).

226

3 The Emergence and Expansion of Bronzes in the Northern Zone …

Zhang, W. (2004). Jidong diqu Longshan zhi qingtong shidai kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu [Study on archaeological culture from Longshan to Bronze Age in eastern Hebei]. Master thesis of Jilin University. (in Chinese). Zhang, Y., & Lv, Z. (1988). Shaanxi Qingjian xian Lijiaya guchengzhi fajue jianbao [A brief excavation report on city site at Lijiaya, Qingjian, Shaanxi]. Kaogu Yu Wentu, 1. (in Chinese). Zhao, Z., & Liang, Y. (1999). Shanxi sheng bowuguan jinnian zhengji de bufen Shangdai qingtongqi [Some bronzes dated to Shang period collected by Shanxi Museum]. Wenwu jikan, 2. (in Chinese). Zhang, Z., Zhu, Y,, & Qiao, L. (1994). Jinshaan gaoyuan ji guanzhong diqu Shangdai kaoguxue wenhua jiegou fenxi, Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji [Analysis on the cultural structure of archaeology in Shang period in Jin-Shaan Plateau and Guanzhong region; Anthology of Archaeology in Inner Mongolia]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of Chinese Publishing House. (in Chinese). Zheng, S. (1984a). Zhongguo beifang qingtong dua jian de fenqi ji xingzhi yanjiu [Study the stage and form of bronze short sword in Northern China]. Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Zheng, S. (1984b). Zhongguo beifang qingtong duajian de fenqi ji xingzhi yanjiu [Study on the stage and form of bronze short sword in the Northern Zone of China]. Wenwu, 4. (in Chinese). Zheng, S. (1994). Changcheng didai faxian de beifang shi qingtong daozi ji qi youguan wenti [Bronze knives of the north style found in the Great Wall and the related issues]. Wenwuchunqiu, 4. (in Chinese). Zhu, Y. (2003). Zhongguo beifang de guanqiongfu (Socketed axes from the Northern Zone of China). Zhongyuan Wenwu, 2. (in Chinese). Zhu, F. (2013). You Yinxu Chutu beifang shi qingtongqi kan Shangren he beifang zuqun de lianxi [Study on the relations between the Shang and northern groups based on northern bronzes from Yinxu]. Kaogu Xuebao, 1. (in Chinese). Zou, H. (2000). Tianma Qucun (Vol. 2). Beijing, China: Kexue Press. (in Chinese).

Chapter 4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

In the early period of the 1st millennium B.C., great changes occurred in the technology, social structure, and ideology of the people in the Eurasian Steppe. Most scholars attribute these changes to the rise of nomadic society. Nomadism, as a mode of economy in the form of open grazing, is an economic and social system for humans to adapt to a specific environment (Wang 2008b). The earliest specialized nomadism emerged in the early period of the 1st millennium B.C., but it was not popular at that time, with only a few occurrences in the steppes. However, by the 7th century B.C., the entire Eurasian steppe area was occupied by nomadic people. Among them were the Scythians on the Pontic area, the Sauro-Sarmatians in the North Caucasus and on the northern coast of the Caspian Sea, the Saka in Kazakhstan and the Tianshan, and the early nomads in areas such as Minusinsk, Altai, Tuva, and Mongolia (Fig. 4.1). With regard to the culture of the nomadic people, each of them had their own characteristics, but they shared characteristics with regard to weapons, horse harness fittings and zoomorphic motifs in decorations, ritual artifacts in burials, and the scarcity of settlements. With the growing popularity of nomadism from the early period of the 1st millennium B.C. to the 7th century B.C. and a transition from animal husbandry to nomadic pastoralism, the period marked the beginning of an early nomadic period. There have been many studies on the remains of early nomadism, with a great number of them elaborating on the interactions among nomadic peoples and their impact on surrounding sedentary societies. However, an important question cannot be ignored: how was the animal husbandry of the Late Bronze Age transformed into the nomadic pastoralism of the Early Iron Age? These early nomadic cultures were quite different from the previous ones of the Late Bronze Age in the steppes, such as the Andronovo culture and Timber Grave culture and the animal husbandry cultures of the Late Bronze Age, such as the Karasuk culture. Great changes had taken place in the social structure, production technology, and burial customs. What was the process of this transformation? What were the unique characteristics of each region in this process? Is there a synchronicity in the origin of early nomadism in these regions? Are there any connections between them? To answer these © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3_4

227

228

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.1 Distribution map of ethnic groups in central and Western Eurasian steppe during the early iron age

questions, the remains of the transition period before the 7th century B.C. should be studied. Because few remains of the transition period between the 9th century B.C. and the 7th century B.C. have been found in the steppes, related studies are weak, and most of them are limited to one certain region. This chapter aims to explore the above-mentioned questions from the perspective of the entire Eurasian Steppe, selecting areas rich in research materials such as the Pontic area and the Kuban River Basin, the southern Siberian region of Russia, the Mongolian Plateau, and the Northern Zone of China, represented by the southeastern part of Inner Mongolia (Fig. 4.2), to analyze and compare the main characteristics of the weapons, horse harness fittings and zoomorphic decorative motifs.

4.1 4.1.1

The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe The Pontic Area and the Kuban River Basin: The Preand Early Scythian Cultures

The Pontic area and the Kuban River Basin were the main areas for the activities of Scythians, one of the more well-known early nomadic peoples. The term “Scythians”

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

229

Fig. 4.2 Distribution of cultures on the Eurasian Steppe during the transition period. I—Early nomadic cultures on the north bank of the Black Sea and along the Kuban River; II—Early nomadic cultures in Southern Siberia; III—Slab-Grave culture; IV—Upper Xiajiadian culture

was recorded by Herodotus (484–425 B.C.), the West’s “father of history”, in his book The Histories. In this book, the ancient Greek historian made a detailed description of the life, the customs, the practices and the geographical distribution of the population. As recorded by Herodotus, the Scythians, who first came from the steppes around the east part of the Caspian Sea later appeared as mercenaries in the battles among the ancient polities of Western Asia and finally as residents from approximately the 7th century B.C. to the 4th century B.C (Herodotus 1999). on the Pontic area. Before that, the Cimmerians were the owners of the steppes of the Pontic area, an ethnic group mentioned in Homer’s epic The Odyssey and Herodotus’ The Histories. Although the Cimmerians had vanished by the times of Herodotus, as one of the Greek colonists, Herodotus had been to the Pontic area, where he had learned about and documented many cases of the Cimmerians, such as the remains of their forts, ferries and royal tombs. Archaeological knowledge on the remains of the Scythian culture began with Veselovsky’s archaeological excavations of the Kuban area, where he first classified the excavated Kelermes and other cemeteries into the Scythian culture (Petrenko 1995) instead of the Pre-Scythian culture, whose remains are on the Pontic area and date to the 9th–7th century B.C. This part mainly focuses on the Pre-Scythian culture in the transition period from animal husbandry to nomadic pastoralism and some of the remains of the early Scythian culture (Fig. 4.2: I).

230

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

With regard to research on the remains of the Pre-Scythian culture, many achievements have been made, among which the studies of Kossack (1998) and Jettmar (1969) provide the basic path of its development. Drawing on the results of the above research combined with the recent publication on the Pre-Scythian remains (Махортых 2005), the Pre- and early Scythian cultures can be divided into the following three phases. Phase I: Before the 8th century B.C., with the Novocherkassk artifacts as the core, mainly featuring weapons and horse harness fittings as well as ornaments in a small number. The weapons were mainly swords, spears, and arrowheads. Swords were made of bronze or iron and were usually long swords with a mushroom-shaped hilt (Fig. 4.3: 2) or with a sword guard that drooped at both ends (Fig. 4.3: 1). The

Fig. 4.3 Pre-Scythian and early Scythian artifacts. 1, 22 Balki Kurgan; 2 Suborobo M2 of Kurgan 5; 3, 12–15, 23, 24 Novocherkassk; 5, 9–11, 16, 17, 25–27 Zolynoe; 18–21 Michalkow Cellar; 28, 38, 44 slobodzei M3 of Kurgan 3; 29–33, 37, 41 Malaya Tsimbalka; 34 Ryzanovka Kurgan 2; 35, 39, 45–49 Zhanbotin Kurgan 2; 36, 40. Cheriogorovka; 42, 43 Kamyshevkaha; 50–55 Ryzanovka Kurgan 5; 56, 74–82 Kelermes M2; 57–73 Kelermes M1; (3, 57–64. made of iron; 18–22, 73, 74 made of gold; 23, 25, 27, 28, 44–49, 65–72, 79–82 made of bone; the rest made of bronze)

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

231

arrowheads were more uniform in shape, mainly with double socket wings (Fig. 4.3: 5, 6). In addition, iron spears (Fig. 4.3: 3) and hollow bronze scabbards (Fig. 4.3: 4) were found in the remains. Horse harness fittings were mainly cheekpieces and snaffle bits, which were often unearthed as a set. Among them, the double-outer-ring cheekpieces (Fig. 4.3: 7–11) and the three-hole-spoon-shaped snaffle bits (Fig. 4.3: 12–17) were the most common designs. The zoomorphic motifs in decorations were not complex at this stage. Among the gold and bone ornaments (Fig. 4.3: 18–25), spiral motifs, concentric circles, mushroom shapes and geometric patterns, such as squares, were dominant forms. Gold-flower-shaped ornaments were one of the most distinctive forms at this stage (Fig. 4.3: 26, 27). Phase II: From the end of the 8th century B.C. to the beginning of the 7th century B.C., the ancient tomb of Ryzanovka II to the west of the Dnieper and the ancient tomb of Zhabotin II are the typical cultural remains of this period. Similar to the previous phase, with regard to weapons, long swords (Fig. 4.3: 28) were popular in this period, while arrowheads were mainly socketed and two-bladed (Fig. 4.3: 29–33) or with an exceptionally protruding part in the tail (Fig. 4.3: 31, 33). The horse harness fittings, mainly cheekpieces and snaffle bits, were highly developed and in various forms. Some cheekpieces had double outer rings, as in the previous phase (Fig. 4.3: 34, 35), and some had large circular outer rings (Fig. 4.3: 38) or stirrup shapes (Fig. 4.3: 36, 37, 39). Snaffle bits were made of either bronze or bone, and all had three holes. Most of them had a mushroom-shaped “head” at both ends (Fig. 4.3: 40–44), and some had bone “heads” shaped like animal (Fig. 4.3: 45, 46). Although zoomorphic motifs in this phase were still underdeveloped, some realistic animal patterns that were engraved on bones emerged. The main animal designs are of wild animals, especially elks and carnivorous birds with parts of their body folded (Fig. 4.3: 47–49). Bone cheekpieces with heads carved into zoomorphic motifs are the earliest among other similar artifacts in the Pontic area. Phase III: From the middle to the end of the 7th century B.C., this was a typical Scythian culture period with Ancient Tombs I and II of the Kelermes cemetery as the representative sites. In this period, some new artifacts appeared in addition to the old ones from the previous stages. Weapons of this period included daggers, spears, copper helmets, and arrowheads. Among them, new artifacts were daggers with heart-shaped cross-guards (Fig. 4.3: 50), helmets with pointed tips at the top of the front face (Fig. 4.3: 56), and three-bladed copper arrowheads with sockets (Fig. 4.3: 54, 55). Few horse harnesses of this period were made of bronze. The snaffle bits and cheekpieces were all made of iron. The outer rings of snaffle bits were stirrup-shaped (Fig. 4.3: 58–60) and hook-shaped (Fig. 4.3: 57), and the cheekpieces were three-ringed inside with two protruding round hat-shaped ends (Fig. 4.3: 61–64). During this period, a large number of bone animal-shaped strap guides appeared (Fig. 4.3: 65–72).

232

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

During this period, the decorative style was diversified. In addition to the prevailing spiral patterns and cross-shaped patterns (Fig. 4.3: 73, 74, 77, 78), zoomorphic motifs of more species became popular, such as felines, ibex, birds, and horses. Among them, coiled zoomorphic motifs (Fig. 4.3: 75, 81, 82), animal-shape bone strap guides, and a round, carved artifact in the shape of a horse head (Fig. 4.3: 76) were the most distinctive. The coiled zoomorphic motifs were slightly triangular shaped; the limbs and body of the animals did not join together smoothly, and the animal species cannot be identified. Bone strap guides with zoomorphic motifs were popular artifacts in the Pontic area during this period. They were found in great numbers and often carved as the heads of ibexes or birds (Fig. 4.3: 65–72, 79, 80). In summary, the development process of the Pre-Scythian culture and the early Scythian culture had the following characteristics. First, weapons, horse harnesses and the decorative style underwent distinctive changes. In the first phase of the Pre-Scythian culture, the mushroom-head sword hilt, which had been popular in the Karasuk culture, was still preserved in weapons. The style of horse harnesses was distinctive and complicated, and double-outer-ringed snaffle bits and spoon-shaped three-hole cheekpieces were also popular. In terms of decorative style, no real zoomorphic motifs appeared. Instead, geometric motifs and flower-shaped patterns were the main trends. In the second phase, the long sword was the popular weapon. Although a small number of double-outer-ringed snaffle bits that were popular in the previous phase still existed, artifacts with different cultural characteristics from the Near East and Greece appeared, such as snaffle bits with large outer rings and three-hole cheekpieces with a mushroom head. These features indicate that other new cultural factors were introduced into this area and that horse harnesses tended to be simplified compared with those in the previous stage. In the third phase, new types of weapons (such as bronze helmets) emerged, and the shape and structure of horse harnesses tended to be unified into snaffle bits with stirrup-shaped outer rings and cheekpieces with three rings inside. The trend of simplification continued. It is likely that the use of horses became widespread, leading to increased demand for horse harnesses. Geometric patterns in decorations were still popular, and zoomorphic motifs greatly increased in both category and quantity. The Scythian triad culture was fully formed. Second, in terms of decorative style, the influence of the agricultural cultures in Greece and the Near East permeated the development of the Pre-Scythian culture and the early Scythian culture. The geometric patterns of Greece and the human figure and the flower patterns of the Near East occupied important positions in the decorative styles. In Phase I, almost all of the decorative styles were influenced by these two cultures. Later, lion and bull images became popular in the Scythian culture. Both images also came from Assyria and Babylon, the ancient Near East. In addition, iron artifacts appeared early in these cultures, which could be attributed to the influence of the early iron metallurgical technology in the Near East. In Phase II, zoomorphic motifs appeared, which were mainly recumbent elk, birds carved on

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

233

bones, and bone cheekpieces with a bird-shaped heads, but no unique decorative styles were established because Phase II was the transition period from the Pre-Scythian culture to the early Scythian culture.

4.1.2

Southern Siberia in Russia: The Arzhan Kurgan

Russia’s Southern Siberia region, which includes the Minusinsk Basin, Tuva and the Altai (Fig. 4.2: II), is abundant in early nomadic culture remains. It is also one of the first regions where Russian archaeological research was conducted (Mikhail 1969). In fact, many scholars have conducted dating studies on the early nomadic culture in this area (Bokovenko 1995a). Based on these, some Chinese scholars have summarized the studies in this field (Ma 2008). In this study, we address only the earliest remains of this region represented by the Arzhan. Located on the upper reaches of the Yenisei River, Tuva mainly comprises the vast area between the Sayan and Tannu-Ola mountains. With an area of nearly 200,000 km2, it currently belongs to the Tuva Republic of Russia. Arzhan is on the Uyuk highlands in the hinterland of Asia. Compared with the low-lying Tuva Basin, it is so eye-catching that the location of the tombs is called “King’s Valley” of Tuva. Arzhan I (Gryaznov 1980, 1984; Marsadolov 2000) was excavated during 1971–1974 and the Arzhan II (Cugunov 2010; Chugunov et al. 2002; Государственный Эрмитаж 2004) during 1998–2002. The scale of the Arzhan Kurgan I is enormous. The entire earth mound, a dome-shaped stone box, is surrounded by round fences of stones, and the tomb chamber was not built in deep pits but directly on the surface of the earth. Arzhan I is a 4-m-high cylinder with a 120-m diameter. It is reinforced with stone foundations with each block weighing 20–50 kg. The log construction is also cylindrical in shape, with a diameter of 80 m. This complex timber frame consists of 70 radially arranged small tomb chambers (Fig. 4.4). Separated by logs, each tomb chamber ranges from 15 to 150 m2 in size and 2.5–3.0 m in height. At the center is an 8 x 8 m2 central burial chamber, inside of which is a 4.4 x 3.7 m2 large timber coffin, which is surrounded by eight small single coffins. In the large chamber are two single dug-out log coffins lying east-west, in which an elderly man and a female adult were buried. Their heads face northwest, and they are on their sides in a flexed position. They wear leather clothes with gorgeous decorations. According to the scale of the tombs, it can be concluded that they were likely to be a king and a queen or aristocrats of this level. The nine small coffins are located in the north, west and south of the large timber coffin, and all persons buried inside are elderly men. On the east part of the large timber coffin are 6 horses with horse harnesses. In a small chamber around the timber frame are several single dug-out log coffins in which 15 men were buried. In addition, nine small tomb chambers are for horses. Altogether, 160 horses and a large number of bones belonging to 300 incomplete horses were buried in the Arzhan I.

234

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.4 Plan and isometric view of Arzhan Kurgan I

The Arzhan II was quite well preserved and showed no evidence of having been disturbed (Plate 6). There are round mounds 80 m in diameter and 2 m high at the burial ground. There are several vertical earthen pits with stone or timber coffins in the same tomb (Fig. 4.5: 1). No artifacts have been found in Pit I at the center of the

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

235

lower grave. Pit II is in the northeast of Pit I, named Tomb V of Arzhan II, which is a square pit with a base 5 m long, 5 m wide, and 3 m deep. Inside the pit are chambers made of Siberian birch logs where a man and a woman are buried. The man is in the north, and the woman is in the south. Both are laid on one side with limbs bent and heads to the northwest (Fig. 4.5: 2). Scholars restored their clothes according to the unearthed artifacts. More than 9000 pieces of funeral articles, including 5700 gold artifacts, weighing a total of 20 kg were excavated from Arzhan II, which is regarded as the richest tomb in the Eurasian steppe region by far. The date identification of the unearthed bones suggests that the man may have died at the age of 40–45 years old and the woman at 30–35 years old. More than 2500 gold ornament pieces in the shape of panthers and boars were sewn into the long, waist-length garments worn by the two occupants (Plate 6: 7, 6). Zoomorphic ornaments of thick gold pieces decorate the tomb owners’ hats. On their necks are 1.5 kilogram gold pectorals measuring 23.6 cm in diameter, covered with zoomorphic decorations (Fig. 4.9: 8; Plate 6: 8). Pit III is to the northwest of Pit I, where few pieces of clothing have been found. To the south of Pit I is Pit IV, a horse grave, where dozens of horses with harnesses are buried (Plate 6: 5) In addition, some subordinate rectangular stone tombs have been found at the lower edge of the grave. There is a male occupant on his side with bent limbs in each of these tombs. It was common at that time in the central steppe for high-grade large-scale burials to have subordinate tombs and horses around the main chamber. These unearthed horses are equipped with an entire set of harnesses. The excavated tombs are mainly single interments, although some are double interments with adults interred at the center of the mound and children at the edge. The prevalent burial posture is flexed burial interment with the head toward the west or northwest. Currently, the date of Arzhan I is still a matter of scholarly debate. According to the analysis of its carbon, it was no later than the 8th century B.C. (800 ± 50 B.C., 850 ± 50 B.C., 820 ± 50 B.C.) (Gryaznov 1980). Some scholars hold that there are many similarities between the artifacts from Arzhan I and those of the Pre-Scythian culture on the Pontic area during the 9th and the 8th centuries (Wu 2002a). Therefore, it is rational to believe it was during the 9th and the 8th centuries B.C. (Wu 2007, p. 210). compared with the dated artifacts of the Northern Zone of China. However, Arzhan II is slightly later1 and in a different stage compared with Arzhan I (Cugunov 2010). The artifacts from the two royal burial complexes are the two most distinctive burial objects of Tuva and even of the entire southern Siberian region at the earliest and latest stages in the 9th–7th centuries B.C. They represent the social development level and cultural characteristics of the time.

1

Arzhan II belongs to the early Iron Age. The reason why it is placed at the beginning of the Nomadic Era is that it is closely related to and difficult to be separated from the early Iron Age.

236

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.5 Plan of Arzhan Kurgan II

4.1.2.1

Weapons

The weapons in Arzhan I mainly include short swords, battle-axes, and arrowheads. The short swords from Arzhan I look simple and practical. The swords are all in the shape of the narrow -shaped cross-guard, similar to the shape of a handlebar moustache, with a circular cross-section at the end of the guard and a grooved pommel (Fig. 4.6: 3–4). There is also an image of a boar with a prominent muzzle, long hooves and long legs hanging down (Fig. 4.6: 2), where a detailed description of oblique lines can be seen. This style is similar to the way in which hooves were described on earlier local deer stones (Fig. 4.9: 7). Short swords with similar shapes and structures were unearthed from the earliest Tagar culture of the Minusinsk Basin2 (Fig. 4.6: 5). A short sword unearthed from Tuva shows a similar guard as the one in Arzhan I. The hilt of this short sword was hollowed out, and its pommel was cast in the shape of two horses standing (России академия наук институт материалъной култътула 1997) (Fig. 4.6: 1). A similar double standing-horse motif can be found on the bronze knife in Seima-Turbino (Fig. 2.26: 8) (Chernykh and Kuzmineh 2010; Molodin and Neskorov 2010). The artifacts of Seima-Turbino are believed to be from an early age, no later than the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. It is confusing that this short sword bears the features of both periods. The battle-axes have a longer socketed handle (Fig. 4.6: 6) and holes used for fixing. There are no stems, but there are sockets on most of the two-bladed bronze arrowheads (Fig. 4.6: 7–12). Some of the arrowheads have barbs on one side of the tail (Fig. 4.6: 7–8). Compared with the weapons unearthed from Arzhan I, there was no significant change in the type of weapons from Arzhan II. The tubes of the axes with tubular socket were shortened compared with early ones (Fig. 4.6: 15). A bronze dui-ferrule

2

The dagger was unearthed from M21, Tagar cemetery in 1926 by C. A. Tenlayaol. The data were provided by Russian scholar Alexey Kovalev.

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

237

Fig. 4.6 Weapons of Arzhan Kurgan period. 1–5, 13, 14 Bronze swords; 6, 15, 16 socketed battle axes; 7–12, 17–23 bronze arrowheads (1 collected from Tuva, 2–4, 6–12 unearthed from Arzhan Kurgan I, 5. unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin, 13–23 unearthed from Arzhan Kurgan II)

was used together with the axes with tubular sockets (Fig. 4.6: 16). The number of short swords found in the tombs was relatively small. The two short swords unearthed were both iron swords with gold handles. Although only two short swords were found at that time, their shape and structure were gorgeous. The pommel and guard of the swords were decorated with pairs of felines, and the middle of the sword and the hilt were decorated with rows of ornamentation (Fig. 4.6: 13, 14; Plate 6: 4). There were two types of bronze arrowheads: three-bladed bronze arrowheads with solid tangs and the socketed arrowheads without tangs (Fig. 4.6: 17–23).

4.1.2.2

Horse Harnesses

Horse harnesses are especially notable, with well-preserved cheekpieces and snaffle bits among the excavated objects in the Arzhan I. The number of excavations is so large that twelve snaffle bits were found in one of the tombs. Some researchers believe that these different styles of harnesses represent the tribe’s devotion to the confederation leader’s funeral (Kovalev 1998). The snaffle bits are all bronze, with various shapes and structures. The main differences can be detected in the outer rings, most of which are stirrups (Fig. 4.7: 3, 4), or circles and ovals (Fig. 4.7: 5–6).

238

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

There are also a small number of double-hole outer rings (Fig. 4.7:1) and specially shaped outer rings (Fig. 4.7: 2). The cheekpieces are all made of bone or horn. There are only two types: one is a three-hole cheekpiece (Fig. 4.7: 8), and the other is a horn-polished piercing cheekpiece (Fig. 4.7: 7). From the preserved burial remains, it can be seen that the assembly method for the cheekpieces and the snaffle bits, in which the belt is made through the hole of the cheekpieces and connected to the outer ring of the snaffle bits, and the cheekpiece itself is not made to wear into the outer ring of the horse bit (Fig. 4.7: 9, 10). This is completely different from the way cheekpieces and snaffle bits were connected after the 5th century B.C. Although the outer ring was also popular at that time, it was round and oval in the cheekpiece. However, the size of the outer ring became large and was connected with the cheekpiece in a different way: the two-hole cheekpiece was inserted into the outer ring of the snaffle bit. Most of the harnesses unearthed from Arzhan II are inset. The extant ones are mostly bronze snaffle bits, cheekpieces, and headstall ornaments. The snaffle bits usually have jointed mouthpieces with stirrup-shaped terminals, and the terminal types include double-hole outer rings and single-hole outer rings (Fig. 4.7: 11, 12). The cheekpieces are all made of bronze, and no bone cheekpieces have been found. Although the two types of cheekpieces, the straight-stick shape and the bent-stick shape, are different from the earlier ones in shape, most of them retain the feature of three holes (Fig. 4.7: 13–15). These horse bits and cheekpieces connect in such a way that the outer rings of the horse bit are directly inserted into the middle hole of the cheekpieces (Fig. 4.7: 16). However, a type of Y-shaped bronze cheekpiece unearthed from the remains concurrent with Arzhan II shows a different assembly pattern. In this pattern, instead of inserting the outer rings of the horse bit into the

Fig. 4.7 Horse harness fittings from Tuva and Altai. 1–10 Arzhan Kurgan I; 11–16 Arzhan Kurgan II; 17 Tuva (collected); 18–27 Altai

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

239

Fig. 4.8 Evolution of horse cheekpieces in Altai. 1, 2, 6 Three-hole cheekpieces and method of use; 3, 7 T-shaped cheekpieces and method of use; 4, 5, 8, 9 Y-shaped cheekpieces and method of use (5, 9 made of bronze, the rest made of bone)

middle hole of the cheekpieces, one end of the cheekpiece must be inserted into the outer ring of the horse bit (Fig. 4.7: 17). Most cheekpieces of the 8th–6th century B.C. unearthed from the Altai region are made of bone or antler. Their shape underwent an evolution from a three-hole type to a T-shape and then a Y-shape (Fig. 4.8) (Грязнов 1992). In the Tuva area, the earliest bone cheekpieces unearthed from Arzhan I are three-hole cheekpieces, while the cheekpieces unearthed from Arzhan II are Y-shaped. Thus, there may have been a long time gap between the harnesses of Arzhan I and those of the Arzhan II. Horse gear excavated from the two tombs of the Arzhan burial complex clearly depicts the evolution process of the harness. The material evolved from a combination of metal and organic matter to bronze only. Accordingly, the assembly method of cheekpiece and horse bits evolved from bundling the two by leather to inserting one end of the cheekpiece into the horse bit and a fixed combination of the two. The evolution of these early horse harnesses is rare in other steppe areas; thus, this region is considered a leading region in the transformation from animal husbandry to nomadic pastoralism.

4.1.2.3

Art of Zoomorphic Ornaments

The zoomorphic ornaments of this region show very distinctive features and strong continuity. Although the number of ornaments found in Arzhan I is small, they are beautifully shaped. Of these ornaments, one realistically-made coiled animal-pattern ornament with a diameter of 17 cm is famous and is considered the earliest of the extant coiled animal patterns. This artifact shows the image of a coiled feline in abeautiful gesture with fine craftsmanship (Fig. 4.9: 1). There are

240

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.9 Ornaments with zoomorphic motifs from Arzhan Kurgan. 1–4, 6, 7 Arzhan Kurgan I; 5 Altai (collected); 8, 9, 11–17 Arzhan Kurgan II; 10. Tuva (collected)

also several finials surmounted by realistically-depicted standing ibexes in the burial assemblage. Their hooves are represented by double strokes (Fig. 4.9: 2–4). Among the artifacts unearthed from Arzhan I, there is a wild boar image decoration on a short sword. The artifact takes the shape of a gangly wild boar with a long muzzle and naturally drooping long legs; it is assumed to be a male boar at rest (Fig. 4.9: 6). Stones carved with deer images, tools that were used to build the tomb, and weapons were also excavated from the Arzhan burial complex (Fig. 4.9: 7). There are various types of deer stones covering a vast area that have been discussed at length by scholars (Pan 2008). The image of the deer on the deer stones unearthed from Arzhan I is clearly of the Sayano-Altai type (Volkov 2007). In the Sayano-Altai type of deer stone, the deer images resemble how the animal looks in

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

241

nature. This type of deer stone is prevalent in the Karasuk period, but the deer image is distinctly different from that of the typical deer stone during the Karasuk period. One image of a foraging wild boar on the deer stone is very similar to the image of the wild boar decoration on the hilt of the short sword. Therefore, we can assume that the date of the deer stone at Arzhan I may be slightly earlier than or roughly the same time as the tomb construction. In addition, a flanged bronze mirror of a very high artistic level unearthed from the region of the Altai is embossed with five deer and an ibex (Fig. 4.9: 5; Plate 5: 2). The images of deer standing on their toes are similar to those on the deer stones of Arzhan I. Therefore, they can be regarded as artifacts of the same period. Compared with Arzhan I, the zoomorphic motifs in Arzhan II, mainly some gold ornaments, are of a larger number. One of the gold ornaments is a finely cast gold torque weighing up to 1.5 kg decorated with rows of animals (Fig. 4.9: 8; Plate 6: 7, 8). In addition, there are gold plaques of recumbent horses and rams (Fig. 4.9: 11, 15) and single-animal gold ornaments of standing deer (Fig. 4.9: 9; Plate 6: 3), a large number of felines (Fig. 4.9: 16), and wild boars (Fig. 4.9: 17). The more than one hundred wild boar plaques (Plate 6: 7) unearthed here retain the original characteristics of this kind. The images of the boars resemble male wild boars, but they are more regular and are significantly smaller, measuring only 1.2  2.1 to 1.6  2.4 cm. These plaques may have been decorations inlaid on some artifacts. In addition, other gold artifacts were unearthed, including approximately 2500 leopard-shaped gold ornaments measuring only 1.1  1.2 1 cm (Plate 6: 7) decorating a shawl of the tomb owner. It is worth noting that all the zoomorphic motifs from Arzhan I and Arzhan II depict real-life animals rather than griffins or monstrous animals, which were common motifs in the nomadic period. This reflects the characteristics of zoomorphic decoration in the early nomadic period. Among the artifacts unearthed from the Arzhan II, there are two short swords covered with gold gilt and decorated with paired felines on the pommels and guards. Both the swords and the hilts are decorated with intricate zoomorphic motifs (Fig. 4.9: 13, 14, Plate 6: 4). In addition to the artifacts excavated from the Arzhan II, an early copper knife unearthed from the Tuva area shows rows of deer motifs on the hilt and a recumbent animal on the pommel (Fig. 4.9: 10) (Манделыщтам 1992). Similar artifacts that have hilts decorated with rows of zoomorphic motifs have also been found in Mongolia. In addition to the Arzhan kurgan in Tuva, there are some early nomadic remains of the same period in the southern Altai region, mainly a few tombs and chance finds of bronze harnesses (Грязнов 1992). These remains are assigned to the Altai’s Maiermir period (8th–6th centuries B.C.) (Bokovenko 1995b). Weapons unearthed from this area are mainly short swords and arrowheads. These short swords often have mushroom-shaped pommels and winged cross-guards (Fig. 5.53: 1, 2). This type of short sword is likely derived from the concave-cross-guard sword of the Karasuk culture’s Kamenniy Log period. There are also short swords with hilts that are decorated with spiral patterns. Their gilt is made of gold like the short swords of Arzhan II (Fig. 5.53: 3). Bronze arrowheads unearthed from this region are small in

242

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

number and are winged with sockets (Fig. 5.5: 6, 7). Numerous harnesses unearthed from this region, mainly snaffle bits and cheekpieces, can be assigned to at least two stages in terms of their shape. The artifacts of the early stage and the late stage are associated with Arzhan I and Arzhan II, respectively. The cheekpieces that belong to the period of the Arzhan I are mostly bone three-hole cheekpieces (Fig. 4.7: 18–21). Those that belong to the Arzhan II period are mainly bronze cheekpieces, which include both the Y-shaped cheekpieces as seen at Arzhan II (Fig. 4.7: 24) and specially shaped ones (Fig. 4.7: 23). The horse harnesses unearthed from burial sites of the Maiermer period can also be used to demonstrate how snaffle bits and cheekpieces were assembled. As we have discussed previously, these differently shaped snaffle bits and cheekpieces have different assembly methods and are of different ages (Fig. 4.7: 22–27). From a holistic point of view, the remains of the Maiermer period can be assigned to at least two different stages. Some artifacts may be concurrent with Arzhan I, while other artifacts are later and may be concurrent with Arzhan II. In this chapter, we mainly focus on the artifacts that are similar to those of Arzhan I to demonstrate the similarities and differences between different regions in a transitional period. The artifacts that are similar to those of Arzhan II will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. Based on the above analysis, the southern Siberian region represented by Arzhan from the 9th to the 7th century B.C. has the following characteristics. First, judging from the forms of the objects and the styles of the decoration, the artifacts in this region display a remarkable homogeneity of cultural characteristics and appear closely related to each other. The artifacts unearthed from the Arzhan I underwent major changes from the previous ones. In particular, the emergence of a large number of simplified harnesses can be seen as a technological innovation. Judging from the date, these artifacts can be assigned to at least two stages, the early stage and the late stage, represented by Arzhan I and the Arzhan II, respectively. Generally, the decorative style was simple in the Arzhan I stage and intricate in the Arzhan II stage. Second, because the Bronze Age left no developed agricultural civilization in South Siberia and its surrounding areas, no signs of agricultural civilization can be found that coincides with the date of the Arzhan kurgan, nor does it display any complicated cultural elements. In addition to the possibility that these artifacts originated independently, such as the leopard-shaped curly zoomorphic patterns, in its early years, Arzhan inherited the characteristics of the former Karasuk bronze culture. The latter featured a highly developed animal husbandry economy that provided the necessary conditions for the emergence of nomadism in South Siberia. Third, Arzhan I and II laid the foundations for the Scythian triad of the nomadic steppe culture. The weapons found in Arzhan I and II include special forms of pickaxes, arrowheads and daggers; the harness fittings consisting mainly of snaffle bits and cheekpieces; and zoomorphic elements that seen in the patterns of felines and wild boars and in the three-dimensional goat-shaped decorations. Horses played an important role in the Arzhan Kurgan period. A large number of snaffle bits and cheekpieces were discovered in burials without chariots. The harnesses were very

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

243

simple in terms of style and shape and may have been used to meet the growing needs for horseback riding and archery. Southern Siberia displays a varied landscape of forests, grasslands and rivers, with mineral resources such as copper, tin and gold in abundance. Throughout the entire Bronze Age, agriculture never disappeared, but it failed to become the dominant economy. Fishing, hunting and animal husbandry always played a leading role in the subsistence economies of the area. In terms of burial practices, pottery was rare, and no signs of settlement have ever been identified. It is possible that this area had entered the true nomadic age by the Arzhan I period.

4.1.3

Slab Grave Culture on the Mongolian Plateau and in Transbaikal

Slab graves are burials in which the tomb chamber is built from slabs of stones. These remains normally appear in Mongolia and Transbaikal with a concentration in the Kherlen and Orkhon river basins. They have primarily been found in the forest-steppe zone and the steppe zone, especially on the tops of mountains and slopes close to water sources and river valleys. Russian scholars call the archaeological culture represented by these burials the Slab Grave culture. The remains from this culture are mainly distributed in the mid-east of Mongolia, the Transbaikal region in Russia and the Hulunbuir city of the Northern Zone. Due to the small number of burial goods and the fact that most pottery found was merely fragments, the identification of this culture’s date and cultural characteristics has been impeded. Hence, arguments and uncertainty concerning the typology and chronology of the Slab Grave culture persist. There are three viewpoints among Russian scholars about the date of this culture. The first is narrowly set and suggests that the period was basically within the date of Scythian-Tagar, lasting from the end of the Karasuk culture to the beginning of the Xiongnu period. The second claims a wider span of time, arguing that the slab graves first appeared in the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. and that some of them can be dated to the Early Bronze Age. The late period of the slab graves is believed to be the Xiongnu period or even later. The third viewpoint was proposed by Zipiktalov in 1998 (Цыбиктаров 1998). He argued that the slab graves existed during the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age (13th–6th century B.C.). The book lists 13 absolute dates for the slab graves, among which 1540 B.C. and 1260 B.C. are the two earliest years and the latest is 2300 years ago. Other results are within the period from the 11th to the 6th century B.C. Summarizing the previous research results, Professor U-en believed that the Slab Grave culture was from the 10th to the 3rd century B.C., equivalent to the period from the middle Western Zhou to the late Warring States (Wu 2005). Judging from the current information, we are unable to perform a more detailed analysis of the dates and periods of the Slab Grave culture. What is certain, however, is that the remains that have been classified as the Slab Grave culture span

244

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

quite a long time. Moreover, many bronzes of the early Slab Grave culture remains resemble those of the Upper Xiajiadian culture in terms of typology and chronology, which indicates a transitional period from the 9th to the 7th century B.C. This chapter addresses these artifacts. According to research by Russian scholars (Членова 1992), burial goods, especially pottery, were scarce in the early Slab Grave culture. Only debris has been found in the tombs. Some of the pottery sherds are decorated with patterns, and some are presumed to be li tripod fragments. No pottery has been found intact, but bronze fu cauldrons (Fig. 4.10: 1, 2) were discovered among the burial goods. The belly of the bronze fu is barrel shaped and rounded with a circle of wave lines. On the mouth are two ring-shaped handles with a point on the top of each (Fig. 4.10: 1). The most distinctive feature of the burials in this period is the scarcity of weapons. Currently, only a small number of arrowheads, bronze and bone weapons with solid handles and no sockets have been found (Fig. 4.10: 3, 4). Among the burial goods from the early period, bronze tools are largest in number, the majority of which are knives (Fig. 4.10: 5–15) and socketed axes (Fig. 4.10: 16–19). The knives, mostly with arched backs, bear ring-shaped pommels. One of the knives has an animal-shaped pommel and a curved hilt, the shape of which is similar to that from the Northern Zone in the late Shang period (Fig. 4.10: 13). The blade of most of the axes is narrow and cast into an inverted trapezoidal or rectangular shape. A small hole can be seen in the blade, which was used to secure it to something. Only a small number of harness fittings have been excavated. Most of them are double-ring snaffle bits and three-hole cheekpieces (Fig. 4.10: 20–22). In addition, a bow-shaped device was excavated and is believed to have been used for connecting the reins (Fig. 4.10: 23). Ornaments include bronze mirrors, spoon-shaped decorations, plaques with zoomorphic designs, neck decorations, and earrings (Fig. 4.10: 25–35). The mirrors are disk-shaped with a bridge-shaped button in the middle, but they are not adorned with the projecting edge that is seen in the artifacts of the early period (Fig. 4.10: 24). The spoon-shaped decorations, spiral earrings, eagle-shaped plaques, small

Fig. 4.10 Artifacts of early slab grave culture

4.1 The Beginning of the Nomadic Culture of the Eurasian Steppe

245

neck decorations and hanging pendants are all comparable to those of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. It should be noted that there may still be a significant difference in the dates of the remains of the early Slab Grave culture. It is not possible to provide more detailed results of the periodization based on the current data. Although the artifacts found are relatively fragmented, some clues can be obtained from them. First, the bronze items found in the remains of the early years of the Slab Grave culture display some features inherited from the bronze objects of the Shang and Zhou periods as well as those found in the Northern Zone. A close relationship can be identified between Karasuk bronzes and the Slab Grave bronzes, which explains why many excavators and scholars found them difficult to separate. In fact, correlations can be identified between bronzes of the Slab Grave culture and those of the Shang and Zhou periods, such as the knife with a curved hilt and animal head (Fig. 4.10: 13) mentioned above. Regarding the ethnic features of the early Slab Grave culture, according to H. H. Mamonov, the origin of these features is directly related to the early inhabitants who lived in central and eastern Mongolia in the Bronze Age (Wu 2005). However, massive slab graves have been destroyed, human bones barely remain, and related research is still insufficient. Second, the Slab Grave culture, which was still undergoing the transitional process from animal husbandry to nomadism, had not yet developed into a true nomadic society because most of the burial goods found from that period are still pottery, especially li tripods. Harnesses are also underdeveloped to some extent. Among the unearthed items, the most commonly items are bronze knives and socketed axes, which closely resemble the bronzes of the Shang and Zhou periods. Finally, in terms of types and forms, the early Slab Grave culture shares commonalities with the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the Northern Zone. The tribes in these two places might have had close relationships, the details of which will be discussed in the following sections.

4.2

The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

The transition period from animal husbandry to nomadic life included relatively developed cultures in the Northern Zone compared with the steppes outside China, the Upper Xiajiadian culture in southeastern Inner Mongolia and the Kayue Culture in Qinghai being the most prominent.

246

4.2.1

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Upper Xiajiadian Culture

The Upper Xiajiadian culture, named after the excavation of Yaowang Temple and the Xiajiadian site in Chifeng (Inner Mongolia Task Force of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Inner Mongolia Task Force of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1961), southeast Inner Mongolia, in the 1960s, is one of the most developed Late Bronze Age cultures in the eastern part of the Eurasian continent (Wu 2002a, 2007). Based on current publications, this culture was distributed mainly along the Xilamoulun River, Yingjin River, and in the Laoha River Basin in southeastern Inner Mongolia (Fig. 4.2: IV). Since the discovery of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, a wealth of excavation materials has been accumulated, including some materials about large aristocratic tombs (Cultural Relics Workforce of Zhaowuda League, Liaoning Province et al. 1973; Northeast Workforce of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1981; Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2009). Many scholars have discussed the basic connotations, stages, ages, and ethnicities of this culture (Zhu 1987, 1998; Jin 1987; Zhai 1994; Liu 2000; Wang 2004). Based on the carbon-14 analysis and coexisting Central Plain ritual bronzes, the Upper Xiajiadian culture existed between the early Western Zhou period and the middle Spring and Autumn (11th–7th centuries B.C.) (Wu 2007; Zhu 1987). Although it is controversial that it may extend to the late Spring and Autumn (Zhao 2009), consensus has been reached that the peak period of the culture was achieved between the late Western Zhou period and the early Spring and Autumn (9th–8th centuries B.C.) period, with declines becoming notable during the middle Spring and Autumn. Based on the work On Bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture written by Liu Guoxiang (hereinafter referred to as Bronzes) (Liu 2000) and other relevant materials, the Upper Xiajiadian culture can be divided into three stages, namely, the formation stage (from the early to middle Western Zhou periods), the expansion stage (from the late Western Zhou period to the early Spring and Autumn period), and the decline stage (after the middle Spring and Autumn period). The decline period includes few artifacts with significant changes in type and style. For more specific information, please refer to Bronzes Vols. 6–8.

4.2.1.1

Remains in the Formation Period

The remains in the formation period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture are mainly described in Bronzes Vols. 1–3 and involve the diagnostic tombs of M1 in Longtoushan, Hexigten Banner (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1991); Dapaozi Tomb in Ongniud Banner (Jia 1984); and M7701 in Shuiquanchengzi, Jianping County (Jianping County Cultural Center 1983). The artifacts in this period are typologically similar, among which swords with hollow hilts (Fig. 4.11: 1, 11, 12, 18) and knives with teeth hilts (Fig. 4.11: 4, 13, 21) are regarded as the most typical weapons and tools, being found in the largest numbers

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

247

Fig. 4.11 Artifacts of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its formation stage. 1–10 Longtoushan M1 in Keshiketengqi; 11–17 Dapaozi in Wengniuteqi; 18–29 M7701 at Shuiquanchengzi, Jianping county (20 is bone-made; others are bronzes)

and exhibiting prominent evolutionary patterns. In addition, arrowheads (Fig. 4.11: 2, 3, 19, 20) are common weapons, and socketed axes (Fig. 4.11: 5, 22), chisels (Fig. 4.11: 6, 23) and awls (Fig. 4.11: 24) are common tools. Zoomorphic decorations are rare in this period (Fig. 4.11: 10), with small pao conchos and beads the most common (Fig. 4.11: 7–9, 15–17, 25–29). The types of bronzes in the formation period are not complex but retain their own identities. Swords with hollow hilts and knives with teeth hilts are unique combinations of weapons and tools in this period. Rarely observed horse and chariot accouterments and zoomorphic decorations suggest the uncommon use of horses and chariots in this period due to the lack of three essential elements in early nomadic culture. Typical ritual bronzes excavated from the Central Plain and other bronzes associated with the Central Plain are not commonly observed. It is assumed that in the formation period, the peoples from the Upper Xiajiadian culture were

248

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

conservative, and weak and lacked established relations with the peoples in the Central Plain to the south. Moreover, horse and chariot accouterments and zoomorphic decorations were not prevalent in this culture. Consequently, the people were sedentary inhabitants who depended partly on animal husbandry.

4.2.1.2

Remains in the Expansion Period

The remains in the expansion period (from the late Western Zhou period to the early Spring and Autumn) are abundant. Almost all the large-scale tombs that have been discovered were built during this period, and most of the excavated bronzes were made in this period as well (Liu 2000). Compared with the formation period, the forms and structures of the artifacts changed, and the types of artifacts and excavated items increased. The expansion period can be further divided into the early period and the later period based on the evolving pattern of swords with hollow hilts and bronze helmets. The following is a comprehensive analysis of the bronzes in the expansion period with regard to weapons, horse and chariot accoutrements, and zoomorphic motifs. (1) Weapons Weapons in the expansion period were well developed, and bronze short swords (duan jian) in the west were abundant in number and type. Swords with a hollow hilt, bronze swords with a hilt in the shape of a human or animal, and straight-pommel swords or swords with flat pommels3 were the main types of bronze short swords. In this period, swords with a hollow hilts and either straight or curved edges were the descendants of swords from the formation period. However, many scholars assume that the style of weapons with hollow hilts originated from swords with hollow hilts unearthed from Baifu, Changping County (Zhai 1994). Based on the research on the Baifu tombs (Lin 1998a), the date of the swords with hollow hilts excavated from Baifu cannot be traced to earlier than the formation period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Among the archaeological discoveries in the Northern Zone of China, swords with hollow hilts are undoubtedly one of the most developed and distinguished bronzes in the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 4.12: 1, 4, 5). Swords with flat pommels occurr in great numbers and can only be found in the expansion period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. They were cast with straight edges and notched cross-guards, and the hilts were decorated with zoomorphic motifs of rows of deer and birds (Fig. 4.12: 9–11). In addition, short swords with animal-shaped hilts and zoomorphic pommels dating to this period have been found frequently, always in the form of crouching tigers (Fig. 4.12: 7) and birds that mirror each others’ positions (Fig. 4.12: 8).

3

Straight-pommel swords refer to swords with a bar-shaped pommel and a bulge or notch on one side of some pommels. For further information, please refer to Yang (2000).

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

249

Fig. 4.12 Weapons of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its booming stage. 1–3 Xiaoheishigou M8601; 4 Xiaoheishigou M8501: 36; 5 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2:4; 6 Nanshangen M101; 7 Xizibeishanzui 7501; 8 Xiaoheishigou75ZJ; 9 Xiaoheishigou M8501; 10 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM5:1; 11 Tianjuquan 7301; 12 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM3:6; 13, 14 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM3; 15, 16 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2; 17, 18 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM10; 19 Liangjiayingzi 8071; 20 Xiaoheishigou M8501:42; 21 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2:6; 22 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:9; 23 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:8; 24 Xizibeishanzui 7501; 25 Xiaoheishigou M9601:164; 26 Xiaoheishigou M8501:40; 27 Xizibeishanzui 7501

Tubular socketed weapons of this period were commonly observed as well, including axes with tubular sockets (Fig. 4.12: 22), which have been found repeatedly in the Northern Zone of China, ge with tubular sockets (Fig. 4.12: 23) and ge with tubular socketed na (Fig. 4.12: 21), both of which are combinations of Central Plain ge and tubular sockets. Bronze arrowheads can mainly be categorized into four types: willow-shaped arrowheads with tangs and two blades (Fig. 4.12: 2, 13, 14), arrowheads with tangs and three blades (Fig. 4.12: 17, 18), triangular arrowheads with tangs and two blades (Fig. 4.12: 19) and swallow-tail-shaped arrowheads with two blades but no tangs (Fig. 4.12: 15, 16). Bronze arrowheads with sockets cannot be found among the arrowheads of this period. The triangular arrowhead with a tangs and two blades

250

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

was the most popular type in the Central Plain during the Western Zhou period (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics Research 1995; Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1999). Bronze helmets with curved tops and semi-circular openings on both the front and back, mostly with a square knob, were quite different from the bronze helmets of the Yinxu period, which had square openings in the front, but were identical in pattern with the helmets of the early Western Zhou period unearthed from the Yan of the Liulihe and those of the middle Western Zhou period in Baifu of Changping County (Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office 1976). The changes in pattern can be seen as signs of the development and continuation of helmets (Wu 2007, Issue 1). Initially, bronze helmets of this period did not have a projecting point in the center of the semi-circular openings (Fig. 4.12: 3). They later had a small pointed tip projecting downward (Fig. 4.12: 24, 25). One similar bronze helmet was unearthed from the tombs of the Kayue culture at Tang’eryuan, Minhe County, Qinghai (Qinghai Cultural Relics Department 1994) (Fig. 4.15: 11). Helmets of this style were prevalent along the Black Sea (Fig. 4.3: 56). Therefore, the new features of bronze helmets in China reflect the influence of external factors from the west. The bronze scabbards, either single or double scabbards, are mostly narrow in the head and wide in the bottom with triangular and diamond-shaped hollows on the surface (Fig. 4.12: 26, 27). In addition to the above-mentioned weapons, a number of bronze ge (Fig. 4.12: 20) and typical bronze short swords of Northeast China (Fig. 4.12: 6) were found among the artifacts of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Generally, two aspects should be considered with regard to bronze weapons in the Upper Xiajiadian culture. One is that the weapons were closely related to the Central Plain culture in the south. Among the weapons, bronze ge and bronze triangular arrowheads with two blades, which were typical weapons in the Central Plain, were commonly observed in this period in addition to ge with tubular socket na and ge with a tubular socket, which were combinations of Central Plain bronze ge. The other aspect is that the weapons had some associations with bronzes found in the east of the Northeast. A number of Northeast bronze short swords were unearthed here. The peoples living in the Upper Xiajiadian culture adopted swords with curved edges and made many innovative weapons, such as curved swords with socket hilts and curved swords with animal motif hilts. From the analysis of the external factors influencing the patterns of bronzes, it can be seen that the peoples of the Upper Xiajiadian culture did not simply copy the peoples of the Central Plain culture in the south and the Northeast bronze culture in the east in their interactions. On the contrary, by introducing, absorbing, and transforming, they reproduced weapons with their own characteristics. Therefore, the interaction between them was not accidental or temporary but was long-term. (2) Horse and Chariot Accouterments Horse and chariot accouterments unearthed from this period occurred in large numbers, among which the majority were found in large-scale stone-chambered

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

251

graves in addition to collected artifacts. The accouterments unearthed from stone coffin graves and earthen pit graves were from tombs 92NDXAIIM11 and 85NDXAIM2 in Xiaoheishigou. Among these accouterments, the majority are snaffle bits and cheekpieces categorized into either the integrated form or the separated form. Accouterments in integrated forms occurred in the greatest number, and snaffle bits in double sections were the main form, with a number of straight snaffle bits in single sections (Fig. 4.13: 11–13). These horse accoutrements had quite different patterns. They are classified into two categories depending on whether the bits have inward nail protrusions. The accoutrements without nail protrusions were used as horse-restraining implements. Some of these accouterments have tiger motifs, some are tubular, and some have three circular rings with short hilts (Fig. 4.13: 4–8, 14). The accouterments with nail protrusions (Fig. 4.13: 9–12) were better for controlling the horses and sometimes would even harm them. Thus, it is assumed that these accouterments were used to tame rather than harness horses. The patterns of the inward circle in the separated forms of snaffle bits were mainly diamond-shaped and circular. In addition to the examples of integrated forms of snaffle bits, the outer ring of the snaffle bits comes mainly in the form of a stirrup (Fig. 4.13: 15–17). One snaffle bit unearthed from Xiaoheishigou was found to be unique in shape because its two pieces were connected by an extra ring (Fig. 4.13: 18). Few single bronze cheekpieces were found. Two curved cheekpieces with deer heads excavated from M8601 at Xiaoheishigou have four loop knobs on the sides and are decorated with hollow sets of jingle-shaped beads on the inside (Fig. 4.13: 1, 2). Artifacts similar to those discussed above were found in Shangdong in Ji County, Shanxi Province, and the Ordos, Inner Mongolia, and date to the middle Western Zhou period (Yang 2008). Bronze strap guides, used to distribute the crossed straps of a bridle, were another type of important harness fitting. Some of the strap guides take the form of bird motifs (Fig. 4.13: 24), and some have four loops to accommodate the straps in an X-shape and a cross-shape (Fig. 4.13: 23, 25, 26). Strap guides with four loops are often in the shape of carnivores or other motifs. Artifacts identical in shape were mainly found in horse and chariot pits of the Western Zhou period in the Central Plain, such as those at the Western Zhou cemeteries at Liulihe (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 1995) and Zhangjiapo (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1999). Frontlets (Fig. 4.13: 19, 20), yokes (Fig. 4.13: 27), bow-shaped artifacts (Fig. 4.13: 3), and bronze jingle ornaments (Fig. 4.13: 28–30) were horse and chariot accouterments as well. There is a special type of accouterments, two examples of which were unearthed from M8501 in Xiaoheishigou. These are cylindrical in the body and have carnivore heads bending downward (Fig. 4.13: 21, 22) (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2009), which were reported to be staff heads. Artifacts identical in design were found at the Liulihe Western Zhou cemetery and are hypothetically a type of yoke crossbar ornament (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 1995).

252

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.13 Horse and chariot accouterments of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its booming stage. 1–3 Xiaoheishigou M8601; 4 Xiaoheishigou M8501:173; 5 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:5; 6 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM11:27; 7 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:6; 8 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:1; 9 Nanshangen M101; 10 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:2; 11 Xiaoheishigou M9601:26; 12 Xiaoheishigou M9601:27; 13 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM11:30; 14 Xiaoheishigou M8501:173; 15 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM11:26; 16 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:3; 17 Tianjuquan 7301; 18 Xiaoheishigou 85ZJ:4; 19 Xiaoheishigou M9601:24; 20 Xiaoheishigou M8501:61; 21 Xiaoheishigou M8501:76; 22 Xiaoheishigou M8501:75; 23–26 Xiaoheishigou M9601:149, 140, 152, 139; 27 Xiaoheishigou M8501:64; 28 Xiaoheishigou M8501:72; 29 Xiaoheishigou M8501:69; 30.Xiaoheishigou M8501:70

In general, horse and chariot accouterments in the Upper Xiajiadian culture reveal two characteristics. First, chariots played a significant role in the Upper Xiajiadian culture because in addition to horse-restraining implements such as snaffle bits and cheekpieces, other chariot accouterments were found in the burials, such as yokes, wei-axle caps, and ornaments on the end of yoke crossbars. In addition, an incised bone plaque (Fig. 4.14: 29) unearthed from Nanshan’gen, Ning County, had hunting scenes with horses and chariots in a prominent position. Second, horse and chariot accouterments in the Upper Xiajiadian culture are closely related to those in the Central Plain. The chariots described on the incised bone plaques are typologically identical to those in the Central Plain during the

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

253

Fig. 4.14 Artworks with zoomorphic motifs and ornaments of the upper Xiajiadian culture in its booming stage. 1 Xiaoheishigou 75ZJ7; 2 Tianjuquan 7301; 3 Xiaoheishigou M8501:39; 4 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM3:6; 5 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM5:1; 6 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM5:9; 7 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXAIIM5:4; 8 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM17:4; 9 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM5:13; 10 Xiaoheishigou M8501:167; 11 Xiaoheishigou M8501:165; 12 Xiaoheishigou M8501:173; 13 Xiaoheishigou 99ZJ:2; 14 Xizibeishanzui 7501; 15 Xiaoheishigou M8501:85; 16 Xiaoheishigou 75ZJ:23; 17 Nanshangen M3:6; 18 Xiaoheishigou M8501:172; 19 Nanshangen M4:28; 20 Xiaoheishigou M8501:157; 21 Nanshangen M101; 22 Xiaoheishigou 93NDXAIIM17:3; 23 Xiaoheishigou 93NDXAIIM17:4; 24 Xiaoheishigou 83ZJ:1; 25 Xiaoheishigou M8501:146; 26 Xiaoheishigou M8501:171; 27 Liangjiayingzi 8071; 28 Xiaoheishigou NDXAIM3:18; 29 Nanshangen M101; 30 Xiaoheishigou M8501:32; 31 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM1:1; 32 Xiaoheishigou M9601:665; 33 Xiaoheishigou 98NDXAIIIM1:14; 34 Xiajiadian M11; 35 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXBIM6:3; 36 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXBIIM 4:3; 37 Xiaoheishigou 92NDXBIM3:1; 38 Xiaoheishigou M9601:433; 39 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM1:5; 40 Xiaoheishigou M9601:435; 41 Xiaoheishigou M9601:453; 42 Xiaoheishigou 85NDXAIM2:31; 43 Xiaoheishigou M9601:23

Shang-Zhou periods. Artifacts unearthed from this period, such as strap guides with four loops on their sides and ornaments on the end of a yoke crossbars, are typologically similar to those in the Central Plain. Diamond-shaped inward-ringed snaffle bits were commonly used in the Western Zhou periods (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1999, p. 218; Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 1995), while the nail-shaped horse harness mentioned above clearly evolved from those in the Central Plain because this type of snaffle bit appeared during the late Shang period. It was commonly used during late Shang and early Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn periods. However, no prior

254

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

manufacturing record can be found in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, so it is assumed that this delicate horse harness design originated in the Central Plain (Jing 2010). (3) Zoomorphic Decorations and Other Ornaments Many decorations are a continuation of those in the formation period, including pao conchos (Fig. 4.14: 31–33), linear bead ornaments (Fig. 4.14: 38–42), and double-tailed ornaments (Fig. 4.14: 34, 35). Of these, the double-tailed ornaments clearly evolved from similar ornaments (Fig. 4.11: 25) in the formation period. Moreover, spring-shaped earrings (Fig. 4.14: 36, 37) and spoon-shaped ornaments (Fig. 4.14: 43), which are not found earlier, emerged during this period. In addition to these newly emerged decorations, zoomorphic motif decorations that are rarely observed during the formation period became well developed during the expansion period. Zoomorphic motif decorations in this period can be divided into two categories based on their functions. One is purely decorative that occurs mainly in the form of plaques, while the other decorates weaponary or tools, such as the hilts and the pommels of knives and swords. The first category emerged during this period, while the latter was rare in the previous period but quite prevalent during this expansion period, exemplified by the many hilts of knives and swords embellished with rows of zoomorphic motif decorations. The most commonly observed animals are tigers, leopards, deer, birds, horses, ibexes, and dogs. Hairpins with cattle motifs (Fig. 4.14: 25), pig heads (Fig. 4.14: 22, 23), and abstract zoomorphic motif decorations can also be seen in this period. In addition, there are strap guides with abstract carnivore-style and cicada-style decorations (Fig. 4.13: 23, 25, 26). Another type of decorative style, known as the coiled animal, was also relatively common in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and is represented by coiled felines, such as tigers and leopards (Fig. 4.14: 6–12). A similar decorative style was widely distributed across the Eurasian Steppe. In most cases, coiled animals in the Upper Xiajiadian culture are front-facing or profile views of tigers with loops on the paws and tails, as well as and concentric circles on the front and rear legs (Lin 2008). Front-facing zoomorphic decorations and concentric circles were quite commonly used for ornaments in the Upper Xiajiadian culture. In addition to those with a coiled zoomorphic style, many decorations in the shapes of animals were in front-facing positions, and many parts of the body were replaced by circle patterns (Fig. 4.14: 1, 13, 18, 28). Single animals in the form of stereoscopic sculptures in the round, relief and fretwork were prevalent in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, such as birds (Fig. 4.14: 19), tigers (Fig. 4.14: 18, 20), horses (Fig. 4.14: 24), ibexes (Fig. 4.14: 21), pigs (Fig. 4.14: 22, 23), and snakes (Fig. 4.14: 27). Most of the plaques are engraved with one animal, while plaques engraved with multiple animals are rare (Fig. 4.14: 25, 26). Animals in combat are not a common theme on these plaques. Reliefs of rows of zoomorphic motifs are quite popular as well, including bird motifs in a row (Fig. 4.14: 2), deer motifs in a row (Fig. 4.14: 3, 5), and horse motifs in a row (Fig. 4.14: 4). Artifacts with various animals in a row can also be found (Fig. 4.14: 30). Another type of zoomorphic decoration is in the form of a mirror image, including crouching tigers (Fig. 4.14: 1, 14), crouching horses and birds, and other

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

255

carnivores (Fig. 4.14: 15) in mirror image on the short swords. One short sword (No. 75ZJ:7) (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2009) collected from Xiaoheishigou, Ning County, is decorated with zoomorphic decorations. The design of the short sword is compact and ingenious in its use of a large amount of concentric circular patterns with opposing double bird images atop the pommel, four pairs of crouching horse images cast on the hilt, a cow image in the middle of the guard, double bird heads on the sides of the blade, and ten standing pigs in a row on the ridge (Fig. 4.14: 1). Finally, some scenes depict humans and animals hunting together in the Upper Xiajiadian culture. A fragmentary bone plaque (Northeast Workforce of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1981) excavated from M102 in Nanshan’gen, Ningcheng County, vividly shows hunting scenes with a hunter, horse-drawn carts, hunting dogs and their prey, deer (Fig. 4.14: 29). During the Western Zhou period, tribes in the steppes used horses and chariots not only for hunting but also for warfare (Lin 1998b). During the war between the Central Plain polities and the Rong and Di in the north during the Spring and Autumn period, horses were mainly used to pull chariots fighting in the war because cavalry did not exist in that period. However, a bronze ornament excavated from M3 in Nanshan’gen, Ningcheng County, depicting two mounted hunters chasing a wild hare displays a hunting scene of that time (Fig. 4.14: 17). A similar bronze artifact was excavated from Xiaoheishigou depicting two riding hunters on horseback, two dogs, and one leopard. It is unfortunate that the hunters were not intact with only the legs visible on the horses (Fig. 4.14: 16). Hunting was considered one of the most important activities in ancient nomadic tribes, because it was a way to practice riding and hunting techniques, the latter being an essential way to supplement the economy. These artifacts depicting hunting scenes demonstrate the significance of hunting at that time. In general, the artistic connotations of the zoomorphic decorations in the Upper Xiajiadian culture are rich due to its specific characteristics. Some artistic motifs are the first seen in the Northern Zone of China and throughout the steppe. Furthermore, some horse harnesses, such as strap guides with carnivore decorations, indicate cultural contact with the Central Plain region. Based on the analysis of the weapons, horse harnesses, and zoomorphic decorations in the expansion period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, the following information can be summarized. First, although the Upper Xiajiadian culture has its own features, it had close cultural contact with the southern Central Plain. The usage and designs of weaponry, horse harnesses and chariot accouterments were significantly influenced by the Central Plain culture. Some decorative styles also embraced a small amount of the Central Plain elements. In addition, large number of Central Plain ritual bronzes were unearthed from some large tombs. Some people consider these ritual bronzes to be plunder gained by attacking Yan State (Zhai 1994). Regardless of whether they were obtained through battles or integration, these bronzes undoubtedly demonstrate the close contact between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Central Plain culture. In the Upper Xiajiadian culture, there are also many artifacts that

256

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

possess the features of both cultures (such as ge with tubular socketed na and ge with tubular sockets) in addition to those directly derived from the Central Plain. Thus, contact between the two cultures did not occur immediately but during a long period of communication. Second, during the expansion period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (from late Western Zhou to early Spring and Autumn), horseback riding developed rapidly. In addition to a great number of horse harnesses that have been unearthed, a bronze artifact depicting two mounted hunters chasing a wild hare was excavated from M3 in Nanshangen, Ning city, demonstrating that the peoples in this period had already mastered riding and shooting skills. There are also a certain number of chariot artifacts in this period, and some horse harnesses were cast with complex techniques. The number of burial horse harnesses is relatively small, suggesting that cavalry was not popular in this period. The chariot hunting scenes indicate a transition from chariot battles to riding and shooting but not a fully developed stage of the latter. Although the Upper Xiajiadian culture possesses the Scythian triad, it was not an actual nomadic society, as demonstrated by the discovery of many settlement sites. Third, although the Upper Xiajiadian culture had not become a nomadic society, animal husbandry was on the rise during this period (Wang 2004). The unearthed artifacts indicate that the technical conditions for engaging in nomadic economy had been met during the boom period. The ethnic group of this culture was Shanrong (Lin 1998c; Zhu 1987), which likely declined because of the incident in which Qi conquered Shanrong (664 B.C.). The time synchronizes with the decline period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. With regard to the entire culture, the peoples from the formation period in the Upper Xiajiadian culture display salient features belonging to the same metallurgical region as the Slab Grave culture. These peoples, however, did not have a significant influence on the adjacent culture, especially the southern Central Plain culture, due to their weakness. By the late Western Zhou and the early Spring and Autumn, because of the intense contact with peoples from the Central Plain, the Upper Xiajiadian culture developed rapidly. Its horse and chariot accouterments as well as ritual bronzes are closely associated with the Central Plain culture. Regarding the relationship between Shanrong and Yan, archaeological discoveries coincide with documented records. From the formation period to the boom period, the growth of the Upper Xiajiadian culture is reflected not only by its prosperity in culture and expansion in space but also by the strengthening of its external relations. However, due to the strong agricultural civilization in the Central Plain, the Upper Xiajiadian culture did not turn the Northern Zone of China into a nomadic society. Some of its cultural elements (e.g., coiled zoomorphic motifs) had passed on to Jibei (now the northern part of Hebei Province) but did not pass down due to assimilation by the Yan culture in its early stage. The foreign elements of the nomads in the Northern Zone of China were passed down from South Siberia during the developed nomadic period around the 7th century B.C. After the decline period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, the southeastern part of Inner Mongolia became the major region for the Donghu people, who were considered to be the

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

257

early nomadic population. The excavation of Jinggouzi cemetery in Linxi County, Inner Mongolia, provided a reference for discovering the Donghu people. People buried in this cemetery occupied the mountainous areas in western Liaoning Province, proving that northern Hu people coming to the north may have been one of the reasons for the extinction of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Due to the impact from both the north and the south, people from the Upper Xiajiadian culture, who inhabited the resourceful mountainous areas suitable for herding and agriculture in western Liaoning Province, divided into two groups. One moved south and merged with the Yan culture in the Central Plain, and the other moved north to join the Hu people in their nomadic life. Except for the Upper Xiajiadian culture, other bronze cultures in the Northern Zone were underdeveloped in this period. However, this does not mean that other regions in the north were uneventful in this period. Bronze cultures with their own characteristics have been discovered, among which a representative one is Kayue in the Gansu-Qinghai region.

4.2.2

Kayue Culture

The Kayue culture was named after its birthplace, Kayue village in Huangzhong County, Qinghai Province, in 1923. The word Kayue in the Tibetan language means the plain in front of a mountain gap. Kayue is an indigenous culture with the largest number of sites and the widest distribution among the ancient cultures in Qinghai Province. To the east, Kayue culture extends into the boundary area between Gansu and Qinghai, while to the west, it reaches Tongde County and Xinghai County in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Hainan. To the north, it extends into the Datonghe basin in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Haibei, while to the south, it reaches Zêkog County in the Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Huangnan and the Mongolian Autonomous County of Henan. With the epicenter along the Yellow River and the Huangshui Basin in Qinghai, as many as 1700 archaeological sites were unearthed. Many scholars have conducted specialized research on the Kayue culture (Yu 1985; Xu 1993; Gao 1993; Shui 2001). Based on their research, the Kayue culture can be generalized into four periods and seven stages, starting from the early Shang periond and probably ending in the Eastern Zhou period (Zhang 2003). The pottery and bronzes in the Kayue culture are well developed, with the bronze ones as the focus of this chapter. Among the bronze cultures in Qinghai, bronzes in the Kayue culture are the largest in number and the widest in distribution. Bronzes can be found in most major sites in the Kayue culture. Due to certain unpublished discoveries, the precise number of bronzes is difficult to access, but the estimated amount is counted in the thousands (Liu 1996). In fact, the bronzes in the Kayue culture tend to grow even larger in number, and most of the collected artifacts over the years have been added to this culture. With regard to their functions, bronze objects of Kayue culture consist of vessels, weapons, tools, household items, ornaments, and other artifacts.

258

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Vessels are rare, and most of them are li and gui (Fig. 4.15: 1, 2). There is a large number of weapons, including axes with tubular sockets, yue, ge, spears, arrowheads, and swords (Fig. 4.15: 3–16). Tools mainly consist of axes, knives, hammers, and picks (Fig. 4.15: 17–21). The ornaments are the largest in number and are of a great variety, including mirrors, jingles, pao conchos, beads, bracelets, armlets, hairpins, rings, and earrings (Fig. 4.15: 22–42). Among the bronzes in the Kayue culture, a considerable number are collected pieces, with few clearly excavated identifications. A comprehensive and objective study of periodization is difficult to conduct due to inadequate publications and some specifics of bronze in the region. However, from the current publications, some interim characteristics can be generalized regarding the development of bronzes in the Kayue culture. In terms of time, artifacts belonging to different periods, ranging from the early Shang period and the late Shang to the Western

Fig. 4.15 Bronzes of the Kayue culture. 1 li-tripod (Baojiazhai in Xi’ning); 2 gui-food vessel (Dazhonghuazhuang); 3, 4 socketed battleaxes (Panjialiang M29:2, Qianyingcun); 5, 6 bronze yue (Ahatela M12, Panjialiang M117:41); 7, 8 bronze ge (Xiazhiquancun, Dongcun GD04); 9, 10 bronze spears (Dazhonghuazhuang M95:1, Huabiliang M6:2); 11 helmet (Tangeryuan); 12, 13 bronze swords (Zongansi, Guanting); 14–16 bronze arrowheads (Panjialiang M234:8, Shangsunjiazhai M399:8, Shangsunjiazhai M1025:24); 17 Hollow-head ax (Xiabanzhuwa); 18– 21 bronze knives (Panjialiang M221:208, Panjialiang M210, Dazhonghuazhuang M15:2, Panjialiang M185:2); 22 bronze mirror (unearthed from Datong); 23, 24 bronze bracelets (Shangsunjiazhai M825:12, Shangsunjiazhai M723:1); 25, 26 (Panjialiang M185:21, Dazhonghuazhuang); 27–30 pao conchos (Shangbanzhuwa 90M40:7, Shangsunjiazhai M1027:6, Shangsunjiazhai M565:8, Dazhonghuazhuang M53:7); 31–34 linked-bead ornaments (Shangsunjiazhai M203:1, Shangsunjiazhai M669:1, Shangsunjiazhai M22:2, Shangsunjiazhai M105:3); 35–38 bell-shaped bronze ornaments (Panjialiang M57:9, Shangbanzhuwa 90M30:3, Dazhonghuazhuang M79:1, Huangjiazhai M5:2); 39–41 bronze mace heads (Dazhuanghuazhuang M87:1, collected fromHuangyuanzhongzhuang, Huangjiazhai M16:5); 42 human-shaped bronze ornaments (collected from Dazhonghuazhuang)

4.2 The Predecessor of Nomadic Civilization in the Northern Zone of China

259

Zhou to Spring and Autumn and the Warring States period, have been found in the Kayue culture. With regard to assemblages, the artifacts in the early period mainly consist of axes, yue, and ge (Fig. 4.15: 3–8), with few spears (Fig. 4.15: 9, 10) and no mace heads (Fig. 4.15: 39–41). The ornaments are simple in type and small in number. In the late period, the artifacts are of various types and large in number, with a large amount of spears and mace heads but no axes, yue, or ge. Some scholars have attempted to conduct a sequential study (Miyake 2005) of bronzes in the Kayue culture, but the research findings have not been satisfactory (Zhang 2009). This section does not focus on an elaborate sequential study but rather aims to illustrate the abundant bronzes in the Kayue culture during the transition period from animal husbandry to nomadism in the Eurasian Steppe. The bronzes in this period have the following features. First, they are region specific, exemplified by bronze jingles, mace heads, and statues with four bronze men on each side. Artifacts in different regions reveal local features. For example, bronze spears in Qinghai are straight-bladed, while in the Central Plain they have a curved blade. Second, with regard to ornaments, bronzes in the Kayue culture are basically plain with few ornaments. The decorative patterns are simple but unique, such as edging decorations and T-shaped decorations. The beauty of the Kayue bronzes lies in their designs and techniques rather than their decorative motifs, with a well-developed openwork technique. Lastly, with regard to assemblages, the bronzes mainly consist of tools, weapons, and ornaments, with ornaments in the greatest number and the fewest number of vessels and no horse and chariot accouterments at all. The majority of the weapons are axes, yue, and ge, while the minority are short swords, with only two short swords reported in current publications. Because weapons such as axes, yue, and spears need to be installed with hilts for distant fighting while swords are used for short-distance fighting, the main fighting force at that time was likely infantry. The role of horses in the war at that time was not prominent, which coincides with the fact that horse and chariot accouterments in the Kayue culture are rare. Many scholars have discussed their opinions concerning the cultural elements conveyed by the bronzes in the Kayue culture. Yu Weichao notes that bronzes such as yue were influenced by the Shang-Zhou culture in the Central Plain, and one type of bronze knife, similar in pattern to those of the bronze culture in the Northern region, indicates close contact between the two cultures (Yu 1985). Lin Yun believes that the bronzes in the western part of the Great Wall during the Shang period and the Spring and Autumn period were influenced by the bronzes in the Central Plain and Northern Zone. The bronzes found in the Northern region are small in number but have distinctive features, indicating that there may have been a local foundry industry during that period (Lin 2003). According to Mei Jianjun, there were undoubtedly cultural interactions between Xinjiang and Gansu and the Qinghai region (mainly the Yanbulag culture and the Kayue culture) from the late period of the 2nd millennium B.C. to the early period of the 1st millennium B.C. Complexity arises in terms of the possible origins of the Kayue bronzes. Some

260

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

artifacts (knives, plaques, bronze tubes, bronze jingles, and beads) may have been influenced by people in the eastern part of Xinjiang, while others (spears and mace heads with zoomorphic motifs) were probably influenced by other regions, such as the Mongolian steppes (Mei 2000). The above research findings are of great benefit to the study of the cultural elements conveyed by the bronzes in the Kayue culture. In fact, the cultural elements conveyed by the bronzes in the Kayue culture are quite complex, indicating that there may have been active cultural contact between Qinghai and other regions in various aspects during the Kayue culture period. Moreover, the multiple directions of cultural contact varied in different directions and regions in different periods. In the early period, the large number of bronzes with Central Plain characteristics indicate frequent contact with the Central Plain, while in the late period, the increasing number of bronzes with northern characteristics show even closer contact with the north. This trend seems to be more prominent along the Huangshui River. However, bronzes with western characteristics are rare at that time. With regard to the economy, the following aspects can serve as indications. First, some archaeological sites have been found in the Kayue culture. Although the materials used are rare in type and fragmented, it is assumed that the people living in the Kayue culture were sedentary given the relevant facilities in these sites. Second, the pottery in the Kayue culture is another indication of their sedentary lives, with evidence of various types of li found in the Mobula site. A cauldron with a deep rounded bowl and handles, 35 cm high with a matting pattern at the bottom, was unearthed from the F1 tomb. A pottery weng without handles (M99: 5) (Qinghai Institute of Archaeology 1994), 48 cm in diameter and 93 cm in height, was unearthed from the Suhusa cemetery. These vessels may be proof of a sedentary society. Moreover, the few horse harnesses among the bronzes in the Kayue culture confirm the impossibility of a nomadic society. It is worth noting that animal sacrifice in the Kayue culture showed an increasing trend over time. In the early period of the Kayue culture, animal sacrifice was not prevalent along the Huangshui River basin or the Yellow River, while in the late period, this custom increased dramatically. Therefore, pottery was less developed, and assemblages were less stable. In addition, the customs along the Yellow River and Huangshui River basin were more similar, indicating declining differentiation in the Qinghai region in that period. The prevalence of animal sacrifice was a reflection of increasing animal husbandry in the economy at that time. Moreover, in the late period, the animal sacrifice burial custom showed variations between the east and west along the Huangshui River. The increase in animal husbandry reflects not only periodic variations but also regional variations (Bao 2014).

4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

4.3

261

Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

In the above two sections, an overall analysis of some important cultures of the transitional period in the Eurasian Steppe and the Northern Zone of China was conducted. In the following, the relationship and variations between these cultures will be analyzed through horizontal comparisons.

4.3.1

The Relationship Between the Upper Xiajiadian Culture and the Slab Grave Culture

The early Slab Grave culture, found in the Mongolian area and the Lake Baikal area between Southern Siberia and the Northern Zone of China, has scattered remains, but it had close contact with the Upper Xiajiadian culture from its formation. With regard to weapons, a certain number of bronze helmets were unearthed from both cultures. These helmets (Fig. 4.16: 1, 2, 8–10), with semi-circular openings on both the front and the back and rounded tops with square knobs, are typologically similar. With regard to weapons, socketed axes without ears were prevalent in both cultures, with a large number of excavated pieces. This type of socketed ax usually has a loop for fixing, and some are embellished with triangle patterns on the blade (Fig. 4.16: 3–6, 11–14). In addition, one type of horse-restraining implement, called a bow-shaped artifact, can be observed in both cultures. This item (Fig. 4.16: 15), excavated from M8601 in Xiaoheishigou, Ningcheng County, southeast Inner Mongolia, can be traced to the late Western Zhou period. Similar artifacts excavated from the Slab Grave culture are from around the same period (Fig. 4.16: 7).

Fig. 4.16 Artifacts of the slab grave culture and the upper Xiajiadian culture (1). 1, 2, 8–10 bronze helmets; 3–6, 11–14 axes; 7, 15 bow-shaped artifacts

262

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

It is worth noting that compared with tools, weapons, and horse and chariot accoutrements, the zoomorphic decorations and ornaments in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab Grave culture are closely related. First, with regard to the zoomorphic decorations on swords and knives, the prevailing decorations on the hilts are animal motifs in a row, including deer, horses and birds (Fig. 4.17: 1, 2, 15–18). Some pommels of knives are decorated with standing carnivores (Fig. 4.17: 3, 18). However, no short swords were found in the Slab Grave culture. Second, the similarity between the two cultures can be seen in many ornaments, such as spoon-shaped ornaments (Fig. 4.17: 4, 5, 19, 20), spring earrings (Fig. 4.17: 8, 24), ornaments with two tails (Fig. 4.17: 9, 25), belt ornaments (Fig. 4.17: 10–13, 26–29), and other plaques (Fig. 4.17: 6, 7, 14, 21–23, 30). The spoon-shaped ornaments in the Slab Grave culture are typologically similar to those in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, although the former are smaller in size. In the Northern Zone of China, spoon-shaped ornaments are widely distributed, but ornaments with a height of 10 cm or longer can only be found during the late Western Zhou period to the early Spring and Autumn. After the middle Spring and Autumn period, however, spoon-shaped ornaments were shorter in height, approximately 5 cm or less. Therefore, it can be concluded that the spoon-shaped ornaments in the Slab Grave culture belong to the latter period, slightly later than similar ornaments in the Upper Xiajiadian culture. In both cultures, some S-shaped plaques have been excavated that are typologically and stylistically identical (Fig. 4.17: 6, 21). There is a large number of belt ornaments shaped in linked beads, either double-linked or multi-linked, in both cultures, and they are nearly identical typologically (Fig. 4.17: 10–13, 26–29). In the Slab Grave culture, one type of stick-shaped ornament shaped in linked beads has distinctive features (Fig. 5.75: 11). Although similar ornaments are not found in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, similar artifacts have been unearthed from the Xiaobaiyang cemetery in Xuanhua

Fig. 4.17 Artifacts of the slab grave culture and the upper Xiajiadian culture (2). 1–3, 18 bronze knives; 15–17 bronze swords; 4, 5, 19, 20 spoon-shaped ornaments; 6, 7, 14, 21–23, 30 bronze plaques; 8, 24 bronze earrings; 9, 25 ornaments with a split tail; 10–13, 26–29 linked-beads ornaments

4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

263

County, Yuhuangmiao cemetery, and Ordos in the later period (Fig. 5.75: 6). One piece of a stick-shaped ornament shaped in linked beads unearthed from Xiaobaiyang cemetery is typologically identical to the ones in the Slab Grave culture. Based on the above information, stick-shaped ornaments in the Slab Grave culture are later than those in the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Based on the above analysis, bronzes in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab Grave culture have great similarities, indicating that the people in both cultures were closely related. The typologically identical ornaments and similar decorative styles show that the people in both cultures may have had more communications, such as trade or migration. From the perspective of time, their interaction emerged during the formation period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and further strengthened during the expansion period. From late Shang period, a large metallurgical area was formed in the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau. The contact between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab Grave culture proves that the people interacted with each other during the Western Zhou period and the Spring and Autumn period.

4.3.2

Cultural Interaction Between the Upper Xiajiadian Culture and Southern Siberia and the Black Sea

First, with regard to weapons, swords with a flat pommel (Fig. 4.18: 1–3), common weapons in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, were quite prevalent during the period of Arzhan I in Tuva (Fig. 4.18: 18, 19). Swords unearthed from Arzhan II are embellished with complicated decorative patterns on the pommels, hilts, guards, and median ridge on the blades (Plate 6: 4). One similar sword was unearthed from Xiaoheishigou that is stylistically similar but typologically different (Fig. 4.14: 1; Plate 2: 3). In Southern Siberia, the most distinctive weapons in the early period were short swords with narrow “八” -shaped cross-guards (Fig. 4.6: 1–5) and tubular socket axes (Fig. 4.6: 6). These features are not observed in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and around the Black Sea, but the style of short swords with pommels is found in early Scythian culture (Fig. 4.18: 20, 21), indicating that the dates of the cultures were quite close. Another similarity between Southern Siberia and the Black Sea is conveyed by bronze socketed arrowheads with two blades and the barbs at the end of the bronze arrowheads (Fig. 4.18: 22, 38). In addition, a single scabbard with openwork was found along the north coast of the Black Sea (Fig. 4.18: 37). Scabbards with openwork were quite prevalent in the eastern part of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, but most of them were double scabbards (Fig. 4.18: 4, 5). Although there were some single scabbards, they were typologically different from the ones along the north coast of the Black Sea. Therefore, with regard to weapons, there may have been some contact between Southern Siberia and southeast Inner Mongolia as well as the Black Sea. However,

264

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.18 Artifacts from the West, the middle and the East of the Eurasian Steppe

the contact between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the early Scythian culture remains uncertain. Second, horse harnesses were well developed with distinct area specialties. There were many types of horse harnesses in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, most of which were bronze snaffle bits and cheekpieces with complex structures and a considerable number of horse harnesses in which the horse bit and cheekpiece are cast as one piece. However, they are typologically different, indicating that metal horse bits and cheekpieces were in their prime stage. Assemblages of horse bits and cheekpieces are found in Arzhan II, indicating that the techniques in both cultures were at relatively the same level. Chariot accouterments such as yokes, wei, and yoke crossbar decorations were found in tombs in the Upper Xiajiadian culture, which had close contact with similar artifacts in the south of the Central Plain region. The horse bits with the outer circle in the shape of stirrups (Fig. 4.18: 6–8) found in the Upper Xiajiadian culture were quite prevalent in the other two cultures as well, especially the similar horse harness unearthed from Arzhan II, which were well developed at that time. There are only two types of horse harnesses, horse bits and cheekpieces, but they are large in number with simple structures, mainly stirrup-shaped horse bits with circular outer rings and cheekpieces with three holes (Fig. 4.18: 23–29). Most of the three-hole cheekpieces are made of bones, probably originating from the three-hole bone cheekpiece (Fig. 4.19) in the Karasuk culture. Along the Black Sea, the most distinctive ones are double-ring horse bits with outer rings (Fig. 4.3: 7–11) and three-hole cheekpieces in the shape of a spoon (Fig. 4.3: 12–17). Later, however, horse bits with the outer circle in the shape of stirrups and

4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

265

Fig. 4.19 Bone cheekpieces of the Karasuk period (unearthed from the Torgazhak site)

three-hole cheekpieces (Fig. 4.3: 38, 39, 44), which are typologically identical to those from the Arzhan Kurgans, were found, indicating the influence of Southern Siberia. In addition, the prevalent spoon-shaped cheekpieces in the Black Sea region were also found in the Northern Zone of China (Yang 2008), but those in China had a hanging pendant. The two pieces of deer-head cheekpieces unearthed from the Upper Xiajiadian culture also had a pendant (Fig. 4.18: 9, 10). There may be some correlations between the spoon-shaped cheekpieces and deer-head cheekpieces because both have pendants. However, whether the spoon-shaped cheekpieces found in the Northern Zone of China and the Pontic area are related is not certain. Overall, with regard to horse harnesses, there may be some relationship between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and Southern Siberia, while the newly emerged horse harness in the second period of the Black Sea culture indicates the influence of the South Siberian regions. A massive difference exists between the three regions with regard to animal ornament arts; those from the Upper Xiajiadian culture are more complicated. Their unique characteristics are significant. They portray not only actual animals such as tigers, leopards, deer, birds, horses, ibexes, canines, cattle, and swine but also many abstract and obscure zoomorphic motifs. The animal mask motifs found on chariot fittings can be associated with those from the Central Plain. All ornaments found in South Siberia have wild animal motifs. They lack diversity but are vivid and realistic. The ones from Arzhan I, with elegant and graceful animal forms, perfectly emphasize this (Fig. 4.9: 1–4, 6). Boar images from the Upper Xiajiadian culture are almost identical to those from Arzhan I. Ornaments from the Pontic area area are mainly dominated by simple geometric shapes from agricultural civilizations in Greece and the Near East, causing the arrival of actual zoomorphic motifs to be relatively late. The only zoomorphic motifs that are identical in all three regions are the crimp zoomorphic motifs(Fig. 4.18: 12–17, 31, 47–49), a widely researched

266

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

topic by archaeologists worldwide (Bogdanov 2004; Wu 2002b; Lin 2008). Some researchers believe this portrayal originates from the Jade Dragon image (Bogdanov 2004). However, recent studies on this style by Lin Yun combine references from both China and foreign regions to produce a more logical conclusion. According to his studies, the crimp zoomorphic motifs from the Eurasian steppe area can be divided into three major categories based on different origins: the eastern area, centering on Inner Mongolia; the central area, centering on Sayan-Altai; and the western area around the Black Sea coast. Most ornaments from the eastern area are frontal and side views of tigers, claws and tail ends adorned with rings and legs marked with concentric circles, while most from the central area focus on horizontally stretched snow leopards, and those from the western area have triangular instead of circular shapes. Although different crimp zoomorphic motifs emerged from different origins, they were unified through influences and gradually merged with each other (Lin 2008). The artifacts from the Upper Xiajiadian culture, Arzhan and the Black Sea coast mentioned in this chapter are some of the most representative ones in the categories proposed by Lin Yun. In addition to crimp zoomorphic motifs, many embossed deer herd motifs were also found in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and South Siberia. Most deer herd motifs from the Upper Xiajiadian culture were carved on sword handles and arrayed in rows (Fig. 4.18: 1, 3, 11). Compared to the Upper Xiajiadian culture, South Siberia has a wider variety of objects bearing deer herd motifs, most notably bronze mirrors, knife handles, and deer stones (Fig. 4.18: 30, 34, 35). However, from an external perspective, ornaments from both regions share certain similarities. A certain type of trilobate passementerie (Fig. 4.18: 32, 33, 50, 51) was discovered in both South Siberia and the Pontic area area. Its form was identical, suggesting direct contact between the two regions. A type of tiger plaque ornament (Fig. 4.14: 20) belonging to the Upper Xiajiadian culture was identified as one of the earliest to appear in the Eurasian Steppe, and its decorative pattern was unique to the eastern area of the Eurasian Steppe. The source of this pattern can be traced to Central Plain mausoleums with Rong and Di characters. Bronze tiger plaque ornaments (Xu and Liu 1985) were excavated from Ning County, Gansu Province, by the late Western Zhou, with an even earlier tiger plaque ornament shown on pictures from a Baoji Bronze Museum exhibit. Ten centimeters in length and originating from the middle Western Zhou, this tiger plaque ornament was discovered in 1980 in the Zhouyuan site. This form of tiger plaque ornament later split into two branches, one evolving into horse plaque ornaments in the late culture of the Taoist Jade Emperor Temple and the other finding its way to the Daihai region in Mongolia, where it changed its position from recumbent to upright and its format from a single figure of an animal to tigers savaging animals. It remained until the Xiongnu period (Yang 2004) (Figs. 5.101 and 5.102).

4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

4.3.3

267

Division of the Middle and Eastern Eurasian Steppe and Their Characteristics

Through the above analysis, we are able to summarize the characteristics of the western, middle and eastern Eurasian Steppe. The boundaries between the western and the middle areas are apparent; they are separated by a great distance and geological boundaries such as the Kazak grasslands and the Ural Mountains. A question arises: where is the defining boundary between the middle area and the eastern area? In other words, what are the cultural characteristics of the plains between Southern Siberia and the Northern Zone along the Great Wall? In the nomadic age, weapons and horse and chariot accouterments were utilitarian objects. Societies of the same development level and economic system will always choose advanced utilitarian objects that suit them the best, whether domestic or imported. These categories of objects spread extremely rapidly, to the extent that they can be seen as a transfer of technology. In contrast, zoomorphic motif ornaments represent the tradition and beliefs of a culture. Accepting a new style of zoomorphic motif ornaments involves accepting the culture behind the style of the zoomorphic motif ornaments. Thus, the distribution of styles of animal ornaments can represent different cultural zones. Geographically speaking, China’s Xinjiang region belongs to the middle Eurasian steppe, with archaeological discoveries as further evidence of this point. Numerous gold foil ornaments in the shapes of animals were discovered in the East Taldi cemetery in Habahe County in Xinjiang consisting of three wild boar motif gold foils made by imprint molds displaying profile portraits of boars, with simple but vivid details such as their tails, mouths, and bristles (Fig. 4.20: 5). One hundred and thirty snow leopard motif ornaments, possibly also made by imprint molds, with their bodies curled in a ball and noticeable claws, have left-side and right-side versions, which also vary in their degree of curling (Fig. 4.20: 6; Plate 7: 4) (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2013). These objects bear a great resemblance to objects of a similar type in Tuva’s Arzhan II (Plate 7), proving that the people’s aesthetic concepts were identical and probably belonged to the same archaeological culture; thus, it can be considered the Arzhan culture. The developmental stage of this culture is represented by the Arzhan Kurgan I and II, and the distribution of the Arzhan culture is the Tuva Basin, where Arzhan is located, and the South Altai Mountains, where the East Taldi Cemetery is located. The Arzhan culture should not be named after the Sandao Haizi because no archaeological artifacts were found there (Guo 2007). A plaque ornament in the shape of flower petals was collected by the Dongcheng Group in Mori County. Its center is a side- looking curled snow leopard with its facial features blended into many rings. Each petal is decorated with a wild boar motif; this is a change in the modeling, with the snout less apparent (Wang 1986) (Fig. 4.20: 1). A similar trend of simplicity appears in the form of snow leopards and wild boars that emerged before similar types of animal motifs from Arzhan. This type of design can be seen in the underside of the golden bowl (Fig. 4.20: 2) of the Kitai culture from the 5th

268

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Fig. 4.20 Animal plaques from the region between Southern Siberia and the Northern zone of China. 1 Collected from Mori County, Xinjiang; 2. Scythian gold bowl; 3, 7 Khovd, Mongolia; 4, 8 DundgovǐAymag, Mongolia; 5, 6 East Taldi, Habahe County; 9 Ubur-KhangaiAymag, Mongolia

century B.C., a golden bowl decorated with six horse head relief patterns 12.5 cm in diameter. There is also a golden ring on the rim to tie around the waist (Zhang 2012). Based on simple aesthetics and utilizing 5th-century B.C. design factors, the Mori County plaques are younger than the animal motifs and wild boar ornaments from the Arzhan I. Between the east of Southern Siberia and the region of the Upper Xiajiadian culture lie the Mongolian Plateau and the northern part of China. These regions feature the Kayue culture with prominent regional characteristics and the Slab

4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

269

Grave culture of the Mongolian Plateau, which have been mentioned previously. In the Mongolian Plateau, both wild boar plaques representing the Central Plain and coiled tiger plaques representing the east of China appeared. In fact, few wild boar plaques were found within Chinese territory. Only one wild boar belt buckle was collected in Suide, northern Shaanxi (Shaanxi Institute of Archeology 2009), and others were collected in Shuijiangoumen, Tumd Banner, Inner Mongolia (Zheng 1980) and Wudaohezi, Lingyuan County (Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology 1989). The former can be dated to the middle and late Spring and Autumn period, and the latter can be dated to the middle and late Warring States. The longer body with a longer snout and legs in the former plaque and the fatter body with shorter legs in the latter reflect the evolution of the wild boar patterns. The tiger and wild boar plaques in Mongolia were chance finds and can be found in provincial records (Purevzhavyn Erdenechuluun 2011). These records reveal that the coiled wild boar plaques discovered in khovd aimag in the west of Mongolia, with a longer snout and legs, have a close relationship with those in the Arzhan I. The zoomorphic motifs on the coiled snow leopard plaques (Fig. 4.20: 3, 7) are similar to those (Fig. 4.20: 4, 8) found in the central Gobi Province. Therefore, the central region of the Eurasian Steppe stretches from khovd to the north of the Dundgovi aimag. In addition, from the south of the line between the two aimags close to Inner Mongolia of China, wild boar plaques are distributed in aimags such as Bayanhongor, Ömnögovi and Övörkhangai featuring a degraded snout, short legs, and a fat body, with a preference for female boars. The style of expression alternated between realism and simplified freehand brushwork in Shuijiangoumen, China. In all these aimags the excavation of coiled tiger plaques in the east zone (Fig. 4.20: 9) reveals the overlap between the central and eastern regions. Therefore, the regions of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, northern Hebei and east Inner Mongolia are considered typical eastern regions of the Eurasian Steppe. The above analyses reveal that there are connections between the southern Siberian region and the northern Black Sea and between the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau during the transition period, though with different features. In comparing the triad of the Upper Xiajiadian culture with the characteristics of Arzhan, few if any similarities are found in Arzhan I, mostly in flat-pommel knives and swords. In comparison with the artifacts in Arzhan I, the coiled zoomorphic motifs of the Upper Xiajiadian culture seem slightly primitive because the head and tail of the animal were not fully curled together. However, more similarities can be discovered in the Arzhan II, such as elaborately decorated daggers, bronze horse snaffles and horse cheekpieces. Therefore, the prosperity of the Upper Xiajiadian culture, represented by Xiaoheishigou, is believed to have appeared slightly later than that of the Arzhan I but earlier than that of the Arzhan II. Based on this typological comparison with the Upper Xiajiadian culture, Arzhan I can be properly traced back to the 9th century B.C., while the Upper Xiajiadian culture, represented by Xiaoheishigou and Dongnangou, can be dated to the early 8th century B.C., the early Spring and Autumn period. Arzhan and the Upper Xiajiadian culture represent different origins of the nomadic age in the central and the eastern Eurasian Steppe, respectively, although with similarities in

270

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

their date. The synchronized development mirrors the frequent cultural contact in the Eurasian Steppe. In contrast to the Upper Xiajiadian culture, many remaining artifacts along the northern Black Sea are identical to those in South Siberia, including double-edged cheekpieces with mushroom-shaped guards and three holes and three-winged bead ornaments. This suggests a closer connection, such as population migration or more direct human contact between South Siberia and the Black Sea. In The Histories, Herodotus discusses the origin of the Scythian people along the northern Black Sea and argued that the earliest Scythians came from the east steppe to the east of the Caspian Sea (Herodotus 1999). In recent years, some foreign archaeologists have noted that during the 8th–7th century B.C., early nomadic people in South Siberia arrived in the Black Sea via one of the most important routes, going through western Siberia, the Urals, and the Volga to the north of the Black Sea (Bokovenko 1996, 2004). Recent reports have identified early nomadic remains contemporary in time with the Arzhan in the lower Volga, the Urals, and eastern Urals (Alekseev 2002). Although it remains uncertain whether the Scythian people along the north Black Sea migrated directly from the Asian steppes, it is certain that the complex cultural factors along the north Black Sea during the transition period, the deep influence of Greece and the Near East agricultural civilization, and the difficult popularization of the complex harness led to the lack of a developed nomadic culture. In the second phase, the sudden appearance of simplified horse harnesses, which are consistent in shape with those in South Siberia, may explain the integration of the early nomadic culture of early Southern Siberia with the Scythian culture along the northern Black Sea. Briefly, there are shared and unique characteristics in the cultures of different regions in the transition period. In the early and middle Western Zhou periods, communication began between the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the Northern Zone of China and the Slab Grave culture in the Mongolian Plateau. It further strengthened at the turn of the Western and Eastern Zhou periods, with direct contact between the former two regions and Southern Siberia. Southern Siberia, represented by the Arzhan, not only maintained contact with the cultures in the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia but also developed close communication between Pre-Scythian and Early Scythian cultures on the Pontic area. As the communication routes were completely opened between the European part and the Asian part of the Eurasian Steppe, this period witnessed for the first time the steppes as a whole, with South Siberia as the center. The foundation of the nomadic age in the entire steppes was thus constituted after the 7th century B.C. It should be noted that before the 8th century B.C., early nomadic culture in a real sense only involved South Siberia, represented by the Arzhan, while the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the southeast of Inner Mongolia failed to enter nomadic culture despite its technical conditions for a nomadic economy. The Pontic area and the Kuban River Basin were not included in nomadism during the first phase. Our preliminary assumption is that with no developed ancient agricultural civilization centers in South Siberia and its adjacent areas, there were few influences from agricultural civilization or nutrients from such a civilization. Therefore, when a crisis approached, the local people had to make internal changes for further

4.3 Contact Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

271

development, which may have led to the formation of nomadism in this region. In contrast, because the Pre-Scythian culture along the north Black Sea and the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the southeast of Inner Mongolia were adjacent to the developed agricultural civilization of Greece and the Zhou dynasty of China, they were closely connected. A crisis in environmental resources and social impact may not lead to greater economic changes because of their access to complementary resources from adjacent agricultural civilizations. Accordingly, the most developed nomadic civilization tends to be far from the center of agricultural civilization. To summarize from the cases in the three regions mentioned above, the evolution of harnesses from a more complex to a simpler design is one of the important technical innovations in the popularization of riding and shooting. Therefore, the simplicity of harnesses for the ease of riding and shooting should also be considered a prominent feature in early nomadic remains in addition to the Scythian triad.

4.4

Hypothesis on Reasons to Transition from Animal Husbandry to Nomadic Pastoralism

Currently, most scholars believe that the early nomadic economy developed from the animal husbandry economy in the steppes (Kuzmina 2007). The animal husbandry economy mentioned here refers to rearing herbivore livestock such as horses, cattle, and ibexes but adopting a sedentary life. The Andronovo peoples in the steppes in the Bronze Age belonged to this economy. The nomadic economy involves an economic approach to mobile herding, which cannot exist alone in society and must be supplemented by auxiliary industries such as hunting, gathering, farming, trading, and pillaging. Therefore, there is no pure nomadic pastoralism but only special nomadic pastoralism (Wang 2008a). Du Zhengsheng believes that the socio-political forms of animal husbandry and nomadic pastoralism are fundamentally different because the warriors from an animal husbandry society are still infantry, whereas the warriors from a nomadic pastoralism society are already cavalry. The key to nomadism is the training of horses (Du 1993). According to the analysis of the remains of transitional periods in the Eurasian Steppe and the Chinese Northern Zone, the harnesses in the animal husbandry economy are relatively complicated while those in the nomadic economy are simple, which is conducive to large-scale production and use. The earliest nomadic economy was likely born in an area far from the influence of developed agricultural civilization yet under the influence of a developed animal husbandry industry. In the initial stage of nomadic culture, the number of nomadic sites found in the entire Eurasian Steppe was still very small, indicating that nomadic pastoralism may first occur in a small area. However, once such an economy emerged in some areas, it needed to be supported by auxiliary industries; people probably chose pillaging during this period. We can imagine that a group of nomadic peoples riding

272

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

horses constantly intruded on settled or semi-settled peoples living on animal husbandry and forced them to abandon their residences and adopt a mobile economic way of living, which also strengthened the use of dairy and fur and expanded the herd infinitely. In this process, the army and mobility of each tribe were continuously strengthened, which promoted the development of harnesses and weapons. Because the agricultural economy in the steppes is extremely unstable, in such a situation, agriculture received a fatal hit and may not have been able to continue in the steppes. Increasing numbers of pastoral peoples joined the nomads, forming a nomadic society. Moreover, mobile life, frequent warfare, and predatory wars promoted more extensive wealth exchange and cultural communication, which may be the reason for the formation of early nomadic cultural similarities. At the same time, factors such as the living environment, economic life, social development, ideological similarities, and large-scale migration of the Eurasian peoples played a salient role in the development of early nomadic culture in the Eurasian Steppe (Askarov et al. 2002). In this process, the emergence of nomadic pastoralism throughout the entire steppes was clearly not synchronized, nor was it a linear development (Wu 2000). This point is illustrated in the comparison of the research in this book. There are many factors that led to the transition from animal husbandry to nomadic pastoralism. Some scholars believe that the most important one is the change of economic organization, environmental resources, and related metallurgical production (Vinogradov 2000) caused by drought. Based on the analysis of this paper, two aspects need to be considered. On the one hand, in the original areas of nomadic pastoralism, the role of environmental crisis may occupy a dominant position. For example, in early times, the Andronovo people had to change their pasture every 20–25 years, and they migrated and expanded. By the 12th to the 9th century B.C., with hundreds of years of expansion, the development of the people reached a limit, especially in the steppes, which intensified competition for mineral and pasture resources in this region. A large number of cellaring bronzes discovered in this period are likely to imply frequent wars led by competition. Under such conditions, settlement agriculture and fixed pasture herding were no longer viable, which forced people to adopt a more flexible economic approach, specialized nomadic pastoralism. The nomadic origins of Southern Siberia and other regions reflect this situation. On the other hand, in the southeastern parts of Inner Mongolia, the Upper Xiajiadian culture may have had well-developed animal husbandry and skilled horseback riding, but it failed to eventually transform into a nomadic economy. Under the double blow of the Hu going southward and the Central Plain agricultural peoples, the residents here were divided into two parts: one part was integrated into the nomads going south and transformed into a nomadic economy; the other part was integrated into the southern agricultural peoples. Through the analysis of the remains of the transitional periods in the Eurasian Steppe of the 9th to the 7th century B.C. and the Chinese Northern Zone, the following conclusions can be reached.

4.4 Hypothesis on Reasons to Transition from Animal Husbandry …

273

1. Although the Northern Zone, South Siberia, the Black Sea coast and other places have remains from the same period, their specific characteristics are obvious. Although they all possess the Scythian triad, they did not all transform into nomadic societies. Before the 8th century B.C., Southern Siberia might have been transformed into a nomadic economy, while in the same period, southeastern Inner Mongolia and the Black Sea regions may not have transformed into real nomadic societies. Therefore, the Scythian triad are the necessary conditions for nomadic pastoralism. This analysis suggests that the simplification of harnesses is one of the criteria for judging a nomadic economy. 2. There are links between the remains of these three regions. In particular, contact between the people in South Siberia and the Pontic area can be considered the migration of the people. The nomadism throughout the entire Eurasian Steppe was clearly not synchronized, nor was it a linear development. The earliest nomadic pastoralism was likely to have emerged in the steppes with well-developed animal husbandry far from developed agricultural civilization. However, nomadic pastoralism in areas near and closely related to developed agricultural civilization emerged late. South Siberia belongs to the former situation, while southeastern Inner Mongolia, the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the former Scythian culture on the Pontic area belong to the latter situation. 3. The origin of early nomadic pastoralism in different regions differed. In some areas, the local economy was directly transformed from a well-developed animal husbandry economy into a nomadic economy after the local people faced a crisis. We call this area the native land of nomadic pastoralism. In other regions, differentiation occurred under the pressure of outside nomads, and some of the people began to adopt a nomadic economic approach. Such an area can be called a secondary land of nomadic pastoralism. Compared with previous cultures, the nomads from native lands underwent major changes in culture and technology during the transitional period, such as the sites of the Arzhan Kurgans. However, the nomads from the secondary land maintained a certain continuity with the previous culture during the transitional period, such as the Slab Grave culture. People from secondary lands also need to possess basic criteria for living, such as relatively well-developed animal husbandry and skilled horseback riding. The large population of nomadic peoples from secondary land in the Eurasian Steppe may have been an important reason for the rapid expansion of early nomadic pastoralism. The origin of early nomadic economy in the steppes is quite complicated. The study of the transformation from animal husbandry to nomadic pastoralism and related issues requires long-term research. In this chapter, some clues related to research in this field are provided. It is hoped that more materials can be published as references and more Chinese and foreign scholars can conduct research in this field.

274

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

References Alekseev, A. Yu. (2002). Some problems in the study of the chronology of the ancient nomadic cultures in Eurasia. Geochronometria, 21. Askarov, et al. (2002). Gongyuanqian yiqianji chu de xumu yu youmu buluo [The animal husbandry and nomadic Tribes in the Early 1000 B.C.]. In Zhongya wenmingshi (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: China Translation & Publishing Corporation (in Chinese). Bao, S. (2014). Zhongguo beifang diqu Xia zhi Zhanguo shiqi de xunsheng yanjiu [A study on the sacrificial animals in the Northern Zone between the Xia and the Warring States periods]. Jilin daxue boshi xuewei lunwen (A doctoral thesis of Jilin University) (in Chinese). Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office. (1976). Beijing diqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo [Another important archaeological achievement in Beijing]. Kaogu, 4, Fig. 10 (in Chinese). Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics. (1995). Liulihe xizhou yanguo mudi (1973–1977) [The Liulihe river cemetery of Yan state in Western Zhou periods 1973–1977]. Bejing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Bogdanov, E. S. (2004). The origin of the image of a predator coiled up in a ball in the “Eastern Province” of the Scythian realm. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 4(20). Bokovenko, A. (1995a). History of studies and the main problems in the archaeology of the south Siberia during the Scythian period. In Nomads of the Eurasian steppe in the early Iron Age. Berkeley, USA: Zinat Press. Bokovenko, A. (1995b). Scythian culture in the Altai Mountains, Nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the early iron age. Berkeley, USA: Zinat Press. Bokovenko, A. (1996). Asian influence on European Scythia. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 3(1). Bokovenko, A. (2004). Migrations of early nomads of the Eurasian steppe in a context of climatic changes. In E. M. Scott (Ed.), Impact of the environment on human migration in Eurasia. Boston. Chernykh, E. N., Kuzmineh, S. V. (2010). Ouya dalu beibu de gudai yejin: Saiyima-Tuerbinnuoo xian xiang [Ancient metallurgy in the northern Eurasia: Seima-Turbino phenomenon] (Fig. 66, p. 78). Beijing: Zhonghua Press (in Chinese). Членова, Н. Л. (1992). Культура плиточных могил // Степная полоса Азиатский часта СССР в Скифо-сарматское время. Москва: Наука –С. 247–253. Chugunov, K. V., Parzinger, H., & Nagler, A. (2002) An elite burial of the period of early nomads in Tuva: A preliminary report of the 2001 Russian-German Archaeological Expedition. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 2(10). Cugunov, K. V. (2010). Der skythenzeitliche Furstenkurgan Arzan 2 in Tuva. Berlin: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern Mainz. Cultural Relics Workforce of Zhaowuda League, Liaoning Province, et al. (1973). Ningchengxian Nanshangen de shiguomu [The stone-outer-coffin tombs at Nanshangen of Ningcheng county]. Kaogu xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Du, Z. (1993). Ouya caoyuan dongwu wenshi yu zhongguo gudai beifang minzu zhi kaocha [An investigation of the animal ornamentation of the Eurasian steppe and ethnic groups in Northern China]. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan, 64(2) (in Chinese). Gao, D. (1993). Lvelun Kayue wenhua (On Kayueculture). In Kaoguxue Wenhua Lunji 3 (Collective essays on the study of archaeological culture, Vol. 3). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Gryaznov, M. P. (1980). Arzhan: Tsarskii kurgan ranneskifskovo vremeni [Arzhan: The tsar kurgan of the Early Scythian time]. Leningrad. Gryaznov, M. P. (1984). DerGroß Kurganvon Arzan in Tuva. Südsibirien: Verlag C. H. BeckMünchen. Грязнов, М. П. (1992). Алтай и приалтайская степъ // Степная полоса Азиатской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. Москва: Наука. – С. 161–178, таблица 61, 2/3.

References

275

Guo, W. (2007). Sandaohaizi wenhua chulun [A preliminary study of the Sandaohaizi culture]. In Oya xuekan 7 [Eurasian studies, Vol. 7]. Beijing, China: Zhonghua Book Company (in Chinese). Herodotus. (1999). The histories (English version). Beijing, China: China Social Sciences Press. Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1991). Neimenggu Keshiketengqi Longtoushan yizhi diyi, dier ci fajue jianbao [Brief reports on the first and second excavation of the remains at the Lomhtoushan, Keshiketengqi Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 8 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2009). Xiaoheishigou – Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua yizhi fajue baogao [Report on the excavation of Xiaoheishigou-Upper Xiajiadian Culture artifacts]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Task Force of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1961). Neimenggu Chifeng Yaowangmiao Xiajiadian yizhi shijue baogao [Excavation report of Yaowangmiao and Xiajiadian remains in Chifeng Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 2 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1999). Zhangjiapo xizhou mudi [Tombs of the West Zhou period at Zhangjiapo]. Beijing, China: China Encyclopedia Press (in Chinese). Jettmar, K. (1969). Crossing-dating in Central Asia. Mass: Harvard University. Jia, H. (1984). Wengniuteqi Dapaozi qingtong duanjian mu [The tomb at Dapaozi of Wenniuteqi, where a bronze short sword was unearthed]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Jianping County Cultural Center. (1983). Liaoning Jianpingxian de qingtong shidai muzang ji xiangguan yiwu [Tombs and their related artifacts of the Bronze Age in the Jianping county of Liaoning]. Kaogu, 8 (in Chinese). Jin, F. (1987). Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua ji qi zushu wenti [The Upper Xiajiadian culture and its attribution]. Kaogu xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Jing, Z. (2010). Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua de qingtong dingchi maju – beifang caoyuan yu zhongyuan qingtong wenhua jiaowang de xinzheng zhiyi [Bronze nail-toothed harnesses of the Upper Xiajiadian Culture—One of new evidences of communication between Northern steppe and Central Plains Bronze culture]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu (Vol. 9) [Archaeological studies in Border Areas, Vol. 9). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Kossack, G. (1998). On the origins of the Scytho—Iranian animal style, towards translating the past (pp. 39–96). B. Hansel et al. (Ed.). Berlin. Kovalev, A. (1998). Überlegungen zur Herkunft der Skythen aufgrund archäologischer Daten. Eurasia Antiqua, Band 4. Kuzmina, E. E. (2007). The origin of the Indo-Iranians. Boston. Legrand, S. (2006). The emergence of the Karasuk culture. Antiquity, 80, 843–859. Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology. (1989). Liaoning Lingyuanxian Wudaohezi zhanguomu fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of the Warring States cemetery at Wudaohezi, lingyuan County, Liaoning Province]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998a). Zaoqi beifang qingtongqi de jige niandai wenti [Issues on the ages of early bronzes in Northern China]. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji [Lin Yun’s academic collection]. Beijing, China: China Encyclopedia Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998b). Dui Nanshangen M102 chutu kewen guban de yixie kanfa [Some opinions on the carved bone plates unearthed from Nanshangen M102]. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji [Lin Yun’s Academic Collection]. Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998c). Donghu he Shanrong de kaogu tansuo (Archaeological exploration of Donghu and Shanrong). In Lin Yun xueshu wenji [Lin Yun’s academic collection]. Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2003). Zhongguo beifang changcheng didai youmu wenhuadai de xingcheng guocheng [The formation of nomadic cultural belt along the Great Wall]. Yanjing xuebao, 14 (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2008). Lun ouya caoyuan de juanqu dongwuwen [On the coiled zoomorphic motifs of the Eurasian steppe]. In Lin Yun xueshu wenji 2 [Lin Yun’s Academic Collection 2]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese).

276

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Liu, B. (1996). Shilun ganqingdiqu de zaoqi tongqi [On early Bronzes in Gansu and Qinghai regions]. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (social science edition), 2 (in Chinese). Liu, G. (2000). Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua qingtongqi yanjiu [Research on the bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture]. Kaogu xuebao, 4 (in Chinese). Ma, J. (2008). Gongyuanqian ba-qian san shiji de Sayan-A’ertai—zaoqi tieqi shidai Ouya dongbu caoyuan wenhua jiaoliu [Sayan-Altai—early Iron Age steppe cultural exchanges in Eastern Eurasia from the 8th to 3rd century B.C.]. In Ouya xuekan (Eurasian Learning Publications, Vol. 8). Zhonghua Book Company. Манделыщтам, А. М. (1992). Ранние кочевники скифского периода на территории Тувы // Степная полоса Азиатской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. Москва: Наука. – С.178–196, таблица 72, 43. Marsadolov, L. (2000). The Cimmerian tradition of the Gordion Tumuli found in the Altai Barrows. In Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. BAR International Series 890. Махортых, С. В. (2005). Киммерийцы северного причерноморья. Киев: Шлях. Mei, J. (2000). Copper and bronze metallurgy in late prehistoric Xinjiang. Oxford, UK: Basingstoke Press. Mikhail, P. (1969). The ancient civilization of Southern Siberia. New York: Cowles Book Company. Miyake, T. (2005). Kayue wenhua qingtongqi chubu yanjiu [A preliminary study on the bronzes of Kayueculture]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Molodin, V. I., & Neskorov, A. V. (2010). Pravite collection of Seima-Turbino Bronzes from Irtysh: The tragedy of a unique site destroyed by unauthorized excavations. Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, 38(3), Plate 14, 15. Northeast Workforce of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1981). Neimenggu Ningchengxian Nanshangen 102 hao shiguomu [The No. 102 stone-outer-coffin tomb at Nanshangen of Ningcheng county Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Pan, L. (2008). Lun lushi de niandai ji xiangguan wenti [On the date of deer stones and related problems]. Kaogu xuebao, 3 (in Chinese). Petrenko, V. G. (1995). Scythian culture in the North Caucasus, Nomads of the Eurasian steppes in the early Iron Age. Berkeley, CA: Zinat Press. Purevzhavyn Erdenechuluun. (2011). Collections of Purevzhavyn Erdenechuluun: The sword of heaven: Culture of bronze artifacts of the Bronze Age and Hunnu empire. Dornyn Soel Urlagiin Galerei, Ulaanbaatar. Qinghai Cultural Relics Department. (1994). Qinghai wenwu [Qinghai cultural relics] (Plate 67). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Qinghai Institute of Archaeology. (1994). Qinghai Xunhua Suhusa cemetery [On Suhusa Cemetery in Xunhua, Qinghai Province]. Kaogu xuebao, 4 (in Chinese). России академия наук институт материалъной култътула. (1997). Новые исследования археологов Рссии и СНГ. Санкт-петербург. Shaanxi Institute of Archeology. (2009). Shanbei chutu qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed from northern Shaanxi] (Vol. 5, Fig. 375: 3, p. 901). Chengdu, China: Bashu Shushe Press (in Chinese). Shui, T. (2001). Ganqing diqu qingtong shidai de wenhua jiegou he jingji xingtai yanjiu [Research on cultural structure and economic form of the Bronze Age in Gansu and Qinghai regions]. In Zhongguo xibei diqu qingtong shidai kaogu lunji (The collection of archaeology of Bronze Age in northwest China). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Государственный Эрмитаж. (2004). Аржан источник в Долине царей, археологические открытия в Туве. Санкт-пепербург: АО Славия. Vinogradov, N. B. (2000). From a settled way of life to nomadism variants in models of transition. In Kurgans, ritual sites, and settlements Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. BAR International Series, 890.

References

277

Volkov, V. V. (Волков, B. B.) (2007). Menggu lushi [Mongolian deer stone]. China Renmin University Press (in Chinese). Wang, B. (1986). Xinjiang dongbu faxian de jipi tongqi [Several batches of bronzes found in eastern Xinjiang]. Kaogu, 10 (in Chinese). Wang, L. (2004). Liaoxiqu xia zhi zhanguo shiqi wenhua geju yu jingji xingtai de yanjin [The evolution of the cultural pattern and economic form in Liaoxi area from the Xia period to the Warring States period]. Kaogu xuebao, 3 (in Chinese). Wang, K. (2008a). Youmuzhe de jueze—miandui Han diguo de beiya youmu minzu [The chice of the Nomads: Facing North Asian nomadic tribes of the Han empire]. Guilin, China: Guangxi Normal University Press (in Chinese). Wang, M. (2008b). Youmuzhe de jueze—miandui Han diguo de Beiya youmu buluo [Nomads’ choice: Facing the Northern Asian nomadic tribes of the Han Empire]. Guangxi Normal University Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2000). Lun Xijiadian shangceng wenhua zai Ouya dalu caoyuan gudai wenhua zhong de zhongyao diwei [On the Important Position of Upper Xiajiadian culture in the Ancient Eurasian Steppe culture]. Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu, 1 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2002a). Lun Xiajiadian shangceng wenhuazai Ouya dalu caoyuan gudai wenhua zhong de zhongyao diwei [On the important role of the Upper Xiajiadian culture on the Eurasian steppe]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 1. Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2002b). Lvlun Oyacaoyuan zaoqi youmuren yishu zhong de juanqu dongwuwen xingxiang [Coiled zoomorphic motifs in the early nomadic art on the Eurasian steppe]. Kaogu, 11 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2005). Lun shibanmu wenhua de niandai ji xiangguan wenti [The dates of the Slab Grave culture and the related issues]. In Xinshiji de zhongguo kaoguxue [Chinese archaeology in the new century]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2007). Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu [Study on the archaeological cultures in the steppe area of Northern China]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2013). Xinjiang Habahe Dongtaledemudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of the East Taldi Cemetery, Habahe, Xinjiang]. Wenwu, 3 (in Chinese). Xu, J., & Liu, D. (1985). Gansu Ningxian Yucun chutu xizhou qingtongqi [Western Zhou bronzes unearthed from Ningxian County, Gansu]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Xu, Y. (1993). Hehuang qingtong wenhua de puxi [The genealogy of Hehuang bronze culture]. In Kaoguxue Wenhua Lunji 3 (Collective essays on the study of archaeological culture, Vol. 3). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2000). Jibei zhoudai qingtong wenhua chutan [A preliminary research on the bronze culture of the Jibei area during the Zhou period]. Zhongyuan wenwu, 5 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2004). Chunqiu Zhanguo shiqi Zhongguo Beifang wenhuadai de xingcheng [The formation of the Northern Zone cultural belt in China during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods] (Fig. 68). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2008). Shilun shaoxingqi de yongtu—jianlun Jinshangaoyuan shangzhou shiqi qingtongqi de wuzhuanghua yu yidonghua [On the utilization of the spoon-shaped artifacts and the weaponization and mobilization of the bronzes on the Jinshan plateau during the Shang and Zhou periods]. In: Gongyuanqian liangqianji de Jinshangaoyuan yu Yanshan nanbei [The Jinshan plateau and the north and south of the Yanshan Mountains]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Yu, W. (1985). Guanyu “Kayue wenhua” he “Tangwang wenhua” de xinrenshi [New understanding of “Kayueculture” and “Tangwang culture”]. In Xianqin lianghan kaoguxue lunji [Collected essays on Pre-Qin and Han dynasties archaeology]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Zhai, D. (1994). Shilun Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua de qiongtongqi [On the bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture]. In Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji 1 [Collected archaeological works on cultural relics in Inner Mongolia 1] (in Chinese).

278

4

The Beginning of the Early Nomadic Age

Zhang, W. (2003). Qinghai diqu qingtong shidai wenhua yanjiu [Cultural studies of the Bronze Age in Qinghai]. Changchun, China: Jilin University (in Chinese). Zhang, W. (2009). Dui Kayue wenhua qingtongqi yizhong fenqi yijian de kanfa [Opinions on a staging of bronzes in Kayueculture]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu (Vol. 8) [Archaeological studies in Border Areas, Vol. 8]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zhang, W. (2012). Huangjin caoyuan: gudai Oyacaoyuan wenhua tanwei [The golden steppes—A preliminary study on the ancient culture of the Eurasian Steppe]. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Guji Press (in Chinese). Zhao, B. (2009). Zhongguo dongbei diqu xia zhi zhanguo shiqi kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu [The archaeological cultures of Xia to Warring States periods in Northeast China]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zheng, L. (1980). Daqingshan xia faxian yipi tongqi [Bronzes unearthed from the Daqing Mountain]. Wenwu, 7 (in Chinese). Zhu, Y. (1987). Xiajiadian shangceng wenhua chubu yanjiu [A preliminary study on the Upper Xiajiadian culture]. In Kaoguxue lunwenji [Collected works in archaeology] (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Zhu, Y. (1998). Dongbei qingtong wenhua de fazhan jieduan yu wenhua quxi [Developing stages and systems of the bronze culture in Northeast China]. Kaogu xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Цыбиктаров, А. Д. (1998). Кулътура плиточных могил Монголии и Забайкалъя. Улан-удэ: Издатлъство Бурятского госугиверситета.

Chapter 5

The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age

5.1

The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

During this period, the steppe peoples living beyond the borders of China created a wealth of glorious nomadic cultures, which includes the Scythian culture along the Pontic area, the Sauro-Sarmatian culture in the Volga-South Ural region, the Saka culture in Kazakhstan, the Tagar culture in the Minusinsk Basin, the nomadic people in Altai and Tuva, and the Slab Grave culture in Mongolia (Fig. 5.1).

5.1.1

The Scythian Culture

The Scythians are the most famous of the early nomadic tribes of the Eurasian Steppe, and the name “Scythian” has become synonymous with the early nomads. Some people have even called the early nomadic age the “Scythian Age”. Even today, some people still call the early nomadic cultures in other parts of the Eurasian Steppe the culture of the Scythians, which reflects the extreme influence of the “Scythians”. Two main factors contribute to the significance of the “Scythians”. First, ancient documents record them in detail. One of the most notable of the records was produced by the Greek historian Herodotus, who described the Scythians in his book The Histories (Herodotus 1999b). According to his records, the Scythians first lived on the east shore of the Caspian Sea and then were driven by other invading immigrants to the west. In the Volga River basin, they, in turn, drove the local Cimmerians away and chased them across the Caucasus into Asia Minor. However, with the rise of the Median Empire, the Scythians were forced to return to the Pontic area, where they conquered the residents there. Until the time of Herodotus, numerous Scythian tribes were inhabiting the Pontic area. Diodorus Siculus, another Greek historian of the first century B.C., analyzed the literature of a © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3_5

279

280

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.1 Distribution of early nomadic cultures on the Eurasian Steppe

much earlier period and found that the Scythians lived in the areas around the Caspian Sea, the Azov, the Don, and the Caucasus much earlier than assumed. These documents caused the early nomadic remains of the Pontic area to be known as the Scythian culture. The second reason is that aristocrat tombs of the Scythian period were found on the Pontic area and the Kuban River Basin. These tombs were not only found much earlier in time but were also large in number. Moreover, a large number of gold and bronzes in unique shapes were unearthed there. These discoveries have long attracted attention and left a deep impression of the early nomads as Scythians. We have no intention of refuting the concept of the “Scythian Age”; rather, we note that the Scythian culture in the real sense was only on the Pontic area and its adjacent areas, and there were many such cultural centers on the Eurasian Steppe during the same period. Although they share some cultural features, each of them has its own characteristics. Part of the early sites of the Scythian culture on the north coast of the Black Sea was involved in our discussion of the beginning of the nomadic culture in Chap. 4, which emphasized the origin of the Pre-Scythian and Scythian cultures. Therefore, in this section, we will focus on the content of the entire Scythian culture. As early as 1763, Scythian tombs were excavated from Kirovograd, Ukraine, with a great number of gold and silver artifacts unearthed. Over the next 200 years, hundreds of thousands of large graves were excavated together with countless exquisite burial objects (Piotrovsky et al. 1987).

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

281

The large-scale tombs of the Scythian culture were generally covered with burial kurgans with a wooden structure underneath. The main chamber was surrounded by numerous sacrifices, mainly horses (Fig. 5.2: 1) in such a great number that as many as 360 sacrificed horses were found in one of the earth tombs in Daursky of the Kuban River basin. In addition, human sacrifices were discovered in some tombs (Fig. 5.2: 2). The artifacts of the Scythian culture are basically objects excavated from tombs. Among them, developed weapons, horse harnesses and zoomorphic motif decorations, the so-called the “Scythian triad”, are the core of its cultural characteristics. The weapons of the Scythian culture were mainly daggers, spears, helmets, and arrowheads. The daggers were mostly made of iron, with popular heart-shaped cross-guards (Fig. 5.3: 1, 2). Spears with a socket were another popular weapon, made mostly of iron and with a lanky body (Fig. 5.3: 4–6). Among them was a socketed battle-ax unearthed from the Kelermes Graveyard, which is rare in the Scythian culture. This well-preserved ax is made of iron with gold cladding outside

Fig. 5.2 Plans of the Scythian tombs. 1 Kostromskaya tomb; 2 Jelisavetinskaya tomb

282

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.3 Weapons and horse fittings of the Scythian culture. 1, 3, 4, 5 Kelermes M1; 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 Ryzanovka M5; 6 Kelermes M4; 7 Kelermes M23; 12, 13, 22, 24, 25 Kelermes M2 (1904); 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26 Kelermes M2-4; 19, 20 Kelermes M29; 21, 23 Kelermes M31; 26, 27–38 Kelermes M2 (1904); (3 is made of gold and iron; 7–15 and 18 are made of bronze; 27–38 are made of bone; the rest are made of iron)

and numerous decorative zoomorphic motifs. Obviously, it was not a common weapon (Fig. 5.3: 3; Plate 5: 3). The helmets are uniform in shape, with an opening in the front, a pointed tip in the middle of the top, and a bridge-shaped button on the top (Fig. 5.3: 12, 13). In addition, bronze socketed arrowheads with two wings or three wings were found among the unearthed artifacts (Fig. 5.3: 7–11). The horse harness fittings were highly developed in the Scythian culture. Snaffle bits, cheekpieces, strap guides, and other horse ornaments were often discovered in the tombs. Some of the snaffle bits, made of either bronze or iron, had stirrup-shaped outer rings of various sizes (Fig. 5.3: 14, 15, 18–22), while others had hook-shaped outer rings (Fig. 5.3: 16, 17). The cheekpieces are mainly made of iron and are basically similar in shape, with a slightly curved head and three rings inside (Fig. 5.3: 23–26). In addition to the snaffle bits and cheekpieces, numerous bone jieyue strap guides and other horse ornaments (Fig. 5.3: 27–38) were unearthed, many of which are engraved with animal patterns (Fig. 5.3: 27–33). Animal decoration in the Scythian culture was well developed with a large range of zoomorphic motifs, from animals in the real world, such as large feline animals, stag, ibex, reindeer, and birds, to supernatural creatures that combined many animals, such as rams with wings and griffins. The styles of animal decorations changed over time. They can be categorized into three periods based on their features (Jacobson 1995). The early period is from the 7th century B.C. to the early

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

283

6th century B.C., the middle period was between the late 6th century B.C. and the 5th century B.C., and the late period was the 4th century B.C. to the early 3rd century B.C. In the early period of the Scythian culture, animal decorations can be roughly divided into two categories. The first category is decorations with the Scythians’ own artistic style, depicting crouching or coiled leopards, lying deer and ibexes, birds with large beaks or birds’ heads. Realism is the most typical artistic style of the early Scythian period. Rather than completely imitating subjects in the real world, craftsmen in Scythia used exaggeration and stereotypes when making artifacts. Some animal-shaped horse harnesses have been found in tombs in the early period, mainly cheekpieces and strap guides. The animals depicted on them are ibexes (Fig. 5.4: 2, 3), horses (Fig. 5.4: 4) and coiled leopards (Fig. 5.4: 1). The coiled leopards are the most prevalent image in the early period of Scythian culture, with paws and tails replaced by circles or

Fig. 5.4 Zoomorphic motifs of the early Scythian culture. 1 Bone horse fitting (Temir-Gora); 2, 3 bone sheep head (Kelermes 1); 4 bone psalia (Zhurovka 432); 5 leopard-shaped amulet (Kelermes 1); 6 deer-shaped amulet (Kostromskaya); 7 deer-shaped plaque (Kelermes); 8 bronze horse-shaped plaque (Tsukur Liman); 9 leopard-shaped plaque (Ulsky I); 10 ibex-shaped plaque (Ulsky I); 11, 12 bronze mirrors (Romny, Kelermes 2); 13 bird-shaped plaque (Litoy); 14 bronze fu (Kelermes); 15–18, 20 finials (Kelermes 1, Kelermes, Makhoshevsky, Ulsky 2, Ulsky 2); 19 cross-shaped plaque (Necropolis); 21 bronze mirror (Kelermes 4); 22 gold crown (Kelermes 3); 23 gold plaque (Kelermes 4); 24 sheath (Kelermes 1); (1–4 are made of bone; 11, 12, 14–21 are made of bronze; the rest are made of gold)

284

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

ovals. This type of decoration can be seen in the central part of a bronze mirror (Fig. 5.4: 12) and the hoof and tail on a leopard-shaped amulet (Fig. 5.4: 5) excavated at Kelermes cemetery. The images of leopards and deer are among the most prevalent animal decoration motifs in the early period of Scythian culture (Fig. 5.4: 5–9, 11). These two animal images had quite high status among the Scythians because the large-sized amulets they wore always had these two animals on them. Ibexes and birds were also common zoomorphic motifs in the early period. Some ibexes are crouching with their heads turned back 180° (Fig. 5.4: 10), and some are standing on a bronze cauldron (fu) as the handles (Fig. 5.4: 14). The shapes of birds are quite unique. Some are in the shape of a complete bird image (Fig. 5.4: 13), while most represent a bird’s head with round eyes and a hooked beak (Fig. 5.4: 19, 20). In addition, finials with various zoomorphic motifs are found in the early period of the Scythian culture, including birds, horse heads, deer, cattle, and griffins (Fig. 5.4: 15–18, 20). The second category of animal decorations in the early period of Scythian culture is decorative subjects that were prevalent in the Near East, such as supernatural animals with wings, a combined form of cattle and lion, griffins (Fig. 5.4: 16, 22), and flowers and trees. One piece of gold mirror unearthed at Kelermes cemetery, 17 cm in diameter with decorative patterns all around, best presents the combination of the Scythian artistic style and the Near East artistic style. The mirror is decorated with eight separate motifs, including a lion, griffin, ibex, leopard, boar, human, god, and tree. The mirror is a multi-art complex, with the Near East and Scythian artistic styles well integrated (Fig. 5.4: 21). Compared with the early period of Scythian culture, the animal decorations in the middle period changed dramatically with regard to the animal motif selection and manufacturing. After the 6th century B.C., some Greek colonies appeared along the Black Sea. The Greeks exchanged wool, fur, and slaves for painted ceramics, textiles, decorations, weapons, wine, and olive oil. From that time, the impact of the Greek artistic style on the Scythian culture gradually increased, while the influence of the Assyrian artistic style from West Asia gradually decreased. In the meanwhile, the Scythian artistic style became more complicated, involving some Sauromatian and Persian cultural elements. In this stage, motifs of individual leopards and ibexes decreased. Compared with the early period, the patterns were less delicate (Fig. 5.5). There are some decorations with wild boars, including lying wild boars (Fig. 5.5: 5) and some with wings (Fig. 5.5: 6). Deer remained a prevalent decorative motif (Fig. 5.5: 2, 4, 9– 11), but their shape underwent dramatic changes. Some antlers or bodies of the deer have birds’ heads (Fig. 5.5: 9–11). The image of birds also changed substantially, with large round eyes and swirl-shaped bird heads commonly seen (Fig. 5.5: 2, 3). In this stage, there are some scenes depicting animal predation. Leopards, birds, and griffins are usually the predators, and deer and goats are the prey (Fig. 5.5: 12–14). In addition, some Greek-style plaques have been unearthed from Scythian tombs, including some with images of the Sphinx (Fig. 5.5: 15) from Greek mythology, Silenus, the god of the forest (Fig. 5.5: 17), the two-faced god with the face of a

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

285

Fig. 5.5 Zoomorphic motif art in the middle Scythians culture. 1 Scabbard (Shumeyko); 2 frontlet (Zhurovka 401); 3 horse ornament (Seven Brothers 2); 4 horse face ornament (Seven Brothers 2); 5, 6 wild boar-shaped plaque ornaments (Aleksandrovka); 7 wolf-shaped plaque ornament (Kulakovsky); 8 horn-shaped cup (Seven Brothers 4); 9, 10 horse-shaped plaque ornaments (Seven Brothers 4, Zhurovka G); 11 ornament of a wooden bowl (Ak-Mechet); 12–14 ornaments of horn-shaped cups (Seven Brothers 4); 15–18 gold plaque ornaments of garments (Seven Brothers 2); 19 gold plaque ornament (Nymphacum 17) (2–4, 7, 9, 10 are made of bronze and others are made of gold)

warrior and a lion (Fig. 5.5: 16), as well as bird tails, lions with wings, and bullheads (Fig. 5.5: 18, 19). The Scythian culture reached its peak in the 4th century B.C., and its cultural contact with neighboring states had become intense. In this period, Greece had a significant influence on animal decorations in the Scythian culture. Many motifs that prevailed in the early and middle period were replaced by Greek motifs. Artifacts are embellished with gods, heroes, and religious symbols (Fig. 5.6: 7, 10, 11), more for decoration than to convey meaning. Leopards were replaced by lions, and eagles were replaced by griffins (Fig. 5.6: 5, 8, 9). Horses, wild boars, and deer became prey (Fig. 5.6: 6). Twining flowers have also been found on some artifacts. Although the Scythian culture was greatly influenced by Greece with regard to

286

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

animal decoration, the Scythians still retained their own identity. For example, the image of a crouching deer is identical to those in the Scythian culture, with the exception that the body of the deer is embellished with zoomorphic motifs such as griffins and lions (Fig. 5.6: 1). One piece of finials from Chmyreva Mogila (Piotrovsky et al. 1987, Fig. 273) had a deer motif with a goat’s beard under its chin (Fig. 5.6: 2), which was considered illusionary. One bronze mirror with a gold handle was also from the tomb. The handle was embellished with deer and griffins, but the patterns were quite rough (Fig. 5.6: 4). In addition, many spiral gold necklaces with leopard motifs were found in this period, but they were not as realistic as in the previous periods (Fig. 5.6: 3). With regard to the origin of the Scythians, Herodotus reported on this subject in his book The Histories, but there are many contradictory versions of the origins of the Scythians. One version is that the Scythians came from Asian tribes who spoke Iranian languages during the 7th century B.C. and who formed a distinctive culture before their migration. Another version held by some historians is that the ancestors of the Scythians had already been living along the north coast of the Black Sea during the 2nd millennium B.C. but did not form their culture until the 7th century B.C. (Piotrovsky et al. 1987). Regardless of which version is more precise, it is certain that in the early period, the Scythians had intense cultural contact with the peoples in the Near East. Moreover, as Greek invaders came to the north and east coast of the Black Sea, the Scythians had even closer cultural contact with the Greeks and became Hellenistic. The above information can be verified by the

Fig. 5.6 Zoomorphic motif art in the late Scythians culture. 1 Talisman (Kul oba); 2, 5 staff heads (Chmyreva Mogila, Alexandropol); 3 gold collar (Tolstaya Mogila); 4 bronze mirror (Kul oba); 6 silver vessel (Kul oba); 7 gold brooches (Tolstaya Mogila); 8 boat-shaped ear pendant (Dort Oba 2); 9 pendant (Deyev); 10 horse face ornament (Bolshaya Tsimbalka); 11 gold combs (Solokha) (2 and 5 are made of bronze, 4 is made of gold and bronze, 6 is made of silver, and others are made of gold)

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

287

archaeological findings. During the 4th century B.C., the Scythian culture reached its peak period. However, due to the long-term warfare with the Greeks, the Scythians began to decline after the 4th century B.C. The Sarmatians replaced the Scythians as the dominant people of the steppes.

5.1.2

The Sauro-Sarmatian Culture

The Sauromatian culture existed at the same time as the Scythian culture along the north coast of the Black Sea. The name of the Sauromatian culture was first seen in the book by the Greek historian Herodotus. In his book The Histories, Herodotus wrote that the Sauromatian tribe near the eastern part of the Scythians was located to the east of the Don River, 15 days distance from the northern part of the Sea of Azov (Herodotus 1999b). It is commonly believed that this culture existed from the 7th century B.C. to the 4th century B.C. After the 4th century B.C., it was integrated with the Sarmatian culture. Thus, the Sauromatian culture is considered the early phase of the Sarmatian culture. From the 4th century B.C., the artifacts in the Sarmatian culture were mainly made of iron, so this section will mainly focus on the Sauromatian culture. Research on this culture began in the 19th century with a focus on excavations of some tombs. In the beginning of the 20th century, some Soviet scholars began to systematically excavate and study these artifacts (Archaeological Editing Committee of Encyclopedia of China 1986). The archaeological work is mainly in the Lower Volga and South Ural forest steppes. However, early researchers attributed these artifacts to the Scythian culture and considered them to have been left by the Scythians (Grakov 1928). Later, based on further research, scholars realized that these artifacts were from the Sauromatians. According to recent findings, the Sauromatian culture was mainly distributed near the Don River along the Caucasus and the northern coast of the Caspian as well as the Volga and the Ural River (Fig. 5.1). No permanent settlements were found in the Sauromatian culture; only some temporary camps were found. The excavation materials mainly focused on the tombs. Based on current research findings, the Sauromatian culture can be classified into two types: the Lower Volga type and the Samara-Ural type. The artifacts in these two types have regional differences. The tombs in the Sauromatian culture are covered with enormous mounds. The tombs of the Lower Volga type are covered with earthwork mounds, while those of the Samara-Ural type are covered with stone-piled mounds or cairns. Some of the tombs are surrounded by a layer of pebbles, while some are set with deer stones. Most of the chambers are quite narrow, with the exception that some chambers of higher-status people are quite wide. Wooden burial goods have been excavated from some of the tombs, with the most in the South Ural regions. Some tombs are quite complicated in structure (Fig. 5.7) with various types of burial goods. The goods may have belonged to the upper classes, indicating that there may have been

288

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.7 Examples of burial shapes of the Sauromatian culture

class division in the nomadic society at that time. Tombs with two or more skeletons are rare. The occupants of the tombs are always buried individually, lying flat with arms and legs straight. In the early period, a small number of tombs featured the occupants in a flexed position with arms crossed and legs folded up to the chest, with the head to the west or southwest, which may have been inherited from the Bronze Age. The tombs of the Samara-Ural type indicate cremation based on evidence that the bones have burned ash or charcoal on them. It is assumed that cremation may have been one of the indispensable elements of burial. With few exceptions, most of the tombs have few burial goods. The tombs with abundant burial goods have many bronzes as well as delicate gold ware. Ceramic vessels are quite commonly found in the tombs of the Sauromatian culture. However, they are roughly made, mainly egg shaped or spherical, and they are embellished with dot patterns or incised patterns (Fig. 5.8: 1–3). The ceramics unearthed from the tombs can be categorized into two types. The first type features thick walls and flat bases, which indicates that they may have evolved from ones in the bronze culture. The other type is finely made polished black pottery, similar to that of the early period of the Scythian culture in Ukraine and the North Caucasus. It is possible that the pottery originated in the western regions, and some of them may have even been directly imported from the western regions. During the 5th century B.C., richly decorated round-shaped vessels with round bases were found in the south Ural region (Fig. 5.8: 4, 8, 9). This type of vessel shows no features of the local tradition but is quite similar to those in the southern part of Kazakhstan and along the Amu-Syr Darya. They were likely introduced by the new immigrants and

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

289

Fig. 5.8 Vessels of the Sauromatian culture. 1–9 Ceramics guan-jars, 10–13 bronze fu-cauldrons

then spread among the regions in the Sauromatian culture. At the beginning of the 4th century B.C., they had become typical artifacts of the Sauromatian culture. Ceramic jars with tubular spouts are quite distinctive in the Sauromatian culture (Fig. 5.8: 5–8). Some casting bronze fu cauldrons with two symmetrical protruding handles along the mouth rim and a hollow stem foot (Fig. 5.8: 10–13) were found in some tombs and unearthed artifacts. The bronze fu cauldrons always had animal bones in them, usually sheep bones followed by horse bones and a few cattle bones. Bronze weapons, mainly short swords, bows, and arrows, appear most often among the burial goods, reflecting the frequency of warfare. Short swords play a more significant role and appear in a larger number in the Sauromatian culture than in the Scythian culture. In the early period, the blade is relatively long (up to 130 cm), and the pommel is in the shape of the Chinese character “一” or an antenna. Some have an openwork hilt embellished with zoomorphic motifs. The guards are usually in the shape of butterfly wings or hearts, which are typologically similar to those prevalent in the Minusinsk Basin, the Central Asian steppe, and the Northern Zone of China. The iron swords found in this culture mainly have bronze

290

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.9 Chronology of swords of the Sauromatian culture

hilts. Some scholars have conducted systematic research on these swords (Fig. 5.9).1 Bows and arrows were the major weapons of the Sauromatian culture as well. Although few bows have been found in the tombs, the number of arrowheads is quite large, with more than 300 arrowheads found in one tomb. Most of the arrowheads are made of bronze with a small amount of bone and iron. The shape of the arrowheads varies but always includes sockets. Various shapes of arrowheads have been found in the same tomb, indicating various applications. In the early

The figure referring to Sulimirski (1970).

1

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

291

period (from the 7th century to the 6th century B.C.), many arrowheads were two-bladed, while the number of three-bladed socket arrowheads later increased. In the 5th century B.C., a new type of iron arrowhead, called the three-bladed tanged arrowhead, became quite prevalent among the cultures. This type of arrowhead was obviously derived from Central Asia because typologically similar arrowheads were prevalent in Central Asia much earlier (Fig. 5.10). In addition to bows, arrows, and weapons, the burial goods consist of iron knives and a small number of spears and battle-axes. Iron knives are quite prevalent in the tombs of the Sauromatian culture (Fig. 5.11: 7), but most of them were severely decayed. Some of the knives may have been equipped with bone hilts. Iron spear heads, most of which are cast, are quite small in number among all the weapons (Fig. 5.11: 1–5). A small number of bronze battle-axes and warriors’ helmets were from the tombs (Fig. 5.11: 8). The blades of the axes are quite narrow, with hammer-shaped tails (Fig. 5.11: 9, 10). These artifacts have great similarities with those in the Tagar culture that flourished in South Siberia. Horse harnesses were quite important to the people in the Sauromatian culture because they were indispensable for nomadic life and warfare. Thus, horse harnesses are the main burial goods found in some tombs. They consist of snaffle bits,

Fig. 5.10 Sauromatian and early Sauromatian arrowheads. a 7th Century B.C.; b 6th Century B. C.; c 6th–5th Century B.C.

292

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.11 Other weapons of the Sauromatian culture

Fig. 5.12 The harnesses of the Sauromatian culture. a Snaffle bits and cheekpieces; b horse ornaments

cheekpieces, and some small horse ornaments (Fig. 5.12). In the early period, the snaffle bits and cheekpieces unearthed from the tombs were mainly made of bronze or bone (Fig. 5.12: 3–9). The cheekpieces usually had three rings on them. In the late 6th century B.C., some newly designed iron snaffle bits (Fig. 5.12: 1, 2) and two-ring cheekpieces (Fig. 5.12: 10–12) began to appear. Some of the tails of the cheekpieces are in the shape of the heads of horses or griffins (Fig. 5.12: 6, 7, 11, 12). Small horse ornaments appear quite often, most of which are embellished with zoomorphic motifs (Fig. 5.12b). The tombs are rich in ornaments such as bracelets, accessories, earrings, small plaques and amulets made of either bronze or gold (Fig. 5.13a). There are also ornaments with zoomorphic motifs beautifully carved from wild boar teeth and animal bones (Fig. 5.13b, c). Bronze mirrors are also very common in the tombs of the rich (Fig. 5.14: 1–8). These mirrors usually have a long handle, sometimes even

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

293

Fig. 5.13 Art of zoomorphic motifs

Fig. 5.14 Bronze mirrors and cultic or toilet articles (spoon-shaped artifacts)

a long handle cast into an animal shape (Fig. 5.14: 1, 7). In addition, a large number of spoon-shaped artifacts have been found in the tombs. These are decorated with animal patterns (Fig. 5.14: 9–15). Although the zoomorphic motifs of the Sauro-Sarmatian culture are not as developed as those of the Scythian culture, they are also common in aristocrat tombs, among which the Philippovka cemetery is one of the most famous. The

294

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.15 Zoomorphic motifs from the Philippovka cemetery. 18 is from M3; the rest are from M1 (1, 2, 29 are made of gold and wood, 14, 18, 23 are made of bronze, 30 is made of silver, the rest are made of gold)

cemetery is situated at the confluence of the Ural and Ilek rivers, approximately 100 km west of Orenburg, South Ural, Russia. The entire cemetery consists of 25 tombs in the mound, dated from the end of the 5th century B.C. to the beginning of the 4th century B.C. The cemetery was discovered in the 1950s, and 17 tombs were excavated from 1986–1990. Although some of the burials were stolen, the remains are still very rich, and the artifacts with zoomorphic motifs are striking (Fig. 5.15) (Aruz et al. 2000). Among these beautiful animal patterns, deer are the most important animal theme. Many of the unearthed artifacts are decorated with deer, either standing (Fig. 5.15: 3, 5, 6) or crouching (Fig. 5.15: 4). The most distinctive feature is the head and antlers of the deer. Twenty-six artifacts were unearthed from M1 with images of standing bucks. They were made of wood and wrapped in gold or silver foil. The entire deer was severely misproportioned, with the ears and antlers extremely lengthened and the legs shortened and thickened (Fig. 5.15: 1, 2).

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

295

In addition to deer, ibex, griffins, wolves and camels are important theme animals. Unearthed in M1 were twenty identical ibex-shaped plaques with limbs folded, heads raised, and whorl patterns on the ibex’s body and feet (Fig. 5.15: 8). Also unearthed there was an ornament in the shape of two rams facing each other forged into one, which is believed to be of the cultural style of the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia (Fig. 5.15: 7). There are also gold and silver vessels in the Achaemenid style decorated mostly with ram figures (Fig. 5.15: 30, 31). In addition, griffin-shaped objects are numerous, but most of them are ornaments in the shape of a griffin head (Fig. 5.15: 9–11), and some gold ornaments are inlaid with gems (Fig. 5.15: 12, 13). In addition to ornaments in the shape of a single griffin ornaments were unearthed from the shape of mythical animals, a combination of a griffin and a camel or other animal (Fig. 5.15: 14, 23). Wolves and camels are the other two theme animals that appear frequently, especially wolves, either in standing images (Fig. 5.15: 15, 16) or only the wolf head as the decoration (Fig. 5.15: 17, 18). The camel images are all images of double-humped camels of Central Asia (Fig. 5.15: 21–23). In addition, some gold plaques were discovered in the cemetery in the patterns of feline animals, such as lions (Fig. 5.15: 19) and leopards (Fig. 5.15: 20) as well as a gold and wooden vessel depicting a bear (Fig. 5.15: 29). In addition to these single-animal-shaped ornaments, some ornaments with the theme of animal fights and mythical animals in different animal combinations have been unearthed at the Philippovka cemetery. Some depict feline animals biting deer heads (Fig. 5.15: 26), wolves holding birds’ heads in their mouths (Fig. 5.15: 27) or feline animals biting deer (Fig. 5.15: 24) as well as mythical animals, including animal combinations of a camel body and a bear head or of a griffin head fighting each other (Fig. 5.15: 23, 25). A hat-shaped gold ornament unearthed from the cemetery depicts a scene of a camel following another camel with a wolf and a bird in between (Fig. 5.15: 22). A few artifacts from the Philippovka cemetery depict scenes with both human beings and animals, and there is only one exception: a piece of gold ornament in a wooden vessel from M1. Its overall design is a horse-riding scene. The horse, with a long tail, is decorated on the body with S-shaped spirals, which also appear on the background (Fig. 5.15: 28). The knight, who has short and straight hair, a pair of saw-toothed patterned trousers and a waistband coat and who is carrying another bow on his back, is drawing the bow. Through this design, the craftsman may have intended to show the image of a Sauromatian warrior at war or of a hunter hunting (Aruz et al. 2000). The Sauromatian culture can be dated to the period from the beginning of the 6th century B.C. to the 4th century B.C. because after the 4th century B.C., it was incorporated into the early Sarmatian culture. This division of age, established as early as the middle of the 12th century (Grakov 1947) and later accepted by most scholars, was based on systematic analysis and study of its cultural remains. However, there is still a lack of systematic research on the stages of the culture. The economy of the Sauromatian culture, similar to that of the Scythian culture, was based on nomadism, which has been clearly documented in the literature

296

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

(Herodotus 1999a). This is also evident in archaeological discoveries because there were few settlements in the distribution area and few agricultural tools. Instead, a large number of ibexes and horse sacrifices, tools, weapons, harnesses and ornaments decorated with animal patterns, and daggers and arrowheads were unearthed from the tombs. All of these illustrate that the Sauromatian culture had entered the nomadic era. The differences between men and women of the Sauromatian tribe are not distinctively demonstrated by the artifacts in the tombs. According to Herodotus, in the tribe, women dressed, rode horses, hunted and fought like men, they were not allowed to marry before killing an enemy (Herodotus 1999a). According to archaeological findings, although weapons were mainly from the tombs of men, the proportion of tombs of women with weapons was more than 20%, and horse bones as sacrifices were found in tombs of both men and women. The Greek Hippocrates (460 B.C.–370 B.C.) believed that the Sauromatian women were not only soldiers but priests. Moreover, it is quite possible that the stone discs or plates (Fig. 5.16) (Sulimirski 1970) with three or four legs and carved with animal patterns that were unearthed from some tombs of women of this period were tools for ritual ceremonies. These were the main artifacts discovered in Samara-Ural-type tombs. This seems to indicate through both documentary and archaeological evidence that the status of women in the Sauromatian culture was different from that in other cultures. It has long been speculated that the Andronovo culture and the Timber Grave culture merged into a transitional culture, which later developed into the Sauromatian culture. Because the tomb type of the lower Volga River was mainly

Fig. 5.16 Ritual artifacts from the Sauromatian cemetery

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

297

Fig. 5.17 Artifacts of transitional period from the Don-Volga River region. 1–8 Vessels; 9, 10 horse cheekpieces; 11 horse snaffles; 12 arrowheads; 13 knives; 14 harnesses (1–8 are ceramics, 9– 11, 13 are made if bronze, the rest are made of bone)

influenced by the Timber Grave culture, the Samara-Ural type reflects the influence of the Andronovo culture (Sulimirski 1970, pp. 39–53). Most of the remains of the transitional culture can be dated to the 8th–7th century B.C. and were mostly found in the Don-Volga region, with only a few in the South Ural region. Most of the tombs of this period are catacomb tombs with flexed skeleton. The tombs in the Ural were similar in form to those of the Andronovo culture. Most grave goods (Fig. 5.17) continued to be prevalent in the Sauromatian culture. There are significant differences between the lower Volga type and the Samara-Ural type, not only in the burial customs but also in human bones. The bone data show that there were two main types of Sauromatian: the Europoid Andronovo type in the Kazakh steppe and the Mediterranean type in the Volga River valley. Not until the 5th century B.C. did the Pamir-Ferghana type (Sulimirski 1970, pp. 39–53) appear in the Central Asian steppes. Therefore, in recent years, some scholars have suggested that these two types should belong to different cultures (Moshkova 1995). However, the similarities and differences between these two types remain for further discussion. In the course of its development, the Sauromatian culture was constantly influenced by both eastern and western factors particularly the eastern one. This influence was likely to be achieved through population migration, as evidenced by the presence of Pamir-Ferghana-type humans in the cultural distribution. Due to the increase in mobility, the migration of the people was extensive, and large-scale migration of the people was consistent among cultures. In the 4th century B.C., the Sauromatian culture was integrated into the early Sarmatian culture. From a cultural perspective, this cultural transformation was accomplished through people’s migrations rather than an instantaneous military conquest.

298

5.1.3

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

The Saka Culture

In the first millennium B.C., the early Iron Age, there were many nomadic tribes living in the Central Asian steppe east of the Caspian Sea. These early nomadic tribes were the Cypriots, as documented in the book of the Han dynasty. In fact, there were great differences in the cultural outlook of different regions in this area. In this book, we call these cultures the Saka culture. Unlike the Scythians near the northern Black Sea, the ancient literature lacks detailed records of these early nomads near the eastern Caspian Sea. Much of the information is scattered, and its credibility is greatly weakened. The current research on the Saka culture mainly comes from archaeological excavations. Since the late 1920s, Soviet scholar M. P. Gryaznov and others have conducted a large-scale archaeological excavation in the eastern Caspian Sea steppe area. After decades of effort, abundant archaeological data have been accumulated. Most of these data come from the excavation of cemeteries, which were scattered throughout the Central Asian steppes (Yablonsky 1995). However, due to the vast geographical distribution, each region has specific characteristics. These differences are mainly reflected in funeral customs, grave goods and the characteristics of ethnic groups. According to recent discoveries, the entire area can be divided into the regions of central Kazakhstan, eastern Kazakhstan, Semirechye in the Tianshan area, and Ferghana Valley and the Pamir Mountains. Because of the long span of the Saka culture, the absolute date of its boom period was between 750 B.C. and 100 A.D. (Hall 1997), and the late Saka culture extended into the Han period.2

5.1.3.1

Central Kazakhstan

In this area, many small rivers provide adequate water for livestock breeding. Kadrybayaev, a Soviet scholar, conducted a systematic study of the early Saka cultural remains in this area in 1966 and called them the Tasmola sites (Yablonsky 1995), later known as the Tasmola culture. It is believed that the culture can be dated to the period from the 7th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C. The cemeteries of this period usually consist of 10–15 earth kurgans with a diameter not exceeding 10 m and a height of 0.2–1 m. In addition to the common earth tombs, almost every cemetery has a special form of a tomb, the famous kurgans “with mustaches” (Fig. 5.18). Some of the kurgans “with mustaches”3 have a large burial mound 2

The number of remains found varies widely from place to place, and the date span of the remains is also inconsistent. Therefore, the lower limit of the ages in some of the areas discussed in this article will be even later, even including the remains of some Wusun periods. 3 The “mustaches tomb” is a term in Russian archaeology. The stones outside the tomb are arranged in the shape of a goat’s mustach. In 1927, Soviet archaeologists first discovered the “mustaches tomb” in Karaganda, Kazakhstan. Later, such remains continued to be discovered in the Central Asian Kazakhstan region. In recent years, several tombs of similar type have been discovered in Xinjiang, China.

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

299

Fig. 5.18 Tasmola Kurgans “with mustaches” (“Beard Tomb” of the Tasmola culture)

(Fig. 5.18: 2), and others consist of two small kurgans (Fig. 5.18: 1). Underneath the kurgan, there are Pit graves and/or catacomb tombs. The bodies are buried separately in the extended supine position orientated to the west (Fig. 5.19). Sacrifices are usually placed near the feet of the body (Fig. 5.19: 4). Some tombs of women are surrounded by stone plates (Fig. 5.19: 3). According to the characteristics of the grave objects, the Saka culture can be divided into two periods, the early and the late periods, from the 7th century B.C. to the 6th century B.C. and from the 5th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C., respectively. The pottery buried in the Tasmola tombs are all hand-made jars (Fig. 5.20) with a flat bottom and a wide flared mouth. They are rough in quality and have few changes in shape from the early to the late type. These ceramics are extremely brittle and fragile and are unadaptable to the movement of nomadic life. Therefore, some scholars believe that these ceramics were specially made for burial rather than for use (Вишневская 1992, таблица 35, 1). In addition to pottery, stone vessels were found in women’s tombs of Tasmola in both the early and the late stages (Fig. 5.21: 1–9). They are elliptical and even, with four small feet at the bottom (Fig. 5.21: 3) on the vessels of the early period. The vessel is generally considered a “cultic altar” that was popular in Sauromatian women’s tombs on the northern coast of the Caspian Sea and is a common type of

300

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.19 Tasmola common burials (burials of the Tasmola culture)

bronze cultic altar, most likely influenced by its Sauromatian (Shao 2008) counterpart in the Saka culture. In addition to the vessels, the burial goods include tools, weapons, harnesses and ornaments. Few daggers were found in the tombs other than a bronze sword of the early period with the hilt decorated with elaborate patterns (Fig. 5.21: 10) and daggers of the late period made of either copper or iron with a plain hilt, a horn-shaped pommel and an inverted heart-shaped guard (Fig. 5.21: 18, 19). The most common weapons in the tombs are arrowheads, made of bronze in the early stage and iron and bone in the late stage. With regard to the various types of arrowheads, the differences are obvious between the early and late ones. In the early stage, the majority are tanged three-bladed arrowheads and trilobed arrowheads (Fig. 5.21: 11b, 11c), a few two-bladed ones with socketed tangs and a bronze one with barbs (Fig. 5.21: 11a). In the late stage, arrowheads with both socketed tangs and solid tangs were popular, mostly three-bladed rather than two-bladed for the former type (Fig. 5.21: 20a) and three-bladed and trilobed made of bronze, iron or bone for the latter type (Fig. 5.21: 20b, 20c, 20d). Bows were also buried in the tombs, but they were often difficult to preserve due to their. Fewer types of tools, mainly knives, bone tubes and whetstones, appear in these tombs. The knives are simple in shape, with no obvious boundary between the hilt and the blade (Fig. 5.21: 12–14, 21–23). The head of the hilt is usually circular (Fig. 5.21: 12, 13, 21, 22). In the early stage, the knives were made of bronze; in the

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

301

Fig. 5.20 Ceramics from the tombs of the Tasmola culture

late stage, they were made of iron (Fig. 5.21: 21, 22). Moreover, the knives of the late stage carry a larger ring on the pommel. Another important tool of the Tasmola culture was whetstones in large quantities (Fig. 5.21: 17, 24), perforated at one end and often coexisting with other bronze tools and weapons in tombs. In addition, bone daggers and bone tubes (Fig. 5.21: 15, 16), most likely tubes for needles, were also found in the early tombs. The number of harnesses varies greatly between the early and late stages. From the 7th century B.C. to the 5th century B.C., the harnesses of the Tasmola culture were well developed. The unearthed harnesses include not only snaffle bits and cheekpieces but also a large number of strap guides among other horse ornaments (Fig. 5.21: 25–33). The snaffle bits are diverse in shape. For the outer ring of the snaffle bits, the shapes range from square, rounded, and triangular to circular and

302

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.21 Other artifacts of the Tasmola culture

stirrup-shaped (Fig. 5.21: 25–29). The cheekpieces are made of bronze, bone or horn (Fig. 5.21: 30). A complete set of harnesses (Fig. 5.21: 31) was unearthed from Mound No. 19 in Tasmola cemetery I. The owner of this set of well-developed harnesses was a woman. The matching bronze snaffle bits were inserted into the middle hole of bronze cheekpieces, while the bone cheekpieces were inserted into the outer ring of the snaffle bits. In contrast, few harnesses from the 5th century B. C. to the 3rd century B.C. were found. The girth buckles are similar in shape to those of the eastern regions, such as Tuva and Altai, the Mongolian Plateau and the Northern Zone of China (Figs. 5.49: 18, 5.53: 15, 5.60: 9, 5.68: 5 and 5.69: 7), reflecting their connection with the eastern region. In addition to the artifacts mentioned above, bronze mirrors and belt ornaments were unearthed from the tombs (Fig. 5.21: 35, 36). The bronze mirrors were all unearthed from women’s tombs. The early bronze mirrors are circular with no handle but with a bridge-shaped button (Fig. 5.21: 34) in the middle and raised edges. The late bronze mirrors can be divided into two types: one with a handle and the other with a button. Compared with the early mirrors, the ones with a button have flat edges (Fig. 5.21: 38), and the ones with a handle have short ones. Some of them are simple in shape, with only a small perforation on the short handle (Fig. 5.21: 37). Others are more complicated, with the handle cast into a zoomorphic pattern (Fig. 5.21: 39, 40). Belt ornaments illustrate that the custom of decorating belts was prevalent in this area, similar to the eastern regions, such as Semirechye and the Northern Zone of China (Figs. 5.28: 4, 5.68: 19 and 5.69: 5) but with different attachment methods. The similarity in costumes may reflect the communication and cultural identification between the residents of the two areas. Zoomorphic ornaments are well developed in the Tasmola culture, especially in the early period from the 7th century B.C. to the 5th century B.C. They are either

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

303

three-dimensional or plane. For the former ones, the only pattern is a goat, specifically an ibex (Fig. 5.21: 42), as a kind of staff head that belonged to a horse and chariot accouterment. The plane style reflects more animal species, including birds (Fig. 5.21: 44, 45), elks (Fig. 5.21: 46), bears (Fig. 5.21: 47) and felines (Fig. 5.21: 43), as well as some carved bone images of boars and ibexes (Fig. 5.21: 48). The plane plaque can also be divided into two categories from the perspective of style, the openwork and the relief. Most of the early bronze and bone ornaments are openwork, while forged gold foil feline-patterned ornaments are in relief. In the later period, the zoomorphic style declined, and the three-dimensional zoomorphic pattern disappeared. Some gilded iron zoomorphic ornaments in abstract relief appeared (Fig. 5.21: 49). Generally speaking, the Tasmola culture in central Kazakhstan is a typical nomadic culture with its own characteristics, especially its unique “mustache” tombs, developed weapons, harnesses and zoomorphic decoration arts, which constituted the important factors in this culture. Pottery was less developed in this culture, with no obvious change between the early and late stages. This finding indicates that the residents here did not attach importance to pottery production. With the coarse material, the inferior craftsmanship, and the poor mobility, the pottery was likely to have been produced as burial goods. Based on the gender of the tomb owners, the status of women at that time was not inferior to that of men. Numerous harnesses and altars from women’s tombs indicate that women played an important role in the production, life and even wars of the Tasmola culture. Viewed from the perspective of pottery, altars, tools and weapons, an inheritance relationship likely existed between the early and the late stage of the Tasmola culture. However, the lack of harnesses and the simplification of zoomorphic decoration in the late phase reflect the declining share of nomadism in the economy of this culture.

5.1.3.2

Eastern Kazakhstan

The early nomadic culture in this area has clear-cut differences from the central region of Kazakhstan in its burial customs. The archaeological sites of the region can be divided into three stages: the early stage from the 8th century B.C. to the 6th century B.C., the middle stage from the 6th century B.C. to the 4th century B.C., and the late stage from the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century B.C. (Боковенко and Заднепровский 1992). In the early stage, many large mounds with diameters of 20–100 m and heights of 8–10 m (Fig. 5.22: 1) appeared. These mounds are piled with many large stones on the surface surrounded by short fences of stones (Fig. 5.22: 3). Some mounds also have entrance corridors that, together with burial chambers, are covered with logs and stones (Fig. 5.22: 2). The burial chambers are surrounded by stone slabs (Fig. 5.22: 4). Single interment was the major method of disposition, with the body in an extended supine position heading westward or northwestward. A small number of double interments with bodies placed on the side with limbs bent were

304

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.22 Artifacts of Eastern Kazakhstan from the 8th Century B.C. to the 1st Century B.C. 1–14 Tombs; 15–23 vessels (15 bronze vessel, 23 wooden vessel, others pottery vessel); 24, 36, 37 bronze swords; 45 Iron sword; 25–29, 38 bronze knives; 46 iron knife; 30–35, 39–44 arrowheads (35, 41–43 are bone arrowheads, others are bronze arrowheads); 47 grindstone; 48, 49, 50 harnesses; 51, 72, 73, 82 bronze mirrors; 52 bronze plate; 53–62, 74–76 zoomorphic ornaments (53, 55 are bronze ornaments, others are gold ornaments); 63–66 pao conchos; 67–69 gold flake ornaments; 70, 71, 80, 83–85 gold pendants; 77, 86, 87 bone artifacts; 78, 79 stone artifacts

also found (Fig. 5.22: 5). The graves in the middle stage basically continued the structure of the early stage (Fig. 5.22: 6–10) but with relatively low mounds, in many of which a batch of sacrificial animals were buried next to the human bones (Fig. 5.22: 6, 7). Although single burial in shaft pit was still the major method of disposition, a small number of burials with side niches and the niche entrance covered with stone slabs (Fig. 5.22: 8) were also found. The burial customs in the late stage were relatively uniform, and the residual heights of the mounds were even lower. All the burial chambers were surrounded by slate. The deceased was supine and the head was oriented to the west or northwest, was still prevalent. Generally, a piece of pottery was placed above the head of the deceased (Fig. 5.22: 11–14). Unlike the first two stages, tombs with double burial chambers appeared during this stage (Fig. 5.22: 14). Among the burial goods in eastern Kazakhstan, ceramic vessels are rare, especially in the early stage, but a small number of bronze fu cauldrons were discovered as vessels (Fig. 5.22: 15). It is difficult to determine whether these bronze fu cauldrons were ritual artifacts or for everyday use. The pottery in the middle and late stages was relatively well developed. In the middle stage, pottery fu cauldrons imitating bronze fu cauldrons appeared (Fig. 5.22: 18). The pottery in the late stage was the most developed (Fig. 5.22: 19–23). Popular pottery included pots without handles, among which some pots had an appliqué pattern around the neck (Fig. 5.22: 20, 22). Ceramic pots imitating leather bags were also found (Fig. 5.22: 21).

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

305

The weapon assemblages in the tombs are mainly composed of short swords and arrowheads. Short swords dated from the early to the late stages were found. Most swords from the early stages have a mushroom-shaped hilt with a straight sword guard and a long blade (Fig. 5.22: 24). In the middle stage, inverted heart-shaped sword guards and horn-shaped hilts (Fig. 5.22: 36, 37) appeared. The basic structure of the short swords from the late stage was similar to that of the middle stage, but they were made of iron instead of bronze (Fig. 5.22: 45). The arrowheads can be divided into two categories, bone and bronze. In the early stage, the bronze arrowheads were socketed, leaf-shaped or trilobed and mostly bilobed (Fig. 5.22: 30–34), while the bone arrowheads were trilobed with a tang (Fig. 5.22: 35). In the middle stage, the bronze arrowheads changed to three-bladed with a solid tang (Fig. 5.22: 39, 40, 44), and the bone arrowheads were well developed into two categories of socketed arrowheads and solid-tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.22: 41–43). In the late stage, the bronze arrowheads nearly disappeared because the material may have changed, which made it difficult to preserve. The implements were mainly knives, which were made of bronze in the early and middle stages and of iron in the later stage. Among them, bronze knives were most developed in the early stage. Generally, the knives were curved with a hole in the hilt (Fig. 5.22: 25–27). A knife with a zoomorphic pommel was also discovered (Fig. 5.22: 29). In the middle stage, the bronze knife showed no boundary between the handle and the blade (Fig. 5.22: 38), and compared with that in the early stage, the ring-shaped pommel in the middle and late stages was larger. In addition, grindstones were found in tombs in the late stage. Horse harnesses dated to the early nomadic cultures in eastern Kazakhstan were often unearthed from sets of a snaffle bit and cheekpiece, buckles and strap guides (Fig. 5.22: 48–50). In the early stage, the three-holed cheekpiece and snaffle bits with stirrup ends were widespread. When connecting with each other, the cheekpiece could go through the end ring of the snaffle bit, or the snaffle bit could go through the hole of the cheekpiece. In the late stage, the horse harness trim was relatively simple. The outer ring of the snaffle bit became a large ring, and the material became iron; the cheekpiece changed from three-holed to two-holed, and only ones made of bone could be preserved. The cheekpiece was connected with the snaffle bit in a method that involved putting the cheekpiece through the outer ring of the snaffle bit (Fig. 5.22: 50). In addition to tools, weapons, and harnesses, bronze mirrors were found in tombs of various stages. In the early stage, mirrors are disk-shaped with a high rim and a loop in the center for suspension (Fig. 5.22: 51). From the middle stage, short-handled bronze mirrors appeared, and the high rim changed into low rim (Fig. 5.22: 72, 73, 82). In addition to bronze mirrors, decorations were mostly small clothing accessories and accessories worn by the deceased. Most of these were made of gold, and only a small number of them were made of bronze (Fig. 5.22: 63–66). Zoomorphic decorative arts were developed in the early and middle stages of this area, and especially in the early stage, numerous vessels with zoomorphic motifs embossed and hammered from gold foil appeared. The prominent ones are

306

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

curly zoomorphic motifs, mainly feline images with dots representing the limbs (Fig. 5.22: 53–55). In addition to curly zoomorphic motifs, images of fish (Fig. 5.22: 56, 62), deer (Fig. 5.22: 59, 76), birds (Fig. 5.22: 60), wild boars (Fig. 5.22: 57) and some feline animals (Fig. 5.22: 54) were hammered from gold foil. Among them, the posture of the gold deer is crouching in the early period and leaping in the middle period. The number of three-dimensional zoomorphic images is very small. The image of a number of three-dimensional felines appeared only on the bronze plate of a sacrificial vessel (Fig. 5.22: 52). In the middle stage, the art of zoomorphic decoration had already begun to decline and can barely be seen in the late stage. In general, in eastern Kazakhstan from the 8th to the 1st century B.C., nomadic sites dated from the early to the late stages existed. Among those sites, the early ones were most developed, as shown by the tomb scale and burial goods. Both the large scale of the mounds and the tools, the weapons, the horse harnesses and the zoomorphic decoration art styles show the prosperity of the culture in this stage. From the middle stage, the cultural remains of the area changed. Except for pottery, the number of other artifacts was reduced, especially harnesses and zoomorphic decorations. In the late stage, most of the metal ware became ironwork, and zoomorphic decorations almost disappeared. From the above analysis of the changes in the combination of vessels, like central Kazakhstan, the proportion of the nomadic economy gradually decreased in this area. Another feature of this area worth noting is that gold wares were well developed. Many decorations were made of gold, and a large number of zoomorphic decorations were fashioned from gold. It can be concluded that early nomadic people in this area had a special preference for gold. In addition, the extensive discovery of gold wares indicates that gold was relatively easy to obtain.

5.1.3.3

The Semirechye, Fergana and Pamir Regions

The Semirechye, Fergana and Pamir regions are located in the eastern part of Central Asia, bordering China’s Xinjiang, and were an important passage for the ancient Silk Road, which was of great significance in ancient cultural exchanges. The Semirechye Basin ranges from the Balkhash Lake in the north to the Issyk-Kul Lake in the south. The Ili River flows to its north, extending westward from Xinjiang into the Balkhash Lake. The south of the Issyk-Kul Lake borders the Tianshan Mountains in China. The sites of the Semirechye region are divided into three groups (Зaднeпpoвcкий 19924). The northernmost part is the northern bank of the Ili River (Sites 1–3 in the sitemap of Fig. 5.23), with a few sites, followed by the group around the northern half circle of the Issyk-Kul Lake (Sites 4–23). The

4

This book written by a former Soviet Union scholar is very informative and scientific, so that the unearthed unit of each artifact can be found. But such a large amount of data lacks in-depth analysis. Most of the information in this paper comes from this book.

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

307

Fig. 5.23 Map of sites in the Semirechye, Fergana and Pamir regions

last group is located to the south of the Issyk-Kul Lake (Sites 24–43). The number of sites in the latter two groups is relatively larger. The Fergana region is located in the south of Kyrgyzstan, southwest of the Semirechye region. It is close to Kashgar in Xinjiang, China. The sites are mainly distributed in the Naryn River Valley, which is the source of the Syr Darya River, and to the south of the Chilchik River (Sites 32–52). The Pamir region is located in the southeast of the Fergana region, east of Tajikistan, to the south of the Wakhan River, which is the source of the Amu Darya River and is connected to the Pamir Mountains. The number of sites in the Pamir region is small, with a relatively concentrated distribution (Sites 53–61).5 During this period, the archaeological sites found were dominated by tombs, which are introduced and analyzed from two aspects: the tombs’ structure and the burial goods.

5

For the convenience of the readers, the site numbers in the original material are kept.

308

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

The Semirechye Region The structures of the tombs in this area are complex and can be classified into four categories. The first category is kurgans built from the surface. This form of tomb is large in size (Fig. 5.24: 1). The second category is the tombs with rectangular pit, in which wooden coffins or chambers are usually used; the tombs are sometimes covered with stone slabs or wooden poles. In a kurgan, there is usually a single chamber, a few are double-chambered, and there are rarely three-chambered ones (Fig. 5.24: 5–7). The third category is the tomb with stone coffin. At Site 23 in the valley of the south bank of the Issyk-Kul Lake, stone box was built of slate and round stones (Fig. 5.24: 17). The stone coffin is paved with large slabs with a mound at the top. The fourth type is the catacomb tomb, which is sealed by a mound on the ground. One end of the tomb chamber is slightly longer than the entrance, and the entrance is blocked with clods (Fig. 5.24: 10, 11). Burial goods can be categorized into weapons, harnesses, ornaments, and ceramics by function. Weapons are mainly swords, arrowheads, and defensive helmets. Swords are divided into short swords and long swords. The short swords are mainly cast of bronze with a decorative pattern on the hilt (Fig. 5.25: 39). Some swords have a bronze hilt and an iron blade, while some have an incomplete hilt (Fig. 5.25: 40). Long swords have slender blade (Fig. 5.25: 41). Many long knives (Fig. 5.25: 42, 43, 47–50) with a similar function as the long swords were also found.

Fig. 5.24 The form and structure of typical burials

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

309

Arrowheads are divided into two types: the tanged and socketed. Tanged arrowheads are the majority and can be divided into the dominant solid-tanged arrowheads and socketed tanged arrowheads. Moreover, the solid-tanged arrowheads can be further divided into bilobed, three-bladed, trilobed and irregular, among which the three-bladed ones are the majority. The shape of arrowheads can be roughly divided into isosceles-triangled and willow-shaped. All the socketed tanged arrowheads are isosceles-triangled, mainly bilobed with some three-bladed. A small number of arrowheads are socketed, and they are all three-bladed, some with one corner pointing down. In this area, only three-bladed tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.25: 6, 7, 12, 13), socketed tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.25: 25, 26) and socketed arrowheads were found (Fig. 5.25: 30–32). The bronze spears are relatively long and slightly bent (Fig. 5.25: 53). The bronze helmet has a downward-pointing arc tip in the middle of its brim (Fig. 5.25: 55). The harnesses mainly include snaffle bits and cheekpieces. Both ends of the snaffle bits are a single ring (Fig. 5.25: 63–66), and some of them are roughly produced (Fig. 5.25: 66). The cheekpieces are made of bronze and are curved, with patterns in relief. Some have bell decorations on the top (Fig. 5.25: 60, 59). Some cheekpieces are stirrup-shaped (Fig. 5.25: 58), and some snaffle bits and cheekpieces are integrated (Fig. 5.25: 57). Ornaments are mainly garment ornaments and accessories, including buckles, pao conchos, earrings, accessories and bronze mirrors. The buckles are divided into two types: round buckles with a hidden tongue (Fig. 5.26: 5) and rectangular ones

Fig. 5.25 Typical weapons and harnesses. The Semirechye region: 6, 7, 12, 13, 25, 26, 30–32, 39–43, 47–50, 53, 55, 57–60, 63–66; the Fergana region: 2–5, 8–11, 14–17, 19–22, 35, 36, 45, 46, 51, 52, 56; the Pamir region: 1, 18, 23, 27–29, 33, 34, 37, 38, 54, 61, 62

310

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.26 Typical ornaments. The Semirechye region: 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 24–27, 31–33, 37, 38, 47, 48, 52–59, 60, 62–70; the Fergana region: 8–10, 13–19, 22, 23, 28–30, 34–36, 46, 49–51, 61, 71– 75; the Pamir region: 1, 3, 20, 21, 39–45

with a long tongue (Fig. 5.26: 11, 12). Belts (Fig. 5.26: 2, 6, 7), decorative earrings (Fig. 5.26: 4) and a few rings (Fig. 5.26: 37) were also discovered. The upper part of the earrings is a ring, and the lower end is a pendant (Fig. 5.26: 24–26, 31–33, 38). Ornaments can be divided into planar and three-dimensional forms, most of which are animal-shaped pendants, mainly herbivores (Fig. 5.26: 48, 58, 60, 63) such as the bighorn goat (Fig. 5.26: 47), and a small number of human figures (Fig. 5.26: 59), petals (Fig. 5.26: 52–57) or ovals (Fig. 5.26: 62). Bronze mirrors can be classified into knob-handled mirrors (Fig. 5.26: 64), handled mirrors (Fig. 5.26: 65–68) and Han-style mirrors. One Han-style mirror is a mirror with a yunleiwen-spiral pattern within a connected arc pattern in the middle and late Eastern Han period. The other is likely to be a local imitation, but due to the low quality of the imitation, it is impossible to distinguish the pattern (Fig. 5.26: 69, 70). The vessels in the Semirechye area are dominated by ceramics, with a few bronzes and few stone wares. The bronzes include four-legged wares with a square tray, square or round tray with stem, and bronze fu cauldrons. The overall shape of the four-legged wares with a square tray is similar to a desk. Its lower part has four legs, and the upper part is a rectangular tray with horned animals standing around the edge (Fig. 5.27: 3). The square foot of ring-legged wares is high and without

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

311

Fig. 5.27 Bronze and ceramic vessels

fretwork but with a cloud scroll pattern, and the upper part is a square tray with rectangular teeth-shaped decorations (Fig. 5.27: 6). Two round ring-legged wares were also found. One of them has a ring foot with fretwork. Its upper part is a round bowl-shaped tray, in the middle of which are two pipes with holes. Along the edge are eleven three-dimensional round statues of walking snow leopards (Fig. 5.27: 4). Another item also has a ring foot with fretwork but a flat square tray, on the surface of which are three pipes with holes. The sculpture in the round is a beast attacking an herbivorous animal (Fig. 5.27: 5). Earlier Soviet scholars believed that the four-legged wares with a square tray and the ring-legged wares with a square tray were used as altars, while the ring-legged wares with a round tray may have been lampstands. One of the bronze fu cauldrons has a deep belly, a round base, three feet decorated with ibex heads, and ears with three protrusions (Fig. 5.27: 7). A second one, from the hoard of Issyk, has a deep belly, a high-ring foot, and two ears on the side, with a semi-circular convex pattern at the mouth (Fig. 5.27: 8). A third incomplete bronze fu cauldron has a pair of circular ears of vertical holes in profile on the upper part and two other crossing ears of vertical holes on the lower part (Fig. 5.27: 16). One type of square stone vessel has a ring foot (Fig. 5.27: 1), and the other oval type has four feet and is also considered an “altar” (Fig. 5.27: 2). Pottery is all hand-made, including guan jars, pen basins and dou-stemmed bowls. The jars have the largest number of complex styles. They can be distinguished between those with a wide flared mouth and tall body and those with a large mouth and short body, those with a flat base and a concave base, and those with handles or without handles. The handles can be divided into vertical handles, which appear in a large number, and crossing handles, which appear in a small number. The shape of the crossing handles is very similar to that of the bronzes,

312

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.28 Artifacts from the Issyk cemetery

which may be the result of imitation. A small number of vessels with spouts and a small amount of painted pottery belong to the burial goods as well. The famous large-scale cemeteries in this area include the Issyk cemetery (Chang 2006, Fig. 39; Akishev 1978) and Beshatyr cemetery (Sites 7 and 1 in Fig. 5.23). The Issyk cemetery includes approximately 40 ancient tombs. From 1969 to 1970, K. A. Akishev began to lead the excavation here. In one of the tombs, the deceased was wearing a gorgeous costume and carrying weapons laid on a wooden board in an extended supine position oriented west. The costume’s gold ornaments, shoes and headdress were all preserved. Because of the gold costume, headdress and weapons (Fig. 5.28: 1, 2), this tomb is called the tomb of the golden man (Plate 8). Wooden, bronze, and silver cooking vessels were placed in the west and south of the tomb. A silver cup was engraved with 26 alphanumeric characters (Fig. 5.28: 6), which are believed to be the earliest Saka language. The owner of the tomb was a man of combined Europoid and Mongloid features aged between 16 and 18. Most of the unearthed ornaments are gold and silver plaques decorating their pointed caps and costumes. The clothes are decorated with more than 4000 pieces of gold foil and plaques as well as jewelry, which made the interred into gold sculptures. The waist of the clothes is narrowed with a gold buckle and plaques

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

313

(Fig. 5.28: 12, 4). pointed caps are unique and likely to be mingqi (funerary replicas from “real-life” originals). The caps have many gold plaques as decorations: the pegasus has upward curled wings, and backward curved corners form two opposite curly patterns (Fig. 5.28: 11) reminiscent of the Apollo Wheel pulled by four horses in the Vedas collection. The snow leopard leaps upwards and looks back; it has longitudinal stripes and cross-sectional stripes on its body (Fig. 5.28: 3, 13). The saw-toothed peaks and “trees of life” (Fig. 5.28: 2) may represent the landscape at that time. Silver-foil strip ornaments with fretwork in the shape of petals or flames (Fig. 5.28: 5) and crimp gold foil with fretwork (Fig. 5.28: 7, 8) also exist. The edge ornament is special (Fig. 5.28: 9, 10). The number of two-dimensional reliefs in gold and silver foil is greater than the number in bronze, which is different from the prevalent three-dimensional animal-shaped staff heads in the Altai Mountains and the Ordos Plateau and results in gilt ornaments. The ibex and felines in the animal models represent predators and prey, respectively. The excavator Akishev concluded that the tomb was dated to the 5th century B. C., but recent research considers it to be the 3rd–2nd century B.C. (Akishev 1978). This tomb demonstrates an enormous difference between aristocrats and ordinary nomads. It is often said that good nomads are also poor ones because they migrate everywhere. However, many gold, silver, and bronzes were buried in Issyk cemetery in nomadic culture. It is unknown how they accumulated wealth and held such luxurious funerals. The steppe aristocrats strengthened the position of their descendants through grand funerals and influenced the religious consciousness of the people to consolidate the position of the royal clan. In the 8th to 6th centuries B.C., the tombs in this area were mainly pit burial with few weapons but many chariots and horse harnesses in special styles: horse bits with two square ends, bell-headed and bone horn-imitation cheekpieces (Fig. 5.25: 58, 59, 60), and socketed-based finial with a standing mountain goat (Fig. 5.26: 58). Both the bell pommels and the bone-imitation cheekpieces prevailed before the early Iron Age, and three-dimensional zoomorphic finials were found in the Arzhan tomb in the 9th–8th centuries B.C. of the northern steppe. Therefore, the date of these horse harnesses is the earliest in this stage, and they are rarely seen in the Semirechye region and throughout the entire area. If the unearthing sites and the geographical location of these artifacts are closely examined, it can be observed that they were unearthed from two areas, namely, the No. 3 and No. 20 cemeteries. The No. 3 cemetery is located on the north bank of the Ili River in the northernmost part of the area (Fig. 5.29). The No. 20 cemetery is also on the north bank of the Ili River, not far from the No. 3 cemetery (Fig. 5.30). These locations are in the north, and their date is early, suggesting that these characteristics were likely to be transmitted earlier in this period from the more northern steppes. The bronze rings with decorative patterns, which are rarely observed in this area (Figs. 5.26: 4 and 5.30: 3), also come from the No. 20 cemetery and are a feature of the culture from the far north as well. Until the 5th–3rd century B.C., weapons included swords, spears, and arrowheads. The arrowheads included socketed ones without stems, which are rarely seen

314

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.29 The unearthed artifacts at site 3 in the Semirechye region

Fig. 5.30 The unearthed artifacts at site 20 in the Semirechye region

in this area (Fig. 5.25: 30–32) and were unearthed from the same tomb (M25 in No. 1 cemetery) located in the northernmost part of the north bank of the Ili River. They were likely to be imported from a more northern region. The shape of the bronze helmets is similar to those in the Kuban River basin on the east coast of the Black Sea. Various styles of zoomorphic decorations appear, including three-dimensional and two-dimensional ones. The three-dimensional animals are decorations on bronzes and are herbivores. The two-dimensional animals, mainly gold horses, snow leopards, goats, and birds, are sewn on the headdress of the “golden man”. Bronze vessels are well developed. In addition to practical cookers, such as a bronze cauldron, other artifacts, such as bronze altars, were also unearthed. They are mostly decorated with three-dimensional animals. Pottery is mainly flat-bottomed, usually with ears and spouts. The style of crossing ears and spouts was likely the result of imitating the bronzes, which indicates that bronzes were well developed in this period. The “golden man” kurgan is constructed from the ground with a tall mound capped with the stones, representing the latest stage of this period. In the period from the 3rd to the 1st century B.C., few tools and weapons were found. Ornaments are mainly flat plaque ornaments, on which the decorative patterns include not only herbivorous ibex but also many petal-shaped decorations. At

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

315

this time, plaques with frames appeared. Some large plaques have pin holes at four corners for fixing the ornaments. Handled bronze mirrors and various ear pendants were also prevalent. With regard to vessels, in addition to the small number of bronze cauldrons used in the previous stage, pottery held a dominant role. The style of pottery in this stage changed radically to concave-based. The pottery can be divided into four main categories. The first category is jars with a small mouth and round base (Fig. 5.27: 17). The painted-pottery pattern is scrawled, similar to that of the painted pottery of Ulaangom. The second category is jars with an inward mouth and a round base, with or without ears (Fig. 5.27: 18, 19), similar to their counterpart in Xinjiang. The third category is jars with a large mouth and a long belly, with or without ears (Fig. 5.27: 20, 21), which are commonly seen in Xinjiang. The last category is jars with a large mouth and a round base, with or without ears (Fig. 5.27: 22–26). Similar artifacts can be found in Xinjiang. Among all the round-based jars, the third and fourth categories take the dominant position and can be found in Xingjiang. In the 1st to 5th centuries A.D., great changes occurred in the burial style, and the catacomb tomb became the dominant style. The main weapons were bows and arrowheads and newly emerged solid-tanged willow-leaf-shaped arrowheads. Few ornaments appeared, mainly rectangular buckles. Half-moon ear pendants were popular. The pottery at this time experienced another major change, becoming flat-based (Fig. 5.27: 29–32). The pottery is in a simple shape, with a wide flared mouth, a bulging belly and a flat base, with or without ears, and is similar to its counterparts of Fergana. Pottery can reflect the cultural outlook of ordinary residents. Several major changes in pottery in this area reflect the major cultural changes experienced here. The style of pottery in the 5th–3rd centuries B.C. resembled that of the bronzes of the steppes, reflecting the fact that the area basically synchronized with the steppes in culture. The pottery in the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. is similar to that in Xinjiang of China, reflecting the cultural influence of Xinjiang in this area. The pottery in the 1st to 5th century A.D. shows that the culture of this region was influenced by Fergana.

The Fergana Area Three types of tombs exist in this area. The first is the kurgan built from ground base, which is larger in scale and generally 30–40 meters in diameter (Fig. 5.24: 2–4). The second type of tomb is the earthen grave pit. The burial was sealed with piled stones, and almost all the tomb pits underneath (2 m deep) were covered with wooden panels. Usually, the interred (Fig. 5.24: 8) was placed in a supine position orented westward. Moreover, weapons can be found in males’ tombs. The third type is the catacomb tomb, which was prevalent in the Fergana area. The catacomb tombs are sealed by a mound on the ground. One end of the tomb chamber is slightly longer than the entrance, and the entrance is blocked with clods. Most of these chamber tombs can be classified into the subsidiary chamber category

316

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

and were constructed by digging a rectangular vertical chamber, then leaving a sterile subsoil second-tier ledge on one side and digging down on the opposite side into a shallow arc-top half-chamber. Most of these chamber tombs had round stone piles or stone rings and other facilities on the ground (Fig. 5.24: 12–16). The burial goods in tombs mainly consist of weapons, harnesses, ornaments and vessels. Weapons are mainly daggers and bronze arrowheads. One of the bronze swords carries a mushroom-shaped pommel and a heart-shaped guard (Fig. 5.25: 35). Another carries a flat pommel and a straight guard (Fig. 5.25: 36), while the rest are all iron swords with a slender blade (Fig. 5.25: 44–46). Complete sets of bows and arrows were also found in large-scale males’ tombs (Fig. 5.25: 56). The unearthed arrowheads are mainly three-bladed tanged arrowheads (some with three larger wings (Fig. 5.25: 2–5) and some with three smaller wings (Fig. 5.25: 8–11, 14–17), trilobed tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.25: 19), and irregular tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.25: 20–22). A broken tubular socketed battle-ax was also found (Fig. 5.26: 52). However, harnesses have rarely been found in this area. Pao conchos were discovered in great numbers in the tombs of this area. On their surface, many bear decorative patterns (Fig. 5.26: 14–19). The buckles are rectangular with a larger tongue (Fig. 5.26: 8–10, 13). The earrings carry either single or double hanging pendants (Fig. 5.26: 22, 23, 34, 35, 36) and, at times, even a half-moon-shaped pendant (Fig. 5.26: 29, 30). Few rings have been found, with only one exception (Fig. 5.26: 28). The three-dimensional ornaments are either figurines of human beings or images of herbivores (Fig. 5.26: 49, 50). There are few plaques, only a tiger-shaped one (Fig. 5.26: 51) and a bird-shaped one (Fig. 5.26: 46). Many Han-style mirrors and local imitations have been unearthed from this area. Among them, the earliest (Fig. 5.26: 73) are the imitations of the zhaoming brightness mirror or the daylight mirror of the late period of Emperor Wu and the period of Emperor Wang Mang. They are similar in design with decorative patterns on the mirror face but no inscriptions. Another one, also an imitation of the Han-style mirror, with unclear patterns and folding angles on each edge, is a typical style of mirrors of the steppes and embodies the fusion of the Han-style mirrors and the steppe bronze mirrors (Fig. 5.26: 74). The bronze mirrors of the period from Emperor Wu to the early Eastern Han period were modeled after the four-breasted and four-snaked pattern mirror or the four-breasted zoomorphic pattern mirror of the late Western Han period, adopting the four-snake design of the former and the edge patterns of the latter (Fig. 5.26: 71). Another may be a poor imitation of a Han-style mirror that was presumably contemporary with the former (Fig. 5.26: 72). The bronze mirrors of the period from Emperor Wang Mang to the early Eastern Han period are TLV mirrors with bird and animal patterns, which seem to be imported directly from China (Fig. 5.26: 75) based on the pattern. These bronze mirrors show that the date of these artifacts goes far beyond our study, but they are evidence of cultural exchanges along the Silk Road. Pottery was well developed in Fergana. Based on its shape and decoration, the pottery can be divided into two categories. Class A is handleless pottery, the upper abdomen of which is decorated with carved parallel triangle patterns (Fig. 5.27: 43–

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

317

45, 50–59). Class B includes mainly larger plain pottery with decorative ears and a few pieces of simply painted pottery (Fig. 5.27: 46–48, 60–67). Generally speaking, during the 8th–3rd centuries B.C., swords in this area were all daggers with a longer hilt and a shorter body, plain but poor in craftmanship. With regard to arrowheads, only solid three-bladed tanged ones were unearthed. The decorations are mainly bronze pao conchae as well as a few plaques with human figures, carnivorous animals and birds (Fig. 5.26: 46). Pottery was prevalent and can be divided into two traditions: handless pottery with geometric patterns and tall plain pottery with handles. A contracted mouth and a concave base are the features of the early painted pottery. During the 3rd century B.C. to the 5th century A.D., long iron swords were prevalent. Arrowheads were still solid ones with stems, but they had three dwindled blades compared with the previous ones and included willow leaf-shaped arrowheads. The lethality of the early larger three-bladed arrowheads was due to their ability to cause a larger wound surface, while the smaller three-bladed and willow leaf-shaped ones had stronger penetration. The ornaments have the design of three-dimensional ibex or other herbivores and human figures. Half-moon-shaped pendants, including Han mirrors from China, were popular. The two traditions of pottery remained, with the latter tradition changing from having a concave base to a small flat one and then a large flat one, while their ears and spouts remained unchanged.

5.1.3.4

The Pamir Area

The number of tombs found in this area is small. Only the burial style of vertical pit-graves can be identified. The bottom and the sides of the tomb pits are padded with stones, and the upper part of the tombs are filled with stones as well. On the ground surface of the tombs is a square space padded with rubble and surrounded by larger stones (Fig. 5.24: 9). The main grave goods are weapons, horse harnesses, ornaments, and ceramics. Weapons include swords, arrowheads, and crane-mouthed axes. The swords are all daggers, some with decorations on the pommel, the hilt or the guard (Fig. 5.25: 3, 34), while others have no decorations at all (Fig. 5.25: 37, 38). Arrowheads all have a stem, mostly with a trilobed profile (Fig. 5.25: 18). Some tanged arrowheads are socketed with an isosceles triangle profile (Fig. 5.25: 23, 24) or a willow-leaf-shaped profile (Fig. 5.25: 27–29). The crane-mouthed axes have a short socket and a mushroom-shaped pommel (Fig. 5.25: 54). The number of harnesses is relatively small. Judging from their remaining parts, they may be an integrated form of snaffle bit and cheekpiece (Fig. 5.25: 61, 62). The ornaments are mainly plaques, all with zoomorphic patterns. Some ornaments have a ring-shaped button on the back (Fig. 5.26: 39–41), and some have a fastener-shaped back button (Fig. 5.26: 42–45). One is a flower-shaped accessory (Fig. 5.26: 3), and one is a shorter-tongue ring-shaped buckle (Fig. 5.26: 1). Oblong and round dragonfly-eye-shaped ornaments (Fig. 5.26: 20, 21) are also found.

318

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

The proportion of bronzes in vessels in this area is relatively large. Bronzes with two crossing ears of vertical holes, a small mouth, a spherical belly, and a concave base are prevalent. Among them is a bronze with multiple ears, both horizontal and vertical ones (Fig. 5.27: 34, 36), and another bronze with a zoomorphic decorative sculpture in the round in addition to two crossing ears of vertical holes (Fig. 5.27: 35). A bronze cup (Fig. 5.27: 37) was also found here. The overall features of the pottery in this area are similar to those of its bronzes, with a small mouth, a spherical abdomen, and a round base (Fig. 5.27: 38–41). A wooden basin with a thick bottom (Fig. 5.27: 42) was also found here. During the 8th–6th century B.C., most of the swords had patterns at the pommel, the hilt or the guard, most of the arrowheads were in the shape of an isosceles triangle, and the zoomorphic plaques had a ring-shaped button. By the 5th–3th century B.C., the daggers were plain. In addition to arrowheads in shape of an isosceles triangle, arrowheads in the shape of a broad willow leaf appeared. The zoomorphic plaques of this area had a fastener-shaped back button. Most of the vessels found in this area belong to this period. Bronzes are well developed, mostly with crossing ears of vertical holes and decorations with the shape of animal heads. The style of pottery is similar to that of bronzes, with a round base and a round belly. From the above analysis and comparison of the three regions of Semirechye, Fergana, and Pamir, the culture can be divided into two periods: the early and late periods. The early period can be further divided into two stages, the early stage from the 8th to the 6th century B.C. and the late stage from the 5th to the 3rd century B.C. The late period can be divided into two stages as well, the early stage from the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. and the late stage from the 1st to the 5th century A.D.6 However, the beginning and end of the stages are different in different regions. The earliest can be dated to the 8th to 6th century B.C., mainly in Semirechye in the north and the Pamir in the south, while the north was still under the influence of the more northern steppes. The late stage of the Fergana region was most developed and was influenced more by agricultural civilization factors. Overall, the cultural characteristics of different regions underwent great changes in the 3rd century B.C. With regard to tombs, chamber tombs appeared. With regard to weapons, socketed arrowheads and bilobed arrowheads disappeared, and small-bladed ones and willow leaf-shaped ones became the major categories of tanged arrowheads. Daggers were replaced by swords and long knives, and horse harnesses almost disappeared. With regard to ornaments, plane decorations dominated, and pao conchos and three-dimensional zoomorphic ornaments are rarely found. With regard to vessels, the number of bronzes decreased, and pottery underwent great changes. These findings indicate that great changes had taken place in the steppes. At that time on the steppes, a Xiongnu Confederation appeared in the east, and a Sarmatian alliance appeared in the west. Both were among the earliest

6

Most of the late phase go beyond the scope of this book, but to illustrate the overall changes in the region, a brief introduction of the cultural features of this period is given.

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

319

forms of states on the steppes. Along with the establishment of the two states came changes in the material culture.

5.1.4

The Tagar Culture

The Tagar culture is a famous early Iron Age culture in Southern Siberia whose sites were discovered early. However, due to its obvious architecture on the surface, the exquisite bronzes in the tombs were stolen, and most of the tombs were severely damaged. The Soviet scholar C.A. Teploukhov first summarized and studied the remains and classified them in the 1920s as “Minusinsk Basin Culture”. C. B. Kiselyov later named the culture the Tagar culture based on his excavation of the massive tombs on the island of Tagar. The number of remains of the Tagar culture is huge, and they are concentrated in the Minusinsk Basin in the middle reaches of the Yenisei River in Russia, including parts of southern Krasnoyarsk, Kemerovo, and Tomsk (Fig. 5.31). Sites of the Tagar culture have been found in a small number. Among them is one discovered in the southwest of Ustiyerba village, a circular dwelling area with a diameter of approximately 200 m surrounded by earth walls, with the door set in the south and trenches inside the walls. However, no other traces of houses have ever been found. Therefore, it may have been a wartime refuge (Editorial Board of Archaeology of Encyclopedia of China 1986). Burial sites are the main source of the Tagar culture, and cemeteries are densely distributed throughout the southern part of Krasnoyarsk. Usually, these tombs take the form of an earth mound high above the surface surrounded by stone walls, with stelae marking the corners or the center of each of the four walls. Each cemetery consists of dozens or even hundreds of tombs. Many scholars have conducted periodization on the sites of the Tagar cemetery. Among them, two are the most influential. The first viewpoint was proposed by Kiselyov, who believed that the Tagar culture came into being in the 7th century B.C. and can be divided into three stages: the first stage from the 7th century B.C. to the 5th century B.C., the second stage from the 5th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C., and the third stage from the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century B.C. (Киселёв 1981, pp. 90–143). The second perspective was proposed by M. P. Gryaznov, a Soviet scholar who named each stage after its typical cemetery: the Bainovo period (between the 7th and the 6th century B.C.), the Podgornovo period (between the 6th and the 5th century B.C.), the Saragash period (between the 4th and the 3rd century B.C.) and the Tes’ period (between the 2nd and the 1st century B.C.) (Bokovenko 1995b). In recent years, based on studies of carbon-14 data, some scholars have adjusted the dates of the four periods; the Baenovo period is from the end of the 10th century B.C. to the 8th century B.C., the Podgornovo period is from the 8th century B.C. to the 6th century B.C., the Saragash period is from the 6th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C., and the Tes’ period is from the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D (Bokovenko 2006). Some scholars even suggest that great differences exist between the first three stages and the Tjesi stage,

320

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.31 Distribution map of the Tagar sites

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

321

Fig. 5.32 The burials of the early Tagar culture

which should be studied separately (the Asian steppe during the Hunnic Sarmatian period). Based on existing research results and published data, it is agreed that the Tjesi stage should be separated. According to the shape and characteristics of the tombs, the Tagar culture can be divided into early and late stages. The early stage includes the Bainovo and Podgornovo periods, the late stage includes the Saragash period, and the date demarcation between the two stages is approximately the 6th century B.C. The burial customs of the early Tagar culture were relatively stable. The structure of the surface walls of the tombs was either square or rectangular. Some of the tombs were very similar to those of the Kamenniy Log stage of the Karasuk culture, with some exceptions. Usually, only one tomb pit lay inside the walls of the tombs (Fig. 5.32: 1), although some had two grave pits (Fig. 5.32: 2). Some tombs were sealed on the ground surface with a low burial mound or with nothing at all. The tomb pits were shallow, and the coffins and coffin covers were mostly made of slabs or planks. Wooden chambers were buried inside some of the tombs. During this period, the bodies of adults were buried in the center, while the bodies of children were buried in the shallow pits or sarcophagi inside the walls. Most of the skeletons in the tomb chambers were single interments in the extended supine position with the head orented toward the southwest, with a few exceptions toward the southeast (Fig. 5.32: 3–5). A small number of double interments and multiple interments existed as well (Fig. 5.32: 6, 7), but most of the tomb owners had died abnormally, and many of them still bore traces of beatings on their skeletons.

322

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

The burial goods and accompanying artifacts in the tombs were placed in a fixed location. Pottery, generally 1 or 2 pieces, was mainly placed near the head, sometimes under the feet, and sometimes with traces of food residue inside. Meat chops of livestock and, rarely, whole livestock, were usually placed at the feet of the deceased. The sacrifices were mainly ibexes and cattle and, rarely, horses. Tools and weapons were placed near the waist of the deceased, bows and arrowheads in fur or birch bark sacks, and ornaments in the place where the owner used to wear them. Ibex tali were also found as toys in some tombs of teenagers and children, while no funerary artifacts were buried in the tombs of other children. Great changes took place in the burial customs during the late period. The number of tombs of this period is fewer than that of the early period. Only a few larger mounds existed in a cemetery. The burial mound is often 2 m or more. Outside the mound are fences, larger and with four vertical stelae marking the corners. Spacer stones stand at the center of each side of the enclosure. Altogether, the cornerstones and spacers of the entire enclosure vary from 8 to 20 pieces (Fig. 5.33: 1, 2). Usually, 1–10 children were buried in the stone coffin, covered with slates between the mounds and fences close to the ground surface. Under the burial mounds were mostly large wooden chambers. During this period, multiple interments prevailed: 10–20 people in the early time, scores of people in the later

Fig. 5.33 The burials of the late Tagar culture

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

323

Fig. 5.34 Ceramic vessels of the early Tagar culture

time, and, ultimately, up to a hundred people were often buried together in the same tomb. In this case, the skeletons were arranged closely (Fig. 5.33: 3, 4). Only a few people with special status were buried separately with similar burial customs to those of the early period, but the funerary artifacts were more exquisite, including some gold wares. Some scholars believe that the emergence of a large number of multiple interments was the result of an increased population because single interment would reduce the grazing areas. The Tagar tombs are rich in a variety of funerary artifacts, such as vessels, weapons, tools, and ornaments. Among them, the vessels are mainly pottery. The early pottery is mainly flat-based tubular guan jars (Fig. 5.34: 1–11), decorated on the surface with bowstring lines near the mouth. Some have small pearl-like protrusions extruding from inside to outside (Fig. 5.34: 2, 4, 8). This style of pottery can be found throughout the Tagar culture. The patterns of some of the flat-based tubular artifacts retain the characteristics of the Kamenniy Log period of the late Karasuk culture (Fig. 5.34: 10, 11). In addition, a small number of round-based tubular artifacts (Fig. 5.34: 14) and guan jars with bulging or folding bellies (Fig. 5.34: 12, 13, 15) appear. The pottery of the late period is mostly plain tubular guan jars (Fig. 5.35: 2, 4, 5–8), but a certain number of ring-legged pottery (Fig. 5.35: 5, 7, 9) appeared, including pottery similar to a bronze fu cauldron (Fig. 5.35: 9). In addition to pottery vessels, the Tagar culture yielded a number of bronze fu cauldrons, which generally had large double rings, some with zoomorphic decorations at the top and some with single or triple mushroom-shaped protrusions

324

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.35 Ceramic vessels of the late Tagar culture

Fig. 5.36 Fu-Cauldrons of the Tagar culture

(Fig. 5.36). Scholars hold different opinions about the functions of these cauldrons. Some believe that the smaller ones were for daily use, while the larger and more complicated ones were probably related to ritual ceremony. Others argue that they are mingqi used exclusively for funerals (Chen 2008). From the rock paintings (Fig. 5.43) reflecting the scenes of life in the Tagar culture, it can be concluded that the people of the Tagar culture used the bronze fu cauldrons as daily cookers.

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

325

Fig. 5.37 Weapons of the Tagar culture. 1–9, 30–33 Bronze short swords (short swords); 10–15, 45–47, 50 bronze battleaxes; 16–27, 34–44 bronze arrowheads; 28, 29, 48, 49 bronze Dui-ferrule

The weapons of the Tagar culture are well developed and mainly include daggers, socketed battle-axes, and arrowheads. The form of some early bronze daggers was obviously inherited from the notched cross-guard swords of the Karasuk culture, with mushroom-shaped pommels but seemingly thicker and stronger cross-guards (Fig. 5.37: 1, 2). This period also yielded many splayed or herringbone daggers (Fig. 5.37: 4, 5, 8, 9), some with a ring pommel (Fig. 5.37: 8), and others with zoomorphic decorations (Fig. 5.37: 5, 9). In addition, a small number of flat-pommeled swords with an underdeveloped cross-guard (Fig. 5.37: 3) were unearthed. This style prevailed in the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the Northern Zone of China between the late Western Zhou period and the early Spring and Autumn periods in the Central Plain of China. The sword guard of bronze daggers in the late stage was wider than that in the early stage (Fig. 5.37: 30–32), and the hilt tended to have open work (Fig. 5.37: 32, 33). Swords with double birds appeared, and the shape of birds was realistic (Fig. 5.37: 33). Swords with mushroom-shaped pommel and swords ring-shaped pommel also existed. A large number of battle-axes of the Tagar culture had a tubular socket, and the evolution of their shape and structure is clear. These socketed battle-axes were all wooden-handled, and the bottom of the wooden handle was often used together with the bronze dui ferrule (Fig. 5.37: 28, 29, 48, 49). The early battle-axes had a polyhedron or a mushroom-shaped tail, and the tubular socket was generally long (Fig. 5.37: 10–15). The tubular socket of the late battle-axes was shortened, and its form became light and handy. An image of a standing goat on its tail was prevalent (Fig. 5.37: 45–50). With a lighter form, some of the battle-axes were artwork rather than weapons. Therefore, these battle-axes were likely to be non-utility items (Fig. 5.37: 45, 46).

326

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

The arrowheads in the Tagar culture were not as developed as those in early nomadic cultures in Altai and the Kazak steppe. The arrowheads in the Tagar culture were mainly made of bronze or bone, with more bone arrowheads than bronze ones. Most of the bone arrowheads had a tang that was conical or trilobed. Most of the early bronze arrowheads were socketed and bilobed (Fig. 5.37: 16–20), with or without a stem. Some bronze arrowheads had a protruding part on one side of the socket (Fig. 5.37: 17). In addition to the bilobed bronze arrowheads, three-bladed socketed bronze arrowheads without a tang (Fig. 5.37: 22–24), trilobed bronze arrowheads (Fig. 5.37: 25), and willow leaf-shaped arrowheads (Fig. 5.37: 21) were found. In the late stage, the arrowheads had little variety, mainly including three-bladed solid-tanged bronze arrowheads (Fig. 5.37: 41–44) and three-bladed or trilobed socketed arrowheads, but their shape and structure were significantly different from those in the early stage (Fig. 5.37: 34–40). Bronze knives constitute the largest tool category. The pommels of early bronze knives included small-ring-shaped pommels, half-ring-shaped pommels and drop-shaped pommels (Fig. 5.38: 1–7), some of which had an obvious boundary between the hilt and the body (Fig. 5.38: 1–4). Some had a flat hilt wrapped with a strip of leather or thin wood (Fig. 5.38: 7). In the late stage, bronze knives without an obvious boundary between the hilt and the body prevailed (Fig. 5.38: 8–12, 14, 15). Some pommels of bronze knives were large rings (Fig. 5.38: 8–10), some had only a perforation for stringing (Fig. 5.38: 14, 15), and some had zoomorphic

Fig. 5.38 Tools and bow-shaped artifacts of the Tagar culture. 1–15 Bronze knives; 16–22 bronze awls; 23–27 bronze axes; 28–32 bronze bow-shaped artifacts

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

327

decorations (Fig. 5.38: 11, 12). Some knives had perforations in the hilt (Fig. 5.38: 9, 13). Bronze awls were another type of major tool with obvious characteristics of the times. The original bronze awls only had a cap but no obvious hilt (Fig. 5.38: 18), the early bronze awls had a small mushroom-shaped cap and an obvious hilt (Fig. 5.38: 16, 17, 19), and the late bronze awls changed significantly: the cap deteriorated, and the hilt had multiple layers of spirals (Fig. 5.38: 20–22). Few bronze axes were discovered as tools. The early bronze axes had a long trapezoidal body with a hole in the center to fix the wooden hilt (Fig. 5.38: 23–25), and some bronze axes had an ear on each side (Fig. 5.38: 25). The size of the late bronze axes became smaller (Fig. 5.38: 26, 27), and the socket of some bronze axes also became smaller, with an ear on each side of the socket to support the head (Fig. 5.38: 26). Horse riding was vital in the Tagar culture, and many rock paintings include descriptions of horse riding and horse leading (Fig. 5.43: 5, 6). This can also be observed in the harnesses of the Tagar culture. Although most of them were chance finds, the harnesses of the Tagar culture were of high quality and made exquisitely. In the early stage, bronze cheekpieces with three holes were prevalent (Fig. 5.39a: 11–14), some of which had protruding awls on one end (Fig. 5.39b: 7). Snaffle bits had more forms, including stirrup-shaped ones and ring-shaped ones. Most of these snaffle bits had double outer rings; that is, one outer ring and one extra hole (Fig. 5.39a: 1, 2, 5–10) that was used to insert the stirrup (Fig. 5.39a: 9). In the late stage, the forms of the snaffle bits and the cheekpieces were very simple; for instance, snaffle bits with two-hole ends were replaced by snaffle bits with one-hole

Fig. 5.39 Harnesses of the Tagar culture. (a) 1-8 snaffle bits; 9, 10 units of snaffle bits and cheekpieces; 11-14 cheekpieces; (b) other harness fittings

328

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

ends. These snaffle bits with two-holes ends were mostly made of bone and were inserted by cheekpieces with tow-holes. Other horse accessories used together with cheekpieces and snaffle bits were also discovered (Fig. 5.39b). One artifact in the Tagar culture is very striking and similar to the bow-shaped artifact of the Karasuk culture (Fig. 5.38: 28). However, its form changed significantly: it was made of thin plates and was in the shape of a snake (Fig. 5.38: 29). The bow-shaped artifact might have lost its practical function. It had the image of a horse’s head at both ends (Fig. 5.38: 30–32). Some began to be made of wood and bone. In addition to tools, weapons and harnesses, a number of bronze mirrors and other ornaments were unearthed from the Tagar burials. The mirrors unearthed here can be divided into three categories: the first category was the mirror with a rim around the edge (Fig. 5.40: 1), the second category was the flat-edged knob mirror (Fig. 5.40: 3), and the third category was the mirror with a side zoomorphic handled (Fig. 5.40: 2). The most common ornament was a headband sewn with leather and cloth, stitched with round bronze pao conchos and small bronze plaque ornaments. These plaque ornaments had a perforation in the middle or two small perforations on the edge (Fig. 5.40: 5). The plaque ornaments were prevalent, and they were generally discovered in groups, appearing with beads alternating at equal distances from each other. The beads were made of bronze, bone, stone or carnelian, often

Fig. 5.40 Ornaments and other artifacts of the Tagar culture. 1–3 Bronze mirrors; 4 bone combs; 5 bronze pao-conchos; 6 pendant; 7 bronze beads; 8, 9 bronze headdresses; 10 necklace; 11–13 wild boar ivory carvings

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

329

combined with shell ornaments and bronze pieces (Fig. 5.40: 7, 10). A headdress was also popular in the late stage (Fig. 5.40: 8, 9), made of a flat copper piece with a width of approximately 2 cm and a perforation at the end to connect with a leather belt. In addition, a number of bone combs (Fig. 5.40: 4) and wild boar ivory carving (Fig. 5.40: 11–13) were found. Zoomorphic ornament art was very prominent in the Tagar culture. Images of goats were the most numerous (Fig. 5.41: 13, 15, 17, 22, 26). This image was used to ornament artifacts such as bronze buckles, short swords, plaque ornaments and mirrors, while other zoomorphic images were usually used to ornament specific artifacts. For example, wild boars were used on horse harnesses and short swords, deer on bronze plaque ornaments (Fig. 5.41: 1–3), and horses on plaque ornaments and bow-shaped artifacts (Fig. 5.41: 4–6). Compared with those in the Karasuk culture, zoomorphic motifs in the Tagar culture were more realistic. The early art reflected the characteristics of animal faces realistically, including the images of goats, wild boars and birds (Fig. 5.41: 7, 8). Later, the number of animal species gradually increased with the appearance of deer plaque ornaments and images of wolves (Fig. 5.41: 10), felines (Fig. 5.41: 24) and griffins (Fig. 5.41: 9). The casting technique was mature, and the late zoomorphic motifs demonstrated stylized and simplified features. In general, the art of zoomorphic motifs in the Tagar culture was characterized by diversity and simplicity. Local animals were used to depict an individual animal image, with a lack of exquisite images, scenes of animals fighting (Fig. 5.41: 11), or sacred animals (Fig. 5.41: 12, 24).

Fig. 5.41 Animal style of the Tagar culture

330

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.42 Tools of the Tagar culture. 1, 2 Bronze sickles; 3, 4 bronze saws

The economic life of the Tagar people was mainly based on pastoral life, which is fully reflected in the burial artifacts and the petroglyphs dated to this period discovered in the Minusinsk Basin. Their animal husbandry was highly developed (Fig. 5.43), and the main livestock was ibexes and horses. The horse breeding developed further compared with the previous period. However, since the Minusinsk Basin was surrounded by mountains on three sides and forest steppe to the north and the natural environment was relatively closed, some obvious differences existed between the Tagar culture and other nomadic tribes in the Central Asian steppe. The discovery of settled villages, a large number of agricultural production tools (Fig. 5.42), and a number of irrigation artifacts indicates that agriculture occupied a certain proportion of the economic life of the Tagar culture. In some tombs, seeds from barley and other crops were also discovered. This seems to indicate that the residents of the Tagar culture depended mainly on livestock and were concurrently engaged in agriculture. Different views on the origin of the Tagar culture exist. Early research is based only on collections, and the unearthed sites of most artifacts are unknown. However, due to the lack of systematic research on the entire culture, many people only see the relationship between the Tagar sites and the Scythian culture on the north of the Black Sea and believe that these Tagar sites belong to Scythians. Others believe that the Scythian culture originated in the southern Siberian region. The Soviet scholar Kiselev emphasized the important role of the Karasuk culture in the origin of the Tagar culture. He believed that the zoomorphic style in the Tagar culture was completely rooted in the formative arts of the Karasuk culture, and the manufacturing techniques, the choices of subjects, and the animal species were the

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

331

Fig. 5.43 The life scene of the Tagar residents (Petroglyphs)

same in both Tagar art and Karasuk art (Киселёв 1981, p. 91). Later, N.L.Chlenova emphasized the importance of the Andronovo culture. She believed that from the perspective of the pottery shapes, decorative patterns, ornaments, burial postures and social physical qualities in the Tagar culture, the Andronovo culture in Kazakhstan affected the origin of the former (Chlenova 1992a). Some scholars believe that great similarities exist between the population of the residents of the Tagar culture and the Afanasievo culture. It is likely that the latter’s descendants integrated the former culture, so the descendants of the Afanasievo culture are also part of the Tagar culture (Вадецкая 1986). Judging by the early sites of the Tagar culture, elements of the sites in the Kamenniy Log period of the Karasuk culture are obvious. For example, the walls are square and often connected to each other, and the burial pits are mostly stone boxes. In the pottery collection, a small number of Karasuk-styled egg-shaped round-based pottery and the typical ornaments of the Kamenniy Log period exist. The short swords of the Tagar culture and the notched-cross-guard swords of the Karasuk culture may have an inheritance relationship. Although the zoomorphic ornamental art style of the Tagar culture included many new elements, the influence of the Karasuk culture can still be observed. In addition, in terms of ethnicity, the skulls of residents in the Kamenniy Log period are the transitional type between the Karasuk culture and the Tagar culture (Вадецкая 1989). These findings illustrate the importance of the Karasuk culture in the formation of the Tagar culture. However, at the same time, the elements of the Andronovo culture deserve attention because a large amount of cylindrical pottery and the ethnicity of the residents in the Tagar culture bear similarities with the Andronovo culture. The similarity of the social physical type between the Tagar culture and the Afanasievo culture indicates

332

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

that they both have the characteristics of the Europoid and are closely related to the west. However, the existence of a long interval between the two cultures suggests that an inheritance relationship is unlikely to exist. In fact, the burial structure, burial customs and ethnic types of the early sites of the Tagar culture may indicate its social origin. From the author’s perspective, the Tagar culture was formed on the basis of the Karasuk culture. The Andronovo culture, as an important source of the Karasuk culture, still existed in vast areas such as the Kazakh steppe during the Karasuk period and played a certain role in the formation of the Tagar culture. The Tagar culture eventually developed into the Tashtyk culture through the Tjesi stage.

5.1.5

The Early Nomadic Culture in the Tuva Area

The Tuva area is located on the upper reaches of the Yenisei River in Southern Siberia, specifically in the vast area between the Sayan Mountains and the Tannu-Ola Mountains. This area covers nearly 200,000 km2 and today mainly belongs to the Russian Republic of Tuva. The discovery of and research on early nomadic culture in this area began in the late 19th century, when A. V. Adrianov investigated the Tuva area and collected some of the grave goods in the earth mounds (Bokovenko 1995a, pp. 255–261). However, early discoveries and research were relatively weak, and it was not until the middle of the 20th century that some scholars began to systematically study the early nomadic sites of the Tuva area. The excavation of Arzhan (1971–1974) encouraged widespread attention to the early nomadic culture in this area. Judging from the current findings, the sites of this period are widely distributed, covering almost the entire Tuva area (Fig. 5.44). The earliest systematic study of the Tuva area was in the middle of the 20th century. Scholars of the former Soviet Union divided the early nomadic culture of Tuva from the 7th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C. into two phases: The early phase: the 7th century B.C.–the 6th century B.C. The late phase: the 5th century B.C.–the 3rd century B.C. In the 1960s, A.D. Grach proposed, on the basis of excavation data, that two different archaeological cultures existed in the early nomadic culture of Tuva: The Aldybeskaya culture: the 7th century B.C.–the 6th century B.C. The Saglynskaya culture: the 5th century B.C.–the 3rd century B.C. He believed that cultural changes occurred as immigrants gradually replaced local residents, but later scholars questioned these views. They believed that different cultures cannot be distinguished based on the existing archaeological materials. The excavation of the Arzhan I caused research on the early nomadic culture of Tuva to enter a new stage since the date of the Arzhan was earlier than other early nomadic cultures in Eurasia. The date of the Arzhan I can be identified as the

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

333

Fig. 5.44 The distribution map of the early nomadic culture sites in the Tuva area

early 8th century B.C. According to the Carbon-14 data, some scholars believe it should be in the 9th century B.C., but no consensus has been reached. Some Russian scholars conducted periodization on the early nomadic culture in the Tuva area, but these stages were mostly speculative without sufficient evidence (Bokovenko 1995a, p. 260). The Chinese scholar Ma Jian also summarized the culture of this area. He combined the data of the Arzhan II to divide the early nomadic culture in this area into two phases, including five sections, which might not be accurate given the limitations of the current data. According to the current published data on the Tuva area and combined with the cultural characteristics of the surrounding areas, the early nomadic culture in this area can be divided into three phases: the early phase, the middle phase, and the late phase. The early phase is from the 9th century B.C. to the 8th century B.C., represented by the Arzhan I; the middle phase is from the 7th century B.C. to the 6th century B.C., represented by the Arzhan II, and the late phase is from the 5th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C., represented by the Sagly-Bazhi II. Around the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century B.C., this area was considered part of the Xiongnu Confederation. Since the Arzhan was discussed in detail in Chap. 4, the discussion of the sites of the early and middle phases will not be repeated. In this section, only the cultural features of the late phase will be discussed. The Late Phase (5th century B.C.–3rd century B.C.) From the 5th century B.C., the early nomadic culture in the Tuva area developed continuously. Based on the number and scale of the cultural sites discovered, it

334

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.45 Examples of tombs of the late phase of the Tuva area

seems that the population in the Tuva area grew during this period. Represented by the Sagly-Baz II, the forms of burials underwent some changes. The number of tombs with more than one pit was greatly reduced. Most of the tombs had only one pit with rectangular stone walls around. They might contain wooden chambers or slab chambers. Most of the tombs were wooden chamber tombs, usually 3–5 m deep, with a square wooden with skeletons directly on it. In most of the coffins, many skeletons were buried together, and some of the coffins had as many as 15 skeletons (Fig. 5.45: 1, 2). The slab graves were usually small scale, with single interment or double interments (Fig. 5.45: 3, 4). Most of the bodies were on the left side, in a flexed position, oriented westward or northwestward. In addition, stone mound tombs were also discovered in this phase, with round stone mounds on the ground surface and layers of stones inside of the tomb chambers (Fig. 5.45: 5). Unlike the first two phases, the number of vessels, especially ceramics and wooden wares, increased in the late phase. Pottery was hand-molded, mostly hu jars with a straight neck (Fig. 5.46: 2–5) decorated with bowstring lines and whorl patterns. Some large-mouthed jars (Fig. 5.46: 1), handled hu pots (Fig. 5.46: 6), and cauldron-shaped pottery also appeared (Fig. 5.46: 7). In addition, wooden bo bowls and dishes (Fig. 5.46: 8–10) and a small number of spherical bronze vessels with lateral shanks on both sides of the body were discovered. After this period, many burial bronzes were replaced by iron wares. The number of weapons, tools and ornaments unearthed was large, but the variety of artifacts did not change substantially. The weapons were still mainly battle-axes, short swords

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

335

Fig. 5.46 Vessels of the late phase in the Tuva area (1–7 are made of ceramic; 8–10 are made of wood)

Fig. 5.47 Weapons of the late phase in the Tuva area

and arrowheads. However, the shape and structure changed substantially. Compared with the previous stage, the tubular socket of battle-axes was not longer than the body of the axes (Fig. 5.47: 2–4), and the average length of the wooden handles of battle-axes was approximately 80 cm (Fig. 5.47: 1). In addition to bronze battle-axes, iron battle-axes appeared (Fig. 5.47: 4). The bottom end of the wooden handle of all battle-axes was fixed with a bronze dui ferrule (Fig. 5.47: 5–7). There was a rich number and variety of short swords. Most short swords were made of bronze, as were

336

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

some short iron swords (Fig. 5.47: 19, 20). Many short swords were unearthed with leather scabbards. The cross-guard of most bronze daggers was butterfly-wing-shaped or inverted-heart-shaped without complex ornaments on the hilt. Most swords had a flat pommel (Fig. 5.47: 8–13, 16, 19, 20), but some had a pommel with double birds or tentacles (Fig. 5.47: 14, 15, 17, 18). The arrowheads can be divided into two categories: bone arrowheads and bronze arrowheads. The bone arrowheads were developed, including tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.47: 23, 24) and tubular socketed arrowheads (Fig. 5.47: 25) as well as forked-tailed arrowheads (Fig. 5.47: 26), which were widely used in the Xiongnu culture. The number of bronze arrowheads was relatively small, with mainly three-bladed solid-tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.47: 22) and few socketed arrowheads without stems (Fig. 5.47: 21). In addition, a special artifact was discovered that was similar to a stick head. It might belong to the category of weapons or it might be an ancient mace (Fig. 5.47: 27). Compared with the artifacts of the Arzhan II, the amount of ironware used for major tools increased significantly in this period. Tools of this period mainly included knives, awls and whetstones. Most of them were knives, mainly bronze knives and a small number of iron knives (Fig. 5.48: 6, 7). The knives had a straight blades with no obvious boundary with the handle and a circular or teardrop-shaped perforation in the pommel. Many of the unearthed knives had scabbards, mostly leather scabbards and few wooden ones (Fig. 5.48: 11). A bronze awl was often placed in a scabbard together with a knife (Fig. 5.48: 1–16). Most awls did not have

Fig. 5.48 Tools of the late phase in the Tuva area

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

337

Fig. 5.49 Harnesses and other artifacts of the late phase in the Tuva area. 1–4 Snaffle bits and cheekpieces (1–3 are made of bronze, 4 is made of iron); 5 the picture of the restored bridle; 6–9 bronze mirrors; 10, 11 bone cups; 12, 13 wooden combs; 14–16 bronze hooks; 17–19 bronze buckles; 20 necklace (made of wood and bronze); 21–23 gold earrings

an obvious boundary between the body and the cap, but a few had a protruding cap (Fig. 5.48: 8). The whetstones found in the tombs were positioned at the waist of the skeleton, with a perforation on one end, mostly trapezoidal (Fig. 5.48: 9). In addition, a small number of axes were found (Fig. 5.48: 10). The shape and structure of harnesses were simple. The outer ring of a snaffle bit was a single ring in which a cheekpiece with double perforations was inserted. These cheekpieces were not only made of bone or bronze (Fig. 5.49: 3) but also of iron (Fig. 5.49: 4). Given the position of the unearthed harnesses in the tomb, the picture on the bridle could be restored. Bronze mirrors were also common artifacts in tombs. Compared with the previous stage, the number of flat-edged knob mirrors was greatly reduced (Fig. 5.49: 6). Handled mirrors were popular and generally had a short handle with a perforation for fixing (Fig. 5.49: 7–9). Some bronze mirrors were engraved with beautiful animal images (Fig. 5.50: 5, 6). In addition, burial goods included a large number of bone or bronze buckles (Fig. 5.49: 17–19), necklaces and earrings (Fig. 5.49: 20–23). Bronze or iron hooks were often found near the waists of the skeletons. Most of them were bronze hooks and were used to hang arrows or other

338

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.50 The animal style of the late phase in the Tuva area

tools and weapons (Fig. 5.49: 14–16). A type of bone cylinder artifact with fine zoomorphic motifs was also discovered (Fig. 5.49: 10, 11). These artifacts were often used to collect women’s toiletries, mainly combs (Fig. 5.49: 12, 13) and other small bronze or gold accessories. The zoomorphic motif art in the late phase of the Tuva culture was developed. It was mainly based on realistic depiction. Most of the animal images were horned goats, mainly single standing goats (Fig. 5.50: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11) with some crouching goats (Fig. 5.50: 12) and two oppositing standing goats (Fig. 5.50: 8). There were also deer and horses as decorations on wooden boxes. Deer and horses often appeared together, sometimes with images of hunters in hunting scenes (Fig. 5.50: 1–4). In addition to the patterns on the wooden boxes, single-backward-looking-deer-shaped (Fig. 5.50: 13) and deer-head-shaped (Fig. 5.50: 21, 22) plaques, single-bird-shaped plaques (Fig. 5.50: 15–18), and double bird pommels (Fig. 5.50: 20) were also discovered. In addition to the images of herbivores, zoomorphic decorations depicting beasts attacking herbivores appeared in the late phase. These decorations appeared on bone flakes (Fig. 5.50: 23–25), bronze plaques (Fig. 5.50: 26, 29, 30), and bone combs (Fig. 5.50: 27, 28). The residents of the Tuva area from the 8th to the 3rd century B.C. were mainly relied on an animal husbandry economy and were fully nomadic who conducting seasonal migration in a relatively limited area. Ibexes, goats and horses were the

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

339

main components of the herd, and the remains of these animals were found in numerous tombs. In addition, the hunting economy was an important supplementary economy for Tuva residents, which can be proven by the discovery of a large number of pendants made of wild animal teeth and fangs in the tombs. The hunting objects included wild boars, red deer, bears, rabbits, foxes, and various rodents. Insufficient evidence was found regarding the existence of agriculture. Residue of glutinous rice and fragments resembling stone millstones discovered in some tombs suggest that a small amount of irregular agriculture might have existed in the Tuva area, but it is also possible that these agricultural products were exchanged with neighboring areas. Concerning the origin of the early nomadic culture in the Tuva area, due to the limitations of data, no further systematic research results are available. From approximately the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century B.C., the Tuva area entered the era of the Xiongnu Sarmatian culture.

5.1.6

The Early Nomadic Culture in the Altai Region

The Altai region is now mainly under the jurisdiction of the Russia’s-Altai Republic. It covers an area from the Western Sayan Mountains in the east to Eastern Kazakhstan in the west and from the Xinjiang region of China in the south to the forest steppe of the upper reaches of the Ob River in the north. Archaeological research in the Altai region began with the early military expansion of Russia. In the 1930s and 1940s, archaeologists of the former Soviet Union conducted a series of excavations on the graves of the early nomadic culture of the Katun River Valley in the Altai region and obtained a large number of precious cultural artifacts. Their excavation also provided a preliminary understanding of the connotations of the culture during this period. The excavation of the Pazyryk cemetery in the mid-20th century provided a further understanding of the early nomadic tribes in the region. Judging by the current findings, the remains of early nomadic culture in the Altai region are mainly mounds (Fig. 5.51). Many scholars of the former Soviet Union systematically studied the sites of these mounds. Currently, the widely accepted opinion is that the early nomadic culture of the entire Altai region can be divided into three phases: the early phase, the middle phase and the late phase. The early phase ranged from the 8th century B. C. to the 6th century B.C.,7 the middle phase from the 5th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C., and the late phase from the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. (Bokovenko 1995a). Some scholars named the three phases based on their typical cemetery sites: the early phase was named the Maiemir phase, the middle phase the Pazyryk phase, and the late phase the Shibinsk phase (Gryaznov 1969). The Maiemir phase included sporadically discovered bronzes and some deer stone sites

7

This stage belongs to the beginning of the early nomadic era. The reason this stage is categorized as the early Iron Age is that it is closely related to the next stage, and it is difficult to separate them.

340

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.51 The distribution map of the early nomadic culture sites in the Altai region

of the 8th century B.C. and the 7th century B.C. Because the Shibinsk phase was late and corresponds to the Han period, only the cultural sites of the first two phases are discussed in this section.

5.1.6.1

The Maiemir Phase (8th Century B.C.–6th Century B.C.)

The number of the sites of the Maiemir phase discovered in the Altai region is small, and only a few tombs and sporadic bronze harnesses can be attributed to this period. Most of the cemeteries were located in the steppe area along the rivers among mountains. The tombs were made of earth and stone or entirely of stone. The tomb pits were shallow, with outer stone coffins or timber-chambered tombs. Some of the tombs were covered with stones (Fig. 5.52: 1, 2), while some were surrounded by a circular stone fence (Fig. 5.52: 1), with bodies buried in a shallow

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

341

Fig. 5.52 The examples of tombs of the Maiemir phase

pit. The skeleton was placed on the left side in a flexed position oriented southwestward. Some tombs had horse burial pits in the south, and the horses buried inside were placed in almost the same posture as the tomb occupants (Fig. 5.52: 3). In some of the burial pits, two horses were buried, and one of them was equipped with a harness. The burial goods of the Maiemir phase were bronze weapons, tools and harnesses. Pottery was rarely discovered. The weapons mainly included short swords and arrowheads. Short swords with mushroom-shaped pommels and butterfly-shaped guards prevailed (Fig. 5.53: 1, 2). It is likely that this short sword developed from the notched-cross-guard sword in the Karasuk culture in the Kamenniy Log period. The hilt of some short swords was engraved with a spiral pattern (Fig. 5.53: 3). A few bronze arrowheads were discovered, with sockets and double blades (Fig. 5.53: 6, 7). The bronze knives generally curved slightly and had an irregular hole on the shank (Fig. 5.53: 5). One knife was decorated with the image of a beast on its shank (Fig. 5.53: 8). A large number of harnesses were discovered during this period, mainly snaffle bits and cheekpieces. The snaffle bits were all bronze, mostly stirrup-shaped outer rings (Fig. 5.53: 13). The cheekpieces were made of bone or bronze. The earliest ones were bone three-holed cheekpieces (Fig. 5.53: 9). The shape and structure of

342

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.53 The burial goods and deer stone remains in the Maiemir phase

the bronze cheekpieces were more complicated (Fig. 5.53: 10). However, the harnesses unearthed from the Maiemir tombs allow us to clearly see the specific connection between the snaffle bits and the cheekpieces. Snaffle bits and the cheekpieces of different shapes and structures used different connection methods (Fig. 5.53: 11–13). In addition to the snaffle bits and the cheekpieces, other harnesses, such as belt accessories and jieyue strap guides, were found in the tombs (Fig. 5.53: 14–16). The ornaments mainly included bronze mirrors and some small decorative plates, and the zoomorphic decorative art of this period is mainly embodied in the ornaments. The bronze mirrors were all mirrors with a rim and knob (Fig. 5.53: 17, 18), which were mainly buried in female tombs. One bronze mirror mentioned in the last chapter was decorated with five deer and one ibex, representing a higher level of art. The deer pattern was similar to the deer stone image of the Tuva Arzhan I, dated to an early date (Fig. 5.53: 19). In addition to bronze mirrors, comma-shaped bronze pao concho (Fig. 5.53: 21), horn artifacts engraved with zoomorphic images, bird-shaped gilded bronze pao concho (Fig. 5.53: 20), and curly zoomorphic-modified gold flake (Fig. 5.53: 22) were unearthed. Some deer stone remains discovered in this area are considered to belong to this period. These deer stones did not have complicated deer motifs or zoomorphic decorative art but had simple patterns on the surface that look like a standing warrior decorated with tool and weapon patterns such as battle-axes, bows, short swords and grindstones on the waist (Fig. 5.53: 23–26).

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

5.1.6.2

343

The Pazyryk Phase (5th Century B.C.–3rd Century B.C.)

A large number of remains of this period were found, mainly burial remains. Because most of these remains were found in the Pazyryk cemetery, the culture of this period is also known as the Pazyryk culture. The tombs in the Pazyryk phase can be divided into two categories. One category includes the tombs of the nobles, represented by the Pazyryk cemetery. These tombs are large mounds of piled stones on the ground surface, up to 100 m in diameter and approximately 4–5 m in height (Fig. 5.54: 1, 2). The other category comprises cairns

Fig. 5.54 The examples of burials of the Pazyryk phase

344

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

tiled with stones, represented by other small and medium tombs that are generally no more than 10 m in diameter and not higher than one meter in height (Fig. 5.54: 3, 4). The burial chambers under the ground surface can be divided into three categories: mainly timber-chambered tombs, a few stone-chambered tombs and wooden coffin without chamber. The human remains in the tomb were usually placed in the outer coffin near the south, on the side and in a flexed position, oriented eastward. Single interment, double interments and joint interments with three or four skeletons were found. Most of the graves were thoroughly robbed, but the remains of burial horses were completely preserved, which is obvious in Pazyryk cemetery. Because the horses were placed between the timber-chambered tomb and the pit wall (Fig. 5.54: 1, 3), where was difficult for tomb robbers to reach, and were therefore spared. The precious artifacts in the burial chambers of these large tombs were robbed, but the horses outside the outer coffins were not damaged. Among them, ten fully equipped horses were unearthed from the Pazyryk I, 14 war horses were unearthed from the Pazyryk III and IV, respectively, and five horses were unearthed from the Pazyryk V. These horses were usually equipped with harnesses. One notable aspect is that the horses were mainly buried in timber-chambered tombs and were seldom buried in stone-chambered tomb or wooden coffin without chamber. The burial goods during this period are rich. The pottery, mainly pots and guan jars, were generally placed on the upper or northern side of the head. The pots mostly have a constricted neck that is long and narrow, and the decorative patterns on the surface are rich in swirls, scallop patterns, curves and zoomorphic motifs (Fig. 5.55). The guan jars are relatively short, with a round or oval abdomen and a flat bottom. Weapons mainly include battle-axes with a tubular socket, short swords and arrowheads. The tubular socket of the axes is very short and basically level with the body of the axes (Fig. 5.56: 1–3). The shape of the short swords is simple, with a flat round pommel and butterfly-shaped or straight cross-guards (Fig. 5.56: 4–6). Many short swords were unearthed from wooden scabbards. In addition, one sword with pommel decorated with double-backward-looking birds was unearthed (Fig. 5.56: 7). The arrowheads can be divided into two categories: bone arrowheads

Fig. 5.55 Ceramics of the Pazyryk phase

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

345

Fig. 5.56 The artifacts in the Pazyryk phase. 1–3 Bronze battle axes; 4, 5 bronze short swords; 6 bronze and iron short sword; 7 bronze double birds swords; 8 bronze knives; 9 iron knives inlaid with gold; 10 iron knife; 11, 12 bronze arrowheads; 13, 14 sets of bridle; 15 bronze snaffle bit; 16 iron snaffle bit; 17–19 bone cheekpieces; 20, 21 bone belt accessories; 22 saddle; 23 the picture of the restored harnesses; 24, 25 bronze mirrors; 26, 27 gold pendants; 28–32 zoomorphic wooden statues; 33 wooden konghou

and bronze arrowheads. The bronze arrowheads mainly include trilobed tubular socketed arrowheads and three-bladed solid-tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5.56: 11, 12). The tools are mainly knives, which can be divided into bronze knives (Fig. 5.56: 8) and iron knives (Fig. 5.56: 9, 10). No obvious boundary can be detected between the handle and the blade of the knife, and most of the knives have a pommel with a round perforation (Fig. 5.56: 8, 10). Some iron knives are engraved with patterns on the gilded handles (Fig. 5.56: 9). Sacrificial horses with harnesses were found in a large number of tombs as funeral objects, which were well preserved. Moreover, the number of harnesses of the Pazyryk phase is very large (Fig. 5.56: 23). The tack includes sets of saddles (Fig. 5.56: 22) consisting of belts, felts and buckles (Fig. 5.56: 20, 21)8 and bridles (Fig. 5.56: 13, 14), consisting of snaffle bits, cheekpieces, and other horse accessories. The snaffle bits were mostly single-ringed (Fig. 5.56: 15, 16), mainly made

8

For details on decorative harnesses, refer to Yang and Bao (2014).

346

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

of bronze as well as iron (Fig. 5.56: 16). The cheekpieces mainly had double holes (Fig. 5.56: 17–19), and the cheekpieces with three holes that were prevalent in the former phase are rarely found. Some cheekpieces were also engraved with zoomorphic decorations (Fig. 5.56: 17, 19) in addition to a number of S-shaped bronze cheekpieces. Bronze mirrors, generally plain and disc-shaped, can be classified into flat-edged knob mirrors (Fig. 5.56: 24) and handled mirrors with a short handle in an approximate a ring shape (Fig. 5.56: 25). The ornaments in this period were well developed, including wooden and zoomorphic bone statues (Fig. 5.56: 28–32), earrings, pendants (Fig. 5.56: 26, 27), and necklaces. No animal sacrifices can be found in the tombs with standing wooden animal statues (Fig. 5.56: 28, 29), so the statues may have functioned as wooden figurines. An ancient musical instrument known in Chinese as a konghou was also unearthed from Pazyryk II (Fig. 5.56: 33). This musical instrument, also known as the harp, first appeared in ancient Egypt from 3000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. and was also discovered in Mesopotamia in the same period. It was found in the Royal Cemetery of Ur in the middle of the 3rd millennium B.C. (see Yang 2014; Plate 5: 1), named čang (which was related to the Chinese name konghou) by the Assyrians. This ancient musical instrument was later introduced to Persia by the Assyrians and then to Central Asia and India. This instrument was also found in the Yanghai I (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2004a), Yanghai II (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2004b), Zaghunluq I (Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region et al. 2003b), and Zaghunluq II cemeteries in Xinjiang (Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region et al. 2003c). In addition to the above artifacts, many artifacts made of organic materials were unearthed from the Pazyryk cemetery. They were well preserved, and for many tombs of this period, they were located under the permafrost. The main materials include wood, leather, silk, felt and birch bark, among which silk and felt products are characteristic. During the Pazyryk phase, the burial goods were rich, and the zoomorphic motif art was highly developed with obvious characteristics. In addition to some common wood-carved horses (Fig. 5.56: 28, 29), ibex (Fig. 5.56: 30) and feline images (Fig. 5.56: 31, 32), supernatural subjects were depicted. The first category of the supernatural subjects was the image of a griffin (Fig. 5.57a), mainly in gold jewelry; the second was images of mythical creatures (Fig. 5.57c), which had an animal’s body and a bird’s head or an animal’s body and a bird’s feet or were even composed of images of different animals; and the third was images of animals with the rear part twisted and turned (Fig. 5.57b). In addition, the following motifs were distinctive: swan patterns on felt wagon ornaments, tiger patterns on coffins and flower and bird patterns in silk fabrics unearthed from the Pazyryk cemetery (Fig. 5.57d). The supernatural zoomorphic motifs in the Pazyryk phase represent the decorative features of the Altai region from the 5th century B.C. to the 3rd century B.C. This style was also found in the Northern Zone of China, but it was later than the late Warring States period and later than the date of the Altai region. It was likely influenced by the Pazyryk culture, but the origin of this art is not yet

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

347

Fig. 5.57 Zoomorphic motif art of the Pazyryk period. a Griffins (golden wares); b reverse zoomorphic motifs; c images of god and animals; d1 felt product; d2 tiger motifs on the coffins; d3 bird motifs on silk fabrics

clear. However, it might be explored on the vast steppe between the Pontic area and Altai (Du 1993a). The early Iron Age residents in the Altai region had a specialized nomadic economy. The animals bred were mainly horses, oxen, and ibexes as well as a number of goats and yaks. It is difficult to judge which animal was dominant in the lives of these nomads. However, it can be concluded that they attached great importance to horses, as evidenced by the funeral customs. Horses were used extensively in the nomadic economy because the exploration and selection of ranches, extensive grazing, and rapid movement in wars relied on them. Judging from the early remains of the Maiemir phase, it is apparent that the cultural elements of the Karasuk culture in the Kamenniy Log period were incorporated into the shaping of the early nomadic culture in the Altai region. Some new elements that emerged in the Altai region during the boom period of the early

348

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

nomadic culture, particularly the Pazyryk phase, were clearly influenced by external factors. Some people believe that the nomadic people from Asia Minor arrived in the Altai in the 6th century B.C. and brought a series of new cultural elements (Marsadolov 2000). Others believe that the Pazyryk culture was closely related to the Achaemenid9 dynasty of Persia (Wu 2007). It is difficult to explain the disappearance of the Pazyryk culture. They may have been defeated by foreign people and left the Altai region for an unknown refuge (Sulimirski 1970).

5.1.7

The Slab Grave Culture

The Slab Grave culture in the east of the Mongolian Plateau and the Transbaikal regions, especially the early sites of the Slab Grave culture, was introduced in Chap. 4. However, it is difficult to grasp the specific cultural significance because only a few fragmented cultural materials have been collected over such a long time. According to the available data, the tombs of the Slab Grave culture are mostly made of stone slabs (Fig. 5.58: 1, 2). Many tombs are filled with stones (Fig. 5.58: 2, 5). Single burials are prevalent, with an the interred lain in extended supine position and the head oriented the east. There is stone slabs under the bones or feet of the tomb owner (Fig. 5.58: 3, 4, and 6). In addition, there are a number of sacrificial animals in the larger tombs (Fig. 5.58: 6). There are relatively few funerary artifacts from the slab graves, especially ceramics, although some ceramic fragments were unearthed from hundreds of tombs. Some of the pottery pieces are engraved with patterns, and some are believed to be part of the pottery li, an ancient Chinese cooking tripod with hollow legs. However, no complete or recoverable pottery li have been found in the tombs. Complete pottery jars and pottery li have been found in the Transbaikal area. There are appliqué patterns along the rim and neck of most of the pottery jars (Fig. 5.59: 1, 2), and most of the patterns of pottery li are snake-like designs (Wu 2005) (Fig. 5.59: 3–5). Although the ceramics may be associated with earlier cultures, most Russian scholars argue that the pottery is related to the Slab Grave culture (Членова 1992). The early bronzes of the Slab Grave culture have a very close relationship with the bronze culture in Northern China, especially the Upper Xiajiadian culture, which has been analyzed in detail in previous chapters. The bronzes in the late tombs of the Slab Grave culture are briefly introduced in this chapter. These bronzes are mainly divided into weapons, tools, and ornaments as well as a small number of harnesses. Compared with the early artifacts, a larger number of bronze swords

The Achaemenid Empire (B.C. 648–B.C. 330), also known as Persia’s “First Empire” was established by Cyrus II, who defeated the Median who ruled Persia at the time, making Persia a strong empire. When Darius I was in throne, the Empire’s territory was unprecedentedly developed. The Achaemenid Empire was one of the largest empires in the world at the time.

9

5.1 The Prosperous Nomadic Culture in the Eurasian Steppe

349

Fig. 5.58 Plan and isometric view of tombs of Slab Grave culture

were unearthed (Fig. 5.60: 1–3), while the number of bronze knives is relatively small (Fig. 5.60: 4). The ax continued to be popular, but the ax body became wider (Fig. 5.60: 6, 7), and the ornaments were more developed (Fig. 5.60: 10–19). Among them, the unearthed bronze mirrors differ greatly from the early shape or structure and mainly include bronze mirrors with ring heads and knob handles (Fig. 5.60: 10, 11).

350

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.59 Pottery of Slab Grave culture

Fig. 5.60 Artifacts of the late Slab Grave culture in transbaikal regions

The latest stage of the Slab Grave culture extended into the Xiongnu period or later, when the artifacts unearthed were mainly made of iron (Fig. 5.61). However, more detailed analysis has not been performed as a result of the lack of excavated artifacts.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

351

Fig. 5.61 Some iron artifacts of Slab Grave culture in Transbaikal regions

5.2

Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

One of the most dramatic and remarkable changes in Chinese history occurred during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. Economically and technologically, the Bronze Age transitioned to the Iron Age, and the social structure changed from kin-based to location-based. Politically, the Seven States of the Warring States were gradually replaced by the unified Qin Empire. At the same time, a strong nomadic society, the Xiongnu Confederation, emerged in the Northern Zone. Archaeologically, the material and cultural features of this area gradually became more consistent, eventually forming the Northern Cultural Belt, which was an important foundation for the establishment of the Xiongnu Confederation. The unification of agricultural culture in the Central Plain during this period has been studied in detail in historical documents and archaeology, although there are relatively fewer studies of an alliance of nomadic cultures in the Northern Zone. Historically, the earliest records and studies of the northern peoples in the Eastern Zhou period are Chinese historical documents, mainly concerning the Xiongnu and the southern Xiongnu in the “Shiji”, “Han Shu” and “Hou Han Shu”. Xiongnu is traditionally regarded as a descendant of the earlier northern Chinese ethnic group. In the “Xiongnu Liezhuan ” chapter of the Shiji, all the northern ethnic groups of the pre-Qin period are mentioned. Donghu -Xiongnu recorded by Sima Qian (司马迁) and the Scythians described by Herodotus, constituted a nomadic culture that straddled the east and west ends of the Eurasian Steppe in the northern part of Eurasia. Their interaction with the southern agricultural countries constituted an important part of the ancient history of the world. The Great Wall zone in Northern China is a key area for studying the relationship between Eurasia and ancient Chinese civilization and the relationship between them. In ancient Chinese literature, the most important residents in the north of the Central Plain in the Spring and Autumn period were the “Rong” and “Di”, and during the Warring States period it was the “Hu”, whose remains must be included in

352

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.62 Distribution of the sites of Rong and Di and Hu people

the Northern Cultural Belt of the Eastern Zhou period. Moreover, the Rong and Di in the Spring and Autumn period and the Hu in the Warring States belong to different cultural systems (Lin 1996). In this section, the available culture sites are classified into two types based on the typological and morphological examination of the Northern Zone and the related artifacts. Their distribution roughly forms two belts running along the Great Wall during the Warring States (Fig. 5.62). According to their spatial and temporal distribution and cultural features combined with ancient literature, the sites of the Rong and Di, as recorded in the literature, should be on the south side, which had close contact with the Central Plain culture. The Hu were distributed on the north side, with more connections with the Eurasian Steppe. This is very important for understanding the relationship between the Rong, Di and Hu recorded in the literature of the Eastern Zhou period in Northern China.

5.2.1

The Sites of the Di in Northern China

5.2.1.1

The Sites of the Di People in Zhongshan State

Zhongshan state, a small state of “one thousand chariots”, roughly distributed from the southern part of Baoding in the east of the Taihang Mountains to the Shijiazhuang area, was founded by the White Di. Together with the sites before and after its foundation, the sites of Zhongshan state were most influenced by the

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

353

Central Plain culture, but they still retained some of the traditions of the northern people. These sites are included in statistics of the tombs, from which we can analyze the main components of the sites of Zhongshan state and their northern cultural factors (Table 5.1). Among the remains listed above, the two tombs of Lingshoucheng M8004 and M8102 were formally excavated, and they represent the characteristics of the small tombs from the Spring and Autumn period Xianyu state and early Warring States period Zhongshan state, respectively (Fig. 5.63). Among the archaeological cultural elements, the most representative aspects of the cultural traditions are often the burial customs and decorative features. From the perspective of the shape and structure of the tomb, the use of stone as the building material of the tomb was a burial custom of the Di. According to the excavation of the ancient Lingshoucheng, the stone-filled graves were more common in the middle and late Spring and Autumn than in the Warring States period, indicating that the northern elements tended to occur less often over time. Coiled gold wire earrings in ornaments, necklaces made of turquoise beads, tiger plaques, pao conchos, bone tubes, and bronze hairpins have not been found in the Central Plain in the same period (Fig. 5.63). With regard to weapons and tools, swords with animal-mask-shaped guards and knives are also very distinctive. The handled bronze mirrors are influenced by the places deeper into the Eurasian Steppe.10 In constant exchanges with the Central Plain countries, the Di were gradually sinocized. The bronzes of the Central Plain in this batch are mainly from Jin state, followed by Yan state and their own unique bronze fu cauldrons (Fig. 5.65: 10, 11) and hu-pots with a raised cord pattern and chain handle that is integrated with the Central Plain bronze. No such northern elements in the small tombs above have been found in the royal tombs of Zhongshan state with a higher degree of sinocization. This shows that the later the age, the higher the status and the higher the degree of sinocization. However, there are more three-dimensional animal-shaped bronzes in the royal tombs, such as objects with cattle, rhinoceros, deer, and winged mythical creatures, which are likely from the Northern Zone cultural tradition reserved for the royal family and nobles of Zhongshan state. Among these, the winged beast is a type of motif worthy of attention, which Li Ling has discussed. China’s winged mythical creatures were mainly popular in the 6th century B.C. to the 6th century A.D. The early ones were mainly from the four provinces, Gansu, Shaanxi, Shanxi, and Hebei, especially the northern part. The themes and decorative styles are similar in all respects to the popular Griffin in West Asia and the Eurasian Steppe (Li 2004a, b). Griffin is a mythical creature in Greek mythology, with a winged lion’s body and a falcon’s beak. However, in East Asia, there were no lions, and the corresponding feline was a tiger. Therefore, the tigerized lion in ancient Chinese art is a prominent feature. A winged mythical creature made of bronze inlaid with gold was unearthed from the royal tomb of Zhongshan state (Fig. 5.65: 8), which is evidence of this “tigerization”.

10

For example, the knob mirrors from the cemetery of Yujia village, Guyuan city, see Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (1995a).

Piled by stone

Unclear

Lijiazhuang in Xingtang County (Zheng 1963)

Miaoshang Village in Xingtang County (Hebei Museum 1980) Diaoyutai site in Tangxian County (Hebei Museum 1980) Beicheng in Mancheng County (Hebei Museum and Relics Management Office of Hebei Province 1972) Fangjia zhuang in Pingshan County (Tang and Wang 1978) Xichatou Village in Lingshou County (Wen 1986)

Swords with animal-mask-shaped guards; knives √

Turquoise beads

Others

Fu cauldron, hoop-handled bottle-gourd shaped hu-pot

Typical objects

Pit-grave

Hu-pot with raised cord pattern and chain handle

Mirrors

Stone-chambered tomb

4 golden tiger plaques

Plaques

Corded ware Hu

4 cowries, 2 gold wire coils

Gold wrist ornaments

Gold ornaments

Unclear

Unclear

Features Tomb type

Tombs

Table 5.1 Statistics of Sites from Zhongshan State

Early Warring States (continued)

Early Warring States

Early Warring States

Dates (by the original reports)a

354 5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

a

2 gold wire coils, 3. eardrops 2 gold wire earrings, 22 pao conchos

Stone-filled grave

Gilt deer plaque

Gilt tiger plaque

Plaques

Handled mirror

Mirrors

Sword

Cutter

Swords with animal-mask-shaped guards; knives

√

5

35

Turquoise beads

The ages here and the following ages without marks are all confirmed by the author of the brief report

Sand-filled tomb

Stone-filled grave

8 buttons, 2 bracelets

Stone-chambered tomb

Zhongtong Village M1 in Xinle County (Cultural Relics Institute Shijiazhuang Areas 1984) Zhongtong cun M2 (Cultural Relics Institute Hebei Province 1985) Lingshou 8004 in Pingshan County (Cultural Relics Institute Hebei Province 2005) Lingshou 8102 (Cultural Relics Institute Hebei Province 2005)

Gold ornaments

Features Tomb type

Tombs

Table 5.1 (continued)

Bronze bell, bronze pao conchos

Bone tube, bronze hairpin

Others

Hu-pot

Fu cauldron

Typical objects

Middle Warring States

Middle Warring States

Early Warring States

Early Warring States

Dates (by the original reports)a

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China 355

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

356

Fig. 5.63 Typical tombs of Zhongshan State. 1 Bronze hairpin (M8004: 11); 2 bronze cutter (M8004: 9); 3 bronze mirror (M8004: 12); 4 gold wire coils (M8004: 1, 2); 5 pao conchos (M8004: 14-1); 6 bronze hu-pot (M8102: 4); 7 sword with animal-mask-shaped guards (M8102: 12); 8 bronze bell (M8102: 11); 9 pao conchos (M8102: 17); 10 gold-plate ornament (M8102: 15)

5.2.1.2

The Exploration of the Rong and Di Culture

With the help of the Di’s cultural features identified from Zhongshan state, the earlier remains will be further traced.

Yuanping and Other Sites The remains of Yuanping and other sites, such as the remains of Zhongshan state and Xianyu, are mainly distributed in the Hutuo River Valley (i.e., ancient Xianyushui). They are the sites closest to the ones of Zhongshan state. There were groups batches of sites discovered in Yuanping County, together with a small number of similar sites found in Daixian and Dingxiang counties around Yuanping County (Table 5.2). Signs of northern influence at these sites are stone burial furniture, coils of gold wires, scissors, fu cauldrons, and hu pots with chains and cord designs. Compared with the ones found in sites of Zhongshan state, square-mouthed fu cauldrons, bone horse cheekpieces, horse snaffle bits (the horse snaffle bits are in the Northern China form, the ends of which are in the shape of an “8” with double rings connected or unconnected), and horse bones are buried in the graves (Fig. 5.64: 13–20).

1

Shiyu in Yuanping County (Dai 1972) Lianjiagou in Yuanping County (Li 1992b)

4

22

1

5

Liuzhuang I in Yuanping County (Relics Institute Xinzhou Areas 1986)

Liuzhuang II in Yuanping County (Relics Institute Xinzhou Areas and Yuanping Museum 1998)

Shawa Village in Daixian County (Jia 1992)

Zhonghuoin Dingxiang County (Li 1997)

1

Number of tombs

Sites of tombs

Stone outer coffin

18 had stone coffins 4 were earthen pits (M7)

Stone outer coffin

Horse bones Unclear

Form

Table 5.2 Cultural remains from Yuanping and nearby sites

pao conchos ornament

Bronze bubble ornament, turquoise necklace

Gold wire, string of golden beads, turquoise necklace

Ornaments

Bone cheekpieces

Snaffle bits, horn cheekpieces, bronze bell

Snaffle bits

Snaffle bits

Horse and carriage fittings

Cutter

Knife; bronze pickax

Cutter

Pebbles

Tools and weapons

Oval square-mouthed fu cauldron Chain-handled hu-pot; cord pattern hu-pot

Oval square-mouthed fu cauldron

Oval square-mouthed fu-cauldron

Short-footed dou bowl Fu cauldron

Special objects

Late Spring and Autumn

Spring and Autumn Early Warring States M3: Late Spring and Autumn M1 and M2: Early Warring States Late Spring and Autumn

Date

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China 357

358

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Hunyuan Bronzes The bronzes unearthed from the Eastern Zhou cemetery at Liyuan village in Hunyuan before the 1950s were mostly stolen and scattered abroad, some of which are in the Shanghai Museum. Some bronzes were collected in 1963 and 1975. In 1978, the Eastern Zhou cemetery in Liyu village was surveyed and tentatively excavated by archaeologists (Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology 1983), where three tombs were found and cleaned. The structure of the tomb of M1 can be easily recognized. It is a tomb with one earthen pit chamber where one coffin and one outer coffin are arranged. It is in the flexed burial position with their head oriented toward the east. There are 47 complete bronze vessels published together with images (See Zhu 1995). So far, these bronzes (Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology 1983; Zhu 1995; Li 1992a; Gao 1999; Zhao 1993) are basically divided into two types: the Central Plain type and the native type. The Central Plain type can also be subdivided into the Jin and Yan styles, with the Jin style as the main style. Indigenous bronzes include oval square-mouthed ding tripods and fu cauldrons, chain-handled hu pots and cord pattern hu pots, hu pots with a round bottom, ding tripods with bodies in the shape of three-legged jars, cow-shaped vessels for warming wine, and horse snaffle bits and horse cheekpieces (Fig. 5.64: 21–27). These special cords and animal-shaped vessels are the results of external cultural influences (Gao 1999). The date of this group of bronzes is believed to be

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

359

JFig. 5.64 Typical artifacts of the Rong and Di. 1 Bronze plague (Diaoyutai, Tang County); 2

bronze plague (Stone Cist Tomb at Mancheng Quarry in Hebei); 3 bronze button (Lingshou City M8102: 17); 4 gold wire coil (Lingshou City M8004: 2); 5 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Pingshan); 6 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Pingshan); 7 bronze cutter (Lingshou City M8004: 9); 8 gold-inlaid bronze winged mythical beast (royal tomb of Zhongshan Kingdom); 9 silver and gold-inlaid bronze cattle-shaped sacrificial zun-vessel for wine (Lingshou City M6: 112); 10 bronze fu-cauldron (Zhongtong village, Xinle); 11 bronze fu-cauldron (Lijiazhuang, Xingtang); 12 bronze pot (Lijiazhuang, Xingtang); 13 bronze button (Yuan Ping); 14 gold wire (Tagangliang M3: 7, Liuzhuang, Yuanping); 15 bronze knife (Tagangliang M1: 6, Liuzhuang, Yuanping); 16 bronze horse snaffle bit (Yuanping); 17 bronze horse snaffle bit (Yuanping); 18 bronze horse snaffle bit (Yuanping); 19 bronze fu-cauldron (Lianjiagang, Yuanping); 20 bronze fucauldron (Li Wei village); 21 bronze horse snaffle bit (Liyu village); 22 bronze horse snaffle bit (Liyu village); 23 bronze horse snaffle bit (Liyu Village); 24 tiger-shaped three-dimensional animal (Liyu village); 25 bronze ding-tripods (Liyu village); 26 bronze fu-cauldron (Tagangliang M3: 2, Liuzhuang, Yuanping); 27 bronze hu-pot (Liyu village); 28 bronze plaque (Yuhuangmiao M129: 2); 29 bronze plaque (Xiaobaiyang M22: 1, Xuanhua); 30 bronze buckle (Jundushan YYM102: 10); 31 bronze ring (Jundushan YYM102: 3); 32 bronze linked-beads ornament (Lishugou Gate 1678); 33 bronze tubular ornament (Hulugou); 34 bronze buckle (Jundushan YYM13: 7); 35 bronze belt hook (Jun Dushan YYM102: 11); 36 bronze sword (Hulugou YHM35: 1); 37 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Ganzi Fort M8: 9); 38 sword with animal-mask-shaped guard (Ganzi Fort M9: 2); 39 bronze cutter (Northern Singh M1: 79); 40 bronze horse snaffle (Zhangjiakou Nihezi Village); 41 bronze horse snaffle (Jun Du Mountain); 42 bronze horse cheekpiece (Ganzibao M5: 8); 43 ceramic ding-tripods (Jundushan YHM52: 1); 44 ceramic guanpot (White Temple); 45 bronze fu-cauldron (Gangzi Fort M8: 1); 46 bronze fu-cauldron (Yuhuang Temple M18); 47 bronze belt hook (Yulin); 48 ceramic li-vessel (Taochangping M20: 3); 49 ceramic double-handled jars (Fengjiata M1: 15); 50 bronze fu-cauldron (Qiaochatan, Shenmu); 51 bronze fu-cauldron (Ximawan, Jingbian); 52 bronze fu-cauldron (Chengguan, Suide); 53 bronze fu-cauldron (Zhidan County); 54 tiger-shaped ornament (Yu village M1: 6, Ning County); 55 bronze short sword (Yu village M1: 8, Ning County); 56 three-dimensional tiger-shaped ornament (Yu village M1: 4, Ning County); 57 ceramic jar (Maojiaping I, LM5: 2, 58, Gangu); 58 bronze fucauldron (Wangjia village, Qishan)

in the middle and late Spring and Autumn and even as late as the early years of the Warring States (Li 1992a; Zhao 1993). Although some believe that it is mainly in the early Warring States period and as early as the late Spring and Autumn period (Zhu 1995), it is commonly believed that some of the bronzes are from the turn of the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States. This group of bronzes is similar to the previous two groups in the oval square-mouthed ding tripods and fu cauldrons chain-handled hu pots and cord pattern hu pots and bronzes of animal shapes. It differs from the previous two groups in the ding tripods with bodies in the shape of three-legged jars and the horse snaffles, which are similar to Yuanping bronzes that cannot be found in the sites of Zhongshan state.

Sites of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Hebei Areas The Sanggan River originates in the Guancen Mountains in the northern part of Shanxi Province and flows through the northern part of Shanxi Province and the northwestern part of Hebei Province and into the Guanting Reservoir. It passes

360

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

through Zhuolu County, the Zhangjiakou area, Huailai, and Yanqing County. Related sites are found in Daolazui village in Zhulu (Chen 1999), Baiyang village in Xuanhua in Zhangjiakou area (Zhangjiakou City Cultural Relics Management Office and Xuanhua Museum 1987), Baimiao in Pangjiabao,11 Ganzibao (He and Liu 1993) and Beixinbao (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau 1966) in Huailai, Beixinbao, Jundushan, Yuhuangmiao, Xiliangguang in Yanqing (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 1989), and the Villa Project in Longqingxia (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 1984). There have been stages of research on these sites.12 The above relevant characteristics of these sites of these areas and the Zhongshan state are shown in Table 5.3. The main common points between the finds from Northern Hebei and the sites listed above are stone coffins, bronze fu cauldrons (Plate 9: 8), ding tripods, bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards (Plate 2: 4; eastward to the cemetery of Yaoshang, Luanping) (Zheng 1984), cutters, double-ring-shaped horse snaffles, disc-shaped gold wire earrings, turquoise necklaces, and tiger-shaped plaques (Plate 9: 3-4). They differ in that animal sacrifices are more popular whereas the hoop-handled hu-pots with cord pattern and oval square-mouthed dou-bowls imitating Central Plain style of bronzes from the Central Plain cannot be found, while objects such as fu cauldrons, zhou vessels, pan plates, and yi vessels that directly employ the Yan style have been retained (Fig. 5.63: 28–46). According to the date of the Central Plain bronzes unearthed from the northern part of the country and the date when the local culture was replaced by the Yan culture, this group of bronze cultures were mainly from the middle of the Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States period, with particular ones extending to the middle of the Warring States period.13 The remains associated with the Di in the northern part of the north of Hebei are basically bronzes used in the upper culture of the society. A large number of earthenware vessels have obvious characteristics of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. It is very likely that ordinary people at the bottom of the society came from the Upper Xiajiadian culture, north of Yanshan. From the early Spring and Autumn period, the power of the Shanrong, represented by the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the north of Yanshan, began to wane, which may be related to the Duke Huan of Qi’s crusade against them, as recorded in the historical records. This caused some of the upper cultural residents of Xiajiadian to migrate southward to the mountainous area of northern Hebei. In addition to the similar earthenware, swords with hollow hilts and knives with serrated blades and a handle have been found in the north of Hebei, which are the most typical bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The materials about Baimiao are classified into two categories. The first category is the cleanup of the Baimiao site in the Zhangjiakou Cultural Relics Management Office in 1983. The published brief report is referring to Zhangjiakou City Cultural Relics Administration Office (1985). The other is about the excavation of the Baimiao Cemetery in 1979 by the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Archaeological Department of Jilin University. However, no publications of this category are available. 12 The stages and areas are referring to Yang (2004a). 13 For the confirmation of the years, refer to Yang (2004b). 11

√

√

√

Junbushanin Yanqing County

Gold wire coils

√

√

√

√

Pao conchos

Beixinpu in Huailai County

Daolazui site in Zhuolu County Xiaobaiyang in Xuanhua County Baimiao site in Zhangjiakou County Ganzipu in Huailai County

Cemetery

Tiger

Tiger, horse, deer

Tiger, horse, deer Horse

Horse

Animal plaques

√

√

√

√

Turquoise necklaces

Snaffle bits, cheekpieces, bone cheekpieces Snaffle bits

Snaffle bits, cheekpieces

Chariot and horse fittings

Table 5.3 Remains related to the Di from Northern Hebei

5 handle

Bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards

√

√

√

√

√

Knives

√

Two-handled jars

√

Three-legged jars

Fu cauldron, dou bowl, zhou vessel, pan plate, yi vessel

Fu cauldron, dou bowl, zhou vessel, pan plate, yi vessel Ding tripod, hu-pot

Dou bowl, zhou vessel

Bronze vessels

(continued)

Mid Spring and Autumn to Early Warring States

Mid Warring States

Spring and Autumn

First half of Warring States

Spring and Autumn

Spring and Autumn

Datesa

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China 361

a

√

√

Longqingxia in Yanqing County

Tiger horse

Animal plaques

These ages are confirmed by the author

Gold wire coils

Pao conchos

Cemetery

Table 5.3 (continued)

√

Turquoise necklaces

Snaffle bits

Chariot and horse fittings

Bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards √

Knives

Two-handled jars

Three-legged jars

Ding tripod, zhou vessel

Bronze vessels

Mid Spring and Autumn to Early Warring States

Datesa

362 5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

363

It can be seen from the above analysis that the ancient people represented by the Yuhuangmao culture in the mountainous areas of the northern part of Hebei have both the cultural factors of the Di in the west and the characteristics of the Upper Xiajiadian in the south. The complicated culture indicates that its people were a complex group made of residents from different areas. However, the cultural factors of the west are mostly represented by bronzes used by the upper classes of society. The culture of the north is represented by ceramics used by ordinary residents, and there are a small number of bronze swords. The tombs of people at the top of society and the bronze rituals of the Central Plain reflect the connection with the Central Plain culture. There have been studies on the bronzes of Zhongshan state and Hunyuan, which are believed to have the characteristics of northern culture because no bronzes of the Central Plain have been found. However, this paper mainly refers to the more common objects, such as knives, swords, earrings, and plaques, which can be seen in the northern culture. These two approaches to determining the attributes of northern culture can be said to be the same.

Sites in northern Shaanxi of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty This area is located on the west bank of the Yellow River and is far from the above sites in northern Hebei. A number of Eastern Zhou tombs were excavated from three small hills: Taochangping, Fengjiata, and Xingxingyuan around Lijiaya, an ancient cultural town, in Qingjian County in northern Shaanxi by the Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology and the Northern Shaanxi Archaeological Work Team in 1983 (Shaanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 1987; Shaanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2013). Two-handled jars and short three-legged jars of northern cultures (Fig. 5.64: 48, 49) coexist with typical Central Plain ceramics (Fig. 5.73: 6–14), reflecting the integration of these two cultures. M13 of Taochangping is a tomb in the first stage, in the late middle stage of the Spring and Autumn period, when dou bowls and two-handled jars coexisted (Fig. 5.73: 11–13). M20 of Taochangping is a tomb in the third stage, when li vessels with short legs and dou bowls with large and small mouths coexisted in the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period (Fig. 5.73: 7, 8, 14). M1 from Fengjiata is a tomb in the middle of the Warring States period, when dou bowls, hu vessels, and two-handled jars coexisted (Fig. 5.73: 6, 9, 10). The double-handled jar with the handles and mouth at a parallel level was a popular object in the Qinghai and Gansu Province since the Neolithic Age. The double-handled jars of Lijiaya’s Eastern Zhou Tomb are mainly plain, and some have a round of additional circular modeling on the neck of the jar. The double-handled jar closest to the Lijiaya Eastern Zhou Tomb was found in the Group B remains in Maojiaping, Gangu, Gansu Province (Fig. 5.64: 57) (Zhao 1989), which was defined by researchers as being in the early Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States period. From the late Spring and Autumn, double-handled jars prevailed along the entire Great Wall of the Northern region, including the Baimiao cemetery in

364

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

northern Hebei. The three-legged li in the Lijiaya Eastern Zhou Tomb, originally the artifacts of the Central Plain culture, had a flat base and short legs, diagnostic of the third stage of the connection between Spring and Autumn period and the early Warring States period. It was similar to the bronze ding tripods of Hunyuan and the ceramic ding tripods of the Dushan cemetery (Fig. 5.64: 48, 25, 43) and became unique artifacts of the northern culture around the Sanggan River. In addition to this typical cemetery in northern Shaanxi, there were many bronze fu cauldrons collected. One is a fu cauldron with a round body and a contracted mouth found in Qiaochatan, Shenmu County (Lu 1988b) and Ximawan, Jingbian County (Lu 1988b), similar to the fu cauldron of the M18 in Yuhuangmiao (Fig. 5.64: 50, 51, 46). The other is the fu cauldron with an oval mouth collected in Suide County and Zhidan County, similar to the fu cauldrons with an oval mouth in Yuanping (Lu 1988b) and Hunyuan (Ji 1989a) (Fig. 5.64: 52, 53, 20, 26; Plate 3: 5). These findings illustrate that the sites of Rong and Di were distributed widely in the northern Shaanxi Province.

Sites of Bronze Guan Jars, Bronze Swords with Animal Mask-Shaped Guards, Tiger Plaques and Bronze Fu Cauldrons in Guanzhong The representative artifacts in the Di’s sites can be found in the Guanzhong areas, such as tiger plaques, tiger-shaped bronzes, bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards, and bronze fu cauldrons. The earliest and most distinct remains of this kind were found at the late Zhou cemetery of Yucun County (Xu and Liu 1985), Gansu Province. A total of 22 bronzes were buried in the tomb, among which the xu vessel and the li vessel, both with inscriptions, are typical Western Zhou bronzes. In addition to the typical Western Zhou bronzes, there are tiger ornaments, three-dimensional bronze tigers and swords (Fig. 5.64: 54–56) and two double-handled bronze guan jars all smaller than 3 cm high. First, the bronze guan jars with an almost plain face are non-Central Plain bronzes. These bronze guan jars can also be found in the Fuhao Tomb (Anyang Work Team of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1980) of the Yinxu period, the Yuguo tomb in Baoji cemetery (Lu and Hu 1988, Fig. 137: 3) and the Jinhoufu tomb (School of Archaeology and Museology of Beijing University and Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology 2001) of the Western Zhou dynasty. Studies have shown that bronzes of the Fuhao Tomb and the Jinhoufu tomb reflect their non-Central Plain origins (Lin 2006; Yong 2006). Second, the preference for tigers is also a feature of the Central Plain. A bronze tiger buried in the tomb is 7.2 cm long and 2.5 cm high. Animal-shaped bronzes are popular in the tombs of Zhongshan state, and tiger-shaped ornaments are found in the sites of northern Hebei and Zhongshan state. Two pictures are exhibited in Baoji Bronze Museum, one of which is a tiger-shaped ornament excavated from the Zhouyuan remains of Fufeng County, Baoji, in 1980. It is approximately 10 cm long and is believed to be from the middle of the Western Zhou dynasty. The other is a tiger-shaped zun vessel that was unearthed from the Doujitai site of Baoji in

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

365

1926. It is 75.9 cm long and is now in the Museum of Fine Arts in Washington, USA. It is believed to be from the late Western Zhou dynasty. Therefore, the tiger plaques and the tiger-shaped bronzes may be as early as the middle of the Western Zhou dynasty and are from the center of the Zhou culture. The preference for the tiger was not common among the later Chinese feudatories but was popular in Zhongshan state, established by the Di. Therefore, the preference for the tiger can be regarded as a characteristic of the Di culture, which indicates the existence of non-Chinese cultural elements in the Western Zhou culture. There are also three pieces of bronze tiger plaques with a strip-shaped button for hanging the tiger from the middle of its back, which is more than 6 cm long and more than 2 cm wide. The three-dimensional bronze tigers and flat bronze tigers unearthed from Yucun are the sources of the popular tiger-shaped ornaments throughout the Northern Zone. Three-dimensional tiger-shaped ornaments are popular among the tombs coexisting with the Central Plain culture, while flat tiger plaques are popular in the far Northern Zone. The small double-handled bronze guan jar is likely to be a miniature version of the double-handled pottery commonly found in the indigenous cultures of the northwest, reflecting the local indigenous culture. Third, the bronze sword with animal mask-shaped guard unearthed from the Yucun tomb is also a non-Central Plain cultural element and is the earliest one found so far. The bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards and Qin-style swords in the northern part of the country were mainly popular in the Spring and Autumn period, while the swords in the Hebei area were slightly later, from the middle of the Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States period. The two types of swords developed in parallel for a long period, so there are likely to be cultural influences, all of which originated from the sword of Yucun in the Western Zhou dynasty. However, the whisker-like decoration under the animal face of the Yucun sword guard contracts downwards, like the bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards, indicating that the Qin-style swords changed during the development process and the bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards retained their original appearance. Based on these phenomena, an assumption can be made: one of the swords that originated from Yucun developed into a Qin-style sword, and the other developed into a sword with an animal mask-shaped guard in northern Hebei. The earlier Qin-style sword was unearthed from Ning County, Lingtai (Liu and Zhu 1981), and Long County (Xiao 1991) in the Qingyang area and then spread into the hinterland of the Zhou and Qin culture. This distribution indicates that this type of sword does not originate from the Zhou and Qin culture but is a characteristic of the Rong and Di. Some scholars have noted that the upper reaches of the Jinghe River are the areas where the Western Rong were distributed during the Western Zhou dynasty. They constantly harassed the Western Zhou dynasty from the northwest bank of the Jinghe River (Li and Xu 2007). Finally, the bronze fu cauldron was a popular bronze vessel in the north, and it has also been found in the Guanzhong area. The earliest fu cauldron was the fu of Wangjia village in Qishan (Pang and Cui 1989) (Fig. 5.64: 58). According to the available research (Teng 2002), this is also the earliest fu cauldron in the northern part of China and Eurasia, and it is believed to be in the middle and late Western

366

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Zhou dynasty. From the Eastern Zhou dynasty and Western Zhou dynasty to the early Spring and Autumn period, the Guanzhong area is where the largest concentration of bronze fu cauldrons has been unearthed. The clear assemblage excavated from Ganyu village, Baoji (Gao and Wang 1988), and Dongshe, Fengxiang (Yongcheng Archaeological Work Team of Shaanxi Province 1984), indicates that the Guanzhong area is one of the main sources of bronze fu cauldrons with northern characteristics. The typical artifacts of the Di people, bronze swords with animal mask-shaped guards, tiger plaques and bronze fu cauldrons in the Guanzhong area, are all from the late Western Zhou dynasty. The plain bronze guan jars are also non-Central Plain bronzes. Due to the contingency of discovery, the coexistence of the fu cauldron and the first two objects has not been proven. These discoveries are the earliest sites of the Rong and Di and can be considered the source of Rong and Di culture. The Guanzhong area, the center of the late Western Zhou dynasty culture, especially in the upper reaches of the Jinghe River, had strong northern cultural characteristics and coexisted with the Zhou culture, reflecting the close relationship between the two.

Atypical Remains Apart from the finds described above, there are a small number of remains the characteristics of which are not quite clear, namely the sites that do not contain typical Di objects, like the Eastern Zhou burials at Jingping Township in Shuozhou Prefecture, Shanxi Province (Zhi and Gao 1992). More than 300 tombs were excavated from the burials, and only four tombs were mentioned in the brief report. Wooden burial vessels, but no sacrificial animals, were found in these four tombs, in some of which head niches were unearthed. The funerary objects are ceramics, bronzes, and artifacts made of bone. The ceramic is a guan jar with one handle in a unique shape, though it is similar to the double-handled guan jar. The number of bronzes is small, with bronze cutters and bronze belt hooks. The T-shaped bone objects with a one-bulb nail-shaped end range from 32 cm long to 32–67 cm long; their purpose is unknown (Fig. 5.65: A4, 5). There are also some green and white bead decorations in the tombs. The artifacts that can be used to confirm the date are mainly bronze knives, which changed in length and width occurred in the middle and backward compared with the knives of Jundushan (Jin 2001).14 The date of these artifacts was likely to be the turn of the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States because the tombs of Jundushan are dated to the middle of the Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States period.

14

Figure 5.66. The shape of the knives in tomb of Jingping tomb is between that of the No. 4 knife and No. 5 knife, which is closer to No. 5 knife.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

367

Fig. 5.65 Atypical artifacts of the Rong, Di and Hu (A. The Rong and Di; B. the Hu). 1 Pottery jar (Jingping cemetery M54: 3); 2 bronze cutter (Jingping cemetery M192: 3); 3 bronze belt hook (Jingping cemetery M192: 4); 4 nail-shaped bone object (Jingping cemetery M57: 1); 5 nail-shaped bone object (Jingping cemetery M192: 2); 6 pottery guan-jar (Hamadun cemetery: 01); 7 pottery li-cauldron (Xigang cemetery M334: 2); 8 pottery jar (Hamadun cemetery M16: 3); 9 bronze sword (Chaigangwan cemetery M4: 7); 10 bronze knife (Chaigangwan cemetery M4: 8); 11 bronze knife (Xigang cemetery M83: 1); 12 bone bow tips (Hamadun cemetery M18: 7); 13 bronze belt buckle (Xigang cemetery M146: 5); 14 bronze mirror (Chaigangwan cemetery M75: 5); 15 bronze bell-shaped ornament (Hamadun cemetery M5: 6); 16 bronze tube-shaped ornament (Hamadun cemetery M4: 2); 17 bronze plaque (Hamadun cemetery M11: 3); 18 bronze plaque (Xigang cemetery M74: 1-②); 19 bead-string ornament (Hamadun cemetery M19: 3); 20 bead-string ornament (Hamadun cemetery TM4: 1); 21 bead-string ornament (Xigang cemetery M9: 5); 22 bead-string ornament (Hamadun cemetery M12: 5)

These tombs are assumed to be the remains of the Rong and Di because there are wooden burial vessels, bronze belt hooks, bronze knives, guan jars with one handle (similar to the double-handled guan jars), and a preponderance of bead ornaments but no sacrificial animals. However, no tiger plaques, tiger-shaped vessels, swords with animal mask-shaped guards, or bronze fu cauldrons have been found, which are typical characteristics of the Rong and Di sites. Hence, there appear to have been different ethnic groups occupying the Rong and Di sites, and these sites belong to the Rong and Di system. The sites with typical artifacts are believed to be the sites of the White Di. The Jingping Tomb is in the north, where objects of the Central Plain, especially bronzes, represent one group of the Di, who had less contact with the Central Plain. The Zhaitouhe site in Huangling County, Yan’an city, Shaanxi Province, which has recently been discovered, also belongs to this type of sites. Typical ceramic wares are mainly li vessels with three spade-shaped feet, single-handle guan jars, double-plate guan jars, and pot-type li vessels. Moreover, a bronze-like ceramic fu cauldron with an oval square mouth and long nail-shaped bone objects similar to

368

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

those in Jingping cemetery having been placed on the left side of a tomb occupant’s head; they were presumed to be bone pins (Shaanxi Research Institute of Archaeology et al. 2012). The date of this site is likely the middle and late Warring States, when the Rong people migrated eastward again.

5.2.1.3

The Dating, Distribution and Main Features of the Rong and Di Cultures

Judging from the archaeological discoveries made so far, the Rong and Di were distributed from Guanzhong Plain to northern Shaanxi and eastward across the Taihang Mountains to the Hutuo River Valley and the Sanggan River Valley, making a cross-section through the northern part of China, that dates from the late Western Zhou to the beginning of the Warring State period, showing a continuous movement from west to east (Fig. 5.62). The typical artifacts of this type of remains are swords with animal mask-shaped guards, tiger plaques, bronze fu, cauldrons and double-handled guan jars and bronze guan jars. The special preference for tigers is related to an ethnic group’s common ideology and tradition. However, due to the incomplete nature of archaeological discoveries and the variation in the evolution of each group’s remains, the composition of the remains is not identical. Judging from chronological and regional factors, the Rong and Di remains are divided into two regions, the east and the west. The western area is the Guanzhong area and the northern Shaanxi area, and the rest belongs to the eastern area. The artifacts in the same area are quite similar to each other. Fu cauldrons in the western area are earlier in age, with small ring-shaped feet and erect handles, on top of which there are designs of multiple circular protrusions. Fu cauldrons in the eastern area developed into ones where these protrusions generally disappeared and whose ring-shaped feet were gradually enlarged under the influence of the dou bowl in the Central Plain. There are folded patterns near the bottom. Some of the fu cauldrons with oval square mouths evolved into ones with attached handles rather than erect handles, which were easy to cover and use. In the eastern region, gold and bronze bulb ornaments, wire coils, knives, hu pots with raised cord patterns and chain handles and horse fittings were popular (Zhongshan state is highly sinolized, so no horse fittings have been found there). The contents of the tombs in Liyu village, Hunyuan County, were mostly removed after their destruction, so few small ornaments were found. There seems to be a deeper connection between northern Hebei and northern Shaanxi in the north of the eastern and western areas, which is reflected by the three-legged pottery and double-handled pottery guan jars in the two places. This type of connection can be traced to the spread of the floral-rim li tripods at the end of the Shang dynasty and the beginning of the Zhou dynasty. The cultural factors in the northern part of Shaanxi are very complicated. The remains of the Rong and Di, the remains of the Ordos bronzes and the remains in the Xiongnu period can be found in the published relics collected in Yulin (Lu 1988a) and Yan’an (Ji 1989b). Many reports refer to these relics as the remains of the Xiongnu (see reports on

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

369

Yan’an, Long County and Yulin areas in the references). With regard to these characteristics of northern culture, the way to distinguish the remains of the Rong and Di is to compare them with those in the northern Hebei area, features only the remains of the Rong and Di during this period. The remains are likely to belong to the Rong and Di if they are similar to those in northern Hebei. For example, there is an animal-shaped hook in northern Shaanxi, and this type of ware is also found in northern Hebei but is rarely found in other areas. Therefore, this type of artifact in northern Shaanxi is likely to belong to the remains of the Rong and Di (Fig. 5.64: 47, 35; Plates 3: 7; 9: 7). These Rong and Di remains coexisted or merged with the Central Plain culture. In the Guanzhong Plain area, these are the bronzes of the late Western Zhou dynasty. The Central Plain culture in the northern part of Shaanxi commonly had ding tripods, dou bowls, guan jars, he boxes, and hu pots in the tombs of the Jin culture. However, the pottery li tripod gradually evolved into a unique three-legged, pottery ding tripod pottery in the northern region. The remains of Yuanping, Hunyuan, and Zhongshan state coexisted with the Central Plain bronzes and formed hu pots with raised cord patterns and chain handles and dou bowls with short handles. In the northern part of Hebei, there is no combination of the two; instead, there are mainly fu cauldrons and Yan-style bronzes.

5.2.1.4

Relevant Literature

According to Chunqiu (〈〈春秋〉〉,Spring and Autumn Annals) and Zuozhuan (〈〈左傳〉〉 Zuo’s Commentary), the Di was the most important non-Chinese tribe living in Northern China during the Spring and Autumn period. The first time that the Di appeared in Chunqiu was in the 32nd year of Duke Zhuang (662 B.C.), where it reads, “Di invaded the state of Xing”. After the 32nd year of Duke Xi (628 B.C.), the name Zhu Di appeared, indicating the development and differentiation of the Di and the deep understanding of the Central Plain. After the 33rd year of Duke Xi, the White Di appeared in Zuozhuan. Du Yu’s Commentary stated that “the Xianyu is another kind of White Di who lived in Xinshi County, Zhongshan Prefecture (present-day Zhengding County)”. This shows that in the middle and late Spring and Autumn period, one branch of the White Di, the Xianyu, had already appeared in the Hebei area, indicating that their eastward migration was already completed. Judging from the location and date, the archaeological remains in the Sanggan River Valley probably belong to the Dai state. The Hunyuan bronzes in the Sanggan River Valley were designated as instruments of the Dai state in the Encyclopedia of China, Archaeological Volume. Some of the remains of the northern part of Hebei are likely to also belong to Dai state in the Spring and Autumn period. According to the records of the Western Han dynasty in the “Shui Jing Zhu” (〈〈水經注〉〉, Commentary on the Water Classic), the Han dynasty called the Sanggan Valley the Dai Valley (Lin 1998a). Most of these remains are from the Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States. The ending date of this type

370

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

of archaeological remains coincided with the Shiji records that the Dai State was annexed in the first year of Zhao Xiangzi (475 B.C.). A non-typical remain of the Jingping cemetery in Shuozhou, Shanxi Province, was called “Loufan” in the brief report. According to the Historical Atlas of China, the Jingping cemetery of Shuozhou Prefecture in Shanxi is in the distribution area of the Loufan Tribe. The brief report of the Jingping Tomb also revealed that the cultural features of the same tombs of the middle and late Warring States are completely different from the four tombs. The great change in the cemetery culture in the middle of the Warring States is likely related to the incident of Emperor Zhao Wuling’s annihilation of the Loufan. Emperor Zhao Wuling “[broke] Linhu [and] Loufan, and [built] the Great Wall in the north …”, together with Zhao Xiangzi’s annihilation of the Dai state, cleared the obstacles for the Zhao state’s expansion from the from the northeast and this expansion caused Zhao to directly face the threat of the Hu, so they built the wall to resist the Hu. The Eastern Zhou cemetery of Lijiaya in Qingjian County is likely to be the remains of the White Di. The White Di were located in Shaanxi Province to the west of the Yellow River. It belonged to Yongzhou, like the Qin state, and intermarried with the Jin state. According to a record of the 13th year of Duke Cheng in the Zuozhuan, the Marquis of Jin broke off relations with Qin state. Based on the cultural connotations and the times and places, the Lijiaya tombs of Eastern Zhou are likely to be the remains of the White Di to the west of the river. The coexistence of northern pottery and the pottery of the Jin culture seen in the tomb indicates the connection between the White Di and Jin. The Zhaitouhe cemetery shows that in the middle and late Warring States period, the White Di moved eastward, and the Rong people in the west came to northern Shaanxi and continued moving eastward. The systematic literature on the Guanzhong area from the late Western Zhou dynasty to the early Spring and Autumn period includes the chapters “Zhou Ben Ji” and “Qin Ben Ji” in Shiji. According to these records, the cultural relics of the Central Plain in the Guanzhong area are the remains of the Rong. According to the historical document, the “Western Rong rebelled [against] the royal family of Western Zhou” during the reign of King Li. Then, when King Xuan took the throne, Qin Zhong was entitled as Daifu, one type of ancient official title in China, to kill the Western Rong and was later killed by the Western Rong. This was recorded in “Historical Records Qin Ben Ji”. In the following period, King You of the Western Zhou was killed at Li Mountain. Then, King Ping moved eastward and settled in Luoyi, the capital, leading to the loss of the territory of the Zhou, which was occupied by the Rong. The tombs of Yucun, Ning County, Gansu Province represent the Western Zhou Tombs with the cultural factors of the Rong. The bronze fu cauldrons from Wangjia village, Qishan County, Ganyu village in Baoji County and Fengxiang village of Dongshe County are all objects used by the Rong. After entering the Spring and Autumn period, the Guanzhong area became the area where Qin and the Rong and Di competed. Group B of the remains of Maojiaping Gangu County in the eastern part of Gansu Province is representative of the remains of the Rong coexisting with the Qin state. Duke Xiang was enfeoffed as a duke because he organized a convoy that escorted King Ping. The power of the

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

371

Rong was very strong in the first two decades of the early Spring and Autumn period. In the 16th year of Qin Wengong (750 B.C.), “Duke Wen sent troops to invade Rong, who was defeated. Then Duke Wen of Eastern Zhou regained the territory of Zhou up to [the territory of] Qi,`` which is recorded in the “Qin Benji” chapter of the Shiji. This is the first successful crusade reported against the Rong in the Qin dynasty, resulting in some of the Rong people having to migrate from the Guanzhong area to the outside. The Eastern Zhou Tomb of Qingjian may belong to the first migrated Rong people. With the eastward movement, the Rong began to differentiate into different branches. One of these branches arrived in the northern part of Shaanxi, where the White Di was formed and a marriage relationship was established with Jin. The decisive victory for the Qin state against the Qin was in the 37th year of Duke Mu of Qin (623 B.C.): “Qin adopted Youyu’s advice to attack Rong, merging twelve countries, which expand[ed] the land for thousands of miles, and dominated the West Rong” (“Historical Records: Qin Ben Ji”). This victory led to the expulsion of the Rong and Di tribes in the west of the Yellow River and south of Ordos. As a result, the White Di in the west of the Yellow River moved further eastward in the middle of the Spring and Autumn period and finally arrived at the Sanggan River and the Hutuo River.

5.2.1.5

Reconstruction of the White Di’s Eastward Migration Process

Among the relevant remains Di, the earliest is the remains with northern characteristics represented by swords with animal-mask-shaped guards, tiger-shaped ornaments and bronze fu cauldrons in the Guanzhong area in the late Western Zhou dynasty. The Rong are mentioned in the literature, reflecting the increasing power of the Rong in the late Western Zhou period. The artifacts of the Rong coexisted with bronzes representing the Zhou culture, which indicates the close relationship between the Rong and the Western Zhou dynasty. In the early Spring and Autumn period, the Qin and Rong cultures coexisted in the Guanzhong area in the eastern part of Gansu and were represented by the Assemblage A and Assemblage B remains of Maojiaping in Gangu, respectively. The remains of group B in both Yucun of the Guanzhong in the late Zhou dynasty and Maojiaping in the early Spring and Autumn period were identified as the Rong’s remains because their locations and dates are consistent with the distribution of the Rong in the literature. However, the objects they used are completely different due to the differences in the occupants’ identities. The objects in Yucun are mainly bronzes, while the objects in Maojiaping are only ceramic. The coexistence of these two cultures is believed to confirm the above assumption. The Rong began to seek new development space because they were attacked disastrously by Duke Wen of the Qin in the early Spring and Autumn period. The Rong split into different tribes as they migrated outside of the Guanzhong area. The White Di in the west to the Yellow River in northern Shaanxi was one of these Rong tribes in the Spring and Autumn period, which can be confirmed from the same double-handled guan jars unearthed from the remains of Assemblage B in

372

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Maojiaping and the Qingjian Tombs of the Eastern Zhou dynasty. One tribe of White Di continued to move eastward, reached the Sanggan River Valley and the Hutuo River Valley, established the Dai state in the Sanggan River Valley, and settled in Yuanping County and other places in the Hutuo River Valley after the Western Rong were dominated by Duke Mu of the Qin in the middle of the Spring and Autumn period. Then, another tribe went through the Taihang Mountains along the Hutuo River and reached the Xianyu tribe in the Baoding area in Shijiazhuang. According to the literature, there were Fei tribes, Gu tribes and other White Di tribes—who finally established Zhongshan state.

5.2.1.6

An preliminary investigation of the Relationship Between the Rong and Di

The literature of the Rong and Di in the Spring and Autumn period is mainly Chunqiu and Zuozhuan of the same period. There are the so-called “Rong” and “Di”, also known as “Rong-Di”. According to the contextual analysis of these names, the name “Rong-Di” is often used in Zuozhuan to discuss the characteristics of this group of people. However, the record in Chunqiu is very concise, without a discussion of the origin of these names. “Rong” generally refers to the western and northern tribes, such as “Western Rong” and “Northern Rong”. “Di” is only used to describe the group of people fighting with a certain vassal state. Moreover, the names Rong and Di can be interchanged. For example, King Jiafu of Wuzhongzi sent Meng Le to Jin state to “appeal for peace with Rong” in the fourth year of Duke Zhongxiang, as recorded in Zuozhuan. This matter is another part of this book as an “appeal for peace with Rong and Di” (Lin 1996). It is very likely that the specific term “Di” and the general term “Rong-Di” are different when referring to a general or specific sense, respectively. When describing the habits of this group of people, “Rong-Di” was used in a general sense disdainfully, such as “Rong-Di are not kind but greedy” or “Rong-Di dwell under the straw mat”. The specific “Di” was used when describing the group of people who fought with certain countries, such as “Di attacked Xing”. This shows that at that time, the Central Plain people learned about the northern aliens with whom they fought. The Rong and Di were separated from each other. Little was known about the cultural characteristics and habits of the ethnic groups that were generally supposed similar to each other, so they were collectively called “Rong-Di”. It can be confirmed that the remains of the Di are only those of the Zhongshan state during the Warring States period based on a combination of the literature and the archaeology. The non-Central Plain characteristics in Zhongshan are likely traditional cultural characteristics of the Di in the process of “sinocization”, which can be traced to the Guanzhong area in the late Western Zhou dynasty. These remains should be of the Rong culture according to the literature. If this judgment is correct, some of the cultural characteristics represented by the Di derived from the Rong. Therefore, the Rong and Di were closely related to each other, which allows us to understand why Rong and Di were regularly used together or interchangeably in the literature on the Central Plain.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

5.2.2

Remains Related to the Hu in the Northern Zone

5.2.2.1

The Hu in Historical Records

373

The Hu discussed in this book mainly refer to the Hu that were contemporary with the reign of King Wuling in the Zhao state during the Warring States period. Of all the related ancient Chinese documents, Shiji has the most systematic and faithful records related to the Hu remains and is the closest extant document to these remains in terms of time. The most well-acknowledged literal evidence in Shiji related to the Hu ethnic group is the adoption of horse riding and archery as well as the Hu style of dress by King Wuling of the Zhao state. Historical records about the ethnic groups in the north are mainly found in Xiongnu Liezhuan (Biography of the Huns), one chapter in Shiji, and other historical documents of the Qin state near the present Guyuan and Yinnan Prefectures and of the Zhao state in the vicinity of present Inner Mongolia. These northern ethnic-related historical documents cover three historical periods. The first period started in the mid-Spring and Autumn period. As recorded in Shiji, Duke Wen of Jin repelled the Rong and Di, also referred to as Chidi (Red Di) and Baidi (White Di), and Duke Mu of the Qin, with the help of Youyu, defeated eight West Rong states and made them pay allegiance to the Qin. The Rong and Di mentioned in Shiji are related to the sites under discussion. After repelling the Rong and Di, the Qin and Jin were directly faced with ethnic groups north of the Rong and Di. Some of these ethnic groups may have had connections with the Hu sites discussed in this book, although no clear evidence has been found in historical documents. The second period documented in the ancient literature was the early years of the Warring States period. The Dai state, established by the Di ethnic group, was annexed by the Zhao state, as recorded in Shiji. Zhao Xiangzi crossed the Gouzhu Mountain (the present Yanmen Mountain), defeated the Dai state of Di, and approached the Hu residential area. Similar records can be found in Zhan’guoce «战国策» (Strategies of the Warring States): King Xiang annexed the Dai state of the Rong ethnic group and tried to dispel the Hu ethnic groups. In these ancient Chinese historical sources, the Rong, Dai, and Hu were recorded separately alongside each other, which indicates that they were independent regimes. After the division of the Jin into three states, namely, the Han, Zhao and Wei, the Zhao annexed the Dai and the area north of the Gouzhu Mountain, while the Wei occupied the west shores along the branch of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi as well as the ancient Shang Prefecture (the present Suide County of Shaanxi Province) and thus bordered the Rong territory. All these historical records indicate that from the early years of the Warring States period, because of their continuous expansion, the Qin and Jin had already encountered ethnic groups from even further north. The Humo (Hu) recorded in these historical documents were located north of the Dai state. In Shiji, the Rong bordering the Wei state refers to the various non-Chinese ethnic groups that inhabited the northern areas.

374

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

The third period started in the mid-Warring States period. Records of this period can be found in Shiji. King Zhao of the Qin state killed King Yiqu at Ganquan, and the Qin troops attacked the remnants of Yiqu’s defeated troops. The Qin subsequently occupied Longxi, Beidi, and Shangjun/Shang Prefecture and built walls to resist the Hu. King Wuling of the Zhao state changed the dress customs to the Hu ethnic style, learnt horse riding and archery and annexed Linhu and Loufan, and built walls to resist the Hu. The Hu were frequently mentioned by ancient works in the literature about this period. After conquering Yiqu, Linhu and Loufan, the Qin state and Zhao state were directly in conflict with the Hu ethnic groups living farther north. A large number of Hu-related sites have been found in Guyuan Prefecture, spreading over a vast area of Guyuan County, Xiji County, Pengyang County, and Longde County, with the Great Wall of the Qin state meandering across the region. Some scholars associate the sites of this region with the Wushi Rong (Luo 1990; Lin 1993), but we do not agree with associating all the sites in the Guyuan Prefecture with the Wushi Rong. Our reasons are as follows. We have attributed the decorations of zoomorphic motifs in relief to the very late stage, and they were mainly discovered from the sites outside the Great Wall, except for some isolated cemeteries at the Baiyanglin site. These sites are mostly connected to cover a large space, such as the sites found in Chenyangchuan Village of Xinying Township, Xiji County, and Mazhuang Village of Yanglang Township, Guyuan County. These sites are dated to the period after the Qin state repelled the Yiqu and other West Rong ethnic groups and built the Great Wall. The purpose of constructing the Great Wall was to resist the Hu. Therefore, the remains of the late Warring States period outside the Great Wall are likely to be the sites of the Hu ethnic groups. As recorded in the ancient works of literature, the Qin state and Zhao state continued expanding northward during these three periods and were eventually directly confronted with the Hu ethnic groups. Qin and Zhao were two of the seven most powerful states during the Warring States period. They had to compete with the other five powerful states while expanding northward. One thought-provoking point is that during the Warring States period, powerful states such as the Qin, Zhao, and Yan all started to defend against the Hu ethnic groups by constructing walls. What factors made them change their resistance strategy from repelling the neighboring ethnic groups to their north to constructing walls to resist the Hu? The answer might be that the Hu was different from other ethnic groups in the north with regard to fighting wars. Therefore, the different modes of fighting must have resulted in differences between the sites of the Hu and those of the Rong and Di. From historical documents, we find that the Hu fought their wars with mounted archers. Their clothing was thus designed to be appropriate for riding, as revealed by the clothing and weapons unearthed. Numerous unearthed belt buckles, decorative plaques, short swords, knives and bronze tubes were assumed to have hung on the waist. The discovery of some bronze arrowheads, bone arrowheads, and bone bows and arrows also confirm the assumption about their way of fighting. The

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

375

unearthed sacrificial horses are further evidence that the Hu fought their wars with mounted archers. The Hu ethnic group had the custom of interring horses as sacrificial objects. The largest number of sacrificial horses found in one single cemetery, the M2 cemetery at the Hulusitai site, is twenty-seven. Most of the sites in relation to the northern ethnic groups are likely associated with the Hu, especially those remains located outside the Great Wall. As noted by Di Cosmo, the states of the Central Plain adopted walls to defend against the horse-riding Hu (Di Cosmo 2002). Until the Qin and Han dynasties, the Great Wall was still employed to resist the Xiongnu, which indicates that the Hu and the Xiongnu fought wars in the same way. The historical records on the Hu can only be found in a relatively small amount of ancient Chinese sources compared with the literature concerning the Rong and Di. This implies that the people of the Central Plain at that time knew much less about the Hu than about the Rong and Di. The Central Plain-related artifacts unearthed from the Hu sites are mainly bronze ge (Figs. 5.66: 15, 26 and 5.69: 4), without the other bronzes from the Central Plain. This may indicate that the interaction between the Hu and the Central Plain was confined to warfare.

5.2.2.2

The Archaeological Sites Related to the Hu

The most famous artifacts in the sites related to the Hu in the Eastern Zhou dynasty are the Ordos bronzes and similar findings from the Guyuan region. These Hu-related sites from various regions, represented by cemeteries, share obvious similarities: interred sacrificial animals together with four categories of burial assemblages, horse and chariot accouterments, tools and weapons, garment ornaments and ceramics can be found in all the cemeteries. The first three categories of burial assemblages are mainly bronzes, except for a limited number of bone-made or iron-made artifacts.

The Hu Sites Distributed in the Guyuan Area of Ningxia The first area under discussion is the Guyuan area of Ningxia. Based on the sites of the Yujiazhuang cemetery site in Pengbao Township (Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1995b), the Mazhuang site in Yanglang Township (Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology and Guyuan Museum 1993) and the reports in Luo and Han’s The bronzes of Northern style found in Ningxia Guyuan in recent years (Luo and Han 1990), the sites related to the Hu in this area consist of three assemblages (Fig. 5.66). The first assemblage (Fig. 5.66: 1–6) can be found at Huaiwan, Shanbei, Mengyuan and M2 at Samen. The artifacts of this assemblage include horse and chariot accouterments (round plaques with sockets and arc-shaped horse facial ornaments), tools and weapons (hollow-headed axes, knives with large ring pommels and motif-decorated hilts) and pao conchos with

376

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.66 Artifacts of the Hu people in Guyuan area. 1 Openwork-decorated bronze round plaque (M2 of Samen cemetery in Guyuan City, Ningxia); 2 sole-shaped horse head ornament (Mengyuan Township, Pengyang County, Ningxia); 3 bronze hollow-head ax (Mengyuan Township); 4 bronze knife (Mengyuan Township); 5 bronze knife (Huaiwan Site at Shanbei Village, Xiji County, Ningxia); 6 bronze pao conchos (Mengyuan Township); 7 bronze button (M1 of Samen cemetery); 8 bronze bubble-shaped horse head ornament (Miyuan Site in Pengyang County); 9 bronze three-dimensional ibexes (M1 of Samen cemetery); 10 bronze bubble-shaped staff head (88M1 of Samen cemetery); 11 bronze axle ornament (M1 of Samen cemetery); 12 bronze short sword (M3 of Samen cemetery); 13 bronze knife (IM12: 12 of Mazhuang cemetery in Guyuan); 14 bronze pickax (M19: 4 of Yujiazhuang cemetery in Guyuan); 15 bronze ge-dagger ax (M17: 6 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 16 bronze plaque (M14: 10 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 17 bronze belt buckle (IMB: 21 of Mazhuang cemetery); 18 bronze mirror-shaped ornament (M15: 14 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 19 pottery jar (M10: 2 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 20 horse head ornament with tube (IIIM5: 33 of Mazhuang cemetery); 21 eagle-shaped bronze staff head (SM4: 15 of Yujiazhuang cemetery); 22 big-horn-shaped bronze staff head (IIIM4: 1 of Mazhuang cemetery); 23 bronze big-horn-shaped ornament (IIIM4: 3 of Mazhuang cemetery); 24 bronze short sword (Acquired115 of Mazhuang cemetery); 25 iron knife (IM15: 1 of Mazhuang cemetery); 26 bronze ge-dagger ax (IM1: 30 of Mazhuang cemetery); 27 iron plaque (IIIMS: 17 of Mazhuang cemetery); 28 bronze plaque with tiger-biting-animal design (IM12: 5 of Mazhuang cemetery); 29 bronze belt buckle (IIIM1: 52 of Mazhuang cemetery); 30 bronze plaque (Chenyangchuan Site in Xiji County, Ningxia); 31 pottery jar (M5: 20 of Mazhuang cemetery)

motif-decorated surfaces. The second assemblage (Fig. 5.66: 7–19) is represented by most of the burials at Yujiazhuang cemetery and Tombs M1 and M3 at Samen. The horse and chariot accouterments of this assemblage consist of round plaques with hilts or sockets, bubble-shaped horse facial ornaments, yoke ornaments, and animal-shaped finials. Tools and weapons with new features were found in this assemblage, such as a sword with a pommel of birds depicted in mirror image with their heads turned back, knives with an irregular hole and pickaxes. Ornaments

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

377

found in this assemblage are S-shaped plaques.15 The third assemblage (Fig. 5.66: 20–31) is represented by most of the graves of Mazhuang cemetery as well as the burials at Chengyangchuan and Baiyanglin. In the third assemblage, the horse and chariot accouterments include horse facial ornaments with a convex tube. The prevalent finial ornaments in this assemblage are falcon heads and ibex heads. Ibex-head yoke ornaments are also prevalent in this assemblage. Iron tools and weapons appeared in this assemblage, and sword pommels showed simplified features. Rectangular belt plaques and animal-shaped plaques can be found in the garment ornaments of this group, and the S-shaped plaques also showed a tendency toward simplification (Plate 10: 1, 3).

The Hu Sites Distributed in the Yinnan Area of Ningxia The Yinnan area of Ningxia (south of Yinchuan city) is the second distribution area of the Hu-related sites. The sites of this area, the two tombs (Zhong 1997) at Niding Village in Zhongning County and the eleven tombs (Zhou 1989) at Langwozikeng in Xitai Township of Zhongwei County, can also be divided into three groups in terms of the types and forms of their assemblages (Fig. 5.67). The first assemblage in this area is found in the burial sites of Niding and M3 of Langwozikeng. Double-ringed snaffles and arc-shaped horse facial ornaments constitute the horse and chariot accouterments of the first assemblage. Tools and weapons of this assemblage mainly consist of socketed battle-axes, socketed ge dagger axes, and hollow-headed axes as well as a short sword with double bird pommel. The birds are realistically depicted on the pommel of this sword, and a notch can be observed between the blade and the cross-guard of the sword. Ornaments in this assemblage only include belt buckles with projecting rivets at the bottom rim. In terms of the arc-shaped horse facial ornaments and hollow-headed axes, the first assemblage of this area is almost equivalent to the first assemblage of the Guyuan area. The difference between the first assemblage of the two areas is that a short sword with double bird pommel was found in the Yinnan area. The representative cemetery of the second assemblage is the Langwozikeng M5 (this cemetery is actually a mixture of several tombs). Swords with double birds were also found in this assemblage. Pickaxes of this assemblage, attributed to the latest date of all the artifacts, are similar to those of the second assemblage of the Guyuan area. The third assemblage was only found in the M1 of Langwozikeng. Its horse and chariot accouterments include falcon-head finial ornaments and horse facial ornaments with a convex tube. The 凸-shaped plaques of this assemblage are the same as those of the third assemblage in the Guyuan area.

The “S”-shaped ornament is the kind of ornament which is divided into two sections, both of which share the same pattern being opposite to each other, like the pattern of J, Q, and K in the playing cards. The overall shape is like an “S”.

15

378

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.67 Artifacts of the Hu people in Yinnan area. 1 Bronze snaffle (M2: 5 of Niding Village cemetery in Zhongning County, Ningxia); 2 bronze round plaque (M2: 14 of Niding Village cemetery); 3 sole-shaped horse head ornament (M2: 4 of Niding Village cemetery); 4 bronze short sword (M3: 1 of Niding Village cemetery); 5 bronze sword with trident-shaped guard (M3: 12 of Langwozikeng cemetery in Zhongwei, Ningxia); 6 bronze ge-dagger ax with socket (M3: 5 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 7 bronze ax with socket (M1: 2 of Niding Village cemetery); 8 bronze hollow-head ax (M5: 3 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 9 bronze belt buckle (M2: 19 of Niding Village cemetery); 10 bronze tube-shaped ornament (Niding Village); 11 pottery jar (M2: 18 of Niding Village cemetery); 12 bronze short sword (M5: 3 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 13 bronze pickaxe (M5: 27 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 14 eagle-shaped bronze staff head (M1: 19 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 15 horse head ornament with tube (M1: 6 of Langwozikeng cemetery); 16 bronze plaque (M1: 23 of Langwozikeng cemetery)

In the artifacts of both the Guyuan area and the Yinnan area, horse and chariot accouterments constitute a prominent part, and swords with trident-shaped guards are also prevalent (Fig. 5.67: 5). The socketed battle-axes, ge dagger axes and hollow-headed axes of the first assemblage show connections with northern bronzes in the late Shang and early Zhou periods. The evolution process of the pickaxes can be observed from the weapons of the Yinnan area, from socketed battle-axes to socketed ge dagger axes to pickaxes (Fig. 5.67: 7, 6, 13). The artifacts of the second assemblage belong to the time when the short swords and pickaxes were most developed. A large number of belt plaques indicate that the warrior class were likely glorious during this period of time. Among the third assemblage, zoomorphic motifs were highly developed, as evidenced by the staff heads of the horse gear and the belt plaques, which are obvious features of the steppe cultural artistic vocabulary.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

379

The Hu Sites Distributed in the Western Part of Inner Mongolia The third area where the Hu-related sites are commonly found is the western part of Inner Mongolia. Like the two areas mentioned above, the sites of this area are categorized into three types of assemblages (Fig. 5.68). The first assemblage can be seen in the Baohaishe bronze collection (Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng 1987), the Xiyuan Spring and Autumn period cemetery in Baotou

Fig. 5.68 Artifacts of the Hu people in Western Inner Mongolia. 1 Bronze snaffle (Ming’anmudu Site in Ejin Horo Banner); 2 bronze knife (Baohaishe Site in Jungar Banner); 3 bronze ge-dagger ax with socket (Ming’anmudu Site); 4 bronze earring (M3: 4 of Xiyuan cemetery in Baotou City); 5 bronze belt buckle (Ming’anmudu Site); 6 bronze joint pao concho (M6: 6 of Xiyuan cemetery); 7 bronze button (M6: 10 of Xiyuan cemetery); 8 bronze spoon (M6: 2 of Xiyuan cemetery); 9 and 10 bronze fu-cauldrons (Baohaishe Site); 11 bronze horse head ornament (GM1: 8 of Gongsuhao cemetery in Ejin Horo Banner); 12 bronze bubble-shaped horse head ornament (Gongsuhao cemetery); 13 bronze chariot shaft finial (M2: 17 of Hulstai cemetery in Urad Rear Banner); 14 bronze sword with double birds turning back their heads (GM1: 5 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 15 bronze knife (GM1: 6 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 16 bronze pickax (GM1: 1 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 17 ring-shaped bronze belt buckle (M3: 14 of Xigoupan cemetery); 18 bronze tube-shaped ornament (M2: 9 of Hulstai cemetery); 19 bird-shaped bronze plaque (GM1: 8 of Gongsuhao cemetery); 20 bird-shaped bronze plaque (M1: 28 of Taohongbala cemetery in Hanggin Banner); 21 bronze plaque with standing deer figure (M2: 16 of Hulstai cemetery); 22 pottery pot (M2: 48 of Hulstai cemetery); 23 pottery jar (M1: 1 of Taohongbala cemetery); 24 ibex-head-shaped finial (Yulongtai cemetery in Jungar Banner); 25 tiger head-shaped silver rein fitting (M2: 13 of Xigoupan cemetery); 26 crane head-shaped finial (M2: 72 of Xigoupan cemetery); 27 deer-shaped ornament (M2: 9 of Xigoupan cemetery); 28 bronze pickax (2264 of Yulongtai cemetery); 29 gold plaque (Aluchaideng cemetery in Hanggin Banner); 30 bronze belt buckle (2257 of Yulongtai cemetery); 31 bronze belt buckle (M3: 20 of Xigoupan cemetery); 32 swan-shaped lead ornament (M2: 41–45 of Xigoupan cemetery); 33 standing monster-shaped gold plaque (M2: 29 of Xigoupan cemetery); 34 gold eardrop (Nianfangqu Site in Dongsheng City); 35 silver plaque (Shihuigou Site in Ejin Horo Banner); 36 gold crown top ornament (Aluchaideng cemetery)

380

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

(Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology and Baotou Administration Office of Cultural Relics 1991), the bronze collection from Shuijian’goumen (Zheng 1965) and the cemetery at Ming’anmudu village (Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng and Yijinhuoluo Banner Institute of Cultural Relics Preservation 1992) (Fig. 5.68: 1–10). The snaffle bits in this assemblage are similar to those of the Niding Village, with double rings at both ends. Weapons and tools found here include socketed ge similar to those of the Langwozikeng M3 and knives similar to those of the first assemblage in Guyuan, with large ring pommels, motif-decorated hilts and a distinct boundary between the hilt and blade. The bronze key found in Xiyuan is similar to its counterparts in the Xibazi site of Yanqing County (Beijing Administration Office of Cultural Relics 1979) and the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Liaoning Zhaomeng Cultural Relics Taskstation et al. 1973). Ornaments of this assemblage mainly include belt buckles, belt ornaments and pao conchos decorated with radial lines or two or three circles of squares or dots. The second type is represented by the Taohongbala cemetery in Hangjin Banner, the Gongsuhao cemetery in Ejin Horo Banner (Tian 1976a), the Warring States tomb M3 (Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng and Cultural Relics Work Team of Inner Mongolia 1980) from Xigoupan cemetery in Jungar Banner, and the burials at Hulusitai in Urad Middle and Rear banners (Ta and Liang 1980) (Fig. 5.68: 11–23). In the horse and chariot accouterments of this assemblage, in addition to yoke ornaments, the horse facial ornaments developed from arc-shaped ones in the Taohongbala and Gongsuhao cemeteries to raised-bubble-shaped ones in the Hulusitai cemetery. With regard to tools and weapons, swords with double birds pommel were also found, and pickaxes superseded socketed ge. In addition, the knives of this assemblage are all irregular-ring-pommel ones with no distinct boundary between the hilt and the blade. In addition to plaques shaped in linked beads, numerous S-shaped plaques have been found in realistically depicted symmetrical bird patterns or yunwen-spiral patterns. These artifacts show that during this period, it was common to decorate belts with plaques and hang objects on the belt. This type of clothing is appropriate for riding. The newly appeared hanging objects of this period include rectangular plaques and bronze tubes with a raised middle part. The belt buckles carry their rivets on the middle upper part, projecting vertically with the buckle. This second assemblage is basically similar to that of the Guyuan and Yinnan areas, with swords and plaques as its representative artifacts. A special feature of the third assemblage is the extensive use of animal designs. In the former stage of this assemblage, three-dimensional animal ornaments were prevalent, such as Yulongtai (Inner Mongolia Museum and Cultural Relics Work Team of Inner Mongolia 1977), Sujigou (Gai 1965a), and Wa’ertugou (Tian and Guo 1986b) in Jungar Banner and the bronze group of Nalinggaotu from Shenmu in Shaanxi (Dai and Sun 1983) (Plate 11). Three-dimensional animal decorations mainly include paired does and stags (Fig. 5.73: 3, 4), sheep with spiraled horns and yoke ornaments in forms of a mythical lion. While the falcon-head ornament is the representative artifact of the area of Gansu and Ningxia, the long-beak crane-head-shaped ornament is the representative artifact of this area (Figs. 5.68: 26

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

381

and 5.66: 21). In the cemeteries of this area, tools, weapons and S-shaped plaques are rare. The Yulongtai iron pickax is elongated in its overall shape and slightly bent inward (Fig. 5.68: 28). The gold tiger and the silver tiger of the Nalin’gaotu combine two modes of expression, with three-dimensional heads and two-dimensional bodies in relief (Fig. 5.73: 2). Although a limited number of three-dimensional animal ornaments have been found, the prevalent form of animal ornaments in the latter stage are in relief, as in M2 (Cultural Relics Task station of Yikezhao League and Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1980) at the Xigoupan cemetery of the Warring States, Aluchaideng (Tian and Guo 1980), Nianfangqu (Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng 1991), and Shihuigou (Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng 1992) (Plate 10). The gorgeous animal ornaments in relief are mainly made of gold or silver. This reflects the degree to which social wealth was concentrated and the strict social hierarchy as well as the extravagant life of the upper class of that time. The gold crown unearthed from Aluchaideng is believed to have belonged to a king (Fig. 5.68: 36; Plate 10: 9). Numerous earrings unearthed here are of various forms (Fig. 5.68: 34). These earrings and bead ornaments might have developed into the headware found in the Han dynasty Xiongnu tombs of Xigoupan (Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng and Cultural Relics Work Team of Inner Mongolia 1981). The third assemblage in this area is similar to those of the Guyuan and Yinnan areas. Because the three-dimensional animal ornaments coexisted with some tools and weapons, they might be closer to the second assemblage in time and thus should be dated to an earlier date than the animal ornaments in relief.

The Hu Sites Distributed in the Eastern Part of Inner Mongolia In another area, eastern Inner Mongolia, the Hu-related sites include the cemeteries at Maoqinggou (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986a), Yinniugou (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1984), and Guoxianyaozi in Liangcheng County (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1989), Goulitou in Xinghe County (Cui 1994), the bronze objects from Fanjiayaozi in Horinger County (Li 1959), and the newly discovered cemeteries at Xinzhouyaozi (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009a), Xindianzi (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009b) and XiaoshuangGucheng (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009c). They have short swords and belt plaques, so they probably belong to the second assemblage. Seventy-nine tombs have been found in the Maoqinnggou cemetery, which can be categorized into two phases (Fig. 5.69). The early phase is represented by the tombs of M58, M59 and M63. The late phase is represented by tombs M11 and M38; M1 of the Yinniugou cemetery belongs to the late phase. In the early phase, horse and chariot accouterments were rarely found, except for four strap guides and one single-ring snaffle bit of the Central Plain style from tomb M59. The tools and weapons of this phase are mainly short swords. These swords are swords with

382

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.69 Artifacts of the Hu in Eastern Inner Mongolia. 1 Bronze snaffle (M59: 3 of Maoqinggou cemetery in Liangcheng County); 2 bronze rein fitting (M59: 4 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 3 bronze short sword (M59: 2 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 4 bronze ge-dagger ax (M58: 1 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 5 bronze plaque (M63: 1③ of Maoqinggou cemetery); 6 bronze bead-string-shaped plaque (M2: 4 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 7 bronze belt buckle (M59: 9 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 8 bronze tube-shaped ornament (M1: 4-3 of Guoxianyaozi cemetery in Liangcheng County); 9 bronze plaque (M5: 6 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 10 bronze plaque (M55: 4 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 11 bronze plaque (Fanjiayaozi cemetery in Horinger County); 12 pottery jar (M63: 7 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 13 iron dagger (M1: 2 of Yinniugou cemetery in Liangcheng County); 14 iron pickax (M38: 1 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 15 bronze belt buckle (M11: 6 of Maoqinggou cemetery); 16 pottery jar (M11: 1 of Maoqinggou cemetery)

double bird pommel and cross-guards in a butterfly-wing shape or animal-head shape. Other weapons include bronze ge dagger-axes and three-edged tanged arrowheads, but no knives and pickaxes have been found. Ornaments of this phase consist of a large number of plaques engraved with parallel birds (later developed into the yunwen-spiral pattern) (Plate 12, the lower part of 1), zigzag ornaments in the form of linked beads (Plate 12: 5), bulging belt buckles and small bronze tubes. In the late phase, swords were mainly made of iron, and their shape underwent a great change. Most of the swords show ring pommels or “一”-shaped pommels paralleled by a straight cross-guard. Iron pickaxes are elongated in shape with both ends slightly bent inward. The small number of plaques in this phase are mainly iron ones with a simplified motif. In the remains of this phase, belt buckles were not commonly found as in the early phase. Most of these belt buckles bear no holes on the upper circle but have a rivet on the reverse side. The short swords in this area show clear distinctions between the early phase and the late phase, with simplified shapes and materials changing from bronze to iron.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

383

Iron pickaxes appeared in the late phase, when the number of plaques, belt buckles and bronze tubes with the Central Plain features decreased. Only transformed belt buckles and iron plaques with double birds survived. However, an increasing number of belt hooks, artifacts of the Central Plain culture, have been found belonging to the late phase. In addition to the Maoqinggou and Yinniugou cemeteries south of the Manhan Mountain, Guoxianyaozi cemetery has been discovered north of the mountain. It is contemporaneous with the Maoqinggou cemetery but shows very different cultural features. Among the burial objects are a great number of bone arrowheads and bow tips but no short swords; belt buckles, plaques and rattles are rare; and belt hooks characteristic of the Central Plain are nonexistent. In addition to the differences in burial assemblages, the occupants of the tombs are attributed to the North Asian ethnic groups, while the occupants of the Maoqinggou cemetery belong to the Ancient Northern China and Ancient Central Plain ethnic groups (Zhang 2010). The above distinctions between the Maoqinggou cemetery and the Guoxianyaozi cemetery reveal that the Hu-related sites differ even in the same area. They are associated with different ethnic groups, representing different economic types, cultural development levels, and interactions with the outside world. Based on the excavated findings, the Eastern Zhou dynasty tombs of the Northern Zone culture in the Daihai area of eastern Inner Mongolia can be categorized into two types, A type and B type. In the A-type tombs at Guoxianyaozi and Xinzhouyaozi, clay ceramics are dominant in number, but there are few fine clay ceramics. These ceramics are mainly plain wares, with only a small number of them decorated with cord patterns. The B type includes the west-east-oriented tombs at Maoqinggou, XiaoshuangGucheng and Yinniugou. More cord-patterndecorated ceramics have been found there, and the intermittent cord pattern is prevalent. The most distinctive difference between the two types of tombs lies in the bronze ornaments. In the A-type tombs, ornaments are mainly belt ornament shaped in linked beads (Fig. 5.69: 6), while the B-type ones contain mainly plaques with Ss-shaped yunwen-spiral patterns or with tiger motifs (Fig. 5.69: 5, 9–11). In the west-east-oriented tombs at Maoqinggou, plaques with characteristics of both types have been found, but they never coexist in a single tomb. This indicates that there are both A-type (Fig. 5.105: M3, M10) and B-type (Fig. 5.105: M43, M5) tombs at Maoqinggou, but the B type dominates (Plate 12). Bone artifacts appeared more frequently in A-type tombs. Linked-bead ornaments and plaques decorated with spiral patterns were prevalent in the Northern Zone cultural belt from the end of the Spring and Autumn period and the beginning of the Warring States period to the mid-Warring States period. Both of them were decorations on belts. These decorations also identify different ethnic groups. Therefore, the two types of tombs are associated with two different ethnic groups in eastern Inner Mongolia. The earliest belt ornaments shaped in linked beads have been found in the Siba cultural sites of the Xia dynasty (Fig. 1.14: 12, 17) and in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab Grave culture in the Mongolian Plateau. This is considered the main type of ornament in the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. The S-shaped plaques with spiral patterns appeared in the Eastern Zhou dynasty.

384

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

They were first popular in eastern Mongolia around the end of the Spring and Autumn period or the beginning of the Warring States period, with many of them found at Maoqinggou cemetery. The design of the “S” shape might originate from a motif popular in the Central Plain, which involves putting a dot at the center of the S-shape (Zhu 2009, Fig. 526: 4, 5). Therefore, the S-shaped plaques with spiral patterns are considered a combination of the motif on the bronzes from the Central Plain and the bird-head motif that was prevalent in the Northern Zone. The S-shaped plaques in eastern Inner Mongolia in the early period are mainly decorated with the spiral pattern in relief, while those in western Inner Mongolia in the later period have a more advanced technique of openwork sculpture. The early Xiongnu retained this type of plaque, but in a smaller number than in the Northern Zone. The results of ethnographic identification can also show which types of tombs have a closer relationship with the Central Plain culture. The occupants of A-type tombs are the North Asians while the interred in the second type, except for those in the XiaoshuangGucheng cemetery, belong to the Ancient North China type among the East Asians. The Ancient Central Plain type was identified in all the cemeteries, but the burial practices of the Central Plain people only occurred in the B-type-dominant cemeteries, such as Maoqinggou and Yinniugou. The north-south orientation, lack of sacrificial animals, and belt hooks instead of bronzes characteristic of the Northern Zone are features of the B-type tombs that suggest a closer relationship with the Central Plain. The numerous bone artifacts found in A-type tombs show a high level of cultural similarity with the Xiongnu tombs.

The Hu Sites Distributed in Northeast China Northeast China is the fifth most important area for Hu-related sites. Thorough and detailed reports exist about the cultural sites of the Warring States period derived from the Jinggouzi cemetery on the north bank of the Xilamulun River in Linxi County, where fifty-eight tombs were excavated from 2002 (Wang et al. 2010). The bronzes in the assemblages show that this cemetery consists of tombs of different historical periods. The early tombs are contemporaneous with those at Dongnan’gou, where the Upper Xiajiadian culture was identified, while the late tombs can be dated to the time of the Yuhuangmiao culture. In comparison, bronzes from Jinggouzi show similarities with those of other cultures, specifically the Upper Xiajiadian culture, the local culture of Jinggouzi at an earlier period, the Yuhuangmiao culture in the south and the culture along the Great Wall in Inner Mongolia in the southwest. Among the Jinggouzi bronzes, notched-guard short swords, knives with zigzags on one side of the hilt and the bronze pao concho are similar to their counterparts in the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 5.70: 1, 3, 5–7, 10, 11). The short sword, 20.8 cm in length, decorated with a row of deer motifs on each side of the hilt, is a typical dagger-type sword. A similar sword, 26.2 cm long and also with a notched cross-guard and a similar decoration of a deer motif, was found at the Xiaoheishigou site of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 5.71: 1). The zigzag-hilted

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

385

Fig. 5.70 Bronzes from the Jinggouzi cemetery. 1, 2 Bronze sword; 3 bronze knife; 4 bronze arrowhead; 5–7, 9, 10, 11 bronze pao-conchos; 8 bronze swirl-pattern ornament; 12, 13 bronze earrings; 14 linked pao ornament; 15, 17, 18 cloud-pattern ornaments; 16 modified bird-shaped ornament; 19 linked-beads ornament; 20, 21, 29 pendants; 22–25 bell-shaped ornaments; 26 bronze bell; 27 modified bird-head-shaped ornament; 28 tubular ornament; 30 fox-head-shaped ornament; 31 horse-shaped ornament

knife is also a typical artifact of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 5.71: 4), which survived into the early Yuhuangmiao culture. The bird-shaped ornaments in the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 4.14: 19) finally evolved into bird-shaped pendants typical of the Yuhuangmiao culture (Fig. 5.71: 18, 19) and the Jinggouzi cemetery (Fig. 5.70: 20, 21). The evolution is demonstrated by the bird-shaped ornament unearthed from Qingzigou, Hebei Province (Fig. 5.71: 18). The bronze pao concho from the Jinggouzi site was also an artifact distinctive of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 5.71: 6–8, 11, 12). Of the assemblage at the Jinggouzi cemetery, some artifacts have counterparts in both the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Yuhuangmiao culture, such as coiled bronze earrings (Figs. 5.70: 12, 13 and 5.71: 13), linked-twin-bead ornaments (Figs. 5.70: 14, 15 and 5.71: 14) and bell-shaped ornaments (Figs. 5.70: 22–26 and 5.71: 20, 21).

386

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.71 Bronzes related to artifacts of the Jinggouzi cemetery. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12–14 Xiaoheishigou; 2, 5 Beixinpu; 3 Samencun; 16 Xindianzi; 8 Dapaozi; 9, 17, 20–24 Lishugoumen; 10 Xinzhouyaozi; 11 Longtoushan; 15, 19, 26 Yuhuangmiao; 18 Huizigou; 25 Taohongbala

Many artifacts unearthed from the Jinggouzi cemetery, mainly plaques and pendants, also appeared in the Yuhuangmiao culture (Fig. 5.71: 9, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26), including bronze pao concho with a spiral motif, a variant of bird-shaped ornaments, bird-shaped pendants, pendent ornaments and horse-shaped plaques (Fig. 5.70: 8, 16, 20, 21, 27, 29, 31). Other types of artifacts from the Jinggouzi cemetery resemble not only those from Yuhuangmiao but also those from the Great Wall area in Inner Mongolia. For example, the Jinggouzi sword, 39.8 cm long with no pommel (Fig. 5.70: 2), is similar in length and cross-guard to the one from Beixinbu, Huailai County (Fig. 5.71: 2) (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Affairs Bureau 1966), while its hollow hilt is similar to the ones from Samen, Guyuan Prefecture (Fig. 5.71: 3) (Luo and Yan 1993). The latter, a dagger-type sword with a length of 21.4 cm, is similar to the ones from the ones in Slab Grave culture (Fig. 5.75: 9). This type of sword is widely distributed. The similar features observed in the short

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

387

swords from the above places indicate that they are of similar age. In addition to the short swords, the three-edged socketed arrowhead at the Jinggouzi cemetery is similar to that of the Yuhuangmiao culture (Figs. 5.70: 4 and 5.71: 5) and has also been seen in Northeast China, for example, at the Tombs at Pingyang in Tailai County, Heilongjiang Province (Pan 2011, Fig. 9: 5). The plaques at the Jinggouzi cemetery are mainly trisection plaque ornaments (Fig. 5.70: 17–19), which were small in number in the Yuhuangmiao culture (Fig. 5.71: 17) but prevalent at the cemeteries at Xindianzi (Fig. 5.71: 16) and Xinzhouyaozi in Inner Mongolia and even in Hulunbuir (Wang 2004), which indicates that their distribution covers a vast area. Judging by the shape of the plaques, they may have evolved from the linkedpao concho from the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The tube-shaped ornaments at the Jinggouzi cemetery also emerged in the Yuhuangmiao culture (Figs. 5.70: 28 and 5.71: 23) and Xizhouyaozi cemetery in the Great Wall area in Inner Mongolia (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009a, Fig. 11: 15). The only anomaly among the assemblage at the Jinggouzi cemetery is the animal-head-shaped ornaments, which frequently appeared in the area along the Great Wall in Inner Mongolia but are not seen in the Yuhuangmiao culture (Figs. 5.70: 30 and 5.71: 25). Through the above comparison, we can see that the assemblages at Jinggouzi retain the tradition of the local culture, the Upper Xiajiadian culture, and at the same time show features shared by the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Yuhuangmiao culture. This indicates that the two cultures had an inheritance relationship. That is, the Yuhuangmiao culture inherited some parts of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. Because the similar artifacts between the Jinggouzi cemetery and the Yuhuangmiao culture are mainly plaques and pendant ornaments, the aesthetic taste and costumes of the two places may have also been similar. This is usually the result of cultural interaction between peoples from different regions. Bronzes similar to the Jinggouzi bronzes have mainly been found in two cemeteries, the Yuhuangmiao cemetery in Yanqing County and the Lishugoumen cemetery in Luanping County in northern Hebei, the Yuhuangmiao culture must have been distributed widely in this area and maintained frequent contact with the culture in Northeast China. Although assemblages from the Jinggouzi cemetery and Yuhuangmiao culture share a high level of similarity, differences between the two can also be observed. First, in the Yuhuangmiao culture, numerous artifacts with features from the Central Plain, such as belt hooks, ring-pommel knives, and untempered pottery guan jars with everted shoulders, never appeared at the Jinggouzi cemetery. Therefore, it is speculated that the Yuhuangmiao culture might have been forced to spread northward to Jinggouzi with the northward expansion of the Central Plain culture. Artifacts characteristic of the Yuhuangmiao culture has also been found in earlier sites, such as those at the Sanguandianzi cemetery and the Wudaogoumen cemetery (Yang 2004b, Fig. 81). Second, artifacts with Di ethnic features, swords with intricate decorations on the cross-guard or hilt and tiger-shaped plaques in the Yuhuangmiao cultural sites have not been found in the Jinggouzi cemetery. The final difference is that plaques with the coiled zoomorphic motif, a type of artifact characteristic of the Eurasian steppes and shared by the Upper Xiajiadian culture

388

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

and Yuhuangmiao culture, have not been found in the Jinggouzi cemetery. Despite a lack of adequate archaeological evidence to draw a clear picture of their relationship, one safe interpretation could be that the Jinggouzi cemetery, until its late stage, had not been influenced by the Yuhuangmiao culture. Most types of bronzes found near the Great Wall area of Inner Mongolia can also be found in the Yuhuangmiao culture, except for the comma-shaped and animal-head-shaped plaques. However, because these types of bronzes occurred only in small numbers in the Yuhuangmiao culture, they cannot be attributed to the influence of the Yuhuangmiao culture. It is noteworthy that the plaques in the Yuhuangmiao culture are mainly plaques shaped in linked beads, with no spiral pattern decorated plaques or animal-shaped plaques found. These plaques are distinctive of the A-type burials in eastern Inner Mongolia, represented by the Guoxianyaozi and Xizhouyaozi cemeteries and distributed northward as far as the Hulunbuir pastureland. This means that the A-type tombs are scattered over areas on both sides of the Great Wall, including the Mongolian Plateau area. Therefore, the distribution area of the A-type tombs basically overlaps the area of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. Some of these bronzes show features that belong to the bronze culture brought by the North Asians coming southward to Jinggouzi. According to the results of ethnic identification, the occupants of the Jinggouzi cemetery are North Asians who came from the northeast. The excavation reports attribute this cemetery to the East Hu. What the Jinggouzi cemetery and the East Hu sites have in common is that they both have large-scale sacrificial animals, mainly horses. Large-scale internment of horses may indicate that these sites might be associated with a nomadic economy. This is distinctively different from the Yuhuangmiao culture. One clear feature of the North Asian sites in the Eastern Zhou period in the Great Wall area of Inner Mongolia is that they usually contain numerous bone artifacts. This feature is especially obvious at the Yujiazhuang cemetery and the Guoxianyaozi cemetery. Therefore, the bone artifacts unearthed from Jinggouzi also indicate the ethnicity of the tomb occupants (Fig. 5.72). The Yuhuangmiao culture shares similar artifacts with the cemeteries in Inner Mongolia,16 such as the belt ornaments in the Baimiao cemetery of Zhangjiakou, the west most cemetery of the Yuhuangmiao culture. Tombs with various bone artifacts carved with a yun-spiral pattern also appear in the Baimiao cemetery, and this pattern is similar to that in the Yujiazhuang cemetery (Fig. 5.72: NM3). Based on the above analysis, it is concluded that the majority of the people associated with the Jinggouzi cemetery are North Asians from the northwest. Their arrival in the area might have accelerated the process of nomadization of the local people. They retained their tradition of using bone artifacts. Their bronzes share common features with the bronzes in the Northern Zone and Mongolian Plateau

16

Baimiao Cemetery was excavated by Inner Mongolia Taskforce in the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science. References can be found in materials of Inner Mongolia Taskforce in the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

389

Fig. 5.72 Tombs with bone artifacts at Jinggouzi, Yujiazhuang and Guoxianyaozi cemeteries

Metallurgical Province. That is, the Jinggouzi cemetery retained the tradition of the late Upper Xiajiadian culture while receiving influences and even people from the Yuhuangmiao culture.

Non-typical Hu-Related Sites Of the Hu-related sites, some do not contain such typical objects as pickaxes, belt plaques or a short sword with double bird pommel. One example of these sites is the Shajing cultural sites (Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1990, 2001) (Fig. 5.65b), represented by the cemeteries at Hamadun, Xigang and Chaiwaigang of Yongchang County, Gansu Province. These cemeteries contain burial pit or catacomb tombs and a small number of skulls and hooves of sacrificial animals. The ceramics in these cemeteries are mainly cups and eared vessels as well as a limited number of li tripods. Metal wares are mainly belt ornaments shaped in either zigzag three-linked-beads or double row of three-linked- beads, simplified S-shaped plaques, and dangling bell ornaments, an object consisting of a small bronze tube, bells and two rows of linked beads tied to the waist and hung beside the thigh. The assemblages also include bone bowheads, bronze and iron knives,

390

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

and a well-preserved short sword that is similar to the Yinnan short sword with a trident-shaped guard. The Shajing culture was dated by Carbon-14 between the late Western Zhou and the late Spring and Autumn period (Li 1994). In view of the sacrificial animals and other burial objects, the Shajing culture can be associated with the Hu. The reason some of the typical artifacts have not been found in the Shajing culture may be attributed to its unique location. The Shajing cultural sites are scattered over the Yongchang Basin north of the east end of the Hexi Corridor. Surrounded by the Badain Jaran Desert and the Tengger Desert, this area was left isolated and thus received less influence from the Eurasian steppes and retained the local traditional ceramics, such as the eared jars and li tripods.

5.2.2.3

The Hu-Related Sites: Time, Location and Cultural Expansion

The three types of assemblages discussed above reflect the early, middle and late stages of the Hu-related sites. The first type of assemblage shows features of the Northern Zone bronzes between the late Shang and early Zhou dynasties, while the plaques of the third assemblage resemble those from Xiongnu sites. The representative artifacts of the early stage Hu-related sites include snaffle bits with double rings at both ends, ring-pommel knives decorated with or without motifs, socketed ge battle-axes, hollow-headed axes, bronze pao conchoes and belt buckles with a protruding rivet at the rim. No short swords and crane-beaked pickaxes have been found in the cemeteries of this stage, except for those from the Yinnan area. The oval-mouthed fu cauldron unearthed from the Baoheshe cemetery is similar to its counterparts from Yuanping and Hunyuan (both in Shanxi Province). Therefore, it can be dated to the late Spring and Autumn period or as early as the mid-Spring and Autumn period. The prevalent artifacts of the middle stage include short swords with double bird pommel and their variants, crane-beaked pickaxes, knives with irregular holes and waist pendants, such as S-shaped plaques, bronze tubes and belt buckles. Assemblages of this stage show region-specific features, for example, more horse and chariot accouterments in the Guyuan and Yinnan areas, fewer in western Inner Mongolia and basically none in eastern Inner Mongolia. According to the excavators, most of the assemblages of this stage can be dated between the late Spring and Autumn period and early Warring States periods, a chronology accepted by this book. The late stage is distinct from animal decorations cast in the round or in relief. The plaques with animal decorations in relief from western Inner Mongolia reached their artistic peak with a variety in type, fine craftsmanship and a combination of precious metals. With regard to their style, some of these artifacts can be seen as the precedents of those from Xiongnu in the Han dynasty and can be traced to a slightly earlier time, roughly overlapping with the late Han dynasty with the upper limit in the middle Han and the lower limit between the end of the Han and the beginning of the Qin dynasties.

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

391

North of the Rong and Di sites, the Hu-related sites were scattered from Guyuan northward to Yinchuan, where they turned east toward the Great Bend of the Yellow River and finally reached Daihai, Liangcheng County of Inner Mongolia. The dating of the Hu sites starts and ends later than that of the Rong and Di sites to the south. The unique artifacts in the Hu cultural sites include short swords with double bird pommel, crane-beaked pickaxes, knives with irregular holes, belt plaques, small bronze tubes, animal-shaped finial ornaments and plaques decorated with zoomorphic motifs. These artifacts rarely appeared in the Rong and Di sites but instead emerged in the Eurasian steppes further north. Their counterparts from different areas are dated to different periods. Their dates and their locations reveal the dynamic scene of their distribution. The distribution of short swords with double birds pommel, knives with irregular holes, small bronze tubes and pickaxe-like socketed ge battle-axes shows a west-to-east spreading pattern (Fig. 5.76). In the early-stage Hu-related sites, these artifacts were only found in the Yinnan area, the westmost of their distribution areas (Fig. 5.67: 4–10). In the middle-stage sites, these artifacts appeared in Guyuan and Inner Mongolia (Figs. 5.66: 12–14, 5.68: 14–16, 18 and 5.69: 3, 14, 8). By the end of the middle stage, iron pickaxes spread to eastern Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.69: 14). In contrast, ceramics and plaques with images of tigers attacking other animals spread from east to west. The latter was found first in eastern Inner Mongolia from the sites of the early middle stage. The tiger-themed plaques of this stage show upper and lower rims and depict either a tiger alone or a tiger attacking another animal. The animals savaged by the tiger are usually herbivores. In the early mid-stage plaques, tigers dominate the major part, and the prey is quite small (Fig. 5.69: 9–11). By the end of the late stage, such plaques had spread through Inner Mongolia and Guyuan (Figs. 5.68: 35 and 5.66: 28, 30). In the early-stage sites of the Yinnan area, some big-mouthed and single-handled guan jars have been found (Fig. 5.67: 11). In western Inner Mongolia and Ningxia, ceramics can still be found in the middle-stage sites, mainly big-mouthed guan jars with a curved belly (Figs. 5.68: 23 and 5.66: 19), which are different from the ceramics found in eastern Inner Mongolia in that they have a smaller mouth (Fig. 5.69: 12, 16). The small-mouthed curved-belly guan jars started to spread westward during the late period of the middle stage (Yang 2004b, Fig. 66) (Fig. 5.68: 22), and by the late stage they superseded the big-mouthed curved-belly guan jars in Ningxia (Fig. 5.66: 31). The differences among the times of appearance and areas of distribution of these artifacts reveal two processes of cultural spreading: the eastward spreading of weapons (swords, axes and knives) between the early and the middle stages and the westward spreading of artifacts with cultural identities, such as plaques and ceramics, between the middle and the late stages. These patterns of cultural spreading to some extent reflect the rise and fall of different cultures in the Eurasian Steppe. In the 8th century B.C., the Eurasian Steppe gradually entered the early Iron Age, and animal husbandry developed into a nomadic economy. During that time, powerful military alliances started to emerge, with the Scythian tribe on the Black

392

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Sea coast as the most important one. Therefore, cultural convergence occurred on the steppes. The combination of horse and chariot accouterments, tools and weapons, and animal decorations represented the major cultures in the Eurasian Steppe, namely, the Scythian culture on the Black Sea coast, the Sarmatian culture in the Volga-Ural region, the Saka culture in Kazakhstan, the Tagar culture in Minusinsk, and the Uyuk culture in Tuva. The Hu-related sites in the Northern Zone of China also began to take on these characteristics since its middle stage. Therefore, the eastward spread of the Scythian culture may have been the larger cultural environment in which practical objects were transmitted from west to east, while the westward spread of animal plaques and ceramics from the mid-Warring States period was based on the rise of the Xiongnu. The eastward and westward spread helped the Hu-related sites in the Northern Zone of China reach a high degree of uniformity, first in practical artifacts and then in cultural identity, laying the foundation for the establishment of the Xiongnu Confederation.

5.2.3

Differences Between Two Types of Sites in the Northern Zone of China During the Eastern Zhou Period

The “Wang zhi” chapter of the Liji (〈〈禮記〉〉, Book of Rites) says, “the Yi is in the east; …the Mann is in the south; …the Rong is in the west; …the Di is in the north”. Later scholars have been greatly influenced by this claim. The Hu were distributed in the north and northwest of the Central Plain, similar to the location of the Rong and Di. Careful analysis reveals that both were located in the Northern Zone of China, although the two cultures were quite different in terms of time and space, material culture, economic type and ethnicity. First, with regard to time, the sites of the Rong and Di first appeared in the Guanzhong area (central Shaanxi Province) in the mid-late Western Zhou dynasty. The people then arrived in northern Shaanxi in the middle Spring and Autumn period, moved eastward in the mid-late Spring and Autumn period to the Hutuo River Basin and the Sanggan River Basin, and travelled farther eastward to establish the Zhongshan state east of the Taihang Mountains. Between the middle Spring and Autumn period and the end of the Warring States period, the Hu sites were distributed in Guyuan and Yinnan of the Ningxia Autonomous Region and Inner Mongolia, crossing the Northern Zone from southwest to northeast, with the Rong and Di in the south and the Hu in the north. The Great Wall built by the states of Qin, Zhao and Yan appeared in the vicinity of the Hu sites during the late Warring States period, running in the same direction (Fig. 5.62). With a refined elaboration, the evolution of the two sites over time and space can be seen clearly. Close to the Guanzhong area of the Zhou in the south and connecting with the Ordos steppe in the north, northern Shaanxi constituted the main route from the grassland to the Central Plain and displayed a complicated cultural

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

393

situation. There are two cultural sites characteristic of the Northern Zone of China from north to south. In the farthest north is the bronze complex of the late Warring States period unearthed from Nalin Gaotu in Shenmu County, belonging typologically to the Hu sites in western Inner Mongolia. The exaggerated long antlers of a deer sculpture show distinct steppe characteristics (Fig. 5.73: 1–5). In the south is the Lijiaya cemetery in Qingjian County in Shaanxi Province, dated between the middle Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods and belonging to the White Di sites (Fig. 5.73: 6–14). Cultures of the Central Plain were also identified in the neighborhood of Qingjian County, such as the Zhangping cemetery (Fieldwork Group of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties from the Archaeology Department of Peking University and Shang and Zhou Office of Shaanxi Archaeology Institute 1989) in Mizhi County of Shaanxi Province, dated to the early Spring and Autumn period and belonging to the Jin culture. According to the Shiji’s “Qin Benji” chapter, when confronted with Jin’s request for help, Duke Mu of Qin (ruler of the Qin state) proposed that Jin give up their eight cities west of the Yellow River in return. The Zhangping cemetery might be one of the few Jin sites west of the river. It contains ceramic assemblages of li, pen, dou, and guan (Fig. 5.73: 15–25). Tomb M2 is the exception, in which objects typical of the Northern Zone of China were found. The burial assemblage of belt buckles, gravels, bronze ring ornaments, and bronze ge and arrowheads probably indicate that the Central Plain people who participated in the war were more likely to be influenced by the northern culture. Bronzes Unearthed From Northern Shaanxi (2009) (Cao 2009) illustrates belt buckles unearthed at Yulin resembling those from the Ordos and animal-shaped belt hooks found at Yan’an similar to those from the northern Hebei Province. The two types of artifact are not completely contemporary. They gradually extended from south to north, reflecting the southward movement of the Northern Zone culture in reaction to the northward expansion of the Central Plain culture. Farther to the south, more Central Plain characteristics can be seen, while farther to the north, more steppe characteristics can be detected. Second, there are differences in terms of material culture between the two sites. Horse and chariot fittings in the Rong and Di sites mainly consist of tack objects such as sniffle bits and cheekpieces, while the Hu people went further in this aspect and employed horse face ornaments, shaft decorations and animal-shaped chariot pole ornaments. Horses and chariots were widely used by the Hu people. In terms of weapons and tools, the Rong and Di sites mainly consist of swords with animal designs on the guard, socketed axes, and cutting knives (cutters), with tools taking a dominant role, while the Hu sites contain short swords with double birds pommel, pickaxes and knives with irregular perforations, with weapons playing a major role. The Rong and Di ornaments are mainly for the body parts from the head to the chest, including earrings, necklaces, single-animal-shaped plaques and pao conchos. These ornament conventions were found at tomb M174 of the Yuhuangmiao cemetery (Plate 9: 1, 2, 6). Decorating dresses with single-animal-shaped metal plaques is a similar practice as that found at the Arzhan tomb M2 (Plate 6: 1, 6) but does not demonstrate as much luxury. The Hu people also used earrings and pao concho

394

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.73 Artifacts from Northern Shaanxi. 1 Deer-shaped gold monster; 2 gold three-dimensional tiger figure; 3 silver three-dimensional stag; 4 silver three-dimensional doe; 5 gold-inlayed silver sword hilt; 6 pottery double-handled jar (M1: 15 of Fengjiata cemetery); 7 pottery Li-cauldron (M20: 3 of Taochangping cemetery); 8 pottery dou-bowl (M20: 2 of Taochangping cemetery); 9 pottery dou-bowl with lid (M1: 4 of Fengjiata cemetery); 10 pottery pot (M1: 1 of Fengjiata cemetery); 11 pottery double-handled jar (M13: 5 of Taochangping cemetery); 12 pottery jar (M13: 6 of Taochangping cemetery); 13 pottery dou-bowl (M13: 2 of Taochangping cemetery); 14 pottery jar (M20: 4 of Taochangping cemetery); 15 pottery Li-cauldron (M2: 4); 16 pottery basin (M2: 2); 17 pottery dou-bowl (M2: 3); 18 pottery jar (M2: 5); 19 bronze ge-dagger ax (M2: 8); 20 bronze arrowhead (M2: 7); 21 bronze knife (M2: 10); 22 whetstone (M2: 12); 23 bronze beltbuckle (M2: 14); 24 jade jue-pendant (M2: 6); 25 bronze ring (M2: 11)

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

395

ornaments, but they laid more emphasis on the decoration of the waist, employing a large number of plaques and belt buckles, a practice related to horse riding and shooting (Fig. 5.105). In short, the Hu accessories reflect a life of wearing Hu-styled attire and shooting from horseback, while the Rong and Di sites fail to show as many traces of war. This contrast suggests that the orientation of the communication routes between the Rong and Di and the steppes differs from that amid the Hu peoples. The latter is distinguished from the Scythian-Siberian style represented by short swords with double bird pommel. The Rong and Di demonstrated status and social position with Central Plain bronzes and bronzes with multiple cultural elements, while the Hu people employed tools, weapons, chariot and horse fittings, and animal sacrifices and, during the late period, gold or silver ornaments such as animal-shaped plaques, headdresses and earrings. This suggests that the Rong and Di learned from the Central Plain culture, while the Hu imitated nomadic people on the steppes. Knowledge about economies of sites is mainly derived from the funeral animals. Livestock sacrifices have rarely been found in the Rong and Di tombs except in the northern Hebei Province, where pieces of horse bones were unearthed from Yuanping city. Only half of the tombs in northern Hebei contain animal sacrifices, mainly dogs and cattle, and horses appear only in tombs of the well-off as an indicator of social class. Northern Hebei was the northernmost area inhabited by the Di people, where animal husbandry had been developed by the time of Shang and Zhou dynasties due to its natural environment, as demonstrated by the animal sacrifices unearthed from Zhenjiangying cemetery (Beijing Institute of Cultural relics 1999). Therefore, the practice of animal sacrifice in northern Hebei was not an imitation of the Hu people. In general, animal husbandry was underdeveloped in Rong and Di society which was characterized by weak mobility and a combination of agriculture and animal husbandry. The Hu sites in eastern Inner Mongolia are dominated by ibexes, with cattle increasing in number during the late period. Half of the tombs contain animal sacrifices. In western Inner Mongolia and Yinnan, all tombs contain sacrifices, with horses dominant in number and ibexes in second place. In Guyuan, 90–100% of the tombs hold animal sacrifices of ibexes or cattle. The Hu people mainly raised horses and ibexes; the former being very mobile, and the latter able to reproduce and adapt quickly, especially to water scarcity in such areas as western Inner Mongolia and Guyuan. Therefore, the Hu might have adopted nomadism, with the northern part (western Inner Mongolia and Yinnan) more nomadic and dynamic than its southern part (eastern Inner Mongolia and Guyuan). Of the Rong and Di sites, only those at the Baimiao and Yuhuangmiao cemeteries in northern Hebei have undergone ethnic identification. According to their physical characteristics, the sites at the Baimiao cemetery are classified into two categories (Pan 1986). Category I belongs to the ancient Huabei (North China) type, and category II belongs to the ancient Dongbei (Northeast China) type (Zhu 2002). The identification results of the Yuhuangmiao cemetery first appeared in a study of human bones from the mural tombs of the Wei and Jin dynasties in Beijing (Pan 2001). The data coincide with those from category I of the Baimiao cemetery,

396

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

suggesting the ancient Huabei type as well. In the newly published Jundu Mountain Cemetery—Hulugou and Xiliangyu (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 2010), the Yuhuangmiao cemetery is divided into three groups, which correspond to category I of the Baimiao cemetery, category B of the Maoqinggou-Yinniugou cemetery, representative of the Central Plain culture, and category A of the Maoqinggou-Yinniugou cemetery, characteristic of the Northern Zone steppe. This illustrates the complexity of the ethnic groups related to the Yuhuangmiao cemetery and their integration with the population from the Central Plain and the steppes. The results of human bone identification related to the Hu indicate the Ancient North China type, Ancient Central Plain type and North Asian type. The human bones from the Yujiazhuang cemetery at Guyuan display physical characteristics similar to the Modern Mongoloid North Asian type (Han 1995). The atypical remains of the Shajing culture were also identified as the North Asian type (Han 2001). The identification results of the Shajing culture indicate that the North Asian people first emerged in the Northern Zone during the Spring and Autumn period, a date earlier than previously inferred (the report suggests that early Shajing can be dated to the early Western Zhou dynasty, but the typology of the artifacts does not suggest a date this early). The lack of Eurasian Steppe characteristics in the Shajing culture indicates that the southward movement of the North Asians was not always accompanied by Eurasian Steppe culture. Those who travelled south early preferred to accept local conventions and traditions. The steppe characteristics were more relevant to the development level of the local society, which can explain why such steppe artifacts as pickaxes and short swords with double bird pommel were rarely seen in the Guoxianyaozi (Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia) and Yujiazhuang (Guyuan city, Ningxia Autonomous Region) cemeteries, where the North Asian type was found. Other identification data were all collected from Inner Mongolia (Table 5.4), illustrating the interaction and integration between peoples in Inner Mongolia during the Eastern Zhou time (Zhang 2010). According to the discoveries to date, the North Asian type, the Ancient North China type, and the Ancient Central Plain type together are sorted into five groups. Group 1 is distributed in the area west of Hohhot, while the other 4 are in the east of the city, confined within Inner Mongolia. Group 1 is located specifically in Gansu Province, the Ningxia Autonomous Region and western Inner Mongolia, belonging to the North Asian type; Group 2 is a combination of the North Asian type and the Ancient North China type, represented by the Guoxianyaozi cemetery; Group 3 contains both the Ancient North China type and the Ancient Central Plain type, represented by Maoqinggou and Yinniugou cemeteries; Group 4 combines the North Asian type and the Ancient Central Plain type, represented by Xinzhouyaozi and Xiaoshuanggucheng cemeteries; and the Group 5 is solely composed of the Ancient Central Plain type, represented by Jiangjun’gou cemetery, dating between the late Spring and Autumn period and the late Warring States period. These burial groups and their distribution over space and time indicate that a new ancient ethnic group, with a skull shape similar to the North Asian group of the Mongoloid population, emerged in the Northern Zone. The population of this new

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

397

Table 5.4 Racial types of the eastern Zhou cemeteries in Inner Mongolia Name of cemetery

Datea

Ethnogentical type

Xiyuan cemetery, Baotou city TuuhongBalar cemetery, HangginBannner

Late Spring and Autumn period

North Asian type

Late Spring and Autumn period–Early Warring States period Late Spring and Autumn period–Early Warring States period Late Spring and Autumn period

North Asian type

Late Spring and Autumn period–Early Warring States period Late Spring and Autumn period–Early Warring States period Late Spring and Autumn period–Early Warring States period Late Spring and Autumn period–Early Warring States period Early Warring States period

North Asian type, Ancient North China type

Xidianzi cemetery, Horinger County Yanpan cemetery, Qingshuihe County Guoxianyaozi cemetery, Liangcheng County Maoqinggou cemetery, Liangcheng County Yinniugou cemetery, Liangcheng County Yizhouyaozi cemetery, Liangcheng County

Xiaoshuang Gucheng cemetery, Liangcheng County Jiangjungou cemetery, Mid-late Warring States period Horinger County a The date of these cemeteries is confirmed by the authors

North Asian type

North Asian type

Ancient North China type, Ancient Central Plain type Ancient North China type, Ancient Central Plain type North Ancient type, Ancient Central Plain type North Ancient type, Ancient Central Plain type Ancient Central Plain type

type was widely distributed outside China on the Mongolian Plateau and in Transbaikal in the Neolithic and Bronze ages. They first occupied the northeast corner of the Gansu Corridor and then scattered around Ningxia and western Inner Mongolia beginning in the middle of the Spring and Autumn period, when the Hu sites occurred. As is also shown by the burial sections discussed above, people of the Ancient Central Plain type were mainly centered in eastern Inner Mongolia and increased in number over time. The Central Plain people travelling northward during the early Warring States period, represented by the cemeteries at Yizhouyaozi, Xiaoshuanggucheng and early Maoqinggou, integrated with the northern people and adopted their burial practices. At the cemeteries of the middle and late Warring States periods, specifically late Maoqinggou, Yinniugou, and Jiangjungou, the Ancient Central Plain type was found in south-north-oriented tombs without sacrificial offerings. This typical Central Plain practice suggests that the Central Plain residents began to bury the deceased following their own convention. No burial of this period was found that was purely of the Ancient North China type. People of this type had been indigenous (Zhu 1994) since the Neolithic

398

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Age, as shown by the Miaozigou site in Inner Mongolia, but in the tombs of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, purely indigenous characteristics are rarely or never observed, indicating that the local population had merged with the immigrants during this period. The human bone analysis of the Hu people indicates that the inhabitants belonged mainly to the indigenous Ancient North China type and partly to the North Asian ethnic groups who migrated southward, while Central Plain people travelling north. In fact, the Central Plain people never stopped moving north, but there was a particular increase in movement during this period. Through the analysis of the latest excavations, the southern movement of the North Asians was redated to an earlier time in the Spring and Autumn period. It is thought that the North Asians became dominant in this region after the Han dynasty. The North Asians increased in number, as shown in the post-Han dynasty burials, such as the Inner Mongolia burials of the ethnic groups of Xianbei and Qidan and of the Yuan dynasty. People of the Ancient Central Plain type were also on the rise and probably came to explore the virgin land and defend the border. However, the Ancient North China type, the indigenous residents of the Northern Zone of China since the pre-Qin time, are rarely seen. It might be that they gradually merged with the immigrants from North Asia and the Central Plain both ethnically and culturally. Therefore, the three groups of the Central Plain, the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe formed since the pre-Qin time transformed into a two groups comprising of the Central Plain and the Eurasian Steppe with the Great Wall as the boundary line. The Northern Zone of China functioned as the buffer zone between the Central Plain and the steppes in the ethnic triad (Di Cosmo 1999). Evidence of this redivision is demonstrated by the Hu sites of the Eastern Zhou period: North Asians emerged in the Spring and Autumn period; the indigenous Ancient North China type was rarely seen by the time of the Warring States; and after the Han dynasty, hardly any traces can be found related to this type. Accidental as some of the archaeological discoveries might be, they still reflect the speed and intensity of ethnic integration from the late Western Zhou dynasty to the late Warring States period. This integration must have been accompanied by social and cultural upheaval. The emergence of the Rong and Di and the Hu will be explored here with reference to the two sites. The Rong and Di first appeared in documents of the Spring and Autumn period. This does not mean that this ethnic group emerged at that time but suggests that this group of people became strong enough to threaten the Eastern Zhou states by this time and were thus recorded in the historical sources. Documents show that the state of Jin was maintaining frequent contact with the Di. A li of a non-Jin type was unearthed from the Shangma cemetery in Houma, Shanxi Province, the shape of which can be traced to the time of the Jingjie and Xinghua cemeteries (Lin 2003) in Shanxi and even further back to the Shang li with a cylindrical belly from the Baiyan site (Archaeology Team of Central Shanxi 1989). If this speculation is correct, the Baiyan culture and the cemetery of its noble class, the Jingjie cemetery, might be the origin of the Di people. As documented in Chunqiu and Zuozhuan, there is no obvious difference in the economy, language and culture between the Di and Jin on the Central Plain (Yang 1999). Therefore, it

5.2 Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of China

399

can be inferred that the Rong and Di people might be those who were marginalized on the Central Plain and were less developed than the Shang and Zhou people in aspects of ritual practice, written language and fine farming. With the expansion of the Central Plain states, they were gradually pushed to the north while still maintaining contact with the Zhou dynasty and the states of Eastern Zhou through intermarriage and conflicts. When travelling northward, they established relationships with the inhabitants of the Northern Zone. Over time, the gap between the Rong and Di and the Central Plain states gradually widened to such an extent that they were finally called the “Northern Di”. Owen Lattimore proposed a similar idea in the 1940s (Lattimore 2010). Christian (2006) also believed that the second motive for the development of the eastern steppes was the “barbarians” who came from the tributaries of the Yellow River in Northern China during the Shang period. He claimed that the “barbarians” were the Di people residing on the periphery of the Central Plain states who were incapable of literal recording and who employed no social hierarchy. The work of such non-Chinese scholars explored the relationship between the Northern Zone and the Central Plain from a global perspective, which is noteworthy. Although the Hu, recorded in the literature of the Warring States period, emerged in an earlier time, their contact with the Central Plain was later than the Rong and Di. When the Rong and Di migrated northward, the Central Plain states encountered the Hu. Archaeological documents show that the inhabitants along the Inner Mongolia Great Wall had been the Ancient North China type [also found at the Miaozigou cemetery (Zhu 2002)] since the Neolithic Age. During the period of the Erligang culture (Henan Province) when the Central Plain states prospered, merchants came into contact with the Ancient North China type inhabitants of the Zhukaigou culture. Thereafter, only when the climate permitted would the Central Plain people travel northward and integrate into the local culture. Occupants of the Xicha archaeological site in Inner Mongolia belong to the Ancient Central Plain type, who engaged in agriculture and produced bronzes characteristic of the Northern Zone of China with ceramic molds. Despite receiving the influence of the Central Plain culture, the Hu people were more likely to be influenced by the Eurasian Steppe. From the middle of the Spring and Autumn period, the steppe residents went south to the Great Wall in Inner Mongolia and brought back many steppe cultural characteristics, promoting the transformation to nomadism. The above discussion of the origin of the Rong and Di and the Hu indicates that the two sites differ from each other from a phylogenetic perspective. Over time, the two ethnic groups spread along the two lines in the south and the north of the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 5.62). Interactions occurred between them. The root cause of the integration was the northward expansion of the Central Plain states and the southward movement of the steppe residents.

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

400

5.3

Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

The vast Eurasian Steppe, from the Black Sea coast to the Transbaikal, has been culturally associated with the Northern Zone of China since the Bronze Age. During the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods, the association between different regions grew more extensive, with nomadism increasing on the steppes. A close relationship was established between the Northern Zone of China and the Asian Steppe east of the Ural Mountains. Interactions mainly occurred in two areas. One covered the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal, and the other was in the inner Asia mountainous area comprising the Minusinsk Basin amid the Western Sayan Mountains, Tuva and the Altai Mountains, and Kazakhstan in Central Asia as well as Semirechye (the seven rivers) in the Tian Shan area. Through this mountainous area, the Scythian and Sarmatian cultures were transported to the Northern Zone. Communication between the peoples must have been reflected in the material and cultural aspects, as shown by the archaeological objects. With an analysis of the typical remains of weapons, costumes, and animal decorative arts, this section examines the cultural association and the dynamic links between the Northern Zone of China and the steppes during the Eastern Zhou period.

5.3.1

Interactions with the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal

The middle and eastern parts of the Northern Zone of China were basically in the same Metallurgical Province as the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal. It was a long time since regional interactions involving weapons and ornaments occurred. However, since the connection between the Upper Xiajiadian culture during its expansion period and the mountain-based cultures in inner Asia occurred as the transition occurred from the Western Zhou to the Eastern Zhou, the interactions between the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal failed to expand beyond the cultural association established since the Upper Xiajiadian period.

5.3.1.1

Plaques with Tiger-Shaped Decorations

This decoration appeared in the form of a single animal crouching during the expansion period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Fig. 4.14: 18, 20) and endured in the Jibei (northern Hebei Province) culture during the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods (Fig. 5.74: 1, 3, 5; Plate 9: 3, 4). Plaques with similar

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

401

Fig. 5.74 Tiger-shaped plaques from the Northern Zone of China and Mongolian Plateau. 1 Luotuoliang, Longhua; 2 collected from Mongolia; 3, 5 Yuhuangmiao cemetery; 4 Dundgovǐ Aymag, Mongolia; 6, 10 Ubur-Khangai Aymag, Mongolia; 7 Mazhuang, Guyuan; 8 Ömnögovǐ Aymag, Mongolia; 9 Guoxianyaozi cemetery

decorations were also found in the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 5.74: 2, 4, 6). These plaques spread west from the Northern Zone of China to Inner Mongolia and Gansu and Ningxia and turned into multi-body plaques depicting a tiger savaging an herbivore (Fig. 5.74: 7, 9). This transformation also occurred on the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 5.74: 8, 10), where such plaques eventually became typical ornaments during the Xiongnu period. The evolution of the monolithic tiger plaque was synchronized as it spread to Mongolia and Transbaikal and to the western Northern Zone of China and Siberia (Fig. 5.89).

402

5.3.1.2

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Bronze Short Swords

The Eastern Zhou period was the time when bronze short swords prevailed all over the Eurasian Steppe. However, short swords with double bird pommel, the so-called Scythian short sword, was rarely seen in the mountainous area of northern Hebei east of the Taihang Mountains. Only one was unearthed from burials of the middle Warring States at Beixinpu in Huailai, Hebei Province (Liu 1966) (Fig. 5.75: 4). This short sword dates to a rather late period compared to other swords of the kind. The shape of double bird pommel is difficult to recognize. Only the heart-shaped guard is well maintained. Another sword of a similar type was unearthed from a late-period slab grave on the Mongolian Plateau, with a flat pommel and heart-shaped guard (Fig. 5.75: 9). These two swords can be regarded as the easternmost spread of the decoration of double birds turning their heads.

5.3.1.3

Leaf-Shaped Arrowheads with Split Tails

These types of arrowheads have attracted considerable attention because they are frequently seen in the Xiongnu culture. They were first found at the Guoxianyaozi burial site on the southern foot of the Yinshan Mountains in Inner Mongolia (Wei 1989) (Fig. 5.75: 1) and the slab graves on the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 5.75: 7). Two types of arrowheads were excavated from the Xiongnu archaeological site at Ivolga in Transbaikal, those with a leaf-shaped head and a double-winged head. All double-winged arrowheads in China were unearthed from slab graves in the Northern Zone. One of the prominent features of the Xiongnu burials is that their weapons consist mainly of bows and arrows, and bone arrowheads prevail. The discovery of the arrowhead with a split tail is strong evidence of the cultural connection between the Northern Zone of China and the Slab Grave culture and the Xiongnu culture.

5.3.1.4

Stick-Shaped Ornaments in Shape of the Linked Bead

Linked-bead ornaments prevailed in the cultures of the Upper Xiajiadian and early-stage Slab Grave and can be dated to the time when Northern Zone-Mongolian Plateau metallurgical province began to take shape. By the early Iron Age, this ornament had developed from two-dimensional to three-dimensional. The prevalence of stick-shaped ornaments (Fig. 5.75: 6, 11) in the slab grave area and the Jibei region east of the Northern Zone of China indicates the conformity in decorating techniques and aesthetic interests. However, this ornament had almost disappeared by the time of the Xiongnu. Another object with Mongolian Plateau characteristics is the bronze cylindrical needle case (Fig. 5.75: 5, 10), which was widely distributed, representing extensive cultural similarities.

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

403

Fig. 5.75 Artifacts from the Northern Zone of China, the Slab Grave culture and Early Xiongnu. 1, 2 Guoxianyaozi; 3 Yujiazhuang; 4 Beixinpu; 5, 6 Xiaobaiyang; 7–11 Slab Grave culture; 12, 13 Ivolga; 14 Ivolga cemetery

404

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

It can be seen from the above analysis that characteristics related to the cultural similarities between the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia and Transbaikal are involved. The similarity in short swords is due to the cultural influence from the west on both regions. The stick-shaped ornaments are evidence that cultural interactions between the two regions had long existed, while arrowheads with split tails represent the new connection.

5.3.2

Interactions with Minusinsk and Tuva

The Minusinsk Basin and Tuva of Russia are important distribution areas of early nomadic culture, where archaeological work began early. Connections with the Northern Zone of China had been established since the Bronze Age (with reference to the comparison between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and Arzhan tombs I and II in the third chapter). The connection lasted until the Eastern Zhou dynasty. The bronze plaques and the way they were laid out in tomb M174 at the Yuhuangmiao cemetery show a resemblance to Arzhan II (Plates 9: 1, 2; 6: 1, 6, 7). The Maoqinggou cemetery, the representative of the Hu sites, yielded mainly waist decorations similar to those of the early-stage Xiongnu (Fig. 5.105), indicating contact between the Northern Zone of China and the steppes during the Eastern Zhou period. However, interactions with the Eurasian Steppe are reflected mainly by the bronzes of this period. Several artifacts with distinct characteristics will be examined here.

5.3.2.1

Short Swords with Double Bird Pommel

The pommel of this short sword was cast into the shape of two birds or eagles turning their heads. The sword played a significant role in the Northern Zone of China and the steppe area outside China. Its distribution range varied in the early, middle and late stages of the formation of the Northern Zone cultural belt.

Distribution of Short Swords with Double Bird Pommel In the early stage, this sword only appeared in the Gansu–Ningxia region and southern Yinchuan. In the Gansu–Ningxia region, this sword has only been found in tomb M1 (Zhong 1987) at Niding, Zhongning County. The sword displays a pommel decorated with double birds turning their heads toward/against each other and a V-shaped guard (Fig. 5.76: 1). Bronze swords with V-shaped guards prevailed in the Northern Zone of China during the Western Zhou period, and several were unearthed from the Baifu cemetery in Changping, Beijing (Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office 1976a). Together with the swords, there was an ax with a

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

405

Fig. 5.76 Short swords with double bird pommel and other coexisting artifacts from the Northern Zone of China. 1, 2 Niding Village M1; 3 Niding Village; 4–6 Niding Village M2; 7–10 Gongsuhao M1; 11 Taohongbala; 12–15 Maoqinggou (M58, M70, M60, M58); 16 Guoxianyaozi M1: 4-3; 17–19 Yinniugou; 20 Baimiao; 21, 22 Beixinpu M1

tubular socket and hooping on the butt end (Fig. 5.76: 2, 5). Similar axes were found only in the Western Zhou burials at Zhangjiapo of Xi’an (Fengxi Excavation Team et al. 1980), Shaanxi Province. It can be inferred from the dating of the ax that the short sword must have been made in an early time when the regions in the cultural belt took on different cultural features. No short sword was unearthed from Mongolia, the middle section of the belt. The one found in the eastern section is characteristic of the Upper Xiajiadian culture. In the middle stage, short swords with double bird pommel began to prevail in the western and middle parts of the Northern Zone of China. The earliest finds to date are from tomb M1 (Tian 1976a) at Gongsuhao, Erdos (Fig. 5.76: 7), and tombs M70, M59, M45, and M58 (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986b) at the Maoqinggou cemetery in eastern Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.76: 12–14). Therefore, the short swords with double bird pommel might have emerged in eastern and western Inner Mongolia during the same period. From tomb M58, a ge was excavated, which can be dated to the late Spring and Autumn period (Fig. 5.76: 15). These short swords prevailed in the Gansu–Ningxia region and Inner Mongolia, coexisting with pickaxes and S-shaped plaques and suggesting remarkable uniformity with regard to artifacts of practical use among different regions in the Northern Zone of China. At the end of the middle stage, this sword was transmitted to the mountainous area in northern Hebei, where the Yan state was growing in its power at the time. The Northern Zone culture merged with the Yan culture, so remains of purely Northern Zone characteristics are rarely found in the eastern section of the belt. Only one short sword with double bird pommel is among the published findings. It was excavated from tomb M1 (Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural

406

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Affairs Bureau 1966) at Beixinpu (Fig. 5.76: 21), Hebei Province, together with a Central Plain ge that can be dated to the middle Warring States (Fig. 5.76: 22). The short sword with double bird pommel was accompanied by other artifacts of practical use when they spread from west to east. A small bronze tube with a bulging belly (Fig. 5.76: 3) and a horse face ornament (Fig. 5.76: 4) appeared in the western part during the early stage. In the early phase of the middle stage, artifacts of the same kind emerged at Taohongbala and Gongsuhao in western Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.76: 8, 11). It was in the same period that bronze tubes with a bulging belly emerged in eastern Mongolia and northern Hebei (Fig. 5.76: 16, 20). Pickaxes made of iron appeared in eastern Inner Mongolia in the late phase of the middle stage (Fig. 5.76: 19). However, horse face ornaments, distributed within the range of western Inner Mongolia, have not been found east of eastern Inner Mongolia. Although the dating of the artifacts is restricted by the limited archaeological discoveries, short swords with double bird pommel, round bronze tubes with a bulging belly, pickaxes and horse face ornaments all spread from west to east, indicating that practical objects played a vanguard role in the cultural convergence along the belt from the early to the middle stage.

Distribution of Short Swords with Double Bird Pommel This sword basically consists of four parts: the pommel, the hilt, the guard and the blade. When comparing the sword from the steppes with that from the Northern Zone of China, the more eastward the sword spread or the later the sword is dated, the more simplified its decoration was (Fig. 5.77). This speculation is explained below. (1) Two swords were unearthed from Kazakhstan. One is decorated on the pommel with double birds with a clear depiction of the beaks, eyes and ears on the hilt with lines and two beasts extending their heads on the guard (Samashev 2008) (Fig. 5.77: 1). Another is made of iron with a representational depiction of the Fig. 5.77 Short swords with double bird pommel beyond China. 1, 5 Kazakhstan; 2 Southern Siberia; 3 Tagar culture; 4 Ulaangom

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

407

bird heads and a hilt with lines and a plain guard (Arbore Popescu 1998) (Fig. 5.77: 5; Plate 5.5: 6, 7). A sword from Southern Siberia is also decorated with gorgeous representational decorations on the pommel, hilt and guard (Minns 1971) (Fig. 5.77: 2). A sword unique to the Tagar culture from the Minusinsk Basin has a pommel with birds with defined beaks, eyes and ears, a plain openwork hilt and a plain guard. It is dated between the 5th and 3rd century B.C. (Chlenova 1992b, Table 84: 18) (Fig. 5.77: 3). The Mongolian steppe yielded a short sword at the Ulaangom cemetery (Malyukova 1989) in a similar shape as the one unearthed from Kazakhstan (Fig. 5.77: 4). Coexisting with the short sword was a ceramic jar with a distinct long neck, a feature shared by the jar from the Hulusitai cemetery (Ta and Liang 1980) in Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.78). The sword can be traced to the middle Warring States period when the sword in northern Hebei appeared. Therefore, it was in the middle of the 4th century B.C. that the sword reached its easternmost extent. The above-mentioned swords unearthed from non-Chinese territory differ from the ones from the Northern Zone of China in two aspects. First, the former is not indented below the guard, suggesting that short swords from the Northern Zone of China inherited features from the Western Zhou period and can be dated to a time as early as the Spring and Autumn period, when they first appeared in China. Second, short swords from China only bear double birds on the pommel, with the hilt and guard lacking decoration. The short sword found in Hebei had almost lost the shape of the double birds, with only two black spots recognizable as the eyes that are reminiscent of a pair of birds.

Several short swords have been roughly dated, those with representational and complicated decorations to an early time and those with simplified patterns to late time. Through morphological analysis, the date and direction of the spread of the short sword can be traced. The current findings indicate that such short swords were

Fig. 5.78 Ceramics from Hulusitai and Ulaangom

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

408

widely distributed on the northern steppe, specifically in the Ural region on the border between Europe and Siberia (Ismagilov 1980), Southern Siberia (Minns 1919 qtd in Du 1993b) and the Minusinsk Basin, and Krasnoyarsk and Mongolia in the north (Davis-Kimball 1995). The number decreases from west to east. The swords found in Kazakhstan and Southern Siberia are most exquisite, with delicate patterns on the hilt and guard, indicating the occurrence of the peak period. As the southeast terminal on the spreading route, the Northern Zone felt this impact, and short swords of the same type came into existence there. Because of their wide distribution and uptake by many cultures, swords with double birdspommel became representative of this age and were commonly employed by horse-riding groups on the Eurasian Steppe who together forged an era of combat and alliances. The sword often coexisted with a pickax in archaeological remains, and their eastern boundaries basically overlapped. On the Mongolian Plateau, the pickax only appeared in the Ulaangom culture in western Mongolia. In the Northern Zone of China, it was found in eastern Inner Mongolia but never appeared in Hebei. This suggests that the Scytho-Siberian culture failed to affect the eastern Mongolian Plateau, northern Hebei and Northeast China. The native cultures in these areas established barriers against those from the west and eventually evolved into the Xiongnu culture. It was proposed in the 1970s that the boundary between the two cultural zones was in the middle Mongolian Plateau, probably near the Hunshandak Desert—a “sandy land” in Chinese—, extending south to the north of the Taihang Mountains (Watson 1971).

5.3.2.2

Pickaxes

The pickaxe, a type of socketed battle-axe, prevailed as an important weapon with a shaft in the Northern Zone of China and the steppe area during the Eastern Zhou period. It features a head with a pointed end and a flattened blade on the other end. The pointed end resembles a crane beak, hence its Chinese term hezuifu, meaning an ax with a crane beak (Yu 1996). The Eurasian steppe pickax has a tubular socket in the middle of the head which extends downward and later shortened, a sharp point on one end and a flattened blade or round hammer on the other end. This battle-ax was used mainly for pecking, and some of them were also used for chopping and hammering. According to the length of the socket and the shape of the head ends, pickaxes can be divided into three types: type I features an extended socket (Fig. 5.79: 5–10), most of the type II pickaxes have a socket that does not extend out of the head and some become smaller, with animal decorations on one of the ends (Fig. 5.79: 11–16), and type III contains a socket as long as the head in width and slightly curving ends, most made of iron (Fig. 5.79: 17–19), found in the Northern Zone of China. The creation of the pickax may have been inspired by the socketed zhuoge (dagger-ax) that prevailed in the early 1st century B.C. as a shafted weapon featuring a flattened blade with a middle ridge, a sharp point on one end of the head, and an oval socket extended perpendicularly from the other end of the head. The zhuoge was also used mainly for pecking (Fig. 5.79: 1–4). It is speculated that there is a

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

409

Fig. 5.79 Socketed Ge and pickaxes. 1–4 Socketed zhuoge; 5–10 type I pickaxes; 11–16 type II pickaxes; 17–19 type III pickaxes (1, 2 Karasuk culture; 3 Obi River; 4 Transbaikal; 5 Arzhan Tomb I; 6, 15, 16 Tagar culture; 7–10 Belyjar tomb I; 11, 12 Altai-Pazyryk culture; 13, 14 Tuva Uyok culture; 17 Maoqinggou cemetery; 18 Yinniugou cemetery; 19 Yulongtai cemetery; 17–19 are iron; the rest ones are bronze)

relationship between pickaxes and zhuoge because both the type-I pickax and the zhuoge bear a sharp blade at one end of the head and an extended socket with a hole at the bottom that could be used to secure the ax heads to a handle, and the major function of both weapons is to attack by pecking. In addition, the socketed zhuoge was followed by the pickax in time. In Southern Siberia, the zhuoge prevailed in the Karasuk period between the 10th and 8th centuries B.C., while the following Tagar culture had pickaxes only. The Eurasian Steppe was undergoing a transition from animal husbandry to nomadism in the early first millennium B.C. when many artifacts underwent dramatic stylistic changes. As connected as the zhuoge and the pickax are (Fig. 5.81), differences remain between them. The pickax has its socket in the middle of the head and is heavier than the zhuoge, suggesting that the former integrated different cultural factors.

410

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

In this period, the appearance of iron wares ended the phenomenon in which bronzes dominated the world. The zhuoge with a tubular socket was popular at this time and was distributed in Southern Siberia, the Obi River basin, Transbaikal, and the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang of China (Figs. 5.79: 1–4, 5.80 and 5.81: 1–8). Lin (1998b) noted that the zhuoge with a tubular socket was a combination of peck and ge (Lin 1998b), a typical integration of the Central Plain and the Northern Zone of China. The zhuoge with a tubular socket found in different regions are dated between the end of the 2nd millennium B.C. and the early 1st millennium B. C. Although the earliest one has not been identified, a battle-ax excavated from the Baifu cemetery at Changping, Beijing, is considered to be the most primitive in style (Beijing Cultural relics Management Office 1976b) (Fig. 5.81: 1). This, together with the fact that the bronze ge was a typical weapon on the Central Plain, suggests that under the influence of the bronze ge from the Central Plain, the zhuoge appeared in the Northern Zone of China first and then spread to Southern Siberia and Transbaikal.

Fig. 5.80 Socketed Ge with tubular socket from Xinjiang. 1 Qunbake tomb; 1, 2, 3 Yanghai cemetery

Fig. 5.81 Evolution from socketed Ge to pickaxes. 1–8 Zhuoge with tubular socket; 9–11 type I battle axes; 12, 13 type II battle axes; 14, 15 type III battle axes (1 From the Western Zhou cemetery at Baifu, Changping; 2 from Transbaikal; 3 from Minusinsk basin; 4 from the brick and roofing tile plant at Dongcun, Qinghai; 5, 7 of Karasuk culture; 6 from Yanghai cemetery; 8 from tomb 1 of Qunbake cemetery; 9 royal tomb 1 of Arzhan; 10, 13 of Tagar culture; 11 from Banfangqu, Urumqi; 12 from Kuola cemetery, Hami; 14 from Yulongtai cemetery; 15 from Yinniugou cemetery)

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

411

Around the 8th century B.C., much of the Eurasian steppes entered the early nomadic era. The nomadic economy led to the active interaction between people from different regions, and wars between tribes became more frequent. In the area of distribution of the socketed zhuoge, a new type of battle-ax appeared: pickaxes, of which type I prevailed roughly between the 8th and 6th century B.C. (Fig. 5.79: 5–10) and became the most developed form of local weaponry (Zubkov and Posel’janin 1999), distributed mainly in the Southern Siberia, Tuva and Altai regions in large numbers. From the late Spring and Autumn period around the middle of the 1st millennium B.C. to the Warring States period, the type II pickaxes began to prevail, with the tubular socket either shrinking drastically in length or moving down to be parallel with the ax head (Fig. 5.79: 11–16). The type II pickaxes were distributed throughout Southern Siberia and the regions stated above (Gryaznov 1992; Mandeischtam 1992; Chlenova 1992b) then spread to Xinjiang and the northern regions in China. Later, the pickaxes gradually evolved into ironware, and their shape changed to type-III battle-axes with both ends bending downwards (Fig. 5.79: 17–19). The pickaxes from the Northern Zone of China were focused in locations such as Inner Mongolia and Ningxia and were not observed in the north of the Taihang Mountains and the western Liaoning area. The length of most of their tubular sockets is no longer than their ax heads, and they are categorized as late type II and type-III battle-axes (Fig. 5.79: 17–19). Most of the pickaxes in southern Mongolia (in cemeteries such as Yulongtai (Inner Mongolia Museum et al. 1977), Maoqinggou (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986a), and Yinniugou (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2001) belong to the Eurasian steppe system, while those discovered in regions such as Guyuan (Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1993) and Qingyang (Xu and Xu 1988) are partly from the Eurasian steppe system and partly from the local system. Limited amounts of pickaxes are also found in western regions, Xinjiang and its neighboring Semirechye region, most of which were chance finds or recruited (Li and Dang 1993; Compilation Group of Hami Antiquities 1993). Based on their forms, these pickaxes fall into the Eurasian system, varying in form from the early periods (Fig. 5.81: 11) to the late periods (Fig. 5.81: 12), but so far, they show no trace of the latest type-III battle-axes. From the distribution and excavation situations, we can see that early pickaxes were concentrated in Southern Siberia, Altai, and Tuva. From the published burial materials of relatively rich and well-preserved funerary objects (Zubkov 1999), this type of battle-ax appears to have been very widely used. The pickaxes discovered in the Northern China regions were mainly distributed in central and western Inner Mongolia and Ningxia and mostly composed of the late form. The crane-beaked axes of the Xinjiang regions are small in number and show no trace of their earliest form. Thus, we can hypothesize that pickaxes may have first appeared in South Siberia, Altai and Tuva and then spread to the east, influencing the Xinjiang Tian Shan region and the Northern China region but showing no sign of distribution to the eastern Mongolian Plateau and northern Hebei, which mark the borders of their distribution to the east. Similar to the pickaxes, the short swords with double bird

412

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.82 Evolution of other two types of socketed battle axes found from the Northern Zone of China. 1 Nidingcun, Zhongning (M2); 2, 3 Langwozikeng, Zhongwei (M3, M5); 4 Baicaowa, Pengyang; 5 Taohongbala; 6 Miaoqu, Qingyang; 7 Guchengcun, Guyuan; 8 Mazhuang, Guyuan

pommel mentioned above also spread in a west-to-east pattern. The appearance of short swords with double bird pommel in the Northern Zone of China was the result of the Southern Siberian influence as well. In the Northern Zone of China between the 8th and 3rd century B.C., there were pickaxes of the Eurasian steppe system and ones of the local system (Zhang 2003). We will take two types discovered in relatively larger quantities as an example. The first type has its socket installed on one side of the ax head, with the tubular socket no longer than the ax head. It has a diamond shape on one side of its blade section, a short protrusion on the other side, and the eyelet in the socket that could be used to attach the head to a handle (Fig. 5.82: 2, 3). This type of battle-ax was concentrated in the central and southern regions of Ningxia, a possible descendant of the ge axes with tubular sockets, and its original form was most likely found in Niding Village, Zhongning County, Ningxia (Yang 2004b) (Fig. 5.82: 1). The second type is also known as the double-edged ax. Its socket is located in the middle of the ax head,

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

413

with no evidence of the tubular socket being longer than the ax head. The two ends of the tubular socket end in blades of similar form (Fig. 5.82: 4–8). This type of socketed battle-ax was mainly distributed across the central south of Ningxia and eastern Gansu but was also found in small quantities in western Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.82: 6). The ancestral type of the double-edged ax is unknown, but from its evolution process (Fig. 5.82: 4–8), Northwest China seems like a possible location of origin (Zhang 2003). With regard to these two types of battle-axes of the Northern Zone of China, while the socketed zhuoge in Southern Siberia, Altai and Tuva were developing into pickaxes and the latter was developing, some battle-axes in Ningxia and other places in the Northern Zone of China also underwent developmental processes (Fig. 5.82), but the influence of this type of self-evolution was relatively limited. This implies that the evolution of weapons in the Northern Zone of the Eastern Zhou dynasty was influenced by the Eurasian Steppe but also conformed to local customs.

5.3.2.3

Bronze Mirrors

Bronze mirrors are another piece of evidence of the connection between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. Round bronze mirrors with bridge-type knobs were popular in the Central Plain during the Eastern Zhou dynasty, and their form shows massive differences from those prevalent in the North. Bronze mirrors of the Northern Zone of China are divided into two types based on their upper parts: mirrors with button-type handles and mirrors with a standing beast. The distribution of these bronzed mirrors outside China is focused on the region spanning from the Minusinsk Basin (Kiselev 1951), Southern Siberia, to Tuva (Semyonov 1992) and Mongolia (Chlenova 2000). Button-type-handle mirrors are seen mainly in Tuva and western Mongolia (Fig. 5.83: 5) and are less commonly found in the Pazyryk culture of the Altai regions (Fig. 5.83: 6). Button-type-handle mirrors in the Northern Zone of China are found in the Yujiazhuang cemetery of the Gansu–Ningxia region (Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1995c) and the Yaozi cemetery in Guo County of eastern Inner Mongolia (Neimenggu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1989) (Fig. 5.83: 7). Standing beast mirrors are found in Minusinsk Basin, Southern Siberia and Tuva (Fig. 5.83: 1, 2) and rarely appear in Mongolia and the Northern Zone of China. Two standing-beast mirror artifacts were unearthed from Mongolia’s Dundgovi aimag (Fig. 5.83: 4). When compared to their northern Chinese counterparts from the Hulusitai cemetery in Mongolia (Fig. 5.83: 3), there are differences in every animal on these mirrors, but they all fall into the same style of artifacts. Another artifact unearthed from the Transbaikal region seems to be a mixture of the two types of bronze mirrors but resembles a simplified form of the animal-shaped mirror (Fig. 5.83: 8). Both the long-handled mirrors that were prevalent in the western Eurasian Steppe to the west of the Ural Mountains and the protruding-rim bridge-shaped-knob mirrors that were prevalent in Central Asia are rarely found in the Northern Zone of China, but both types are seen in Xinjiang, and long-handled

414

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.83 Handled mirrors from the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. 1 Minusinsk basin; 2, 5 Tuva; 3 Hulusitai, Inner Mongolia; 4 Dundgovǐ Aymag, Mongolia; 6 Altai; 7 Guoxianyaozi, Liangcheng; 8 Transbaikal

mirrors are found even in Sichuan and Yunnan (Zhang 2002). The forms of bronze mirrors in the Northern Zone of China outline the cultural connections to Tuva and the Minusinsk Basin, while Xinjiang, Sichuan and Yunnan had cultural interactions with the western Eurasian Steppe and Central Asian regions. This phenomenon implies that the Northern Zone of China had individual connection channels with the Eurasian Steppe that were different from those of Xinjiang and the southwestern regions; thus, they belonged to different cultural interaction circles.

5.3.2.4

Standing Animal Decorations

The standing animal decoration is a characteristic animal decorative art of the Minusinsk Basin. Ibex are the most commonly used form of decoration,mostly bighorn ibex. This type of decoration is seen in many types of artifacts, with shaft caps of ge being the most numerous type. They are normally located on the top with a standing figure of an ibex with its legs close together and its figure long and slim. These ibexes are all in a standing posture, with horns well developed and bent back,

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

415

eyes expressed as multiple circles, and tails that are extremely short in length (Fig. 5.84: 1–4). Contemporaneous with these are numerous types of socketed tools that are etched on the top edge with multiple continuous ibex decorations. The ibex have heads gazing horizontally, snouts that are comparatively long, horns curled backward, and plump bodies (Fig. 5.84: 5, 6). This type of single ibex image is seen on pickaxes (Fig. 5.84: 7) and the handles of swords, knives and bronze mirrors. They prevailed throughout the early Iron Age in the Minusinsk Basin. A large number of similar items spread across a wide area, thoroughly expressing the deep love of the Minusinsk Basin people for ibex. Similar types of standing animal images have been found in the Northern Zone, and artifacts of an identical style were unearthed from the Yulongtai (Inner Mongolia Museum et al. 1977) and the Xigoupan cemeteries (Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation and Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1980) of western Inner Mongolia. However, the standing animal images on these artifacts are different from the ibex of the Minusinsk Basin, including images of different types of goats and some mythical creatures (Fig. 5.84: 11, 13, 14). Horse ornaments from the Sujigou cemetery (Gai 1965b) are of a similar style as these; the only difference is that the horse is couchant rather than in a standing position (Fig. 5.84: 12). These artifacts unearthed from the Northern Zone were from a later time, at least after the Warring States period. This style of animal ornaments also exists in the regions of Mongolia, similar to the horse ornaments of Bayankhongor aimag and the deer ornaments of Övörkhangai aimag (Ėrdėnėchuluun 2011b) (Fig. 5.84: 8–10). Although coexistent artifacts that enable the dating of the Mongolian standing animal ornaments are not available, we can speculate that the date should be after the Warring States period based on the fact that their forms are closer to those of similar types unearthed from the cemeteries of western Inner Mongolia.

Fig. 5.84 Finials with standing animal from Minusinsk, Mongolia and the Northern Zone of China. 1, 2 Krasnoyarsk; 3–6 Belyjar tomb I; 7 Minusinsk (Chance find); 8 Bayanhongor; 9, 10 Uvurkhangai; 11, 13 Yulongtai; 12 Sujigou; 14 Xigoupan

416

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Compared with the artifacts of the Northern Zone and Mongolia, the standing animal artifacts unearthed from the Minusinsk Basin are not only greater in number and of earlier dates but are also more widely spread. Even earlier standing animal ornaments were found in Arzhan I in Tuva adjacent to the Minusinsk Basin (Fig. 4.9: 2–4). On this basis, we speculate that it is most likely from the Minusinsk Basin and Tuva that the standing animal style was introduced to Mongolia and the Northern Zone. From the comparative analysis of the above artifacts, it can be concluded that during the Eastern Zhou period, the Minusinsk Basin and Tuva were closely related to the Northern Zone. In fact, communications between the Arzhan culture in Tuva and the Upper Xiajiadian culture had already started as early as the late Western Zhou period to the early Spring and Autumn period, which was discussed in detail in Chap. 4. In the first stage of the formation of the cultural belt of the Northern Zone, swords with double-bird pommels and pickaxes were introduced into China and then spread from west to east within the region. Based on their discovery and distribution areas (Fig. 5.85), western Mongolia stood at the crossroad of their transmission routes. Although the standing animal ornaments and the handle mirrors of the Northern Zone may also be related to the Minusinsk Basin and Tuva, unlike the above two types of artifacts, they were not accepted by the local people there until the mid-Warring States period.

Fig. 5.85 Connections between the Northern Zone of China and areas of Minusinsk and Tuva

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

5.3.3

417

Connections with the Altai Region

The Altai region is another center of early nomadic culture. It is rich in gold, silver, copper, tin, and other mineral resources and has an ideal climate and environment to host a nomadic economy. Its geographic location is also of special importance because the Altai Mountains extend eastward to the Mongolian Plateau and the Northern Zone of China, connecting to the Kazakh steppe in the west, linking with Xinjiang in the south, and bordering the Tuva and the Minusinsk Basin in the north, making it an important hub in the steppes. In the 5th to the 3rd century B.C., a developed nomadic culture emerged, the Pazyryk culture. Because its tombs were frozen by the permafrost of Siberia, the material remains have been well preserved. A wealth of artifacts unearthed from the Altai region demonstrate its developed nomadic culture and art. The most striking feature of the steppe art represented by the Pazyryk culture in Altai is planar animal patterns rather than curled animal figures on the ornaments, a feature that has been discovered in both the Eurasian Steppe and the Northern Zone. Considering that stereographic animal decorations appeared prior to embossed animal decorations in the Northern Zone and that the Altai style also appeared relatively late in that area, communication between the Altai region and the Northern Zone of China occurred later than communication between the Northern Zone and the Minusinsk region, where stereographic animal decorations were prevalent. By analyzing the animal patterns, especially those in the theme of mythical creatures, we are able to show the connection between Northern China and the Altai region. The mythical creatures we discuss here refer to imaginary animals that people created by combining the characteristics of two or more animals for a certain purpose but that are nonexistent in the real world. Many scholars have called these animals “monsters”, but ancient people created this animal art theme mostly with awe and worship to express their yearning for supernatural power. Thus, from this perspective, it seems inappropriate to use the term “monsters”. Some scholars have also noted this problem in their research. For example, Li Ling used the term “mythical beasts with wings” (Li 2004c), and Lin Yun proposed the concept of “mythical beasts with horns” (Lin 2009). We might expand the concept to call the imaginary animals in the art of the early nomadic people in the Eurasian steppe region “mythical creatures”.

5.3.3.1

Patterns of Animals in a Twisted Posture

The Altai Pazyryk culture has a wide variety of animal patterns, among which patterns of animals in a twisted posture are the most unique (Fig. 5.86: 1–4). Patterns of animals in a twisted posture refer to animal patterns in which the rear limbs of the animal are turned upward 180° from its front body, a posture that real animals are unable to perform. Among the treasures of Peter the Great, there is an exquisite gold plaque that displays a mythical animal biting a horse (Baumer 2012).

418

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.86 Patterns of animals in a twisted posture from Altai, Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China. 1–4 Pazyryk culture; 5, 8 Alagou in Xinjiang; 6 Zaghunluq culture; 7 Kulansarike cemetery in Aksu; 9 Hongzhuang in Guyuan; 10 Beikang Village in Xi’an; 11 collection of Ordos Museum; 12 Xigoupan M2 in Inner Mongolia

It is reported that the artifact may have come from western Siberia or the Altai region because the attacked horse on the plaque takes the typical form of the pattern of animals in a twisted positions (Plate 5.5: 5). These patterns of animals in a twisted posture were found in both the Northern Zone and Xinjiang. Two pieces were unearthed from the Alagou vertical tomb in Urumqi, Xinjiang (Institute of Archaeology and Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences 1981a). One is a golden lion plaque (Fig. 5.86: 5; Plate 10: 6), and the other is a double-tiger gold belt (Fig. 5.86: 8), both have their rear legs turned upwards. The Zaghunluq Tomb I (Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region et al. 2003a) yielded a wooden comb with patterns of two deer in this posture (Fig. 5.86: 6). In addition, the Kulansarak cemetery in Aheqi County, Aksu, yielded a horse golden plaque and a golden plaque of a griffin stepping on a deer in this style (Fig. 5.86: 7) (Institute of Archaeology and Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences 1995). Similar plaques have also been found in the Pazyryk culture. From the artifacts discovered, it can be concluded that all artifacts of this kind, from the Alagou Pit-Grave, the Zaghunluq cemetery, and the Kulansarak cemetery, can be dated to a time no earlier than the Pazyryk culture. The patterns of animals in a twisted posture found in the Northern Zone of China can be dated to an even later time. They mostly decorate rectangular plaques and were unearthed at Xigoupan M2 (Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation and Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986) (Fig. 5.86: 12), Beikang Village in Xi’an (Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology 2003, Fig. 10: 1) (Fig. 5.86: 10), and Hongzhuang in Guyuan (Zhong and Hang 1985; Plate 20: 2) (Fig. 5.86: 9). There is also one among the collections in the Ordos Museum (2006) (Fig. 5.86: 11). Most of these artifacts can be dated to after the late Warring States period. There are insufficient clues to determine the origin of the twisted animal motif, but this type of design was well developed in the Pazyryk culture, and no such patterns that are earlier than those in the Pazyryk culture have been discovered in

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

419

other areas. Therefore, based on the available evidence, this art theme is likely to have originated from the Altai region.

5.3.3.2

Ornaments of Mythical Creatures with Horns

In the Altai Pazyryk culture, there are many ornaments of mythical animals with horns that feature rows of bird-head patterns on the horns of mythical animals (Fig. 5.87: 1–4). These mythical horned animals can be further divided into those with hooked beaks and hooves (Fig. 5.87: 1, 2) and those with the teeth and claws of carnivores (Fig. 5.87: 4). Numerous ornaments of horned mythical animals with hooked beaks and hooves have been found in the Pazyryk culture. It can be said that the mountain herders of the Pazyryk culture felt a deep sense of awe for this kind of mythical animal. Similar discoveries have been found in many areas of the Eurasian Steppe. In the Northern Zone of China, this type of decoration has been found in Nalingaotu Village, Shenmu County, Shaanxi Province, and the Xigoupan cemetery in Inner Mongolia. These artifacts reflect the progress of art developing from realism to impressionism. The most exquisite and realistic one is in the design of a three-dimensional mythical animal from Nalingaotu (Fig. 5.87: 6; Plate 11: 8). Embossed multi-horned mythical creature patterns can be observed on a gold plaque inlaid with turquoise from Aluchaideng (Fig. 5.87: 5; Plate 11: 7). The most schematicized artifact is an embossed plaque with a crouching mythical creature from Xigoupan M2 (Fig. 5.87: 8). Another plaque from the same tomb is also an

Fig. 5.87 Patterns of mythical creatures with horns from Altai and the Northern Zone of China. 1–4 Pazyryk culture; 5 Aluchaideng in Inner Mongolia; 6 Nalingaotu Village in Shaanxi Province; 7, 8 Xigoupan in Inner Mongolia

420

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

embossed plaque with a standing mythical creature (Fig. 5.87: 7). The forms of animals, modes of composition and overall outlines of these artifacts are quite similar to those of the Pazyryk culture. To date, few artifacts with horned mythical creature patterns have been found in the Xinjiang region, with the exception of five gold and silver plaques that were unearthed from the Dongheigou cemetery in Barköl County. Although the details of the patterns are not clear, they are essentially plaques depicting beasts biting mythical creatures with horns and hooves. However, the beast’s body takes up most of the plaque, a special composition that is quite different from similar patterns in the Northern Zone of China (Lin 2009). In short, there are many types of themes of mythical horned creatures, on which Lin has conducted specialized research (Lin 2009). None of the artifacts found in the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia (Linyun 2009, Fig. 6: 4) predates the Pazyryk culture. Although we are unsure whether such themes originated from the Altai region, the ornaments of mythical horned creatures of the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia might have been introduced from Altai along with the twisted animals mentioned above.

5.3.3.3

Bird-Shaped Ornaments

The Pazyryk culture in Altai also lays claim to a unique form of bird-shaped ornaments on horse gears, mostly made of wood. They often take the shape of a bird, such as a swan or a griffin (Fig. 5.88: 1, 2), either lowering its head or spreading the wings or the tail. Among the treasures of Peter the Great, there is a golden plaque in the shape of a griffin spreading its wings and attacking a goat (Fig. 5.88: 3; Plate 5.5: 4), a rare work of art and exquisite craftsmanship. Bird-shaped ornaments with spreading wings have also been found in the Northern Zone of China, but they are dated to a later time and mainly distributed in western Inner Mongolia. Two of them were unearthed from the Xigoupan cemetery M2, one fashioned from gold and the other lead. Both are shaped like a swan, with the head gazing backward and wings and tails spread. In addition, the feathers are displayed in a fashion extremely similar to the style of the horse gear ornaments in the Altai region (Fig. 5.88: 5, 6). Similar gold bird-shaped ornaments were unearthed from the Aluchaideng region (Fig. 5.88: 4; Plate 10: 9). This type of bird-shaped ornament appeared much later in the Northern Zone, generally after the late Warring States period and later than concurrent artifacts of the Pazyryk culture in Altai. Although the precise origin of this style of artifact is difficult to locate, in light of current studies, the bird-shaped ornaments with spread wings from the Northern Zone of China may have derived from the influence of the culture of the Altai region.

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

421

Fig. 5.88 Contrast chart of bird-shaped ornaments with wings spread. 1, 2 Ak-Alakha cemetery in Altai; 3 treasures of Peter the Great; 4 Aluchaideng in Inner Mongolia; 5, 6 Xigoupan in Inner Mongolia

5.3.3.4

Tiger-Shaped Ornaments

Another type of animal-themed ornament is tiger-shaped ornament that was prevalent in the Northern Zone of China, Mongolia, and the Altai region. The tiger is a typical creature of Eastern Asia and plays an important role in ancient Chinese cultural art. A type of single-tiger plaque was prevalent in large numbers in the early northern steppe, mainly distributed in the eastern part of the Northern Zone. These often take the shape of a crouching tiger with its claws and tail ends represented by circular rings or spiral lines (Fig. 5.89: 1, 2; Plate 9: 3, 4). After the late Spring and Autumn period, the single-tiger plaques changed to an erect posture and became fewer in number and plumper in size (Fig. 5.89: 3, 4; Plate 12: 1A). Multi-animal plaques began to emerge (Fig. 5.89: 5). They often depict a tiger (a plump tiger in the early period) consuming an herbivorous animal, with the prey taking up a smaller proportion of the design (Fig. 5.89: 6–8; Plate 10: 5). With the passage of time, the tiger gradually became thinner and the tiger pattern decreased in size; in contrast, the prey pattern became larger. By the mid-late Warring States period, stripe patterns appeared on the bodies of tigers (Fig. 5.89: 9, 10; Plate 10: 1, 2). Later, from the late Warring States period to the Han period, tiger-shaped plaques further evolved into “P”-shaped artifacts (Fig. 5.101: 15). The Pazyryk culture of Altai also yielded numerous decorations of tiger patterns, but the inventory includes no single-tiger plaques. Instead, it mainly consists of two types of decorations. Type one includes patterns depicting a tiger devouring a goat or deer carved onto leather or fur blankets (Fig. 5.90: 4–7); Type two shows rows

422

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.89 Evolution of tiger patterns from the Northern Zone of China and Siberia. 1 Xiaobaiyang in Xuanhua, Hebei; 2 Zhuanshan cemetery in Longhua, Hebei; 3, 4 Maoqinggou cemetery in Inner Mongolia; 5 GuoxianYaozi cemetery; 6 Shihuigou in Inner Mongolia; 7 Aydingkol Lake in Turpan Basin, Xinjiang; 8 Chenyangchuan in Guyuan, Ningxia; 9 Jianghe; 10 Siberia

Fig. 5.90 Tiger patterns of the Pazyryk culture. 1 Ak-Alakh M1; 2 Bashadar M2; 3, 6, 7 Pazyryk M2; 4, 5 Pazyryk M1

of tiger patterns (Fig. 5.90: 1–3). The two types of tiger patterns share the characteristic of each tiger having a more slender and longer body and a slimmer waist, and some have dense stripes running down the entire body (Fig. 5.90: 2, 3). Patterns on a coffin of the Pazyryk cemetery M2 depict four tigers walking abreast in a line, with the first one preying on a deer under its feet (Fig. 5.90: 2). A similar pattern was found on a wooden plaque of Bashadar M2; in this case, however, each tiger has its own prey, either a deer or a goat (Fig. 5.90: 3). From a comparison between the two, it can be clearly seen that the patterns on the coffin of the Pazyryk cemetery are unfinished products, most likely due to the craftsman’s tight schedule before the burial. Compared with the patterns of the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia, it can be concluded that these artifacts were

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

423

Fig. 5.91 Connection routes between the Northern Zone of China and the Altai region

most likely prevalent during the mid-late Warring States period, and the tiger patterns in rows (Fig. 5.90: 1) on the Ak-Alakh M1 wood chip may be dated even earlier. The diversity and evolutionary process of tiger-shaped decorations imply that the Mongolian region and the eastern zone of the Northern Zone of China were important origins of the tiger plaques. From here, the decorations spread to the entire area of the northern bronze cultures and the Altai region. From the distribution and development of the patterns of animals in twisted postures, ornaments of mythical creatures with horns, bird-shaped decorations, and tiger patterns, we can roughly outline the links between the Altai region and the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 5.91). Through two-way communications, the Northern Zone of China accepted the patterns of animals in a twisted posture, patterns of mythical beasts with horns, and bird-shaped decorations from Altai, while the tiger patterns in Altai might have developed under the influence of the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia. The Altai region not only had a close relationship with the Northern Zone of China but also communicated with the Central Plain, which can be observed in the high-grade and large-scale cemeteries in the region. In 1957, a bronze mirror with bird and beast patterns was unearthed from the Guo state cemetery, Sanmenxia, Henan (Institute of Archaeology and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1959). In the center of the mirror are two parallel bow-shaped knobs, and around them are embossed lines in bird and beast patterns and patterns of two tigers, a deer, and a bird (Fig. 5.92: 4), a style quite different from the tradition in the Central Plain. This bronze mirror is reminiscent of a bronze mirror with a deer pattern in the Maiemir

424

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.92 Artifacts showing connections between the Pazyryk culture and Central Plain. 1 Pazyryk M5; 2 Pazyryk M6; 3 Firsovo cemetery XIV; 4 Guo tombs 1612:65, Sanmenxia, Henan

period of Altai (Plate 5.5: 2). Both are decorated in a similar composition style with raised bowstrings. The former dates roughly from the late Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn period, and the latter dates to an equivalent time period in Altai. Although the raised bowstring lines should be evidence of communication between the steppes and the Northern Zone at that time, the bird patterns (Fig. 4.14: 19) and tiger patterns with the joints of the tiger represented by circular lines (Fig. 4.14: 18) on the mirrors are unique to the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The Pazyryk culture of the Altai region amassed large numbers of silk fabrics (Rudenko 1970), including an intact phoenix-patterned saddle pad of extremely high quality. The embroidery utilizes colored silk and depicts a phoenix perched on a tree or branch with intricate patterns, an art piece of rare quality (Fig. 5.92: 1). Most scholars believe that the silk on this artifact originated from China (Rudenko 1957). A bronze mirror with “山”-shape patterns was unearthed from the Pazyryk cemetery. Despite missing a small piece, from a reconstructed image, we can see that the entire artifact should contain four “山” patterns (Fig. 5.92: 2), doubtlessly a characteristic of the Central Plain. In addition, more artifacts of the same form were found in the Altai region. According to reports, another artifact was found in the west of the Altai Mountains (Rudenko 1957), and another piece of this type of bronze mirror was unearthed from the Firsovo XIV cemetery (Tishkin and Seregin 2012; Plate 17) (Fig. 5.92: 3). Silk fabrics and the “山”-pattern bronze mirror are all typical artifacts of the Central Plain. In conclusion, a mutual bridge of communications existed between the Altai region and the Central Plain of China. Regarding the exact route of communications between the two, insufficient evidence is available for a detailed description. However, we tend toward the belief that the Altai people connected with the central Chinese culture through the northern Chinese region. Unlike the Northern Zone of

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

425

China, the connections between the two did not involve the exchange of cultural elements but rather the exchange of daily objects. Given that silk fabrics and bronze mirrors from the central Chinese region arrived in Altai, this could imply that the two shared a commercial relationship that predates the Silk Road.

5.3.4

Connections with the Semirechye Region in the Tianshan Mountains

The Semirechye region in the Tianshan Mountains was the hub of the ancient Silk Road, but the connections between the Northern Zone of China and the Semirechye region even earlier than the Silk Road. The most important evidence of this comes from the newly excavated Majiayuan cemetery, Zhangjiachuan, Gansu Province, in the past ten years. Located in the Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County, Tianshui, Gansu Province, and excavated from 2006 onward (Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County and Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2008; Early Qin Culture Joint Archaeological Team and Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County 2009, 2010, 2012), the Majiayuan cemetery dates to the late Warring States period. Its luxurious carriages and its strong local indigenous and steppe cultural background have attracted the attention of Chinese archaeologists. The most prominent animal patterns are relief patterns of goats and tigers. Ibex plaques decorations on the sideboard of the carriage in the M3 cemetery are made from cast bronze (Fig. 5.93: 1) and silver foil (Fig. 5.93: 2). However, there is no trace of stereoscopic sculptures of goats prevailing in Guyuan and Ordos. The goats on the plaques are characterized by their backward-curled horns and four separated hooves. The tiger-shaped ornaments are forged of either gold foil or silver foil. A gold-foiled tiger on the sideboards of the carriage from tomb M3 features upward curled fur and tail taking the shape of two adjacent but opposing spiral patterns (Fig. 5.93: 3). The silver-foiled tiger on the sideboards of the carriage from tomb M1 has a slim and long body made of vertical stripes and horizontal segmental lines. On their hooves and ears are small holes that were used to secure the plaques (Fig. 5.93: 7). In addition to animal-shaped plaques, there are hollowed-out decorative plaques. Spiral gold-foiled ornaments have also been found in tomb M3 on both wheels of the carriage, with the two corners of each foil curving upwards and facing opposite directions with the spiral patterns opposing each other and complex hollowed-out decorative patterns in the center (Fig. 5.93: 8). In addition, hollowed-out silver-foil stripes, again with complex hollowed-out decorative patterns in the center, are used to decorate the spokes of the carriage of M3 (Fig. 5.93: 9). As discussed above, we can summarize the characteristics of steppe cultural factors of the Majiayuan cemetery.

426

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.93 Comparisons between plagues from Majiayuan and those from the Semiryechye region of Kazakhstan. 1–3, 7–9 Majiayuan; 4, 6, 10–12 Issyk kurgan; 5 Lake Issyk (chance find)

First, animal-shaped ornaments are dominated by goat and tiger patterns, especially patterns of goats with upward-curving horns. The upward-curving style was also used to depict tiger fur and tails and to make other animal-shaped decorative plaques. Second, most of the artifacts are ornaments made of hammered gold or silver foil with scarce few cast bronze animal-shaped pieces. With the wrapping of this foil on the outside, the decorated objects look like three-dimensional models

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

427

Fig. 5.94 Composition comparisons between animal patterns of Majiayuan and those of the Semiryechye region of Kazakhstan. 1 On sideboards of the carriage in Majiayuan M3; 2 on the hat of the “golden man” of Issyk kurgan

made of gold or silver, producing a feeling of extreme luxury to exaggerate the wealth of the tomb owner. Third, because the gold and silver foils take the patterns of vertical stripes or horizontal segmented lines, it can be inferred that the gold and silver foils were hammered on molds with these stripes or lines. Finally, the burial carriages are unique. Decorated on the sideboards of the carriages are patterns of predators and prey, such as a tiger and a goat, a theme that prevailed across the entire steppes. However, they are not engaged in combat; instead, they stand apart (Fig. 5.94: 1). The Tianshan straddle southeastern Kazakhstan and western Xinjiang, China. The remains of the Saka people in this region could date to the Iron Age from the 7th century B.C. to the 2nd century B.C. Among them, the most important

428

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

discovery is the Issyk kurgan near Issykkul (Akishev 1978). Many artifacts unearthed there share steppe factors with those of the Majiayuan cemetery. The Issyk kurgan was excavated during 1969–1970 and is also known as the tomb of the “golden man”, a Europoid with Mongoloid features who was a male aged 16–18. The kurgan is dated to around the 3rd-2nd century B.C. (Chang 2006, Fig. 39). Ibex ornaments discovered in the kurgan are forged or hammered of gold or silver foil (Fig. 5.93: 4). Several gold ibex plaques were collected in a river valley near Issykkul (Fig. 5.93: 5) (Зaднeпpoвcкий 1992, С. 73–87, таблица 29, 9), their large horns curving backward to their backs and their limbs separated, similar to the goat plaques of Majiayuan. Plagues of the Issyk kurgan were identified by researchers as dating from the 1st century B.C. to the 2nd century B.C. and are artifacts of the Wusun period. The hat of the “golden man” is adorned with a mythical horse with wings and horns, the curved back horns and bent-up wings forming two opposing spiral patterns (Fig. 5.93: 6), a style similar to that of hair and tails on the gold foil tigers of Majiayuan (Fig. 5.93: 3). A snow leopard is depicted in a leaping position with its head turned back and horizontal stripes and segmented lines on its body, a style similar (Fig. 5.93: 10) to that of the silver-foil tigers of Majiayuan (Fig. 5.93: 7). Curly hollowed-out gold foil pieces, some with their corners curving upwards and their center hollowed out (Fig. 5.93: 11) and others made of stripe-typed silver-foil pieces with petal- or flame-shaped patterns hollowed out in their middle (Fig. 5.93: 12), are quite similar to the hollowed-out decorative pieces of Majiayuan (Fig. 5.93: 8, 9). The 165 animal-shaped ornaments unearthed from the Issyk kurgan are mostly forged or cast from gold or silver as decorations on the tomb owner’s clothing and hat. Additionally, there are more than 4000 pieces of gold foil and jewelry on his clothing. The ultimate effect of these decorations is to dress the tomb owner as a golden statue. His cone-shaped hat is festooned with even more gold plaques, including plaques of snow leopards attacking ibex (Fig. 5.94: 2). The Majiayuan site and the site near Issykkul share many similarities. Animal ornaments are all represented in a two-dimensional manner, unlike the three-dimensional animal-shaped decorations that prevailed in the Altai Mountains and on the Ordos Plateau; gold foil and silver-foil ornaments outnumber bronze ones; and the sites of the two places are equivalent in time to the late Warring States period in China. In the Majiayuan and Issykkul, the gold and silver decorative pieces are found on the surface of the objects. The purpose of doing so is to make the tomb owner into a statue completely wrapped in gold foil. This implies that the aesthetic taste was to pursue a luxurious effect, completely different from the taste in the Eurasian Steppe, which yielded simple three-dimensional animal-shaped cast bronze finials. The cause of these differences lies in both regional and time factors. A wild boar ornament made of gold foil discovered in the East Taldi cemetery of Habahe County in Xinjiang (Fig. 4.20: 5) (Institute of Archaeology and Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences 2013) was recently published. In terms of shape, it can be dated to around the 8th century B.C., parallel in time with the Arzhan I. The

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

429

method of using gold foil to make decorative pieces appeared early and was likely to be a cultural tradition of the Tianshan and Altai regions. Few three-dimensional animal-shaped ornaments have been discovered in the Semirechye region of southeastern Kazakhstan. Only a small number of three-dimensional animal-shaped decorations have been found in the early tombs on the north shore of the Ili Rive (Yang and Zhang 2010). This may be the result of the influence of the steppe region farther north. The appearance of these two types of animal-themed decorations in the Northern Zone of China has implications for dating: the three-dimensional animal-shaped decorations belong to the early stage of the Post-Dagger Age in Phase III of the cultural belt of the Northern Zone in the Eastern Zhou period, or the transitional period between the middle and late Warring States period, while the two-dimensional animal-shaped decorations fall into the late stage of Phase III, the late Warring States period (Yang 2004b). This phenomenon implies that the cultural communication between the Northern Zone of China and the steppe area developed from the north to the south and from the high-latitude areas to the low-latitude areas. The animal shapes in the gold and silver decorative pieces are mainly ibexes standing with limbs splayed and felines are represented by vertical stripes and horizontal segmented lines. They also share some similarities in detail, such as the horns bending backward and downward and the tails or wings bending forward and upward. To represent the predator and the prey, they are usually placed abreast peacefully rather than in combat. Many resemblances also appear in patterned decorative plaques, such as one corner curving upward in a fishhook style or the center with striped patterns. These two cemeteries share similarities in the motif of decoration and the details of production and from the method of decoration to the effect of decoration. This is likely not a coincidence but reflects the cultural communication between the two cultures. Because these cultural characteristics have a long history and a large number in the southeastern part of Kazakhstan, Central Asia is likely to be the birthplace of these steppe cultural factors that constitute the cultural characteristics of this region during the 3rd–2nd centuries B.C. Although similar to those of the Issyk kurgan, the animal-shaped decorations in Majiayuan cemetery also display cultural factors of the Northern Zone of China, especially the Gansu-Ningxia region. A plaque of beast-devouring herbivores was unearthed from M14 at Majiayuan. The face of the beast is quite long, much like that of wolves (Fig. 5.95: 2), a typical feature of the plate decorations in the Guyuan area (Fig. 5.95: 1; Plate 10: 3). However, from the current findings, the proportion of this characteristic in the Majiayuan cemetery is relatively small. The composition method of the waist plaques unearthed together with the beast-theme plaques is also similar to that of the Issyk plaques (Fig. 5.95: 3, 4). After finding the source of these steppe cultural characteristics in Majiayuan burial, we continue to explore the route of connection. We have found traces of communications in the Xinjiang region, which stands between southeastern Kazakhstan and the Tianshui region of Gansu.

430

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.95 Comparisons among plagues from Majiayuan, Guyuan and Issyk. 1 Guyuan; 2, 4 Majiayuan; 3 Issyk

Fig. 5.96 Relevant artifacts from Tianshan area, Xinjiang. 1 Xinyuan (chance find); 2 Yili basin; 3 Hami (chance find); 4 Baiqier cemetery; 5 Alagou M30

In Xinyuan County at the northern foot of the Tianshan Mountains (Administration of Cultural Relics in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region et al. 1999), a bronze plaque of an ibex was found, with its horns curving upward and backward and the limbs apart. This is extremely similar to the bronze goat plaque in the Majiayuan cemetery, especially in the wavy-lined edges that are used to exaggerate the goat’s horns (Fig. 5.96: 1). This type of ibex is also observed in the bronze mirror of the Yeshikelieke cemetery in Tekes County (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2005), Ili (Fig. 5.96: 2), the bronze mirror collected from Hami (Wang et al. 1993) (Fig. 5.96: 3), and the standing animal ornament from the Baiqier cemetery in Yiwu County (Tulahong 2005) (Fig. 5.96: 4). The patterns of these ibexes are all made of bronze, mostly in a two-dimensional shape, with only a small number

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

431

of three-dimensional figures. Their commonalities lie in their large curly horns depicted with wavy edges, the four limbs spaced apart, and the drooping heads. The Alagou cemetery is located in a valley in the middle of the Tianshan Mountains (Institute of Archaeology and Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences 1981a, pp. 18–22). Four timber graves were excavated from Yuergou during 1976– 1977, which have attracted our attention. Among them, M30 was the largest in scale and yielded the largest number of artifacts, including eight round gold plaques with tiger designs, four tiger-patterned gold foil belts, and one lion-shaped gold foil artifact. Beast-themed gold foil decorations share a commonality in that they all use vertical stripes and horizontal lines to divide segments. With regard to the gold foil piece, the rear legs of the lion are reversely rotated 180° (Fig. 5.96: 5; Plate 10: 6). There are also many animal-face and petal-shaped gold decorative pieces with small holes around the edges, possibly for the plaques to be sewn onto something. The occupant of M30 was a young adult female. Near her head, there were nearly one hundred gold decorative pieces, of the same size (2.5 cm long), willow-leaf-shaped, and with punctures on either end. They may have originally been sewn on the hat. Because gold wires have been found in all the tombs and there are numerous ornaments with small holes around their edges, it can be inferred that the tomb owner also possessed gold decorations on her hat and clothing like those of the Issyk kurgan. At the bottom of M30’s wooden chamber tomb is a wooden burial carriage with wheels of approximately 18 cm in diameter and axles wrapped in silver foil, another technique quite similar to that seen at Majiayuan. These tombs can be dated from approximately the Warring States period to the Western Han period. The numerous Central Asian cultural factors and the gender of the tomb owner indicate the important role of marriage in the transmission of ancient culture. The archaeological sites in Xinjiang at the foothills of the Tianshan Mountains share much in common with those of the Issyk kurgan in southeastern Kazakhstan and those of the Majiayuan tombs in Gansu Province. First, they are basically of the same period, around the 3rd to 2nd century B.C. Second, the zoomorphic motif gives priority to ibexes and leaping beasts. Third, the method of decoration features gold and silver leaves fastened to the decorated object through the holes on the edge. Additionally, all the gold and silver foil is hammered using longitudinal stripes and cross-sectional segmented lines. Finally, wooden carriages and other artifacts have been observed in Alaogou and Majiayuan burials as well. The archaeological sites of Xinjiang are all located at the foothills of the Tianshan Mountains, with Tekes County in the Ili area in the far west and Xinyuan. Because both of the sites are very close to Semirechye, they have similar cultural features. The Alagou burial to the east is located in a pass of the Tianshan Mountains. Further east is the Hami region. According to earlier archaeological discoveries, it can be inferred that the Siba culture (Institute of Metallurgy and Material History of Beijing University of Science and Technology and Gansu Institute of Archaeology 2003) in the Hexi Corridor was closely related to the archaeological sites on the north face of Tianshan, the Hami area of eastern Tianshan (Qian et al. 2001). This indicates that they interacted culturally in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C. and that the Majiayua steppe cultural factors are

432

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

very likely to have been introduced from the Hami region through the Hexi Corridor to the Tianshui area of Gansu during the late Warring States period. The above analysis indicates that the foothill of Tianshan is the passageway connecting the steppes of Kazakhstan in Central Asia with the Guanzhong area in China. Xinjiang has enjoyed a long history of connections with the Eurasian and Central Asian steppes, which has resulted mostly from the sequential transmission of cultural factors through exchange, spreading gradually eastward or westward along with the frontier of the cultural contact between the East and the West and constantly moving westward, from the original Hami basin to the Barköl region, Qitai and Mori counties and the Yanqi Basin in the second stage and finally to the central region across Xinjiang (Shao 2009). In addition, the steppe culture has a trend of developing from north to south, specifically from northern Eurasia to Central Asia. For the first time, archaeological findings prove that Tianshan of Xinjiang was the direct passage from Semirechye of Tianshan in Central Asia to mainland China. This passage, as the northern branch of the later Silk Road, came into being earlier than the formation of the northern route of the Silk Road along the Tarim River at the southern foot of Tianshan. Although no archaeological evidence has yet been found along the route from the Hexi Corridor to Tianshui, Gansu Province, it can be speculated from the Silk Road of the Han period that these cultural factors probably entered Guanzhong via the Hexi Corridor. Because the cultural characteristics of the Kazakh steppe in the western part of Tianshan are close in dating to those of burials in Majiayuan, they were likely introduced directly from Central Asia to the Qin cultural zone in the Tianshui area. In fact, connections between the Semirechye China are revealed not only in animal-shaped decorations but also in vessels. During the 5th–3rd century B.C., bronze vessels were popular in the Semirechye area, Tianshan. Among them, the most distinctive are altars, such as a four-legged square altar resembling a table with a pattern of bighorn cattle standing in a circle around the tray; an altar with round or square feet with a round or square tray on its top; and a hollowed-out bronze altar (Yang and Zhang 2010, p. 91, Fig. 5: 1–6) (Fig. 5.97). However, there are few types of altars in Xinjiang, only those with a square upper part. There are no complex three-dimensional animal-shaped decorations around them, and they are inferior in quality compared with those of the Semirechye area, Tianshan. Among the six published altars, five are from Ili and one is from the Alagou cemetery on the southwestern edge of the Turpan Basin. In general, the distribution of this type of artifact centered on the Ili River Valley and its tributaries (Shao 2008). This reveals the cultural influence of Semirechye, Tianshan on Xinjiang, and the Ili River Basin was at the forefront of the influence. Other influences from Central Asia on Xinjiang include artifacts with spouts bearing columnar handles (Institute of Archaeology and Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences 1981a, pp. 18–20; Turpan Cultural Administration 1991) (Fig. 5.98: 15), which were probably influenced by the bronze-like pottery in the Semirechye area, Tianshan.

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

433

Fig. 5.97 Comparisons between bronzes from the Semiryechye region of Tianshan Mountains and those from Xinjiang. 1 Alagou M30; 2 Qapqal (chance find); 3 Xinyuan Yutang Ruins; 4, 5 Xinyuan (chance find)

From the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D., there was a sudden significant change in ceramics in the Semirechye area, Tianshan, as round-based pottery gained popularity in Xinjiang. Among them, jars (guans) with a long belly and a round base were the most popular, both in space and time (Fig. 5.98: 1–4) (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. 2004c; Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2006; Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region et al. 2003a; Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1995, 1999), mainly in the Yili area adjacent to the Tianshan Mountains in Central Asia. Painted pottery with an inward mouth and a round base also resulted from the impact of the Qirentuohai cemetery in Yili (Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2004) (Fig. 5.98: 13). In the Semirechye area of Tianshan, the jars with a large mouth and a round base are similar to those of the Zaghunluq culture in southern Xinjiang (Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region et al. 2003a) (Fig. 5.98: 5–12). The small-mouthed jugs with a round base in Pamir are similar to those excavated from the Xiangbaobao cemetery in the Pamir Plateau of Xinjiang (Fig. 5.98: 14) (Institute of Archaeology and Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences 1981b). The similar artifacts in these two areas indicate that there are close cultural exchanges between the Semirechye area of Tianshan and Xinjiang, following a certain rule of transmission: from the 5th to 3rd century B.C., the Semirechye area of Tianshan was mainly influenced by the Tianshan Mountains, while from the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.,

434

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.98 Ceramics from Xinjiang related to the Semiryechye region in the Tianshan Mountains. 1 Yanghai cemetery no. 3; 2, 5 Gongliushankou cemetery; 3, 12 Zaghunluq cemetery no. 1; 4 Suodun Bulake cemetery; 6, 9, 13 Qirentuohai cemetery; 7, 8 Anjihai cemetery; 10 Yeshikelie cemetery; 11 Qiafuqihai Section A No. IX; 14 Xiangbaobao cemetery; 15 Alagou cemetery

Xinjiang began to influence the Semirechye area of Tianshan. This may be related to the cultural migration caused by the Xiongnu’s westward migration. The above analysis indicates that in the late Warring States period, the foothills of Tianshan, also known as Tianshan Corridor (Lin 2014), had become a passageway connecting the Guanzhong region with the Kazakh steppe (Fig. 5.99). This changes the original pattern of Xinjiang as the recipient of the influence of the eastern and western cultures to a real channel of transportation between the East and the West. This was the embryonic form of the Silk Road, which is of great significance in the history of transportation between China and the West.

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

435

Fig. 5.99 Tianshan corridor in Xinjiang

Fig. 5.100 Ibex shapes. 1 Issyk kurgan; 2 Xinyuan, Yili; 3 Baiqier cemetery, Hami; 4 Majiayuan; 5 Ak-Alakha cemetery, Altai; 6 Altai Berel cemetery

Here arises a very interesting phenomenon. The motifs of ibexes on the gold and silver-foil ornaments excavated from the Majiayuan cemetery (Fig. 5.100: 4) share the most similarities in image and style with those on the fur felts unearthed from the Ak-Alakha cemetery in the southernmost Altai (Пoлocъмaк 1994) and those on the ibex-shaped ornaments for horse saddles from the Berel tombs (Samashev 2006) (Fig. 5.100: 5, 6). This similarity leads us to think about the cultural ties between the two places. The ibex decorations are undoubtedly the most distinctive in the Semirechye area of Tianshan (Fig. 5.100: 1–3). Therefore, the animal-shaped decorations excavated from the Ak-Alakha cemetery and Majiayuan, were probably under the cultural influence of the Semirechye area, Tianshan. The close connection between Tianshan and Altai is well illustrated by the above-mentioned evidence of artifacts of the northern steppe unearthed from the archaeological sites on the north shore of the Ili River in the Semirechye area (see Figs. 5.29 and 5.30) and the boar

436

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

accessories in gold foil excavated from the East Taldi cemetery on the east bank of the Haba River in the Altai, Xinjiang. Considering that the Tianshan passageway had been opened at that time, the route of their interactions might have passed through the Tianshan Corridor. Based on the above analysis, we preliminarily reveal the connections between the northern steppe culture and the cultural belt of the Northern Zone in the Eastern Zhou period. This connection, though via multiple routes, shows a developmental process. During the late Western Zhou and the early Spring and Autumn period, cultural exchanges began to emerge between Arzhan royal tombs in Tuva and the Upper Xiajiadian culture. In the middle of the Spring and Autumn period, the culture of the Northern Zone of China took shape. At first, only a small number of short swords with double birds were introduced from the Eurasian Steppe to the south of Yinchuan. The ornaments of this period are mainly buckle ornaments, which had been prevalent since the Western Zhou period. The intermediate period witnessed the spread of the double-bird sword and pick-ax from west to east and their popularity in the western and middle areas of the Northern Zone of China, where ornaments of linked beads and plaques with cloud stroll patterns were quite popular in addition to a small number of bronze handled-mirrors and mirrors with standing-animal decorations. In the early part of the late period, the Northern Zone of China began to accept the animal-shaped decorations that had appeared early in Minusinsk and Tuva, mainly in the western part of Inner Mongolia. Gansu-Ningxia, as an example, features a simplified animal-shaped bronze ornament, thin in the wall and hollow inside. In the late period, the Pazyryk culture in the Altai region exerted its influence on the outside world. As Altai’s ties with the Northern Zone of China were strengthened, ornaments of mythical beasts with horns, patterns of animals in a twisted posture and bird-shaped ornaments were introduced to the Northern Zone of China. The tiger patterns that probably originated from the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia began to emerge in Altai. At the end of the late Warring States period, the influence from Semirechye, Tianshan region, reached Gansu-Ningxia, a route also known later in the Han and Tang dynasties as the Silk Road of the Han and Tang. Considering the spatial and temporal changes of the influence of the Eurasian Steppe on the culture of the Northern Zone of China, the influence of Minusinsk and Tuva first entered Yinnan, the northern part of the west, and then spread from west to east in the cultural belt of the Northern Zone of China. With regard to the function of the artifacts introduced, daggers and pickaxes were artifacts with practical functions. Because they were more urgently in demand, they were the earliest to have been imported and spread faster. In contrast, daily-life artifacts, such as bronze mirrors and decorative artifacts of standing animals, only reflected a kind of cultural identity; therefore, they became popular much later in the Northern Zone of China and were fewer in number compared with the functional ones. The influence of Altai mainly took shape in the late period of the northern cultural belt, when the northern nomadic economy was further developed. The style of reversed rear limbs and the shape of divine beasts of the Pazyryk culture gained the favor of many cultural groups. People in the Northern Zone of China also accepted its

5.3 Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe

437

influence via the steppe passage from western Inner Mongolia to western Mongolia. The impact of the Semirechye, Tianshan, arrived at the end of the late period via Tianshan passage from the Hexi Corridor to the Gansu-Ningxia area. In this period, the exotic styles were mostly reflected in gold and silver wares, which suggests that the northern nomadic aristocrats not only used these precious metals to show their wealth and status but also had the ability to imitate the decorative styles of the aristocrats in the remote northern steppe. It is worth noting that the artifacts under the influence of the northern steppe are all very distinctive in the Northern bronze system, but their proportion is less than half. From the perspective of type, external influences are mainly manifested in weapons and animal-patterned decorations of the “Scythian triad”. In terms of the objects imported from the same region, there was an obvious time delay for the northern Chinese to accept the animal-patterned decorations rather than weapons. This shows the significant role that functional objects played in the economy and warfare. Usually, functional objects with more advantages are accepted sooner and spread faster. The policy of “wearing the Hu (styled) attire and shooting from horseback (in battle)” proposed by King Wuling of Zhao in the Warring States period is a case in point. While each culture had its own unique decorative artifacts, it may take a long period of communication with other cultures before people absorb external decorative artifacts or art according to their own preferences. The functional objects from other cultures may have stimulated the development of the economic and war activities of the northern groups to some extent, and the imported decorative objects may have enriched the northern artistic connotations. However, during the Eastern Zhou period, numerous chariots and horses were still unique to the northern Chinese culture, and pottery and burial customs were quite different from those of other regions. All these factors constituted the unique northern Chinese culture, which differed from the steppe cultures outside of China.

5.4

Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

The Xiongnu culture was the first steppe civilization in the eastern part of the Eurasian Steppe and exerted a profound impact on the relationship between the later steppe civilizations and agriculture and pastoral nomadic civilizations worldwide. The study of the origin of the Xiongnu has been a topic of interest among international academia. In archaeological academia, Lin Yun’s article “China’s Archaeological Studies on the Origin of Xiongnu” (Lin 1998a) provides the most comprehensive and profound discussion of the topic. During the past 21 years since Lin’s publication, remains of the Eastern Zhou period in the Northern Zone of China have been comprehensively examined temporally and spatially (Yang 2004b), with the latest review on the archaeological studies on Xiongnu (Pan 2007) and comprehensive data on the collected artifacts of the Mongolian Plateau (which lies between the Northern Zone of

438

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

China and Xiongnu) published with confirmed and detailed descriptions of their excavation sites (Ėrdėnėchuluun 2011a17). Because the origin of the Xiongnu has been narrowed down to the above three regions, these new achievements have established a new platform for us to re-explore the origin of the Xiongnu.

5.4.1

Comparison of Earliest Xiongnu Remains and the Related Remains of Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau

In the last chapter, we analyzed the similarities between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab Grave culture, not only regarding tools and weapons but also in clothing. This discussion illustrates the mutual cultural recognition between the two groups of people and clears the way for population mobility between the two. From the middle and late Spring and Autumn period, a considerable number of inhabitants of North Asia appeared in the Northern Zone of China (Zhang 2010), probably as a result of the southward migration of Slab Grave culture people. These people were gradually integrated into the northern cultural belt of China. During the Warring States period, the states of Yan, Zhao and Qin gradually expanded northward and built the Great Wall to block the Hu people from going south. As the Central Plain was unified in the Qin dynasty, the Hu to the north of the Great Wall gradually united into a steppe country: the Xiongnu Confederation. Ancient Chinese historical sources records that the Xiongnu rose in strength at the turn of the 3rd century B.C. and grew stronger to rival the Qin and Han empires. In the seventh year of the reign of Emperor Gaozu of Han (200 B.C.), Liu Bang, the emperor, led a great army in person to fight against the Xiongnu, only to be trapped in Baideng. Thus, the early historical rise of the Xiongnu occurred between the late Qin and the early Han periods to the north of the cultural belt of the Northern Zone, mainly to the north of the state of Zhao. The Xiongnu, under the leadership of Modu Chanyu, as recorded in Shiji, are known as the “historical early Xiongnu”. Archaeologically, the typical burials of the Xiongnu can be identified as being located mainly in eastern Mongolia and Transbaikal. The earliest Derestuy and Ivolga tombs in Transbaikal, dated to the middle and late Western Han period, are called the tombs of the “archaeologically early Xiongnu”. Therefore, there is a large gap between the historical documents and archaeological discoveries in terms of geography and time. To identify the origin of the Xiongnu, we should start with what have been identified as the earliest remains of the “archaeologically early Xiongnu”. According to existing studies, such archaeological sites are found in the Transbaikal region, mainly in the Derestuy and Ivolga cemeteries (Давыдова 1996; Миняев 1998). These two sets of excavation data have been published in a comprehensive 17

The following artifacts unearthed from the Mongolian Plateau refer to this book.

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

439

way. By comparing these data with the archaeological sites of the Eastern Zhou period in the Northern Zone of China, we find that many similar artifacts have been unearthed from the northern cultural belt, the Mongolian Plateau and the Transbaikal region during the Eastern Zhou period, which is an important clue for us to look for the “historical early Xiongnu”.

5.4.1.1

Weapons

The weapons used by the Xiongnu were mainly bows and arrows because riding and archery were their main ways of fighting. Therefore, few weapons other than bows and arrows were interred in the tombs of the Xiongnu. Arrowheads used by the Xiongnu were primarily made of bone, mostly leaf-shaped with a split tail (Fig. 5.75: 12, 13). Bone arrowheads of this shape have also been found in the late Mongolian Slab Grave culture and in the Northern Zone of China during the Eastern Zhou period (Fig. 5.75: 1, 7) but in declining number, especially in the Northern Zone of China. There were also a small number of trilobed bone arrowheads discovered in Xiongnu burials with circular sockets but no tang (Fig. 5.75: 14). Arrowheads of this type have also been discovered in the Mongolian Slab Grave culture (Fig. 5.75: 8) and the Northern Zone of China during the Eastern Zhou period (Fig. 5.75: 2, 3). Bone arrowheads with a split tail and socket have been found in Xiongnu tombs, the Slab Graves, and the Northern Zone of China during the Warring States period, but the number of different times varies from place to place, reflecting similar traditions with regard to war and weapons production in these three places. The trianglular and round-socketed arrowheads are rare in each place, and bone arrowheads with a split tail, though rarely found in the Slab Graves and the Northern Zone of China, are the main shape of bone arrowheads in Xiongnu burials. It is noteworthy that during the Eastern Zhou period in the Northern Zone of China, the tombs with bone arrowheads tend to be tombs of groups of primarily North Asians, such as the cemeteries of Guoxianyaozi (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1989), Yujiazhuang in Guyuan (Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1995b) and Xiyuan in Baotou (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology and Baotou Cultural Administration Office 1991), while the tombs with bronze arrowheads are tombs of groups of mainly ancient North China-type people, such as the tombs of Maoqinggou (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986a). This phenomenon indicates that North Asians preferred bone arrowheads as the Xiongnu did and thus Xiongnu population should be North Asians.18 On this premise, we can speculate from the dating of arrowheads that arrowheads with a split tail in the Northern Zone of China are evidence of the North Asian Slab Grave people migrating southward to the Great Wall, which is consistent with the identification of ethnic groups in the Northern Zone of China during the Warring States period.

18

See Identification of Noyon Uul ethnic group below.

440

5.4.1.2

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Tiger-Shaped Plaques

The distribution and stages of this type of plaque discovered in the Northern Zone of China can be identified according to their styles (Yang 2004b). The earliest are the crouching-single-tiger-shaped plaques (Fig. 5.101: 1, 2), mainly distributed in northern Hebei during the late Spring and Autumn period. This type of plaque continued to spread westward and evolved into the single-tiger plaques in a standing position (Fig. 5.101: 3) and multi-animal plaques depicting a tiger devouring small animals (Fig. 5.101: 4) in Daihai, east of Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, during the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period. The multi-animal plaques continued to spread, finally to the west of Inner Mongolia and Guyuan, and gradually took on new trends, such as the body of the tiger mostly decorated with stripes (Fig. 5.101: 5). The prey gradually occupied an increasing proportion of the pattern, or the snout of the tiger was extended to look like that of a wolf (Fig. 5.101: 6), similar to a horizontal “P” (Fig. 5.101: 7). All the plaques there can be dated to the late Warring States period. Although there is no clear solid and symbiotic relationship among the chance find tiger plaques in Mongolia, their evolution process may be seen from their positions, from the single-animal-crouching position (Fig. 5.101: 8, 9), to the multi-animal-standing shape in the design of the tiger devouring small animals (Fig. 5.101: 10, 11), to the shape with the prey occupying an increasing portion of the pattern (Fig. 5.101: 12), to the shape with stripes, which was as popular as in the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 5.101: 5). Among these, some with clear edges or in

Fig. 5.101 Comparisons among tiger-shaped plagues. 1 Qingzigou; 2 Luotuoliang; 3 Maoqinggou; 4, 5 Guoxian Yaozi; 6 Zhangjie Village; 7 Shihuigou; 8 Dundgovi; 9, 10, 12 Uvurkhangai; 11 Ömnögovǐ; 13 Bayanhongor; 14 Arkhangaĭ; 15 Dornogovi; 16, 17 Derestuy cemetery

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

441

the shape of a horizontal “P” (Fig. 5.101: 14, 15) can be dated to the Xiongnu period. Plaques with a horizontal “P” are quite different from the original tiger-shaped plaques, which are likely to have been influenced by the surrounding cultures. Some plaques see a lengthening snout (Fig. 5.101: 13–15), which is dramatically different from the snout of a tiger and more like that of a wolf, a trend first seen in the plaques of Guyuan in the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 5.101: 6) (Qinshihuang Mausoleum Museum 2012). By the early Xiongnu period, single-tiger plaques disappeared from the Xiongnu’s tombs. The tiger plaques at that time, with clearer edges and in the shape of a horizontal “P”, were closer in shape to those of a later time on the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 5.101: 16, 17). The study of similar plaques of the Northern Zone of China demonstrates that the early plaques of the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 5.101: 8–11) are similar to those of northern Hebei and eastern Inner Mongolia. These plaques found by chance were unearthed from aimags of Övörkhangai, Dundgovi and Ömnögovǐ, three areas closest to Inner Mongolia. This indicates that these three regions were part of the northern cultural belt of China at the early stage of the Warring States period, and there were no national boundaries in ancient times. The Mongolian plaques, similar to those of the later Warring States period in the Northern Zone of China, spread to Bayanhonger in the west and to the north of Övörkhangai in the north. This reveals that the tiger plaques of the Mongolian Plateau also have a trend of western development and are more similar to the plaques of western Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.106). The plaques with animal patterns in the Northern Zone of China originated from northern Hebei during the middle and late Spring and Autumn periods and then spread to western Inner Mongolia and Gansu-Ningxia during the late Warring States period; therefore, the Xiongnu plaques are likely much more similar to those of the late Warring States period in the Northern Zone of China.

5.4.1.3

Horse-Shaped Plaques

Horse-shaped plaques can be divided into three types according to the shape of the horse in the plaque: a crouching horse, a running horse, or a standing (walking) horse. These three types of plaques have all been discovered in northern Hebei, in the tombs of Xiaobaiyang (Zhangjiakou City Cultural Relics Management Office and Xuanhua Museum 1987), Yuhuangmiao (Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 2007), and Xinangou (Wang 2008), with the crouching horse plaques as the main type during the late Spring and Autumn period (Fig. 5.102: 1–4) and dated slightly later than the crouching tiger plaques. Standing horse plaques were found at the Yulongtai site (Tian and Guo 1986a, Fig. 118) in western Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.102: 5) and dated to the late Warring States period, supposedly as a result of the westward distribution and development of plaques of the same type in northern Hebei. To date, few recumbent horse plaques have been discovered on the Mongolian Plateau; instead, running horse plaques constitute the bulk of plaques there

442

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.102 Comparisons among horse-shaped plagues. 1 Xiaobaiyang; 2, 3 Yuhuangmiao; 4 Xinangou; 5 Yulongtai; 6, 7 Dundgovi; 8 Bayanhongor; 9 Uvurkhangai; 10 Iwoga cemetery; 11 Derestuy cemetery

(Fig. 5.102: 6, 7). Some are very similar to those of the Yuhuangmiao cemetery (Plate 9: 5), taking the shape of a crouching horse with the forelegs and rear legs bending against each other, presumably influenced by the shape of deer ornaments. With regard to shape, the standing horse plaques are similar to those of western Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.102: 8), while walking horse plaques are regarded as plaques of the Xiongnu era (Fig. 5.102: 9). Therefore, there seems to be a certain gap between standing and walking horse plaques. The horizontal “P”-shaped plaques in the Xiongnu period are generally considered walking horse plaques with four legs separated, a typical style of the Xiongnu period. A small number of plaques dated to the early Xiongnu period are similar to “crouching horse” plaques (Fig. 5.102: 10) but are quite different in shape from those in northern Hebei. It is likely that there is a missing link in time between them. Despite the significant change in shape, the running horses, with a distinctive frame (Fig. 5.102: 11), are vividly depicted, which reveals the connection among the plaques of the same type in the Northern Zone of China. Plaques with a standing horse have been found in the Northern Zone of China, the Mongolian Plateau and early Xiongnu remains. The earliest standing horse plaques of the Northern Zone of China were discovered in northern Hebei and can be dated to the late Spring and Autumn period (Fig. 5.102: 4). Plaques of this kind spread to western Inner Mongolia during the late Warring States period, as seen in the Yulongtai archaeological sites (Fig. 5.102: 5), which are closer in shape to those of the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 5.102: 8). The route of development of standing horse plaques obviously demonstrates the westward transmission of the cultural belt of the Northern Zone from northern Hebei to western Inner Mongolia and then to the Mongolian Plateau, where they further evolved into one type of the plaques of the early Xiongnu (Fig. 5.102: 9, 12).

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

5.4.1.4

443

Animal-Head Ornaments

Only a small number of animal-head ornaments have been discovered. Several pieces have been found in Northern Hebei of the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 5.103: 1) dated to the late Spring and Autumn period, at Xindianzi cemetery in Inner Mongolia dated to the transition between the Spring-Autumn period and the Warring States period (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009b) (Plate 12: 4), and at Aluchaideng archaeological sites dated to the late Warring States period (Tian and Guo 1980) (Fig. 5.103: 2). No such artifacts have been found on the Mongolian Plateau. In addition, a small number of discoveries were made at the early Xiongnu’s Derestuy cemetery (Fig. 5.103: 10), which are very similar in shape to those of Aluchaideng. This may be a result of the development and evolution of animal-headed ornaments in the Northern Zone of China. Belt buckles were common clothing items in the Northern Zone of China and were likely to be an important part of the “Hu attire” worn by the Xiongnu people in the Northern Zone of China. However, decorative animal patterns on the buckle did not appear in the Northern Zone of China until the late Warring States period and were mainly discovered among the remains of Aluchaideng, Nianfangqu (Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation 1991) and Xigoupan (Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation and Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1980) in western Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.103: 3–5). The animal head is decorated on the end

Fig. 5.103 Comparisons among beast-head ornaments. 1 Yuhuangmiao; 2, 3 Aruchden; 4 Nianfangqu; 5 Xigoupan; 6 Uvurkhangai; 7, 9 Dundgovi; 8 SühbaatarAymag; 10–13 Derestuy cemetery

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

444

without a buckle tongue, with two protruding horns at the top. Many buckles of this type have been found on the Mongolian Plateau. Among them, the piece collected in Dundgovi aimag takes an intermediary form between the Northern Zone of China and Xiongnu (Fig. 5.103: 9), with obvious horns on the top like those of the Northern Zone of China and the ox-head style popular among the Xiongnu. As for other buckles found in Mongolia, horns turned into small round holes (Fig. 5.103: 8) or disappeared completely (Fig. 5.103: 6, 7). The early Xiongnu buckles are dominated by the shape of an ox head (Fig. 5.103: 11–13). Some even retain the small round holes on the top (Fig. 5.103: 11).

5.4.1.5

Belt Ornaments

In the early Xiongnu, there were two types of belt ornaments similar to those in the Northern Zone of China during the Eastern Zhou period: ring-shaped ornaments and S-shaped ornaments. First seen in the Maoqinggou cemetery, eastern Inner Mongolia (Fig. 5.104: 1), ring-shaped ornaments spread westward to the Taohongbala cemetery in the Ordos Plateau, western Inner Mongolia (Tian 1976b) (Fig. 5.104: 2). All of them can be dated to the Spring-Autumn and the Warring States periods. Either as simple as the ones in Maoqinggou or as complex as the concave pear-like patterns at Taohongbala, the decorations on the rings are all carved in relief. Bayankhongor on the Mongolian Plateau yielded one piece

Fig. 5.104 Comparisons among belt ornaments. 1, 3 Maoqinggou; 2 Taohongbala; 4 Samen Village; 5 Baimiao; 6 Bayankhongor; 7, 9 Dresden cemetery; 8 Transbaikal

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

445

(Fig. 5.104: 6) with relief patterns, similar to those in Taohongbala. Annular-shaped ornaments enjoyed great popularity in the early Xiongnu period (Fig. 5.104: 7) and evolved from relief annular-shaped ornaments to openwork ones and finally to ones with popular concave pear-like patterns. Two bronze belt ornaments from Derestuy M38 are ornaments attached to the belt by beads. There is still a missing link between the openwork annular-shaped ornaments of the Xiongnu and artifacts of a similar kind in the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia. S-shaped belt ornaments first became popular in eastern Inner Mongolia and were mostly discovered in the Maoqinggou cemetery and the Xiaoshuanggucheng cemetery (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009c) (Plate 12: 1B). They date to the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period. Supposedly inspired by the “S”-shaped scrolling patterns (qiequ wen) in the Central Plain during the late Western Zhou dynasty, S-shaped belt ornaments carried a round point in the middle of the “S” shape to symbolize an eye (Zhu 2009, Fig. 526: 4, 5). Therefore, belt ornaments are products that combine the bronze patterns in the Central Plain and the bird-head patterns in the Northern Zone. Early eastern Inner Mongolia used relief decorating as the main technique, while later western Inner Mongolia and the Guyuan region adopted a higher technique, openwork carving (Fig. 5.104: 3, 4). There were still plaques of this type in the early Xiongnu period (Fig. 5.104: 8), but they diminished so significantly in number that they were even fewer than those in the Northern Zone of China. It is worth mentioning that Xindian and Xinzhouyaozi yielded a form of belt plaque with linked-bead-shaped ornaments (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2009a) (Plate 12: 5, 6), which was also common in the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the slab graves in the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau but is rarely seen in the early Xiongnu culture of Transbaikal. This suggests that the origin of the Xiongnu is related less to the local Slab Grave culture than to the northern cultural belt of the Eastern Zhou period. Spoon-shaped belt ornaments are the most common form of bronze in the early Xiongnu culture of the Transbaikal region. In some tombs, they are even the only bronzes unearthed (Fig. 5.104: 9). Similar artifacts have also been observed in the Baimiao burials19 of the Eastern Zhou period in Zhangjiakou, but they are made of bone and have cloud scroll patterns on the front side (Fig. 5.104: 5). This indicates that from the Eastern Zhou period to the middle and late Western Han period, the group of peopling living between the Northern Zone of China and the Baikal region retained their own costume traditions.

19

Data related to the Zhangjiakou Baimiao cemetery provided by Inner Mongolia Team, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

446

5.4.1.6

Waist Decoration and Other Burial Customs

Among the earliest Xiongnu cemeteries discovered, those in Derestuy and Ivolga yielded plaques that were used to decorate the waist (Yang 2011). The decoration method is quite similar to that used in the costumes of the Eastern Zhou period in the Northern Zone of China, especially in eastern Inner Mongolia. This reflects the policy of “wearing the Hu (styled) attire and shooting from horseback (in battle)” proposed by King Wuling of Zhao in the Warring States period and provides further strong evidence for the hereditary nature of costume (Fig. 5.105). Among the waist ornaments, the belt decoration combination unearthed from Maoqinggou M5 is the most similar to those of Xiongnu, with a pair of tiger plaques in the middle, plaques with cloud scroll patterns along the waist, and ring-shaped decorations near the crotch. Because no waist attire of this kind has ever been discovered in other parts of the Eurasian Steppe, this further confirms the connection between the Northern Zone of China and the early Xiongnu during the Eastern Zhou period. Further evidence that reflects burial customs is ritual artifacts. The Eastern Zhou period in the Northern Zone of China witnessed the head and hooves of animals as the main sacrifices, which were placed in the dromos of catacomb tombs. In the Altai region of the Eurasian Steppe, a pit was found on one side of the grave, where complete animals, mainly horses, were placed, a custom of Xiongnu identical to that of the Northern Zone of China. The above comparison among bronzes of the “archaeologically early Xiongnu” in the Northern Zone of China, the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal, from the perspectives of form, shape, dating and region, indicates that the central and southern part of the Mongolian Plateau was part of the Great Wall Zone in the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 5.106). The bronzes most similar to those of the archaeologically early Xiongnu primarily come from the remains of the late Warring States period in western Inner Mongolia and the southern and central Mongolian Plateau. There are also typical “archaeologically early Xiongnu” artifacts in the Mongolian Plateau, such as the tiger and horse plaques analyzed above, discovered from the archaeological sites of the late Warring States period in the Great Wall zone and the remains of the “archaeologically early Xiongnu” in Transbaikal. Although evidence is insufficient, it can be speculated that the missing link is likely to be the result of foreign cultural influence, most likely from Minusinsk or the Altai to the northwest.

5.4.2

Discussion

The comparative analysis above shows that there are similarities and evolutionary relations between the bronzes from the “archaeological early Xiongnu” in the Transbaikal region and those from in the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau dated to the Warring States period. The transformation of the two in time and space may be the transformation of the “historical early Xiongnu”

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

447

Fig. 5.105 Comparisons among waist decoration methods

and the “archaeological early Xiongnu”. One of the important reasons for this transformation of time and space lies in the Chinese counterattack against Xiongnu in the second year of Yuanguang under the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty (133 B.C.), which forced the Xiongnu to retreat to the north of the desert.

448

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Fig. 5.106 Distribution map of sites related to early Xiongnu in the Northern Zone of China. 1 Yujiazhuang; 2 Samen Village; 3 Zhangjie Village; 4 Aruchden; 5 Taohongbala; 6 Shihuigou; 7 Nianfangqu; 8 Goupan; 9 Sujigou; 10 Yulongtai; 11 Xindianzi; 12 Maoqinggou; 13 Yinniugou; 14 GouxianYaozi; 15 Xiaobaiyang; 16 Beixinbao; 17 Qingzigou; 18 Xinangou; 19 Luotuoliang; 20 Iwoga; 21 Derestuy (Note Artifacts unearthed in Mongolia can only be roughly located to provinces)

The Eastern Zhou period observed the complexity of ethnic groups along the cultural belt of the Northern Zone of China. These ethnic groups included the local Ancient North China type, the Ancient Central Plain type who had migrated northward, and the North Asians who had migrated southward. The most important evidence for the identification of the Xiongnu people was discovered in Noyon Uul. The results of the female craniometry and male craniometry indicate they are northern Asians, specifically the ancient Siberian type (Pan 1986). In light of this, the Xiongnu people probably originated from the North Asians who had migrated southward to the cultural belt of the Northern Zone of China. Mongolia and Transbaikal as well as the Great Wall Zone constitute a special region, the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province (Yang and Shao 2014). This region features similar cultural traditions and close relations, especially in their bronze traditions. Some scholars note that from the Late Bronze Age to the rise of the Xiongnu, there lived a broader Mongolian ethnic group and that people of that group lived in relative stability. Therefore, the origin of the Xiongnu should be sought in the cultural remains of the early Iron Age in this area (Wu 2008), in the Mongolian Slab Grave culture and the cultural belt of

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

449

the Northern Zone of China, because only these two existed prior to the Xiongnu. There are many cultural and racial similarities between the early stage of the Slab Grave culture and the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The late Slab Grave culture coincided with the cultures of the Northern Zone of China and Siberia-Scythia. The comparative analysis above shows that there are many similarities between the cultural belt of the Northern Zone and the early Xiongnu but differences from the late Slab Grave culture other than their similarity in split-tail arrowheads and bone arrowheads with a round socket as well as in the custom of stone-lined tombs. This demonstrates that the Xiongnu culture mainly came from the inner and outer parts of the Great Wall in the Northern Zone of China, including the central and southern parts of the Mongolian Plateau. In the Northern Zone of China, bronzes related to the Xiongnu culture spread from east to west, starting from northern Hebei and then to the east, west and Guyuan of Inner Mongolia. Supposedly related to the northward migration of the Central Plain states, the trend originated from the state of Yan as Yan gradually occupied the mountains in northern Hebei and then built the Great Wall farther north, which forced the North Asians along the Great Wall to migrate to the west. Then, the state of Zhao followed suit. This is why burials of the Central Plain style have been found in the late period of many cemeteries in eastern Inner Mongolia. Like a traditional Central Plain burial, they are north-south facing ones with belt hooks but no animal sacrifice. After Zhao constructed its part of the Great Wall, many North Asians were forced to move farther west. They subsequently developed in western Inner Mongolia, specifically around the then-Yunzhong Commandery. The gold crown of Aluchaideng may reflect the advanced social stratification among these North Asians. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that the earliest Xiongnu should be decedents of the North Asians who had migrated southward from the north along the Great Wall. They retained the cultural features of the Slab Grave culture, such as bone arrowheads with a split tail and a round socket, and the custom of stone-lined tombs, and they accepted, to a larger extent, the decorative animal patterns of the northern culture belt of China that were prevalent during the Warring States period. It is likely that there are early Xiongnu remains among the discoveries of the Northern Zone cultures of the late Warring States period, but they have not been identified because of their small number and similarity with those of the Northern Zone culture. Chinese experts in this field have recently noted that except for a few sporadic findings, no archaeological site between the late Warring States period and the Yuanshou period (122–117 B.C.) of Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty have been identified as Xiongnu. Xiongnu cemeteries of this period might have been discovered, but because they differ greatly from those of the Xiongnu culture that we have identified, and there is no decisive dating evidence.20 These archaeological sites might have been dated to an earlier time or inferred only to be remains

20

See Sect. 6.1, Chap. 6.

450

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

of the late Warring States period related to the Xiongnu. Identifying the early Xiongnu should be the focus of archaeological work in the future. With the establishment of the Great Wall, the pattern of three powers, the Central Plain, the Northern Zone of China and the steppe area, which had taken form since the Xia period changed into a new one with only two powers: the Central Plain and the steppe area. The Northern Zone of China, the “buffer zone” between the Central Plain and the steppe area, dissolved and disappeared. Most of the local people there were subsequently integrated into the culture of the Central Plain, which is strong evidence of the disappearance of the ancient people in the Northern Zone after the Han period. In addition, some local people, mainly the North Asians from the south who did not accept the agricultural lifestyle, retreated to north of the Great Wall and later became the real steppe nomads and established their own country, the Xiongnu Confederation. Therefore, the construction of the Great Wall was an important factor in the Xiongnu’s rapid formation of a broader alliance. The Xiongnu Confederation was born in such an environment. With the continual attack of the Emperor Wu in the Han dynasty, North Asians continued retreating northward, finally to eastern Mongolia and Transbaikal, where they formed their unique Xiongnu culture. This transformational process mainly took place in the Mongolian Plateau. The excavation sites of the bronzes collected in the Mongolian Plateau were mainly concentrated in the aimags of Dornogovi, Ömnögovǐ, Dundgovi, Övörkhangai, Arkhangaĭ, and Bayankhongor. The areas closest to the Mongolian Plateau in the Northern Zone of China, north of the Great Wall, are the places where the Xiongnu, the descendants of the North Asians who had migrated from the south, established the earliest Xiongnu Confederation recorded in the literature. In these areas, archaeological sites with typical Xiongnu cultural characteristics, especially large-scale Xiongnu tombs, have rarely been found, and few archaeological investigations and excavations have been conducted. Bronzes collected from these areas are mostly similar to those from the Northern Zone of China, with a limited number of artifacts unearthed from the earliest Xiongnu archaeological sites. This indicates that the Xiongnu’s bronzes were formed by inheriting bronze factors from the culture belt in the Northern Zone of China, especially the decorative method of using animal patterns, and by creating many new factors with the Eurasian steppe style. By doing so, the similarity between the Xiongnu area and the Eurasian steppe was strengthened. However, it is worth noting that the most popular bronze spoon-shaped buckles of the early Xiongnu in Transbaikal since the mid-Western Han period have bone counterparts in the Northern Zone of China during the Eastern Zhou period. This demonstrates that this group of people still retained their original costume traditions despite the great changes in time and space. This is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that the Xiongnu originated from the Northern Zone of China. Based on the above analysis, we can draw the preliminary conclusion that the early Xiongnu were descendants of the North Asians originally in the south who had migrated to the northern cultural belt of China and gradually integrated into the culture there. They are forced to retreat to western Inner Mongolia, north of the

5.4 Further Exploration of the Origin of the Xiongnu

451

Great Wall, by the northward migration of the states of Yan, Zhao and Qin and their construction of the Great Wall. Facing the unification of the Qin dynasty, the Xiongnu also formed alliances and gradually accepted the influence of the Eurasian steppe culture in the west. At the turn of the Qin and Han dynasty, as the Chinese were busy with their own political affairs, the Xiongnu Confederation was gradually formed under the leadership of Modu Chanyu and began to compete with the Qin and Han dynasties. Under the attack of Emperor Wu of Han, they continued to retreat to the north of the desert, where they strengthened their ties with the Eurasian Steppe in the west and gradually formed the Xiongnu culture with unique features.

References Administration of Cultural Relics in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, et al. (1999). Xinjiang wenwu guji daguan [Grand view of cultural relics and monuments in Xinjiang]. China: Xinjiang Meisu Sheying Press (in Chinese). Akishev, K. A. (1978). Issyk Mound: The art of Saka in Kazakhstan. Moscow, Russia: Iskusstvo Publishers. Anyang Work Team of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1980). Anyang Yinxu wuhao mu [The no. 5 tomb of Yinxu in Anyang]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Arbore Popescu, G. (1998). L’Uomo d’oro: la cultura delle steppe del Kazakhstan dall’età del bronzo alle grandi migrazioni. Milan: Electa. Archaeological Editing Committee of Encyclopedia of China. (1986). Zhongguo da baike quan shu: kaogu juan [Archaeology volume of encyclopedia of China]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Archaeology Team of Central Shanxi. (1989). Shanxi Taigu baiyan yizhi diyi didian fajue jianbao [Excavation report on the first site of Baiyan culture in Taigu, Shanxi Province]. Wenwu, 3 (in Chinese). Aruz, J., et al. (2000). The golden deer of Eurasia. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Baumer, C. (2012). The history of Central Asia (p. 197). New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Beijing Administration Office of Cultural Relics. (1979). Beijingshi Yanqing xian Xibazi cun jiaocang tongqi [The cellaring bronzes collected in Xibazi village, Yanqing country, Beijing]. Kaogu, 3 (in Chinese). Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office. (1976a). Beijing diqu de youyi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo—Changping Baifu Xizhou muguomu de xinqishi [The enlightenment from the Western Zhou timber graves at Baifu, Changping—The significant archaeological findings in the Beijing region]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Beijing Cultural Relics Management Office. (1976b). Beijing diqu de youyi zhongyao kaogu faxian [Significant archaeological findings in the Beijing region]. Kaogu, 6 (in Chinese). Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics. (1984). Longqingxia bieshu gongcheng faxian de chunqiu shiqi muzang [The cemetery of Spring and Autumn period found in the Villa project in Longqingxia area, Beijing]. Beijing wenwu yu kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics. (1989). Beijing Yanqing Jundushan Dongzhou Rong buluo mudi fajue jilue [The record of the excavation of the cemetery of Rong tribe of Eastern Zhou in Jundushan, Yanqing County, Beijing]. Wenwu, 8 (in Chinese). Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics. (1999). Zhenjiangyingzi yu Tazhao [Zhenjiangyingzi and Tazhao]. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese).

452

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics. (2007). Jundushan mudi: Yuhuangmiao [Jundushan cemetery: Yuhuangmiao]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics. (2010). Jundushan mudi—Hulugou yu Xiliangguang [Jundushan cemetery—Hulugou and Xiliangguang]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Bokovenko, A. (1995a). History of studies and the main problems in the archaeology of the south Siberia during the Scythian period, Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age. Berkeley, USA: Zinet Press. Bokovenko, A. (1995b). The Tagar culture in the Minusinsk basin, Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age (pp. 296–314). Berkeley, USA: Zinet Press. Bokovenko, A. (2006). The emergence of the Tagar culture. Antiquity, 80(310), 860–879. Боковенко, Н. А., & Заднепровский, Ю. А. (1992). Забнепровский Раннио кочевники Восточного Казахстана. Степная полоса Азиатской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время (С. 140–148). Москва: Наука. Cao, W. (2009). Shaanxi chutu qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed from northern Shaanxi]. Chengdu, China: Bashu Press (in Chinese). Chang, C. (Ed.). (2006). Of gold and grass: Nomads of Kazakhstan (p. 112). Bethesda, USA: The Foundation of International Arts & Education. Chen, G. (2008). Ouyacaoyuan didai chutu “fuleiqi”yanjiu santi [Three research topics on “Fu-class Artifacts” unearthed in Eurasian Steppe Zone]. Ouya xuekan, 8, 1–37 (in Chinese). Chen, X. (1999). Hebei Zhulu xian Faxian Chunqiu wanqi muzang [The cemetery of late Spring and Autumn in Zhulu County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu chunqiu, 6 (in Chinese). Chlenova, N. L. (1992a). Nanxiboliya Tajiaer wenhua qiyuan de zhuyao wenti [Major issues on the origin of the Tagar culture in Southern Siberia]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2, 11–16 (in Chinese). Chlenova, N. L. (1992b). Tagarskaya kultura. In M. G. Moshkova (Ed.), Steppe belt of the Asian part of the USSR in the Scythian-Sarmatian time (pp. 73–87). Moscow: Science (in Russian). Членова, Н. Л. (1992). Культура плиточных могил. Степная полоса Азиатский часта СССР в Скифо-сарматское время (С. 247–253). Москва: Наука. Chlenova, N. L. (2000). The value of finds of bronze helmets and medal-shaped from Mongolia. Russian Archaeology, (2), 149–155 (in Russian). Christian, D. (2006). A history of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia—Inner Eurasia from prehistory to the Mongol Empire. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Compilation Group of Hami Antiquities. (1993). Hami wenwu zhi [Hami antiquities]. Urumqi, China: Xinjiang People’s Press (in Chinese). Cui, L. (1994). Neimenggu Hexingxian Goulitou xiongnu mu [The Xiongnu cemetery at Goulitou, Hexing County, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Institute Hebei Province. (1985). Hebei Xinle Zhongtongcun faxian Zhanguomu [The cemetery of Warring States was found in Xinle County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 6 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Institute Hebei Province. (2005). Zhanguo Zhongshanguo Lingshoucheng 1975– 1983 nian kaogu fajue baogao [A brief report on the excavation of Lingshoucheng County, Zhongshan State of Warring States from 1975 to 1983]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Institute Shijiazhuang Areas. (1984). Hebei Xinle xian Zhongtongcun Zhanguomu [The cemetery of Warring States in Xinle County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 11 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Affairs Bureau. (1966). Hebei Huailai Beixinpu zhanguo mu [Tombs of the Warring States period in Huailai, Hebei]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Work Team of Hebei Cultural Bureau. (1966). Hebei Huailai Beixinbao Zhanguo mu [The cemetery of Warring States in Beixinbao, Huailai County, Hebei Province]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Task station of Yikezhao League, & Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1980). Xigoupan xiongnumu [The Xiongnu cemetery in Xigoupan]. Wenwu, 7 (in Chinese).

References

453

Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng. (1987). Neimenggu Zhunge’er Qibaohaishe faxian qingtongqi [The bronzes found in in Qibaohaishe, Jungar Banner, Inner Mongolia Province]. Wenwu, 12 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng. (1991). Neimenggu Dongshengshi Nianfangqu faxian jinyinqi jiaocang [Gold and silver cellaring wares were found in Nianfangqu, Dongsheng City, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng. (1992). Yijinhuoluo qi shihuigou faxian de Eerduosi shi wenwu [The cultural relics of Ordos found in Yijinhuoluo banner]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu, (1–2) (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng, & Cultural Relics Work Team of Inner Mongolia. (1980). Xigoupan xiongnumu [The Xiongnu cemetery in Xigoupan]. Wenwu, 7 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng, & Cultural Relics Work Team of Inner Mongolia. (1981). Xigoupan Handai Xiongnu mudi diaocha ji [The investigation of the Xiongnu cemetery of Han dynasty in Xigoupan]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Taskstation of Yikezhaomeng, & Yijinhuoluo Banner Institute of Cultural Relics Preservation. (1992). Neimenggu yijinhuoluoqi Xiongnumu [The cemetery of Xiongnu in Yijinhuoluo banner, Inner Mongolia]. Wenwu, 5 (in Chinese). Dai, Y., & Sun, J. (1983). Shaanxi Shenmu xian chutu Xiongnu wenwu [The cultural relics of Xiongnu were unearthed from Shenmu County, Shaanxi Province]. Wenwu, 12 (in Chinese). Dai, Z. (1972). Yuanping Zhiyu chutu de Dongzhou Tongqi [The bronzes of Eastern Zhou unearthed from Zhiyu village, Yuanping County]. Wenwu, 4 (in Chinese). Davis-Kimball, J. (1995). Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age. Berkeley, CA: Zinat Press. Давыдова, А. В. (1996). Иволгинский могилъник. Санкт-Петербург: Издателъство Центр “Петербургское Востоковедение”. Di Cosmo, N. (1999). The northern frontier in pre-imperial China. In The Cambridge history of ancient China (pp. 885–966). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Di Cosmo, N. (2002). China and its enimies. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Du, Z. (1993a). Ouya caoyuan dongwu wenshi yu zhongguo gudai beifang minzu zhi kaocha [An investigation of the animal ornamentation of the Eurasian Steppe and ethnic groups in Northern China]. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan, 2(64) (in Chinese). Du, Z. S. (1993b). Oya caoyuan dongwu wenshi yu Zhongguo gudai beifang minzu zhi kaocha [The exploration of animal patterns on the Eurasian Steppes and ancient ethic groups in the Northern Zone of China]. In Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan [Collected papers of the Institute of History and Philosophy] (Vol. 64, No. 2), Taipei, China: Academia Sinica (in Chinese). Early Qin Culture Joint Archaeological Team, & Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County. (2009). Zhangjiachuan Majiayuan Zhanguo mudi 2007–2008 nian fajue jianbao [Excavation briefing 2007–2008 on Warring States cemetery in Majiayuan, Zhangjiachuan]. Wenwu, 10 (in Chinese). Early Qin Culture Joint Archaeological Team, & Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County. (2010). Zhangjiachuan Majiayuan Zhanguo mudi 2008–2009 nian fajue jianbao [Excavation briefing 2008–2009 on Warring States cemetery in Majiayuan, Zhangjiachuan]. Wenwu, 10 (in Chinese). Early Qin Culture Joint Archaeological Team, & Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County. (2012). Zhangjiachuan Majiayuan Zhanguo mudi 2010–2011 nian fajue jianbao [Excavation briefing 2010–2011 on Warring States cemetery in Majiayuan, Zhangjiachuan]. Wenwu, 8 (in Chinese). Editorial Board of Archaeology of Encyclopedia of China. (1986). Zhongguo dabaike quanshu (kaogujuan) [Encyclopedia of China (Archaeology Volume)]. Beijing, China: Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu Press (in Chinese). Ėrdėnėchuluun, P. (2011a). The sword of heaven: Culture of bronze artefacts of the Bronze Age and Hunnu Empire. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

454

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Ėrdėnėchuluun, P. (2011b). Collections of Purevzhavyn Erdenechuluun: The sword of heaven: Culture of bronzes of the Bronze Age and Hunnu Empire. Dornyn Soel Urlagiin Galerei, Ulaanbaatar. Fengxi Excavation Team, Institute of Archaeology, & Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1980). 1967nian Chang’an Zhangjiapo xizhou muzang de fajue [The excavation of the Western Zhou cemetery at Zhangjiapo, Chang’an in 1967]. Kaogu xuebao, 4 (in Chinese). Fieldwork Group of the Shang and Zhou Dynasties from the Archaeology Department of Peking University, & Shang and Zhou Office of Shaanxi Archaeology Institute. (1989). Shaanxi Mizhi Zhangping mudi shijue jianbao [A brief report of the preliminary excavation of the Zhangping cemetery, Mizhi, Shaanxi]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Gai, S. L. (1965a). Neimenggu zizhiqu Zhungeerqi Sujigou chutu yipi tongqi [A batch of bronzes were unearthed from Sujigou, Zhungeer banner, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Gai, S. L. (1965b). Neimenggu zizhiqu Zhunge’erqi sujigou chutu yipi tongqi [The bronzes unearthed from Sujigou, Jungar Banner, Inner Mongolia]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1990). Yongchang Sanjiaocheng yu Hamadun Shajing wenhua yicun [Shajing cultural sites at Sanjiaocheng and Hamadun, Yongchang]. Kaogu xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2001). Yongchang Xigang Chaiwangang— Shajing wenhua muzang fajue baogao [An excavation report of the Shajing cultural burials at Chaiwangang, Xigang, Yongchang]. Lanzhou, China: Gansu Renmin Press (in Chinese). Gao, C., & Wang, G. (1988). Baojixian Ganyu faxian yizuo chunqiu zaoqi muzang [An early Spring and Autumn cemetery discovered in Ganyu, Baoji County]. Wenbo, 4 (in Chinese). Gao, Q. (1999). Liyu chutu tongqi ji qi xiangguan zhi wenti [The bronzes unearthed from Liyu and the related issues]. Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan, 4(70) (in Chinese). Grakov, B. N. (1928). Kurgan in the Environs of the Nezhinsky Settlement of the Orenburg District According to Excavation in 1927. Work of the Section of the Russian Association of the Scientific Investigative Institutes of Social Sciences 4, Mosco. Grakov, B. N. (1947). Survival of the Sarmatian, quoted from nomads of the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age (p. 92). Berkeley, CA: Zinat Press. Gryaznov, M. P. (1969). The ancient civilization of southern Siberia. New York, USA: Cowles Book Company, INC. Gryaznov, M. P. (1992). Altai and the Altai Steppe. The Steppe belt of the Asian part of the USSR in the Scythian-Sarmatian time (pp. 161–178). Moscow: Science (in Russian). Hall, M. E. (1997). Towards an absolute chronology for the Iron Age of Inner Asia. Antiquity, 71, 863–874. Han, K. (1995). Ningxia Pengpu Yujiazhuang mudi rengu zhongxi tezheng zhi yanjiu [A study of the ethnical features of the human bones unearthed from the Yujiazhuang cemetery in Pengpu, Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Han, K. (2001). Gansu Shajing wenhua rengu zhongshu yanjiu [An ethnical study of the human bones from Shajing culture at Yongchang, Gansu]. In Yongchang Xigang Chaiwangang— Shajing wenhua muzang fajue baogao [An excavation report of the Shajing cultural tombs at Chaiwangang, Xigang, Yongchang]. Lanzhou, China: Gansu Renmin Press (in Chinese). He, Y., & Liu, J. (1993). Hebei Huailai Ganzibao faxian de qingtong muqun [Cemeteries with bronzes found in Ganzibao, Huailai County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu chunqiu, 2 (in Chinese). Hebei Museum. (1980). Hebei sheng chutu wenwu xuanji [Selected works of unearthed cultural relics in Hebei Province]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Hebei Museum, & Relics Management Office of Hebei Province. (1972). Mancheng, Tang xian faxian Zhanguo shiqi qingtongqi [The bronzes of Warring States period are found in Mancheng and Tang County]. Gangming Daily, Issue of 16th July 1972 (in Chinese). Herodotus. (1999a). The histories (English photocopy). Beijing, China: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Press. Herodotus. (1999b). The histories (English version) (pp. 242–310). Beijing, China: China Social Sciences Press.

References

455

Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1984). Liangcheng Yinniugou muzang qingli jianbao [Briefing on the cleaning up of the Yinniugou cemetery]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu, 3 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1986a). Maoqinggou mudi [Cemetery in Maoqinggou]. In Ordos-styled bronzes. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1986b). Maoqinggou mudi [The Maoqinggou cemetery]. In E’erduosi shi qingtongqi [Ordos-styled bronzes]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1989). Liangcheng xian Guoxianyaozi mudi [Cemetery at Guoxianyaozi in Liangcheng County]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2009a). Neimenggu Liangchengxian Xinzhou Yaozi mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation of Xinzhouyaozi cemetery in Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 3 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2009b). Neimenggu Helinge’er xian Xindianzi mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of the Xindianzi cemetery in Horinger County, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 3 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2009c). Neimenggu Liangchengxian Xiaoshuang gucheng mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of the Xiaoshuanggucheng cemetery, Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 3 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, & Baotou Administration Office of Cultural Relics. (1991). Baotou Xiyuan Chunqiu mudi [Cemetery of the Spring and Autumn period in Xiyuan, Baotou]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu, 1 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2001). Yinniugou mudi 1997nian fajue baogao [Excavation report of the Yinniugou cemetery in 1997]. In Daihai kaogu 2 [Archaeology in Daihai II]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Museum, & Cultural Relics Work Team of Inner Mongolia. (1977). Neimenggu Zhungeer qi Yulongtai de Xiongnu mu [The Xiongnu tombs of Yulongtai in Zhungeer banner, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 2 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Museum, et al. (1977). Neimenggu zizhiqu Zhunge’erqi Yulongtai de xiongnumu [The Xiongmu cemetery at Yulongtai, Jungar Banner, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 2 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, & Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1959). Shangcunling Guoguo mudi [Graveyard of Guo state in Shangcunling]. China: Science Press (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, & Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences. (1981a). Xinjiang Alagou shuxue muguo mu fajue jianbao [Excavation report of pit-grave wooden chamber tombs of Alagou in Xinjiang]. Wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, & Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences. (1981b). Pami’er gaoyuan gumu [Ancient graves of the Pamir Plateau]. Kaogu xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, & Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences. (1995). Aheqi xian Kulansarike mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation report of Kulansarike tombs in Akqi County]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, & Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences. (2013). Xinjiang Habahe dong Talede mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation briefing on the East Taldi Cemetery in Habahe County in Xinjiang]. Wenwu, 3 (in Chinese). Institute of Metallurgy and Material History of Beijing University of Science and Technology, & Gansu Institute of Archaeology. (2003). Huoshaogou Siba wenhua tongqi chengfen fenxi ji zhizuo jishu de yanjiu [The bronzes of the Siba culture at Huoshaogou: Research on component analysis and techniques of manufacture]. Wenwu, 8, 86–96 (in Chinese). Ismagilov, R. B. (1980). Priural’sky akinaki with a pommel in the form of an eared griffin and a predatory. Russian Archeolony, (1) (in Russian). Jacobson, E. (1995). The art of the Scythians: The interpenetration of culture at the edge of the Hellenic world. New York: Brill.

456

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Ji, N. (1989a). Yan’an diqu Wenguanhui shoucang de Xiongnu wenwu [Cultural relics of Xiongnu collected by Cultural Relics Management Committee in Yanan area]. Wenbo, 4 (in Chinese). Ji, N. (1989b). Yan’an diqu Wenguanhui shoucang de Xiongnu wenwu [Cultural relics of Xiongnu collected by Cultural Relics Management Committee in Yanan area]. Wenbo, 2 (in Chinese). Jia, Z. (1992). Wuzhong Loufankao [The bronzes in Wuzhong and Loufankao]. In Shanxi sheng kaogu xuehui lunwenji [Works of Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology] (Vol. 1). Taiyuan city, China: Shanxi People’s Publishing House (in Chinese). Jin, F. (2001). Jundushan Yuhuangmiao mudi de tezheng jiqi zushu wenti [Characteristics of the Cemetery Site of Yuhuangmiao, in Jundushan and its ethnic subordination]. In Subingqi yu dangdai Zhongguo kaoguxue. China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Kiselev, C. B. (1951). The ancient history of Southern Siberia. Moscow (Mo Runxian (Trans.). (1981). Institute of Ethnology, Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences). Киселёв, C. B. (1981). Nanxiboliya gudaishi [Ancient history of Southern Siberia]. Urumqi, China: Institute of Ethnology, Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences (in Chinese). Lattimore, O. (2010). Zhongguo de Yazhou neilu bianjiang [Inner Asian frontiers of China] (X. Tang, Trans.). Nanjing, China: Jiangsu People’s Press (in Chinese). Li, F., & Xu, F. T. (2007). Xizhou de miewang [The death of the Western Zhou dynasty]. Beijing, China: Shanghai Classics Publishing House (in Chinese). Li, L. (2004a). Lun Zhongguo de Youyi Shenshou [Discussion on the mythical creatures with wings]. In Rushan yu chusai [Entering the mountain and going out]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, L. (2004b). Zailun Zhongguo de Youyi Shenshou [More discussion on the mythical creatures with wings]. In Rushan yu chusai [Entering the mountain and going out]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, L. (2004c). Lun Zhongguo de youyi shenshou [On mythical beasts with wings in China]. In Rushan yu chusai [Entering the mountains & crossing the borders]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Li, S. (1994). Shajing wenhua yanjiu [A study on the Shajing culture]. In Guoxue yanjiu [Studies of Chinese ancient civilization] (Vol. 2). Beijing, China: Beijing Daxue Press (in Chinese). Li, X. (1992a). Hunyuan Yiqi yanjiu [The study on the Yi-vessel in Hunyuan]. Wenwu, 10 (in Chinese). Li, X., & Dang, T. (1993). Zhunge’er pendi zhouyuan diqu tongqi chutan [A preliminary study on the bronzes unearthed from the peripheral area of the Jungar Basin]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Li, Y. (1959). Neimenggu Helinge’er xian chutu de tongqi [Bronzes unearthed from Horinger, Inner Mongolia]. Wenwu, 6 (in Chinese). Li, Y. (1992b). Yuanping xian Lianjiagang Zhanguo qingtongqi [The bronzes of Warring States period in Lianjiagang village, Yuanping County]. In Shanxi sheng kaogu xuehui lunwenji [Works of Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology] (Vol. 1). Taiyuan city, China: Shanxi People’s Publishing House (in Chinese). Li, Y. (1997). Dingxiang xian Zhonghuocun Dongzhoumu fajue jianbao [The briefing report on the cemetery of Eastern Zhou in Zhonghuo village, Dingxiang County]. Wenwu, 5 (in Chinese). Liaoning Zhaomeng Cultural Relics Taskstation, Institute of Archaeology, & Chinese Academy of Sciences. (1973). Ningchengxian Nanshangen shiguomu [The stone outer coffins in Nanshangen, Ningcheng County]. Kaoguxuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Lin, J. (2006). Anyang Yinmu zhong de nvxing [The woman occupants in Yinmu tomb in Anyang]. In xingbie kaogu yu Zhongguo kaoguxue. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Lin, M. (2014). Ouya caoyuan wenhua yu shiqian sichou zhi lu [Eurasian Steppe culture and prehistoric Silk Road]. In Xinjian (Ed.), Sichouzhilu Tianshan langdao [The Tianshan Corridor on the Silk Road]. Cultural Relics Bureau of Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1993). Guanyu Zhongguo de dui Xiongnu zuyuan de kaoguxue yanjiu [An archaeological study on the origin of the Xiongnu in China]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu, 1, 2 (in Chinese).

References

457

Lin, Y. (1996). Dirong Fei hu lun [Thesis on why a Rong and Di is not a Hu]. In Jinjingfang jiuwu danchen jinian wenji [A collection of commemorative works on Jin Jingfang’s ninth five-year birthday]. Changchun, Jilin: Jilinwenshi Press (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998a). Guanyu Zhongguo de dui Xiongnu zuyuan de kaoguxue yanjiu [Archaeological studies on the origin of the Xiongnu in China]. In Linyun xueshu wenji. Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1998b). Shang wenhua qingtongqi yu beifang diqu qingtongqi guanxi zhi zaiyanjiu [A further study on the association between the Shang bronzes and the Northern Zone bronzes]. In Linyun xue shu wen ji [Scholarly collection of Linyun] (pp. 262–288). Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2003). Zhongguo beifang Changcheng didai youmu wenhuadai de xingcheng guocheng [The formation of the nomadic cultural belt along the Great Wall]. Yanjing xuebao, 14 (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2009). Ouya caoyuan youjiao shenshou paishi yanjiu [Study on plagues of horned mythical beasts in Eurasian Steppe]. Xiyu yanjiu, 3 (in Chinese). Liu, D., & Zhu, J. (1981). Gansu Lingtai Jingjiazhuang Chunqiu mu [Spring and Autumn tombs in Jingjia village, Lingtai County, Hebei Province]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Liu, L. (1966). Hebei Huailai Beixinpu zhanguomu [The Warring States cemetery at Beixinpu, Hualai, Hebei]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Lu, G. (1988a). Yulin diqu shoucang de bufen xiongnu wenwu [Part of Xiongnu remains collected in Yulin area]. Wenbo, 6 (in Chinese). Lu, G. (1988b). Yulin diqu shoucang de bufen xiongnu yiwu [Part of Xiongnu remains collected in Yulin area]. Wenbo, 6 (in Chinese). Lu, L., & Hu, Z. (1988). Baojiyuguo mudi [The cemetery of Yuguo in Baoji]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Luo, F. (1990). Guyuan qingtong wenhua chulun [The initial discussion of bronze culture in Guyuan]. Kaogu, 8 (in Chinese). Luo, F., & Han, L. (1990). Ningxia Guyuan jinnian faxian de beifangxi qingtongqi [The bronzes of northern style found in Ningxia Guyuan in recent years]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Luo, F., & Yan, S. (1993). 1988 nian Guyuan chutu de beifangxi qingtongqi [Northern bronzes unearthed in Guyuan in 1988]. Kaogu yu Wenwu, 4 (in Chinese). Malyukova, A. (1989). Steppe belt European parts of the USSR in the Scythian-Sarmatian time. Moscow: Science (in Russian). Mandeischtam, A. M. (1992). The early nomads of the Scythian period on the Territory of Tuva. Steppe belt in the Asian part of the USSR in the Scythian-Sarmatian time (pp. 178–196). Moscow: Science (in Russian). Marsadolov, L. (2000). The Cimmerian tradition of the Gordion Tumuli found in the Altai Barrows. In Kurgans, ritual sites, and settlements Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, BAR International Series 890. Minns, E. H. (1971). Scythians and Greeks—A survey of ancient history and archaeology on the north coast of the Xuxine from the Danube to the Caucasus. New York. Minns, E. H. (1919). Scythians and Greeks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Миняев, С. С. (1998). Дырестуйский могилъник. Санкт-Петербург: Европейский дом. Moshkova, M. G. (1995). History of the study of the Sauromatian and Sarmatian Tribes. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age (p. 94). Berkeley, CA: Zinat Press. Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, et al. (2003a). Xinjiang Qiemo Zhagunluke yihao mudi fajue baogao [Excavation report of Zaghunluq cemetery I in Qiemo, Xinjiang]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, et al. (2003b). Xinjiang Qiemo Zhagunluke yihao mudi fajue baogao [A brief report on the excavation of Zaghunluq tomb no. 1 in Qiemo County]. Xinjiang kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Museum of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, et al. (2003c). Xinjiang Qiemo Zhagunluke yihao mudi fajue baogao [A brief report on the excavation of Zaghunluq tomb no. 2 in Qiemo County Xinjiang]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1&2 (in Chinese).

458

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County, & Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2008). 2006 niandu Gansu Zhangjiachuan Huizu zizhixian Majiayuan Zhanguo mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation briefing 2006 on Warring States cemetery in Majiayuan, Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County, Gansu Province]. Wenwu, 9 (in Chinese). Neimenggu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1989). Liangcheng Guoxian Yaozi mudi [The Guoxian Yaozi cemetery in Liangcheng]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1993). Ningxia Guyuan Yanglang qingtong wenhua mudi [The bronze culture cemetery at Yanglang, Guyuan County, Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1995a). Ningxia PengbaoYujiazhuang mudi [The cemetery of Yujia village, Pengbao County, Ningxia]. Kaoguxuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1995b). Ningxia Pengbao Yujiazhuang mudi [The Yujiazhuang cemetery at Pengbao, Ningxia Province]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1995c). Ningxia Pengppu Yujiazhuang mudi [The Yujiazhuang cemetery at Pengpu, Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, & Guyuan Museum. (1993). Ningxia Guyuan Yanglang qingtong wenhua mudi [The cemetery of bronze culture in Yanglang Town, Guyuan City, Ningxia Province]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Ordos Museum. (Ed.). (2006). Ordos qingtongqi [Ordos Bronzes] (p. 183). Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Pan, L. (2007). Yiwo’erjia chengzhi he mudi ji xiangguan Xiongnu kaogu wenti yanjiu [Archaeological research on Ivolga Site and cemetery and related Xiongnu issues]. China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Pan, L. (2011). Pingyang muzang zaiyanjiu [A further study on the burials at Pingyang]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 10. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Pan, Q. (1986). Cong lugu ziliao kan Xiongnu renzhong [A study of the Xiongnu ethnic group from skull data]. In Archaeological research in China: Collection of Xia Nai’s papers on the 50th anniversary of his archaeological research (2). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Pan, Q. (2001). Beijing Shijingshanqu Bajiaocun weijin bihuamu chutu rengu de guancha yanjiu [A study of the human bones unearthed from the mural tombs at Bajiao, Shijingshan, Beijing]. Wenwu, 4 (in Chinese). Pang, W., & Cui, Y. (1989). Qishan Wangjiacun chutu qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed from Wangjia village, Qishan County, Baoji city, Shaanxi Province]. Wenbo, 1 (in Chinese). Piotrovsky, B., et al. (1987). Scythian art. Oxford: Phaidon. Qian, W., et al. (2001). Xinjiang Hami Tianshanbeilu mudi chutu tongqi de chubu yanjiu [A preliminary study of the bronzes unearthed from the Tianshanbeilu cemetery in Hami, Xinjiang]. Wenwu, 6, 79–89 (in Chinese). Qinshihuang Mausoleum Museum. (2012). Mengya, chengzhang, ronghe: Dongzhou shiqi Beifang qingtong wenhua zhencui [Sprouting, growth and fusion—Collections of Northern bronze culture in the Eastern Zhou period] (p. 78). China: Sanqin Press (in Chinese). Relics Institute Xinzhou Areas. (1986). Yuanping xian Liuzhuang Tagangliang DongZhoumu [The cemetery of Eastern Zhou in Tagangliang, Liu village, Yuanping County]. Wenwu, 4 (in Chinese). Relics Institute Xinzhou Areas, & Yuanping Museum. (1998). Shanxi Yuanping Liuzhuang Tagangliang Dongzhoumu dierci qingli jianbao [The brief report on the second clearing up of the cemetery of Eastern Zhou in Tagangliang Liu village, Yuanping xian, Shanxi Province]. Wenwu jikan, 1 (in Chinese). Rudenko, S. (1957). Lun Zhongguo yu Altai buluo de gudai guanxi [On the ancient relations between China and the Altai tribes]. Kaogu xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Rudenko, S. (1970). Frozen tomb of Siberia—the Pazyryk burials of Iron Age Horsemen. California: University of California Press. Samashev, Z. (2008). The ancient treasures of the Kazakh. Altai Almaty: Oner.

References

459

Samashev, Z. S. (2006). Culture of the nomadic elite of Kazakhstan’s Altai Region (Based on materials from the Berel Necropolis). In C. Chang (Ed.) & K. S. Guroff (Assoc. Ed.), Of gold and grass: Nomads of Kazakhstan (pp. 35–44). Foundation for Arts and Education. School of Archaeology and Museology of Beijing University, & Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology. (2001). Tianma qucun yizhi Beizhao Jihou mudi diliuci fajue jianbao [A brief report on the sixth excavation of Jinhou tomb of Northern Zhao period at Tianma site in Qu village, Shanxi Province]. Wenwu, 8 (in Chinese). Semyonov, V. B. (1992). Tuva de zaoqi youmu minzu shidai [Early nomadic period in Tuva]. In Zhongguo beifang gudai minzu kaogu wenhua guoji xueshu yantaohui wenji [Collected papers of the International Academic Seminar on the Archaeological Cultures of the Ancient Ethnic Groups in the Northern Zone of China], Hohhot, China (in Chinese). Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology. (2003). Xi’an beijiao Zhanguo zhutong gongjiang mu fajue jianbao [Excavation report of bronze craftsmen’s tombs of the Warring States period in the northern suburb of Xi’an]. Wenwu, 9 (in Chinese). Shaanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2013). Lijiaya. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Shaanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (1987). Shaanxi Qingjian Lijiaya Dongzhou, Qinmu fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of the tomb of Eastern Zhou dynasty and Qin dynasty in Lijiaya, Qingjian, Shaanxi]. Kaogu yu wenweu, 3 (in Chinese). Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology. (1983). Shanxi Hunyuan Liyucun Dongzhoumu [The cemetery of Eastern Zhou in Liyu village, Hunyuan County, Shanxi Province]. Kaogu, 8 (in Chinese). Shaanxi Research Institute of Archaeology, Yan’an Institute of Cultural Relics, & Huangling County Bureau of Tourism and Cultural Relics. (2012). Shaanxi Huanhling zhaitouhe zhanguo rongren mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of Rongren cemetery of the Warring States period in Zhaitouhe, Huangling County, Shaanxi Province]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 6 (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2008). Xinjiang faxian de zaoqi tongpan yanjiu [The study of early bronze plate discovered in Xinjiang]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3–4 (in Chinese). Shao, H. (2009). Dong xi fang wen hua zao qi de peng zhuang yu rong he: Cong Xinjiang shi qian shi qi wen hua ge ju de yan jin tan qi [Cultural conflicts and merge between west and east: A study on the cultural evolution in prehistoric Xinjiang]. Shehui kexue zhanxian, 09, 146–150 (in Chinese). Полосъмак, H. B. (1994). Стерегущие золото грифы. Российская Академия наука: Новосибирск. Sulimirski, T. (1970). The Sarmatians, ancient people and places (Vol. 73). London: Thames and Hudson. Ta, L., & Liang, J. (1980). Hulusitai xiongnu mu [The cemetery of Xiongnu in Hulusitai]. Wenwu, 7 (in Chinese). Tang, Y., & Wang, Y. (1978). Hebei Pingshan xian Fangjiazhuang faxian Zhanguo qianqi tongqi [The bronzes of early half period of Warring States are found in Fangjia village, Pingshan County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Teng, M. (2002). Zhongguo Beifang diqu liangzhoushiqi tongfu de zai tantao [Another exploration of the bronze fu-vessel in both Eastern Zhou dynasty and Western Zhou dynasty]. In Bianjiang Kaogu yanjiu 1 [The research on the archaeology in border areas]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Tian, G. (1976a). Taohongbala de Xiongnumu [The Xiongnu cemetery at Taohongbala, Jinhang banner, Odors]. Kaoguxuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Tian, G. (1976b). Taohongbala de Xiongnumu [Xiongnu cemetery of Taohongbala, Jinhang banner, Odors]. Kaoguxuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1980). Neimenggu Aluchaideng Faxian de Xiongnu Yiwu [Xiongnu artifacts discovered in Aruchiden, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1986a). Ordos shi qingtongqi [Ordos-styled bronzes]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

460

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1986b). Ererduosi shi qingtong [The bronzes of Ordos style]. Kaogu (in Chinese). Tishkin, A. A., & Seregin, N. N. (2012). Metal mirrors as a source for ancient and medieval history of Altai. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Tulahong, T. (2005). Xinjiang Yiwu xian Baiqier mudi jinxing qiangjiuxing kaogu fajue [The rescue excavation in Baiqier tomb in Yiwu County in Xinjiang]. Zhongguo wenwu bao, February 4 (in Chinese). Turpan Cultural Administration. (1991). Alagou shuxue muguan mu qingli jianbao [Briefing on the cleaning up of the vertical-pit wooden coffin tombs in Alagou]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2, 18–20 (in Chinese). Вадецкая, Э. Б. (1986). Археологические памятники в степях среднего Енисея. Ленинград: Наука. Вадецкая, Э. Б. (1989). Археологические памятники в степях среднего Енисея. Ленинград: Наука. Вишневская, О. А. (1992). Централъный Казахчтан. Степная полоса Азиатской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время (С. 130–140). Москва: Наука. Wang, C. (2004). Neimenggu Hulunbeier caoyuan faxian qingtongqi [Bronzes unearthed from the Hulunbuir Prairie]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Wang, L., et al. (2010). Linxi Jinggouzi—wanqi qingtongqi shidai mudi de fajue yu zonghe yanjiu [Excavation and integrated study on the late Bronze Age tombs at Jinggouzi, Linxi]. China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wang, W. (2008). Hebei Longhua xian faxian de liangchu Shanrong muqun [Two groups of Shanrong tombs discovered in Longhua County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu chunqiu, 3 (in Chinese). Wang, Y., et al. (1993). Hami wenwu zhi [Historiography of Hami] (front cover 1). China: Xinjiang Renmin Press (in Chinese). Watson, W. (1971). Cultural frontiers of ancient east Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wei, J. (1989). Liangcheng Guoxian Yaozi mudi [The Guoxian Yaozi cemetery in Liangcheng]. Kaogu xuebao, 1 (in Chinese). Wen, Q. (1986). Hebei Lingshou xian Xichatoucun Zhanguomu [The cemetery of Warring States in Xichatou village, Lingshou County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 6 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2005). Lun shibanmu wenhua de niandai ji xiangguan wenti [The dates of the Slab Grave culture and the related issues]. In Xinshiji de zhongguo kaoguxue [Chinese archaeology in the new century]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wu, E. (2008). Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua bijiao yanjiu: qingtong shidai zhi zaoqi Xiongnu shiqi [A comparative study of the archaeological culture of the northern steppes: From the Bronze Age to the early Xiongnu Age]. China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Wu, X. (2007). Persian and Central Asian elements in the social landscapes of nomads at Pazyryk, Southern Siberia in social orders and social landscape. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Xiao, Q. (1991). Long xian chutu de Xiongnu wenwu [Cultural relics of Xiongnu unearthed from Long County, Gansu Province). Wenbo, 5 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1995). Chabuchaer xian Suodunbulake gumuqun [Suodunbulake ancient tombs in Qapqal County]. Xinjiang wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1999). Chabuchaer xian Suodunbulake gumuqun [Suodunbulake ancient tombs in Qapqal County, Xinjiang]. Kaogu, 8 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2004). Yili zhou Nileke xian Qirentuohai mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation report on the Qirentuohai cemetery in Nileke County, Yili]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2005). Tekes xian Yeshikelieke muzang fajue jianbao [Excavation briefing on Yeshikelieke cemetery in Tekes County]. Xinjiang wenwu, 3 (in Chinese).

References

461

Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2006). 2005 niandu Yili zhou Gongliu xian shankou shuiku mudi kaogu fajue baogao [Archaeological excavation report 2005 of Shankou Reservoir cemetery in Gongliu County, Yili Prefecture]. Xinjiang wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2004a). Shanshan xian yanghai yihao mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of Yanghai tomb no. 1 in Shanshan County]. Xinjiang Wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2004b). Shanshan xian yanghai erhao mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of Yanghai tomb no. 2 in Shanshan County]. Xinjiang Wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Xinjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, et al. (2004c). Shanshan xian yanghai sanhao mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of Yanghai tomb no. 3 in Shanshan County]. Xinjiang Wenwu, 1 (in Chinese). Xu, D. Z., & Xu, J. C. (1988). Gansu Qingyang Chunqiu zhanguomu de qingli [The cleaning-up of the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States cemeteries in Qingyang, Gansu]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Xu, J., & Liu, D. (1985). Gansu Ningxian chutu xizhou qingtongqi [Western Zhou bronzes unearthed from Ningxian County, Gansu]. Kaogu, 4 (in Chinese). Yablonsky, L. T. (1995). Written sources and the history of archaeological studies of the Saka in Central Asia. In Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe in the Early Iron Age (pp. 193–197). Berkeley, CA: Zinat Press. Yang, J. (1999). Chunqiu he Zuozhuan zhong suojian de Di [The Di: As documented in Chunqiu and Zuozhuan]. Shixue jikan, 2 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2004a). Chunqiu Zhanguo shiqi Zhongguo beifang wenhuadai de xingcheng [The shaping of the northern culture belt of China in Spring and Autumn period]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2004b). Chunqiu Zhanguo shiqi Zhongguo Beifang wenhuadai de xingcheng [The formation of the Northern Zone cultural belt in China during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2011). Gender relationships among the “Xiongnu” as reflected in burial patterns. In Xiongnu archaeology multidisciplinary perspectives of the first Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn. Yang, J. (2014). Lianghe liuyu: cong nongye cunluo dao chengbang guojia [Mesopotamia: From village to city state]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Yang, J., & Bao, S. (2014). Eluosi Tuwa he Aertai diqu zai zaoqide youmu wenhua [An early nomadic culture in Tuva and Altai regions of Russia]. Xiyu yanjiu, 2 (in Chinese). Yang, J., & Shao, H. (2014). Shang wenhua dui Zhongguo Beifang yiji Ouya caoyuan dongbu diqu de yingxiang [The impact of the culture of Shang dynasty on Northern China and Eastern Eurasian Steppe]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 3 (in Chinese). Yang, J., & Zhang, M. (2010). Zhongya Tianshan, Fei’erganna yu Pami’er diqu de zaoqi tieqi shidaid yanjiu [Studies on early Iron Age in Tianshan, Fergana and Pamir regions of Central Asia: cultural exchanges with Xinjiang]. Baijiang kaogu yanjiu, 9 (in Chinese). Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation. (1991). Neimenggu Dongshengshi Nianfangqu faxian jinyinqi jiaocang [Gold and silver wares found in Nianfangqu, Dongsheng City, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, 5 (in Chinese). Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation, & Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1980). Xigoupan Xiongnu mu [Xiongnu cemetery at Xigoupan]. Kaogu, 7 (in Chinese). Yih Ju League Cultural Relics Workstation, & Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1986). Xigoupan Zhanguo mudi [Xigoupan cemetery of the Warring States period]. In Ordos shi qingtongqi [Ordos-styled bronzes]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Yong, Y. (2006). Jinhou mudi xingbie diwei lizhi he zhangyi fenxi [Analysis of gender, status, ritual system and funeral etiquette in Jinhou Tomb]. In Xingbie kaogu yu Zhongguo kaoguxue [Gender archaeology and Chinese archaeology]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese).

462

5 The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe …

Yongcheng Archaeological Work Team of Shaanxi Province. (1984). 1982 Fengxiang Yongcheng qinhan yizhi diaocha baogao [Investigation report on Qin and Han Dynasty sites in Yongcheng, Fengxiang, in 1982]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Yu, J. (1996). Hezui tongfu chulun [A preliminary study on the bronze pickaxes]. Beifang wenwu, 4 (in Chinese). Заднепровский, Ю. А. (1992). Ранние кочевники Семиречъя и Тян-Шаня. Степная полоса Азиатской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. Москва: Наука. Zhang, Q. (2010). Neimenggu Helinge’er xian Xindianzi mudi rengu yanjiu [Study on the human bones in Xindianzi cemetery, Horinger County, Inner Mongolia]. China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zhang, W. L. (2002). Pingshan Sanji chutu tongjing chushi [A preliminary study on the bronze mirror unearthed from Sanji, Pingshan, Hebei: The bronze mirrors with button and handle characteristic of the Northern Zone]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 1 [Studies of frontier Archaeology I]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zhang, W. L. (2003). Hezuifu de leixing niandai yu qiyuan [The types, dates and origins of the pickaxes]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu 2 [Studies of frontier Archaeology II]. Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zhangjiakou City Cultural Relics Administration Office. (1985). Zhangjiakou shi baimiao yizhi qingli jianbao [A brief report on the cleanup of the Zhangjiakou Baimiao site]. Wenwu, 10 (in Chinese). Zhangjiakou City Cultural Relics Management Office, & Xuanhua Museum. (1987). Hebei sheng Xuanhua xian Xiaobaiyang mudi fajue jianbao [A briefing report on the cemetery of Xiaobaiyang County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 5 (in Chinese). Zhao, H. (1989). Gansu dongdu Qin he Qiangrong wenhua de kaoguxue tansuo [Archaeological exploration of culture of Qin dynasty and Qiangrong in the eastern part of Gansu Province]. In Kaogu leixingxue de lilun yu shijian [The theory and practice of archaeological typology]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Zhao, H. (1993). Dongzhou Yandai Qingtongqi de chubu fenxi [The preliminary analysis on the bronzes of Eastern Zhou in Yan period]. Kaogu yu wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Zheng, L. (1965). Daqingshanxia faxian yipi tongqi [A batch of bronzes found in Daqing mountain]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Zheng, S. (1963). Hebei sheng Xingtang xian Lijiazhuang faxian Zhanguo tongqi [The bronzes of Warring States period are found in Lijia village, Xingtang County, Hebei Province]. Wenwu, 4 (in Chinese). Zheng, S. (1984). Zhongguo Beifang qingtong duanjian de fenqi ji xingzhi yanjiu [The study on the stages and shapes of the bronze swords in the Northern China]. Wenwu, 2 (in Chinese). Zhi, P., & Gao, P. (1992). Pinglu Jingping Loufanmu [Cemetery of Loufan in Jingping County, Pinglu area, Suzhou city, Shanxi Province]. Wenwu jikan, 1 (in Chinese). Zhong, K. (1987). Ningxia Zhongningxian qingtongqi duanjianmu qingli jianbao [A brief report on the cleaning up of the bronze-short-sword tomb in Zhongning, Ningxia]. Kaogu, 9 (in Chinese). Zhong, K. (1997). Ningxia Zhongning xian qingtongqi duanjianmu qingli jianbao [A brief report on the clearing up of the bronze swords tombs in Ningxia, Zhongning]. Kaogu, 9 (in Chinese). Zhong, K., & Hang, L. (1985). Ningxia nanbu Chunqiu Zhanguo shiqi de qingtong wenhua [Bronze culture in the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period in southern Ningxia]. In Zhongguo kaogu xuehui disici nianhui lunwen ji [Papers collection of the fourth annual meeting of the Chinese Archaeological Society]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Zhou, G. (1989). Ningxia Zhongwei xian langwozikeng de qingtongduanjian muqun [The cemetery of qingtongduanjian in Langwozikeng, Zhongwei County, Ningxia Province]. Kaogu, 2 (in Chinese). Zhu, F. (1995). Gudai Zhongguo qingtongqi [The bronzes in ancient China]. Tianjin, China: Nankai University Press (in Chinese).

References

463

Zhu, F. (2009). Zhongguo qingtongqi zonglun [A survey of Chinese bronzes]. China: Shanghai Guji Press (in Chinese). Zhu, H. (1994). Neimenggu Chayouqianqi Miaozigou xinshiqi shidai rengu de renleixue tezheng [Anthropological characteristics of the skull bones of the Neolithic Age at Miaozigou, Chahar Right Front Banner, Inner Mongolia]. Renleixue xuebao, 2 (in Chinese). Zhu, H. (2002). Neimenggu Changcheng didai de gudai zhongzu [Ancient ethnic groups along the Great Wall in Inner Mongolia]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu [Studies of the frontier archaeology] (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Kexue Press (in Chinese). Zubkov, V. S. (1999). The Tannartime Graeberfeld Belyj Jar I in Chakssia. Westf: Marie Leidorf GmbH Rahden (in Germany). Zubkov, V. S., & Posel’janin, A. I. (1999). The day of age burial ground Belyj Jar I in Khakassia. Westf: Marie Leidorf GmbH Rahden (in Germany).

Chapter 6

Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe in Xiongnu Times

6.1

Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

6.1.1

Description of Related Concepts

6.1.1.1

Cultural Differentiation in the Great Wall Zone in the Northern Zone of China

As a cultural and geographical region, the Great Wall Zone in the Northern Zone of China experienced great changes from the late Warring States period to the mid-Western Han period. It developed from a nomadic cultural belt with unified cultural characteristics to two differentiated regions, the south and the north of the Wall with the Great Wall as the cultural demarcation line, and then to the final layout of the Great Wall zone as a whole and moving further north, leaving the south of the Great Wall rapidly Sinicized. During the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, animal husbandry accounted for a large proportion of the economy around the ancient remains of the Great Wall Zone, which was quite different from the agricultural culture of the settlements in the Central Plain of China. Later, a nomadic culture belt with unified cultural characteristics was gradually formed. During the late Warring States period, after parts of the Great Wall were built successively by the northern kingdoms, some southern parts of the original Great Wall zone were brought into the rule of these kingdoms. The northern parts of the Great Wall saw the rapid rise of the Xiongnu and its consolidation with other tribes and finally, during the Qin and Han dynasties, the formation of a powerful military alliance that repeatedly crossed the Great Wall and invaded the borders of the Western Han dynasty. In the early reign of Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty, the Han began to fight back against the Xiongnu and successfully forced them to move farther north. Afterwards, also in the reign of Emperor Wu, three frontier fortresses, the fortresses of Guanglusai, Juyansai and Hexihansai, were built successively, © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3_6

465

466

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

pushing the entire defensive line along the Great Wall farther north. By adopting policies such as recruiting immigrants and resettling farmland, the Han rapidly expanded their residential areas within the Great Wall. Meanwhile, the Xiongnu who were forced to move northward beyond the Fortress of Hexihansai and the Outer Great Wall (another frontier also known as Fortress Hanwubiansai) formed their own unique culture centered on the Mongolian Plateau and continued to repeatedly invade the borders of the Western and Eastern Han dynasties along the Great Wall. To conclude, from the late Warring States period to the mid-Western Han period, the culture of the Great Wall zone underwent a process of differentiation. The culture to the south of the Great Wall gradually converged with that of the Central Plain of China, while the culture to the north of the Great Wall became increasingly unified by military consolidation. In the mid-Western Han period, as the entire Great Wall zone moved northward, the original northern part of the Great Wall zone was quickly incorporated into the Han culture. Meanwhile, to the north of the Great Wall, a nomadic Xiongnu culture centered on the Mongolian Plateau was formed.

6.1.1.2

The Xiongnu Era and the Xiongnu Culture

In the archaeology of the Eurasian Steppe, the period from the formation of the Xiongnu military alliance during the Qin and Han dynasties to the end of the Eastern Han period is usually called the Xiongnu period or the Xiongnu era. With the establishment of the Xiongnu culture in the mid-Western Han period as the dividing line, the “Xiongnu era” can be divided into two stages: the early Xiongnu period and the Xiongnu period. Currently, the identified Xiongnu archaeological sites can be dated to as early as the mid-Western Han period, mainly in Russia’s Transbaikal region and northern Mongolia. In the middle or late Western Han period, the remains of the western tribes of the Xiongnu, which paid tribute to the Han dynasty, can be seen in the Great Wall area of the Northern Zone in Ningxia. In the middle and western parts of Northeast China, tombs of other northern nationalities with Xiongnu cultural factors have also been found. All of these are the remains of the Xiongnu era after the formation of the Xiongnu culture. Concerning the remains of the early Xiongnu, few of the archaeological sites between the late Warring States period and the early Western Han period can be confirmed. Chinese historical sources clearly records that the Xiongnu were formed at least in the late Warring States period and distributed in the north of the Great Wall of Zhao state (Lin 1993). When the Central Plain of China fell into war during the Qin and Han dynasties, the Xiongnu merged with other tribes around them and formed a strong military alliance. However, it is impossible to identify ancient remains of the Xiongnu except for a few sporadic discoveries (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 1962) dated to the approximately one hundred years from the late Warring States period to the Yuanshou period of Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty. It is likely that we have discovered the

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

467

Xiongnu archaeological sites of this period. However, they differ greatly from those of the Xiongnu culture that we have identified, and there is no decisive dating evidence. These sites are often dated to an earlier time or inferred only to be the sites of the late Warring States period related to the Xiongnu. However, it is certain that before the mid-Western Han period, the Xiongnu had not yet formed a cultural unity (Pan, forthcoming). However, during the Western Han period, the Xiongnu Confederation crossed the northern steppe. Most of the inhabitants of this vast area were people of nationalities other than the Xiongnu itself that had been conquered by the Xiongnu. It took time for people of different nationalities to integrate and unite with each other culturally. Therefore, the formation of the Xiongnu culture occurred later than the establishment of the political and military entity, roughly equivalent to the formation of the Han culture in the mid-Western Han (Pan 2007b). An important prerequisite for exploring the Xiongnu remains in the early Xiongnu period before the mid-Western Han period is a thorough study of their cultural factors—that is, the cultural factors of the Xiongnu remains in the mid-late Western Han period. The basis of this study is the chronology of the Xiongnu cultural remains.

6.1.2

Periodization of Xiongnu Remains in Mongolia and the Transbaikal Region

There are numerous Xiongnu archaeological sites in Mongolia and the Transbaikal region. Especially over the past decades, scholars of different countries have excavated the Xiongnu burials in the two areas and published excavation results in many languages. However, it is very difficult for Chinese scholars to conduct periodization research by comprehensively grasping the existing archaeological data of the Xiongnu in the two places. A feasible way is to determine the archaeological sites of the same time and summarize the characteristics of the time based on dating research on the typical key archaeological sites and then compare and distinguish the Xiongnu archaeological sites of other times. The Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery in the Transbaikal region is the only site that has been found with an accompanying cemetery of the same period and have been excavated on a large scale and on which comprehensive excavation data have been published. Russian scholars have discussed the Ivolga site and cemetery comprehensively after excavating 216 tombs (Дaвыдoвa 1996). Large-scale excavations have been conducted in the southern part of the Ivolga site, the most densely distributed area. Numerous artifacts have been unearthed fromside the settlements and in the cultural layer of the settlements (Дaвыдoвa 1996). Diagnostic artifacts of the Central Plain and contemporary examples from the Northern Zone of China that can be used for dating have been unearthed from the fortress and cemetery. In Transbaikal region, not far from the Ivolga, the Derestuy cemetery is similar in grave goods to Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery, has been fully excavated and

468

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

comprehensively published as well (Mиняeв 1998). Therefore, the Ivolga site and cemetery and the Derestuy cemetery can be used as typical key sites of the period to conduct dating studies on all the Xiongnu archaeological sites.

6.1.2.1

The Dating of the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery

The Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery yielded not only a small number of artifacts from the Central Plain, such as bronze mirrors, but also numerous artifacts of a particular period only found elsewhere in the burials of the Qin and Han period in China as well as the Great Wall Zone and the Northeast of China. These artifacts only existed in a particular period, but little attention had been paid to their epochal characteristics. Drawing on the study of their coexisting artifacts, we can make a reliable judgment of their period of popularity. This is also a feasible way to judge the dating of the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery with these short-term and chronologically reliable artifacts. However, it is necessary to make a precise analysis of the dates of the bronze mirrors and wuzhu coins in the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery.

The Dating of the Bronze Mirrors and Wuzhu Coins Seven bronze mirror fragments have been found in the Ivolga settlement. Among them, five pieces of bronze mirror with decorations are distinguishable and can be roughly recovered. These decorations were popular from the late Warring States period to the mid-Western Han period, especially in the mid-Western Han period (Pan 2007b). Four wuzhu coins were excavated from four tombs at the Ivolga cemetery. Among them, two have been identified as coins of Emperor Wu’s reign of the Western Han dynasty, which is the mid-Western Han dynasty.1

Other Artifacts Found in the Burials of the Qin and Han Periods and the Northern Steppe Area Most of the artifacts of this type are belt ornaments, buckles and other pendants on the belt, which have only been found in the burials of the Western Han period in China. Among them, seven types bear distinguishable time characteristics: spoon-shaped bronze belt ornaments, small bronze tubes with an inclined incision, bracket-shaped bronze pendants, small bronze pots with multiple ring-shaped knobs on the body, bronze buckles with a design of a sitting bear depicted from a frontal 1

The dating of wuzhu coins refers to the analysis of age characteristics of wuzhu coins of the Han dynasty in the following two excavation reports: Luoyang Archaeological Excavation (1959), Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Administration of Cultural Relics, Hebei Province (1980).

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

469

view (or strap-guides, bronze ornaments on mace heads, and tops of bronze serui, which is a part on an ancient musical instrument), bronze buckles with circular protrusions or animal mask motifs, and rectangular bronze plaques with openwork animal patterns. In China, most of the tombs with the above seven objects can be dated to a specific historical period (see Table 6.1 for details), three of which can be roughly dated in light of existing studies. The seven types of objects mentioned above have been found in tombs dated between the early and the late Western Han period in China. Among them, most are from tombs of the middle Western Han period, with the middle and late Western Han period tombs yielding the second largest number of them. These types of artifacts are relatively uncommon in the early and late Western Han period tombs. (Although one rectangular bronze plaque with animal pattern was found in a tomb of Lijiataozi cemetery, because it was found by chance, it is still debatable whether it was an item of the late Western Han period or the early Eastern Han period). Among them, the tombs with clear datings are equivalent to the early period of Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty. Based on the dates of the wuzhu coins and bronze mirrors from the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery, the following judgments can be made: the prevailing time of the artifacts found in the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery in China is basically from the late Warring States period to the mid-late Western Han period, mainly from the mid-Western Han period. Therefore, the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery should be of the same dating. In other words, The Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery dates from the end of the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century B.C., probably from the end of the 2nd century B.C. to the early 1st century B.C.

6.1.2.2

The Dating of the Xiongnu Archaeological Sites of the “Derestuy Type (or Stage)” in Transbaikal

The discovery of the Derestuy cemetery reveals that there is a common phenomenon in which graves with coffins and chambers coexisted with graves with coffins only, which fundamentally negates the categorization by some former Soviet scholars based on differences in burial containers. They classified the Xiongnu archaeological sites as the Derestuy and Sudzha types or the early and late stages, drawing on the differences among the burial containers. Later, other Russian scholars argued that the Xiongnu cultural remains could not be divided into stages because they had a history of only approximately 200 years. This argument seems unreasonable (Дaвыдoвa 1996, C. 24–25; Mиняeв 1998, C. 74–75, 80–83). Although the basis for dividing the two types or stages mentioned above is incorrect, careful study shows that there are obvious differences between the Derestuy and Sudzha types and that they have different characteristics. In the past, Russian archaeologists classified both the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery and the Derestuy cemetery into one type, the Derestuy type or stage, mainly because all the tombs excavated from the two cemeteries were buried with coffins. Another factor that cannot be ignored is that the artifacts of the Ivolga

470

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Table 6.1 List of cemeteries discovered in China with Xiongnu-styled artifacts similar to those unearthed from the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery (quoted from Erööl-Erdene 2011) Name of archaeological sites

Period

Artifacts

Dadao Sanjiazi, Qiqihar, Heilongjiang

Mid-late Western Han period

Daodunzi, Tongxin County, Ningxia

Mid-late Western Han period

Wangong, Inner Mongolia

Mid-late Western Han period

Lijiataozi, Tongxin County, Ningxia

From the Western Han period to the early Eastern Han period

Xichagou, Xifeng County, Liaoning

Mid-Western Han period

Longshou Village Western Han Tomb 2, Xi’an, Shaanxi Shiyuan Han Tombs in the cemetery of Prince Liang of the Western Han period, Shangqiu, Henan Mancheng Han Tomb 1 and Tomb 2

Early Western Han period

Spoon-shaped bronze belt ornaments, bracket-shaped bronze pendants, small bronze pots with ring feet, bronze buckles with a bear pattern, bronze buckles with circular protrusions or animal mask motifs Small bronze tubes with an inclined incision, bronze plaques with rectangular fretwork zoomorphic motifs Spoon-shaped bronze belt ornaments, bronze buckles with protrusions or animal mask motifs Bronze plaques with rectangular fretwork zoomorphic motifs (chance find) Bracket-shaped bronze pendants, bronze plaques with rectangular fretwork zoomorphic motifs Small bronze tubes with an inclined incision Small bronze tubes with an inclined incision

136 B.C.

113 B.C.; 104 B.C.

Tomb 19, Longshou Village, Xi’an, Shaanxi

Early Western Han period

M34 at Shaanxi Province Feed Processing Plant, Shaanxi Tomb of the Nanyue King, Guangzhou, Guangdong

Mid-Western Han

122 B.C.

Bronze buckles with a pattern of a sitting bear from a front view, bronze ornaments on mace heads Bronze buckles with the pattern of a front view of a sitting bear (strap-guides) Bronze buckles with the pattern of a sitting bear from a front view of (strap-guides) Bronze buckles with the pattern of a sitting bear from a front view (strap-guides), bronze plaques with rectangular fretwork zoomorphic motifs (continued)

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

471

Table 6.1 (continued) Name of archaeological sites

Period

Artifacts

Bao’anshan No. 2 grave goods pit in the Cemetery of Prince Liang of the Western Han period, Shangqiu, Henan Gaozhuang Han tombs, Hebei

123 B.C.

Bronze buckles with the pattern of a sitting bear from a front view (strap-guides)

Mid-Western Han

Bronze buckles with the pattern of a sitting bear from a front view (strap-guides) Bronze serui with the pattern of a sitting bear from a front view Bronze plaques with rectangular fretwork zoomorphic motifs

Tomb 92 at Xi’an Northwest Medical Equipment Factory, Xi’an, Shaanxi Keshengzhuang Archaeological sites M140, Xi’an, Shaanxi

Early Western Han period

From the late Warring States period to the time before Emperor Wu of the Western Han period

Fortress and Cemetery are very similar to those of the Derestuy cemetery (Figs. 6.1 and 6.2). From the perspective of the characteristics of burial assemblages, the essential differences between the circular protrusions and Sudzha types do not lie in whether burial chambers were used but in the change in grave goods. Spoon-shaped bronze belts, rectangular bronze plaques with zoomorphic motifs and bronze buttons with a bear-shaped motif from the circular protrusions cemetery have been found in the tombs of the Western Han period mentioned above. The seven wuzhu coins excavated from four tombs in the circular protrusions cemetery are reported to be duplicates and are suspected to not be identical to the original ones. However, on five of them, two inclined lines can clearly be seen to intersect with part of the ancient character for five “五”, which is characteristic of wuzhu coins struck in the Emperor Wu period of the Western Han dynasty (Fig. 6.2: 1–7).2 Therefore, the dating of the circular protrusions cemetery should be the same as that of the Ivolga archaeological site, namely, from the early Western Han period to the middle and late Western Han period in China, mainly in the mid-Western Han period. This is also why the grave goods from the two cemeteries are so similar. The Xiongnu tombs of the middle and late Western Han period have been found in both Transbaikal and Mongolia. The grave goods and burial customs are very similar to those of the Ivolga archaeological site as well as the circular protrusions cemetery, which proves that the unified cultural tradition of the Xiongnu was formed here at this time. The other cemeteries that date to this period are smaller in size, especially in Mongolia.

In this chapter, the figures of the artifacts unearthed from the Derestuy cemetery are rearranged based on the figures in Derestuy cemetery.

2

472

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.1 Artifacts from the Derestuy cemetery (1). 1–3 Openwork bronze plaques with animal motifs; 4 P-shaped belt buckle with an animal motif; 5 wooden plaques with gold foil and animal motifs; 6 openwork oval-shaped bronze ornament; 7, 8 openwork rectangular belt plaques with animal motif; 9 openwork bronze ring; 10 trapezoid bronze belt buckle; 11, 12 spoon-shaped belt ornaments; 13 small plaque with animal motif; 14 bronze button with bear-shaped pattern; 15 stone belt plaque; 16 bronze bell; 17 turquoise pendant; 18 claw-shaped stone pendant; 19 bone ornament in cluster; 20 iron awl; 21 bronze arrowhead; 22 iron arrowhead; 23 bone arrowhead; 24 bearing-pole-shaped pendent; 25 bone bow end

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

473

Fig. 6.2 Artifacts from the Derestuy cemetery (2). 1–7 wuzhu-coin; 8, 9 big-mouthed deep belly jar; 10–12 pottery pot; 13 flare-mouthed pottery pot; 14 pottery basin

6.1.2.3

The Dating of the “Sudzha Type”

The so-called “Sudzha-type” Xiongnu tombs have also yielded some age-specific Chinese artifacts. According to the datings when these objects were popular in China, the dates of the “Sudzha-type” tombs can be confirmed. The bronze mirrors in the Ilmova Valley, Cheremukhov, Enkhor, and Noyon Uul cemeteries were mainly dated between the late Western Han period and the early Eastern Han period, among which some bronze mirrors from the Ilmova Valley and one from Sudzha were relatively earlier than the others. They had begun

474

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

to become popular in the late Western Han period, while bronze mirrors from other cemeteries had been prevalent from the late Western Han period to the early Eastern Han period. A lacquer erbei cup from the M6 of the Noyon Uul cemetery shows Chinese characters reading “Made in the fifth year of the Jianping period in the reign of Emperor Ai in the Western Han dynasty” on its bottom rim. Tomb 5 of the Noyon Uul cemetery also yielded a lacquer cup with an inscription “fifth year of Jianping”. Jianping was an era name of Emperor Ai of the Western Han dynasty. The first year of Jianping was 6 B.C.; therefore, the fifth year of Jianping was 2 B.C. However, later in the same year, the reigning title of “Jianping” was changed to “Yuanshou”. The cups were likely gifts presented to the Chanyu, the chief of the Xiongnu, by the Han dynasty and were likely to have been buried as grave goods in the Emperor Wang Mang period or the early Eastern Han period (Umehara 1960, Plate 59; Wu 1990). Though comparative analysis with the jade huang pendants from the Han tombs, the double dragon-shaped jade huang pendant excavated from Tomb 12 of Noyon Uul cemetery can be dated to the Eastern Han period, roughly in the middle of the Eastern Han period.3 A roughly heart-shaped bone kuahuan belt item (Moгильникoв 1992, C. 254– 273) was found in the Sudzha cemetery. Similar items have been found in the middle layers of Laoheshen cemetery in Yushu County (Jilin Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1987, p. 67, Fig. 60:1) of Jilin province and Sandaowan cemeteries in Inner Mongolia (Ulanqab Museum 1994) dated between the end of the Eastern Han period and the middle and late Eastern Han period. In the Sudzha cemetery, an elliptical bone buckle was found with a long oval hole at one end and a circular button on the back (Moгильникoв 1992, C. 254– 273). Copper buckles with a similar pattern of cast flying horses were found in Dalai Nur cemetery (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1961) and the middle layer of the Laoheshen cemetery in Yushu (Jilin Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1987, p. 66, Fig. 59). The latter two are dated to the pre-Eastern Han period and the period from the late Western Han period to the early and middle Eastern Han period, respectively. In the Ilmova Valley and Cheremukhov cemetery, bone chopsticks and bone spoons were found (Кoнoвaлoв 1976, Taбл. XVII; Pyдeнкo 1962, Taблицa VII,1). The same types of artifacts were also found in the Han pictorial brick tombs of Dabaodang in Shenmu,4 the Budonggou tombs in Dongsheng, Inner Mongolia

3

The dating of the jade huang-pendant excavated from the Noyon Uul cemetery is referred to Pan (2007). 4 Shaanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Yulin Cultural Relics Administration Office (2001, Figs. 1–6); in this report, one type of bone spoon is referred as ‘bone hairpin’, but we believe the hilt of this spoon is too thick to be used as a hairpin; another type of bone spoon with a wide head is named bone spade in the report; because these two types of bone spoon share similar shape with the ones unearthed from the discussed Xiongnu tombs, they are both named as bone spoon in this book.

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

475

(Ikezhao League Cultural Relics Workstation 1980), and Dali Nur cemetery (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1994a), all of which were dated to the early and middle Eastern Han period. According to the above analysis, the counterparts of the artifacts found in the Sudzha-type tombs are mainly dated to the Eastern Han period. These artifacts were prevalent in China in the early stage of the Eastern Han period, with the exception of a few bronze mirrors. These mirrors prevailed in China as early as the late Western Han period. Therefore, the so-called Sudzha-type tombs in Transbaikal and Mongolia are the tombs of the Xiongnu in the early period of the Eastern Han. In the past two decades, some unearthed bronze mirrors from the large Xiongnu tombs in Mongolia suggest that these tombs could be attributed to the period of Wang Mang’s reign or the Eastern Han period. In the middle of the Eastern Han period, the northern Xiongnu were defeated by the Eastern Han dynasty and fled from their settlements, which were then occupied by the Xianbei. Therefore, the northern Xiongnu were no longer in the area north of the Gobi Desert after the middle of the Eastern Han period. The main body of the Sudzha-type tombs is dated to the early period of the Eastern Han dynasty and includes the remains of the North Xiongnu before they were routed. The above analysis indicates that there is a significant difference between the Derestuy- and Sudzha-type artifacts because the two types of tombs have different dates: the middle of the Western Han period (end of the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century B.C.) and the Eastern Han period (the early and middle 1st century A.D.), respectively. The former remains belong to the early Xiongnu culture and the latter to the late Xiongnu culture.

6.1.2.4

Characteristics of the Xiongnu Cultural Remains in Transbaikal and Mongolia During the Middle and Late Western Han Period

Compared with the Sudzha type and the remains of the late Xiongnu culture, the characteristics of the early Xiongnu cultural remains, represented by the Ivolga archaeological site and the Derestuy cemetery, can be summarized as follows. The artifacts found in these Xiongnu cultural archaeological sites are mainly of practical use, such as pottery vessels, weapons, and ornaments. The largest group of pottery is large-mouthed jars, followed by the group of hu pots or jars with bulging bellies. The pottery is generally decorated with vertical dark stripes on the surface and wave patterns on the shoulders. The shoulders of the hu pots or jars with bulging bellies are often decorated with appliqué patterns. Bows, arrows and other weapons, as well as belt buckles and various ornaments attached to belts, are buried in the male tombs. Cheekpieces are also found in the Derestuy cemetery. Of the arrowheads found in these archaeological sites, the distinctive ones are bone arrowheads with a bifurcated tail and socketed three-bladed bronze arrowheads. The tombs with interred females yield various beads, small pendants, rings, claw-shaped pendants, carrying-pole-shaped pendants, rectangular fretwork bronze

476

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

plaques, and hollow bronze rings. Scoop-shaped belt ornaments are common in the tombs of both males and females. No bronze mirrors or their fragments have been found in the tombs of this period. The Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery and the Derestuy cemetery are currently the largest Xiongnu archaeological sites in the middle and late Western Han period. Additionally, at least part of the Dureny site in the Transbaikal Kiakhta area should be dated to the middle and late Western Han period (Дaвыдoвa and Mиняeв 2003). There are also a small number of other Xiongnu archaeological sites of this period that have been found. The following tombs are all likely to be dated to the middle and late Western Han period: M4, one of the six tombs excavated from the Xiongnu cemetery of the Darkhan Mountain in Mongolia (Гpишин 1978), Tomb 12 in Zaraa Tolgoi, Töv aimag, Mongolia, Tomb 1 excavated from Sul Tolgoi Mountain, Khövsgöl aimag (Кoнoвaлoв and Цыбиктapoв 1988; Aceeв and Ю 1987), and Tomb 3 of Duurlig Nars in Bayan Adarga sum, Khentiy aimag (Yun and Chang 2011). The archaeological sites of the Xiongnu during this period have also been found in Uguumur in the village of Sant in Selenge aimag, Mongolia, and Ulan-Del in the village of East Züüngovi in Uvs aimag (Eregzen 2011, Fig. 292/293). The Xiongnu archaeological sites of the middle and late Western Han period have been widely distributed in the Transbaikal region and Mongolia. However, in Mongolia, no cemetery solely dated to this period has been found, which may be partly because of the selective excavation of most of the Xiongnu cemetery in Mongolia. It is also noteworthy that the Xiongnu tombs in the middle and late Western Han period are small and medium tombs without dromoi, the tomb entrance corridor. The square (or rectangular) tomb pits in the Central Plain style with a dromos and the large Xiongnu tombs of aristocrats with multiple burial chambers and luxury funeral objects are all dated between the late Western Han period and the early Eastern Han period, with none dated to the middle and late Western Han period (Brosseder 2009). This shows that in the middle and late Western Han period, the gap between the rich and the poor in Xiongnu society was relatively small, so the upper aristocrats still retained the funeral customs of the nation. From the late Western Han to the early Eastern Han period, the Xiongnu nobles adopted opulent funeral rituals and competed to emulate those of the Central Plain. During this period, the Xiongnu Empire split twice and eventually perished.

6.1.3

The Large Tombs of the Xiongnu (Pan 2015b)

The date of the large tombs of the Xiongnu discovered thus far are not earlier than the late Western Han period. These large tombs are not only special in design but also yield objects that are quite different from ordinary tombs. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a brief introduction here. The large Xiongnu tombs refer to the large tombs with rectangular or trapezoidal earth platforms on the surface and dromos inside. They are generally referred to as

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

477

elite tombs (or aristocratic tombs, royal tombs etc) when compared with the relatively small tombs featuring near-round stone piles and no dromoi, which are often called ordinary tombs. These large tombs are also referred to by some foreign scholars as “terrace tombs” and “square tombs” and the ordinary tombs are called “circular burials” based on the different shapes on the surface. The large Xiongnu tombs are not only large in scale and significantly fewer than ordinary tombs in number, but most are also equipped with multiple layers of coffins. These large tombs are often found with Han-style carriages and many fine and delicate artifacts, which are not seen in ordinary tombs. It is obvious that they are the tombs of the higher-ranking classes, modeled after the tombs of the Central Plain. It is reasonable to identify them as aristocratic tombs. Although the excavation of the large Xiongnu tombs spans approximately ninety years, for three reasons, research on these tombs is still in its preliminary stage. First, early excavations were based on the shaft method, and only the tomb chambers were excavated. Therefore, only the structure of the burial containers and the remaining burial assemblages could be examined. This means that the overall structures of these tombs were not studied, and the excavation reports of this early period were quite brief. Second, the comprehensive excavation of the large Xiongnu tombs was conducted late, starting in the late 1990s. Due to the large scale of the tombs and the fact that the burial complex of each large tomb is accompanied by some satellite tombs in addition to the remote location of the cemetery, excavation is rather time consuming. The corresponding excavation data are thus updated at a very slow rate, and information on most large tombs has not yet been fully published. Third, the excavation of the large Xiongnu tombs since the 1990s was conducted by multinational archaeologists. The excavation reports were thus published in different countries in various languages, which is not conducive to a comprehensive study of the Xiongnu tombs. One comprehensive study of the large Xiongnu tombs is Xiongnu Terrace Tombs and Their Interpretation as Elite Burials written by the German scholar Ursula Brosseder in 2009 (Brosseder 2009). In the 2011 book The Xiongnu Elite Tombs, Treasures of the Xiongnu published by Mongolia Press, the section on “the Xiongnu elite tombs” provides a general introduction to the large Xiongnu tombs in Mongolia with some photos and graphs of the tombs excavated as of that time (Yeruul-Erdene 2011). Here, our summary of the large Xiongnu tombs mainly refers to the above two works.

6.1.3.1

Overview

The large tombs of the Xiongnu are distributed in the northern aimags of Mongolia and in the Transbaikal and Tuva areas of Russia bordering north-central and northwestern Mongolia. According to the materials published in 2011, 24 large tombs of the Xiongnu had been excavated at that time: M1, M6, M20, M23, M24, M25, and M31 of Noyon Uul cemetery in Töv aimag of Mongolia, the tomb excavated by Ballod, the tomb excavated by Kondravt, the tomb excavated by

478

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Andreyev; M1 of the cemetery of Gol Mod II, Öndör-Ulaan sum of Arkhangai aimag; M1, 20, and 79 in Gol Mod II, Khairkhan sum of Arkhangai aimag; M2 and M5 in the Duurlig Nars cemetery in Kentiy aimag; M1, M2, M64, M82, and M83 in Takhitgyn Khotgor cemetery in Khovd aimag; M54 in the Sudzha cemetery in the Ilmova Valley of the Republic of Buryatia; M7 in the Tsaraam cemetery in the Republic of Buryatia; and the large tomb of the cemetery Baidag-II in the Republic of Tuva (Fig. 6.3). Like other cemeteries of the early Iron Age nomads, the cemeteries with large tombs of the Xiongnu are mostly located near areas used for winter pastures, on sloping terrain remote from large rivers and clustered in several burial groups. With both large tombs and ordinary tombs in each cemetery, the proportion of the two types of tombs in each cemetery varies greatly. The covered areas of these cemeteries also differ greatly, with the largest being 1,750 ha. and the smallest only 1 ha. The large tombs are often surrounded by satellite tombs. The larger a tomb is, the more satellite tombs there are around it, which usually appear in a certain layout. For example, M1 in the cemetery of Gol Mod II, currently the largest tomb of the Xiongnu, is accompanied by 27 ordinary tombs on its east side that are distributed in a curve north-south; the largest ordinary tomb lies between the curved distribution and the main tomb. Smaller ordinary tombs lie to the north and west of the main tomb. These 30 ordinary tombs are all satellite tombs of M1 (Fig. 6.4: 1) (Erdenebaatar et al. 2011). There are ten satellite burials to M7 in the Tsaraam cemetery evenly distributed on the east and west sides of the large tomb in two curves, and they are all ordinary tombs. The satellite tombs of M7 in the Tsaraam cemetery are all single burials. In each of these satellite tombs, a male is interred. The tomb occupants were buried according to age, with the tomb occupants becoming gradually younger from north to south, with children interred in the southernmost tombs. These tombs are sacrificial burials (Fig. 6.4: 2) (Mиняeв 2002).

6.1.3.2

The Surface Shape and Structure

Most of the large Xiongnu tombs consist of an earth terrace or platform, which is elevated approximately 0.5–1.5 m above the ground. The shape and size of the soil terrace overlap with the tombs. Usually, the soil terrace is enclosed by dry masonry of one or more layers, often made of layers of horizontally placed stones. The larger the tomb, the more layers of the dry masonry there are, with the smallest tomb of 3 layers and the largest tomb of 12 layers. For large-scale tombs where the length of its sides measure more than 20 m, the soil terrace is slightly raised to form mounds, such as M1 of the cemetery in Gol Mod II, with a mound height of 3.7 m. In the middle of the terrace or mound, there are often pits formed by the sinking of the earth resulting from grave robbery or the collapse of the tomb chambers. There are also large individual tombs with only dry masonry but no soil terrace, such as M2 of the Duurlig Nars cemetery. There are also sporadic burials with their burial construction enclosed by dry masonry of one or more layers, often made of layers of horizontally placed stones, such as M7 in the Tsaraam cemetery.

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

479

Fig. 6.3 Plans of the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1 M1 at Gol Mod II; 2 M20 at Gol Mod I; 3 M7 at Tsaraam cemetery; 4 M2 at Noin-ula cemetery; 5 M54 at the Sudzhin cemetery of Ilmova valley; 6 M79 at Gol Mod I; 7 M82 at Takhitgynkhotgor; 8 M83 at Takhitgynkhotgor; 9 M64 at Takhitgynkhotgor (after Brosseder 2009)

480

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.4 Some large-scale Xiongnu tombs and satellite tombs (site layout). 1 M1 and its subordinate tombs at the cemetery of Gol Mod II; 2 M7 at Tsaraam and its subordinate tombs (Icons and numbers on the nearer side of the main tomb respectively indicate the gender and age of the tomb owner) (1 after Diimaazhav Erdenebaatar et al. 2011; 2 after Mиняeв 2002)

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

481

The dromos is usually trapezoidal and is located on the south side of the tomb. It narrows from the junction between the tomb and the dromos to the south end of the dromos. Like the tomb, stone walls along the edge of the dromos form a trapezoidal enclosure stone walls on the ground where the soil is filled to form a platform. The height of the platform at the junction of the dromos and the tomb is the same as that of the terrace on the tomb. The height of the soil terrace and the stone wall gradually declines as it runs southward, reaching the lowest point at the southern end of the dromos, the same level as the entrance of the tomb. The terrace enclosed by stone walls is often divided into different sections by rows of inner stone walls that can be observed from the terrace surface. Usually, a north-south stone line parts the mound as well as the rampart on the dromos into a western half and an eastern half. On both sides of the north-south stone wall, there are different numbers of stone lines oriented west-east. These partitions can either be built only a few layers high or have foundations and actually appear like walls, as is the case in Ilmova Valley M54 (Fig. 6.5) (Кoнoвaлoв 2008).

Fig. 6.5 One large-scale Xiongnu tomb: plan and profile of the partition wall in M54 at Ilmova valley (after Кoнoвaлoв 2008)

482

6.1.3.3

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Tombs and Dromoi

Most of the tombs have steps, which lead downwards layer by layer in the shape of an inverse pyramid, similar to the layout of the Chu Tombs in the Eastern Zhou period of China. However, the number of steps is fewer than that of the Chu Tombs. There are also tombs that are funnel-shaped without steps, such as tombs in the cemetery of Gol Mod I. The shape of the tomb can be explained by the extremely loose sand there in which the burial pit is embedded, which does not allow construction with many steps. The depth of the tombs varies between 8 and 18 m and is not correlated with the size of the terrace. However, the size of the tombs is directly proportional to the length of the dromos. In other words, the larger the tomb, the longer the dromos is. The dromos is a ramp that descends from south to north and is generally not very deep. There is, however, a steep drop from the junction between the tomb chamber and its dromos to the bottom of the tomb. For example, in the burial construction of Takhiltyn Khotgor M64, the dromos stops at the first ledge while the burial pit continues down for another 4.4 m (Fig. 6.6) (Miller Bryan et al. 2009). Because this tomb is the smallest Xiongnu terrace tomb, the height difference of other large tombs should be even larger. This indicates that the dromos is less likely to have acted as a pathway along which the tomb occupant’s body was carried than it is to

Fig. 6.6 Structure of the large-scale Xiongnu tombs: a sketch map of M64 at Takhitgyn Khotgor (after Brosseder 2009)

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

483

had a ritual function. That is, whether there is a dromos and its length are likely related to the identity of the tomb occupants. It can be seen from the drop between the dromos and the tomb chamber that the large Xiongnu tombs are not imitations of the large-scale Han tombs in the Western Han period but of Central Plain tombs in the late Warring States period.

6.1.3.4

Deposition in the Tombs

In the excavated large tombs, one or more layers of stones are found in the soil ledge above the wooden chamber. For example, four layers of slabs have been found in the M7 tomb at Tsaraam, and different layers of pine logs, reeds, river pebbles, and birch bark and pine cones have been found under each layer of slabs (Mиняeв 2009). Animal bones are often found in the grave fill, usually skulls and leg bones. For example, in M7 at Tsaraam cemetery, there are skulls and leg bones from horses, cows, ibexes, and goats arranged in a row under the layer of stones at a depth of 11 m (Mиняeв 2009). At the M2 of the Duurlig Nars cemetery, along with the north wall of the second step of the tomb, there are more than 20 animal skulls and rear leg bones, including 12 horses in the middle, ten ibexes and a small number of goats placed on both sides (Yun and Chang 2011). There are two types of depositions found in the grave fill: copper mirror fragments, such as ten pieces of bronze mirror fragments from the same mirror found in the center of the burial pit of M7 at Tsaraam, and Chinese-style chariots or parts of chariots. For example, the parts of a Chinese chariot or fragments of a chariot are found in tomb M1 in the cememery of Gol Mod II and M20 in the cemetery of Gol Mod I, and the remains of a severely damaged Chinese carriage is found on the fourth slab in M7 at Tsaraam cemetery. Obvious signs of burning can be found in the tomb heaps. For example, the tomb chamber of M54 in the Ilmova Valley was covered with pinecones, shrubs, branches and pine needles, heaps of logs were placed on top of this, and then a layer of loose pine cones and shrubs was added, with a final, a thin layer of soil placed on everything. Then, an enormous fire was lit over the burial chamber. When the flames were dying down, the pit was filled in (Кoнoвaлoв 2008).

6.1.3.5

Structure of the Chamber and Coffin

All the large Xiongnu tombs contained the burial containers of wooden chamber and coffins. In the larger tombs, there were both internal and external chambers and a coffin that was placed in the middle or the west part of the internal chamber. Only one chamber and one coffin were found in the smaller tombs. Two layers of chambers but no coffin were found in some of the small tombs, such as M79 in the cemetery of Gol Mod I and the tomb excavated by Ballod at the cemetery of Noyon Uul. M7 at Tsaraam showed double chambers, and the exterior one was approximately 170–180 cm high and was made of 7 stories of square timber. The walls of the chamber had mortise and tenon joints. The cover and bottom of the chamber

484

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

were formed with horizontally lain boards. The wall of the interior one was made of 5 layers of square timber with a transverse section of 20 cm. The walls of the interior chamber were connected in the same way as the exterior one. The cover and the bottom were also composed of horizontally laid boards. Given that the coffin was severely destroyed, we can only speculate that the baseboard was made of two longitudinally laid boards and that the sidewalls were made of wide wooden boards. Some of the coffins retain bronze or iron sticks with round ends, which are generally interpreted as the handles of the coffin (Fig. 6.7, 3). Some gold foil decorations can be found on the exterior walls of the coffins, usually a diamond-shaped plaid pattern formed by the intersection of gold foil strips and a

Fig. 6.7 Some coffin decorations from the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1 Coffin decoration (recovered) from the M2 at Duurlig Nars (gold foil strips, and four-leaf flowers); 2 gold four-leaf flowers studded with turquoise from the M20 at the Noyonuul cemetery; 3 bronze sticks from the M2 of DuurligNars; 4 Gold coffin decoration from the M2 of Duurlig Nars (1–3 Quoted from Treasures of Xiongnu Fig. 051, Fig. 053; 4 Quoted from Miller 2009)

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

485

four-leaf flower that decorates the center of the diamond (Fig. 6.7: 1). The four-leaf flower on the coffin of M2 of Duurlig Nars is gold-studded with turquoise (Fig. 6.7: 2). The four-leaf flower on the smallest coffin in M64 of Takhitgyn khotgor is made of iron. A group of sun- and moon-shaped decorations made of gold pieces are often found at the northern end of the coffin (Fig. 6.7: 4). However, such coffin decorations are more common in the ordinary tombs of Xiongnu.

6.1.3.6

Categorization of Tombs and Types and Placement of the Inventory

The majority of large Xiongnu tombs suffered from looting, except M82 in the Takhitgyn Khotgor cemetery in Khovd aimag, Mongolia. However, M82 was situated at the western periphery of the Xiongnu territory, and the interred person was female. The burial was small in scale with a few burial goods. Therefore, it does not reflect the actual situation of the inventory of most large Xiongnu tombs. At present, the general situation of the assemblages in large-scale Xiongnu tombs can only be speculated based on the remaining burial goods. According to the type of burial goods as well as the sizes and structures, the large Xiongnu tombs can be divided into two categories. The numbers in the first category are larger, and the side lengths of the burial pits are more than 20 m. Among these tombs, M1 in the cemetery of Gol Mod II, M20 in the cemetery of Gol Mod I, M7 in the Tsaraam cemetery, and M20 in the Noyon Uul cemetery have rich burial goods. M1 in the cemetery of Gol Mod II is the largest Xiongnu tomb discovered thus far, and its side length is as high as 46 m. Each tomb in this category was interred with a Han-style chariot together with valuable gilt or silvered harnesses (Fig. 6.8).5 Most tombs were buried with Han-style lacquer ware and metal vessels, and all coffins were decorated with gold foil. The side lengths of the tomb pits in the second category measure less than 20 m, and the tomb pits are smaller and shallower than those of the first category. This category includes M64 and M82 in the Takhitgyn Khotgor cemetery, M79 in the cemetery of Gol Mod II, and M2 in the Duurlig Nars cemetery. Some of the tombs in this group have Han-style chariots, but no precious gilt or silvered harnesses were found. The types and quantities of Han-style metal vessels and lacquers are much fewer than those of the first category. The grave goods in the second category of tombs are similar to those in ordinary Xiongnu tombs, such as bronze fu cauldrons with Xiongnu characteristics and ordinary Chinese bronze vessels (Fig. 6.9). In all the large Xiongnu tombs, weapons were rarely found; for instance, bow ends, arrowheads and short swords were almost never found. The reasons depend on scholarly guesswork: it may be that the aristocracy was higher than the warriors in social class, or these weapons taken by tomb robbers.

5

Pictures of silver horse gears unearthed from the M2 of the cemetery of Gol Mod II in this book are selected from Erööl-Erdene (2011).

486

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.8 Silver Horse Gears from the M20 at the cemetery of Gol Mod I (quoted from Erööl-Erdene 2011)

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

487

Fig. 6.9 Bronze Fu-Couldron from the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1 M2 at the Duurlig Nars cemetery; 2 M1 at the Takhitgyn Khotgor cemetery; 3 M4 at the Noyonuul cemetery; 4 M9 at the Noyonuul cemetery

According to the existing published documents, the general pattern of Xiongnu burial goods can be speculated. Large vessels were usually placed to the north part of outer coffins and lacquers to the north of the inner coffins or to the north of the tomb. Harnesses were put in the east of the tomb, such as the expensive harnesses in M7 in the Tsaraam cemetery and M20 in the cemetery of Gol Mod II. The placement of metal vessels is not yet clear. Most burial goods in the large Xiongnu tombs came from the Central Plain or Central Asia and West Asia even further away, such as lacquers, bronze vessels, silk fabrics, bronze mirrors from the Central Plain, wool textiles, and glassware and gold and silver wares from Central Asia and West Asia. The larger the tomb was, the higher the grade of these imported goods.

6.1.3.7

Dates

Because the unearthed bronze mirrors and lacquer wares were engraved with years, the dates of the large tombs are more accurately speculated upon than the ordinary Xiongnu tombs. The C-14 dating of some large-scale tombs can also provide references. The inscription on the lacquer unearthed from the Noyon Uul M6 indicates that it was produced in 2 B.C. Tsaraam M7 was dated by the inscription on an unearthed piece of lacquer ware produced between 8 B.C. and 4 B.C. The carbon14 dates obtained from the kurgan and its satellite tombs point to the 1st century A.D. The carbon14 dates of the cemetery of Gol Mod II are 20–50 A.D, which matches the dates range of the bronze mirrors. The carbon14 dates of M54 in Ilmova Valley are 30 B.C.–60 A.D. It can be seen from the current publications that most of the Han-style bronze mirror fragments found in the large Xiongnu tombs have patterns on the wide flat rims, which is a prevalent feature of bronze mirrors between Wangmang’s reign and the early Eastern Han period. Few mirrors with a wide plain rim and yunleiwen-spiral patterns prevailed between the early and middle Eastern Han period (Fig. 6.10).6 The dates of these bronze mirrors are also in line with the 6

In this book, the pictures of mirrors unearthed from the large Xiongnu tombs in Mongolia are quoted from Törbat (2011).

488

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

dates of the large tombs. Therefore, the large Xiongnu tombs discovered can be dated from around the start of the Christian era to the early and middle 1st century A.D.; that is, from the time when Wang Mang took the throne to the early Eastern Han period.

6.1.3.8

The Origin of the Tomb Shapes and Structures

Comparative analysis suggests that the shape of the large Xiongnu tombs had two sources. The main source is the high-level tombs in the late Warring States period in the Central Plain region, and the other source is the large tombs in the Minusinsk Basin in the Tjesi stage, which is equivalent to the period from the middle Western Han dynasty to the early Eastern Han dynasty in China. In the late Warring States period tombs in China, the M2 tomb (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1956) near Guwei Village, Hui County, in the late Warring States period and the King Cuo of Zhongshan’s Tomb (Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics 1995) in the middle and late Warring States period are well preserved and have been more comprehensively examined in published material. In Tomb M2 of Guwei Village and King Cuo of Zhongshan’s Tomb, rammed earth extends from the upper part of the tomb and the dromos to the earth surface, and a rammed earth terrace is formed on the tomb. The side of the terrace is the rammed earth wall, and the grave mound is on the terrace (Fig. 6.11). In the dromos of the two tombs, the rammed earth fill is higher than the ground surface. The height of the rammed earth fill increases gradually to the burial chamber and finally riches the same level as the terrace. Above the burial chamber of Zhongshan King’s Tomb is a layer of stones, and the chamber is enclosed with stone walls (Fig. 6.12). In the Tomb M2 of Guwei Village, three short stone walls stand between the east and west walls, and stone walls stand along the south and north chamber walls. According to the analysis of the tomb profile, the top of the stone walls was built as high as the ground surface. The terraces, stone walls, and grave stone in the tombs mentioned above are similar to those in the large Xiongnu tombs, except that the terraces of the Xiongnu tombs are not built of rammed earth but are enclosed with stone walls. Stone walls are built around the grave and along the dromos in the large Xiongnu tombs, and of the space between the stone walls is filled in to form a terrace. Most of the stone walls are layered and flat. The structure of tombs above the ground cannot be found in the high-ranking tombs of the late Warring States period in China. This is also different from the tombs of the Slab Grave culture in Mongolia and Transbaikal, in which burial areas are surrounded by slabs of stone. The Slab Grave culture is earlier than the Xiongnu era. The Xiongnu large tombs with grave mounds are similar to those of the tombs of the Tjesi stage in the Minusinsk Basin, South Siberia. The Tjesi stage is equivalent to the period from the middle Western Han dynasty to the early Eastern Han dynasty. In large tombs of

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

489

Fig. 6.10 Han-style bronze mirrors from the large-scale Xiongnu tombs. 1. From M1 at the No. 1 cemetery of Gol Mod; 2. M25 of the Noyonuul cemetery; 3. M20 at the No. 1 cemetery of Gol Mod; 4. M7 of the Tsaram cemetery; 5. M2 of the Duurlig Nars cemetery; 6. M1 at the No. 2 cemetery of Gol Mod (4 after Mиняeв 2009, the others from Törbat 2011)

490

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.11 Structure of Tomb M2, Guwei Village, Hui County

this period, a 300–800 m2 burial area is surrounded by flat stone slabs or stone walls, inside of which is a tomb under a grave mound 2–4.5 m high, sometimes surrounded by low stone walls (Fig. 6.13). Not only are the Tjesi-stage archaeological sites in the Minusinsk Basin similar to those of the Xiongnu in dates, the Minusinsk Basin has also yielded a large number of burials and archaeological sites of Xiongnu culture, indicating that the influence of the Xiongnu at that time reached this area (Baдeцкaя 1986).

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains Fig. 6.12 Plan and profile drawings of the tomb of King of Zhongshan state (after Fig. 7 in Cuo-tomb, the tomb of the King of the Zhongshan state in the Warring States period)

491

492

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.13 Restoration of the appearance and anatomy of a tomb of the Tjesi stage from the Upper Yenisei River, Southern Siberia, Russia (from Baдeцкaя 1986, p. 92, Fig. VIII: 22, 23)

The large Xiongnu tombs integrated the elements of both the elite tombs of the late Warring States period in the Central Plain region and the graves in the Tjesi stage in the Minusinsk Basin. The structure and the dromos of the large Xiongnu tombs, the terrace, the internal stone walls, and the grave stones are elements from the Central Plain. The Xiongnu tombs are different from the Central Plain elite tombs in that the terrace of the Central Plain version is rammed, but the Xiongnu ones are not; the stone walls in the grave below the ground are raised to above the ground; and the arrangement of the stone walls is changed. Flat stone slab walls or stone walls are around the grave and along the dromos. The slightly flattened earth platforms inside the stone walls are elements from the Minusinsk Basin. The stone walls were moved inward to the graves and dromos, and the height of the grave mound inside the stone walls was reduced to a terrace. The appearance of Central Plain cultural elements in the large Xiongnu tombs is later than in the Central Plain tombs, which is also the case in Xiongnu pottery (Pan 2007b). This phenomenon is related to the impediment to cultural exchange caused by the longstanding military confrontation between the Han and the Xiongnu. The elements absorbed by the large Xiongnu tombs from the Minusinsk Basin are close to the Xiongnu tombs in the era, not only because the Xiongnu were geographically close to the Minusinsk Basin but also because the power of the Xiongnu had reached there in the middle and late Western Han period. Cultural exchanges between them were relatively unimpeded.

6.1.3.9

Existing Problems

Most of the data on the large Xiongnu tombs have not yet been fully published. The most obvious problem reflected by the current published data is the issue of the

6.1 Periodization of Xiongnu Remains

493

dates of the tombs. According to the historical records, the main Xiongnu people moved to the Mongolian Plateau in the early period of Emperor Wu’s reign. At that time, the aristocratic class of the Xiongnu was already formed. However, the Xiongnu nobility tombs discovered all date to the period from Wang Mang’s reign to the early Eastern Han dynasty. Although the carbon14 dating of M54 in Ilmova Valley could be as early as 30 B.C., it still belongs to the end of the Western Han period. No large Xiongnu tomb from the middle or late Western Han has been found. Ursula Brosseder speculates that the smaller Xiongnu tombs belonging to the second group may have been built earlier, and small and shallow graves may have been typical in the early large Xiongnu tombs. However, the later bronze mirrors from Duurlig Nars M2 in the second group belong to the period from Wang Mang’s reign to the early Eastern Han dynasty, which indicates that late large Xiongnu tombs are not necessarily larger in scale. Another issue is the relationship between the second group of large Xiongnu tombs and the larger ordinary Xiongnu tombs. Many similarities in grave goods and burial containers exist between the two types of tombs but the reason for their different tomb shapes and structures remain to be studied.

6.2

Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements of the Xiongnu and Their Communication with Surrounding Areas

In the Great Wall area of the Northern Zone, it is difficult to find Han tombs of the early Western Han period, and no Xiongnu archaeological sites of this period can be identified. From the middle Western Han period, a large number of Han tombs were discovered one after another in the central and southern parts of Inner Mongolia and its nearby northern areas (Wei 1998). In these Han tombs, other than funerary objects or frescoes reflecting local livestock production, cultural elements associated with the Eurasian Steppe are rarely found (Jiang 2008). It can be concluded that from the time of Emperor Wu in the Western Han dynasty, Han culture gradually dominated most of the Great Wall areas in the Northern Zone of China, which seldom communicated with the Eurasian Steppe. The Xiongnu inherited part of the cultural traditions of the Great Wall area of the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period. These cultural traditions were integrated with other cultural elements and formed the unique Xiongnu culture, which centered on the Mongolian Plateau and the Transbaikal region and spread with the Xiongnu’s military expansion. The analysis of the cultural components of the early Xiongnu cultural remains, which came from the middle and late Western Han period, is the basis for exploring the cultural exchange between the Xiongnu and the surrounding areas during the Western Han period.

494

6.2.1

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Analysis of the Cultural Factors of the Xiongnu Remains in the Middle and Late Western Han Period (Pan 2007b)

Most Xiongnu archaeological sites of the middle and late Western Han period were discovered in Transbaikal, together with large cemeteries and settlements, while few were discovered in Mongolia. In Transbaikal, the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery and the Derestuy cemetery are the largest and have the most comprehensive published information. This paper analyzes the composition of cultural elements of the Xiongnu archaeological sites in the middle and late Western Han period, focusing on the analysis of the Xiongnu archaeological sites in Transbaikal, with the example of the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery and the Derestuy cemetery.

6.2.1.1

Cultural Elements from the Yellow River Basin in Northern China

In the late Warring States period, the Xiongnu were active in the north of Yan and the Zhao sections of the Great Walls. At the end of the Warring States period, the Xiongnu occupied the Ordos Plateau south of the Yellow River. After the First Emperor of Qin unified the six states, he sent Meng Tian to attack the Xiongnu and other northern tribes to recover the area south of the Yellow River conquered by the Xiongnu, then built the Great Wall north of the Yellow River to defend against Xiongnu invasion. In the wartime of the late Qin period, the Xiongnu leader Modu not only reoccupied the area south of the Yellow River but also annexed the northern part of the Great Wall area. During the 80 years from the end of the Qin period to the time when Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty began to fight against the Xiongnu, the Western Han were on the defensive in the military confrontation with the Xiongnu. During this period, the Xiongnu often went deep into the northern border counties to plunder property and even people there, which began in the late Warring States period. The inhabitants of the northern border countries who were taken into captivity brought with them advanced production techniques and cultural traditions, which played an important role in the formation of the Xiongnu culture. Additionally, during the Qin and Han dynasties, people who lived in the annexed areas of the Great Wall region had already accepted some culture of the Central Plain. The Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery and the Derestuy cemetery are the earliest Xiongnu archaeological sites currently found to the north of the Gobi Desert. They are very different from the earlier remains of the Slab Grave culture that was widely distributed in this area. The main reason for the differences is that the cultural elements from the Yellow River Basin in Northern China occupy an important position in the Xiongnu remains, which appeared later.

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

495

Tomb Structures and Burial Containers No wooden burial containers were used in the Slab Grave culture, which spread widely in Transbaikal and Mongolia (Цыбиктapoв 1998). The dead were buried only in shallow graves covered with slabs. Most Xiongnu tombs were rectangular earthen shaft graves with wooden burial containers, most of which were wooden coffins, in addition to smaller simple wooden chambers, wooden coffins in wooden chambers and pottery used as coffin. Earthen shaft graves with wooden burial containers had a long history in the northern part of China centering on the Yellow River Basin, and they were the main form of graves from the Shang and Zhou periods to the Western Han period before catacomb tombs and brick-chambered tombs were popular. The wooden burial containers of the Ivolga cemetery are not well preserved and the detailed structure cannot be observed, but the coffins and chambers in the Derestuy cemetery of similar dates have been preserved very well. In the Derestuy cemetery, the upper decks of some wooden coffins were made of two wooden planks. The two planks were connected by a butterfly-like wooden “waist”, and the junctions of the four walls of the wooden coffin were connected by mortise and tenon joints. In some wooden coffins, one or two horizontal sole

Fig. 6.14 Cultural features from the Yellow River Basin found in the Burial vessels from the Xiongnu tombs of the Middle and Late West Han period. 1 The bottom of the coffin was formed by planks connected by a butterfly-like wooden “waist,” and two horizontal timbers were placed at the bottom (M59 at the Derestuy cemetery); 2 the junctions of the four walls of the wooden coffin were connected by mortise and tenon joints (M59 at the Derestuy cemetery)

496

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

timbers were placed at the bottom (Fig. 6.14). In the Western Han period, wooden coffins were often connected by mortise and tenon joints and “slim waists” (Wang 1984). The practice of placing sole horizontal timbers under wooden coffins continued from the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period to the Han period. It can be concluded that the structure of wooden coffins and chambers in the cemeteries of Ivolga and Derestuy originated from Northern China. At least five urn burials were found in the Ivolga cemetery, all of which were children’s tombs (Fig. 6.15: 1). An urn burial of a child was also found at the Ivolga Fortress. Urn burials were an early form of burial for deceased juveniles in the Yellow River Basin. With the strengthening of the influence of the Central Plain cultural traditions on the northern people, urn burials began to appear in the area north of the Great Wall during the Warring States period and the Qin and Han periods. Urn burials of the Liaoning region and the Korean peninsula appeared from the late Warring States period to the Qin and Han periods, which was directly related to the population migration and cultural influence caused by the Yan, Qin, and Han dynasties ruling in this area (Bai 2001). Before the time of the Ivolga cemetery, urn burial was never found in the Transbaikal and Mongolia regions. Its appearance was likely the result of migration and the cultural influence of the Chinese population from south of the desert, which is similar to the situation in Liaoning and the Korean Peninsula. At least 11 tombs in Ivolga cemetery have secondary terraces of untamped soil. In a small number of tombs with relatively good preservation conditions, the covers were not placed on the burial containers but on the secondary terraces (Fig. 6.15: 2, 3). In the late Warring States period and the Qin period, in Qin tombs in the central Shaanxi plain and the region east of it, in addition to tombs that were highly influenced by Qin culture, a higher proportion of tombs have secondary terraces. In some of these tombs, the four walls under secondary terraces were used as walls of the chamber. The wooden coffin was placed on the bottom of the tomb, and wooden slats were placed on the secondary terraces. The structure of placing wooden slats on the secondary terraces is only found in earthen shaft graves. A similar structure can also be found in the Ivolga cemetery and is likely to be related to the above-mentioned Qin tombs and tombs influenced by Qin culture.

Pottery In the middle and late Western Han period, Xiongnu pottery, which was well made with a wall of even thickness, was generally wheel-turned. Some large pottery was up to 1 m high. The pottery of the Slab Grave culture, which existed before the Xiongnu culture in Mongolia and Transbaikal, was hand-modeled, shaped in an irregular manner and small in size. No similar wheel-turned pottery has been found in the remains of other cultures of a similar era in the nearby areas of the Xiongnu culture. The origin of the technology of making pottery with a potter’s wheel is not Mongolia and Transbaikal but rather the Chinese Northern Zone. Both the technology of the potter’s wheel and the decorative pattern and shape of pottery have origins in the Northern Zone. The most common and characteristic

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

497

Fig. 6.15 Urn coffin and tombs with a secondary terrace at the Ivolga cemetery. 1 M94 in the Ivolga cemetery; 2 M3 in the Ivolga cemetery; 3 M210 in the Ivolga cemetery

498

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

feature of the Xiongnu pottery decorative pattern is the calendered underlying decoration. Generally, these patterns are vertical stripe patterns appearing on the neck of the pottery or covering the body. From the late Warring States period to the early Western Han period, the calendered underlying decoration was one of the common decorations in burial pottery in the region east of the Tong Pass. For example, 90% of the pottery in the Luoyang Shaogou burials of the Warring States period excavated from 1953 had underlying decorations. At the Qiaocun cemetery in Houma city of Shanxi province, underlying vertical decorations polished by stone were also common in the second type of pottery burials based on cultural factors of Qin from the late Warring States period to the early Western Han period. Some underlying vertical decorations polished using stones on the pot neck resemble those on the pottery neck in the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery (Fig. 6.16) (Wang 1954; Shanxi Institute of Archaeology 2004). The smoothed intermittent cord pattern in the middle and late Western Han period Xiongnu pottery decorations is very similar to the cord patterns that were intermittent or separated by polished bands and common in the Yellow River Basin in the Warring States period and the Qin and Han dynasties (Fig. 6.17). Moreover, this type of decorative pattern is most common on ceramic basins and is similar to the intermittent cord pattern, which was most common on similar ceramic basins in the Yellow River Basin during the Qin and Han periods (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 1994). In addition to the above-mentioned decorative pattern and processing technique, the relationship between the Xiongnu pottery in the middle and late Western Han period and that in the Yellow River Basin in Northern China is reflected in its shape. At that time, guan jars with bulging bellies, hu jars, weng urns, pen basins, and zeng steamers were all new shapes in Xiongnu culture. These new shapes did not have a local origin and therefore must be foreign. The shape of the Xiongnu pottery was very similar to that of the pottery from the Guanzhong Qin tombs and tombs in the Guandong region from the late Warring States period to the early Western Han period when the pottery is compared with that in the area adjacent to the Great Wall of the Chinese Northern Zone, where the Xiongnu had previously lived. Nearly every new shape had an equivalent here (Fig. 6.18) (Xianyang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1998; Shanxi Institute of Archaeology 2004).

Other Artifacts Some artifacts of the Xiongnu archaeological sites during the middle and late Western Han period originated from the Northern Zone or were locally processed imitations of Northern Zone artifacts. They were not in large number and were mainly found in the Ivolga Fortress and Cemetery. Some of these artifacts did not become popular locally, and some of their functions changed. Artifacts whose shape and function remained unchanged included iron farm tools such as iron shovels, iron trowels and iron sickles as well as bronze mirrors, bronze basins, bone brush holders unearthed from the Ivolga Fortress and lacquers from the Ivolga cemetery. Artifacts whose shape and function changed included stone erbei cups and wuzhu coins.

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

499

Fig. 6.16 Comparisons of the underlying vertical decoration polished by stone between the Xiongnu pottery and that of the Northern zone of China during the middle and late West Han periods. 1, 2 Ivolga cemetery; 3, 4 Houmaqiao cemetery

Summary From the above analysis, it is easy to conclude that the shape and structure of burials, the pottery processing techniques, and the shapes and decorative patterns of the Xiongnu remains in the Western Han period, represented by the Ivolga archaeological site and its cemetery, had their origin in the Northern Zone of China, especially in the region of Guanzhong and east of Tong Pass from the late Warring States

500

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.17 Comparisons between the Xiongnu pottery from the Transbaikal area and that from the Northern zone of China during the middle and late Han periods (1). 1, 2 Pottery basins; 3 broken potteries; 4, 5 pottery pot; 6 pottery jar (1 F50 from the Ivolga Archaeological Site; 2 F39 from the Ivolga Archaeological Site; 3 F49 from the Ivolga Archaeological Site; 4, 5 M4032 railway region in Sanmenxia; 6 M4046 railway region in Sanmenxia)

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

501

Fig. 6.18 Comparisons between the Xiongnu pottery from the Transbaikal area and that from the Northern zone of China during the middle and late Han periods (2). 1 A type pottery of the second category from Qiaocun (M486); 2 B type pottery of the second category from Qiaocun (M311); 3, 4 C type pottery of the second category from Qiaocun (M4198, M4126); 5 pottery pot from tombs of the Qin dynasty at Ta’erpo (M34233, M44212); 6 from tombs of the Han dynasty in Shuo County (6M476); 7, 8, 10, 12 From the Ivolga cemetery (M100, M183, M211, M173); 9, 11 From the Ivolga Archaeological Site (culture layer, F25)

502

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

period to the early Western Han period. At that time, cultural factors of Qin played a major role, and the Han culture was formed with the integration of multiple factors until the mid-Western Han period. Therefore, many of the cultural factors in the Northern Zone of China included in the early remains of the Xiongnu cultural in the Western Han period were derived from the Qin culture. These factors were transformed and integrated into the unique content of the Xiongnu culture in the new environment and continued and developed in the Xiongnu remains of the Western Han and Eastern Han periods. The Xiongnu only selectively absorbed these practical cultural factors from the southern culture, combining them with their tradition. For example, in the Xiongnu remains of Mongolia and Transbaikal, flared-mouthed and deep-belly guan jars and zeng steamers (guan jars with holes at the bottom) were used as cooking vessels, while the cooking vessels of the Qin culture, ceramic fu cauldrons, did not appear here, nor did cocoon-shaped hu jars, garlic-clove-shaped hu jars or imitation bronze ritual ceramic vessels that prevailed in the Northern Zone of China. In the Xiongnu cemeteries in the area north of the Gobi Desert, the wooden coffins and chambers originating from the Northern Zone of China seldom existed alone but were found together with surrounding stone slabs, stones in tomb pits and on the ground above tomb pits. Wooden coffins and chambers became a unique component of the Xiongnu burial style in the Han period.

6.2.1.2

Cultural Factors from the Great Wall Area of the Northern Zone of China

1. A few flared-mouthed guan jars with single handles were unearthed from the Ivolga archaeological site and its cemetery. These guan jars are similar to those widely distributed in the Great Wall area during an earlier period (Fig. 6.19) (Guo 2000; Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1989; Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1995; Tian 1976) in the shape and position of the single handle. During the Qin and Han periods, many tribes in the Great Wall area were conquered by Modu Chanyu and merged with the Xiongnu. The earliest living area of the Xiongnu recorded in the literature was near the north side of the Zhao section of the Great Wall in the Warring States period (Lin 1993). Therefore, the Great Wall area is closely related to the origin of the Xiongnu, and the single-handled guan jars of the Xiongnu likely originated from this area, but their shape and structure changed. 2. One of the representative artifacts of the mid- and late Han period of the Xiongnu culture is the openwork plaque with zoomorphic motifs. The animals in the motifs are mostly domestic animals such as horses, cattle, and ibexes. Similar penetrated-sculpture techniques have been discovered in some of the Warring States plaques in the Great Wall area. These plaques exhibit similar zoomorphic motifs of domestic animals as the plaques of the Xiongnu culture

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

503

Fig. 6.19 Comparisons between ceramic jars with a handle from the Xiongnu sites of the Middle West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from the Great Wall Area of the Warring States period; 1 M78 at the Ivolga Cemetery; 2 M95 at the Ivolga Cemetery; 3 the culture layer of the Ivolga archaeological site; 4 AIIIM7 at the Shuiquan Cemetery in Aohanqi, Inner Mongolia; 5 BIIM36 at the Shuiquan Cemetery in Aohanqi, Inner Mongolia; 6 M8 at the Guoxianyaozi Cemetery; 7 M5 at the Yujiazhuang Cemetery in Pengbao; 8 M10 at the Yujiazhuang Cemetery in Pengbao; 9 M1 at Taohongbala Cemetery

(Fig. 6.20: 1, 2, 4). In addition, animals on the Xiongnu plaques often appear in pairs, in contrast to the Warring States plaques of the Great Wall area, and teardrop-shaped (also known as concave-pear-shaped) or bamboo-like decorations are found along the rims. Another type of Xiongnu plaques of the mid- and late Western Han period is the P-shaped openwork plaque. In the P-shaped plaques, zoomorphic motifs always represent a standing carnivore attacking a herbivore. The prototype of this type of zoomorphic motifs has also been found in the plaques of the Great Wall area in the Warring States period (Fig. 6.20: 3, 5) (Tian 1976, Plate 2: 21; Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and

504

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.20 Comparisons between the Plaques with Zoomorphic Motifs from the Xiongnu culture of the West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from the Great Wall area of the Warring States period. 1 M5 at the Taohongbala Cemetery in Hangjinqi, Inner Mongolia; 2 M59 at the Xinzhouyaozi Cemetery in Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia; 3IM12 at the Yanglang Cemetery in Guyuan, Ningxia; 4, 5 the Derestuy Cemetery in the Transbaikal Area of Russia

Archaeology 2009, Plate16: 1; Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Guyuan Museum 1993, Fig. 19: 12, 16). As shown by the above comparison, it is likely that the Xiongnu plaques were derived from the Warring States plaques of the Great Wall area in both their form of openwork and zoomorphic motifs, but with their layout and rim decorations changed. 3. Other similar artifacts shared between the Xiongnu remains of the middle and late Western Han period and the remains of the Great Wall area and Northeast China of the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods include socketed three-bladed bronze arrowheads, bronze tubes with incised bowstring lines and awl-shaped artifacts with an openwork top in bell shape (Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1986, Fig. 34: 1, Fig. 46: 3; The Shenyang Palace Museum, Shenyang Cultural Relics Administration Office 1975, Fig. 10: 3; Zhangjiakou Municipal Cultural Administration Office, Xuanhua County Cultural Museum 1987, Fig. 14; Chifeng Museum, Ningcheng County Cultural Relics Administration Office 1995, Fig. 7; Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 1995, p. 88, Fig. 56: 4; Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Xiji County Cultural Relics Administration Office 1994, Fig. 6: 5). Similar to the burial custom revealed by the Xiongnu remains, skulls and hoof bones from domestic animals and bronze belt buckles were found in the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods remains of the Great Wall area. Since interred skulls and hoof bones of domestic animals have been found in both the

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

505

Great Wall area and the Slab Grave culture of the Mongolian and Transbaikal region during the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods and the Qin and Han periods, it is not yet clear which of the two places is the origination of the burial customs of the Xiongnu in the Western Han period.

6.2.1.3

The Local Culture of the Transbaikal Region

Burial Shapes and Structures In the Ivolga cemetery, only one stone coffin, enclosed by several standing slabs and without a wooden burial container, has been discovered. This type of burial container constituted by standing slabs can also be seen in Mongolia and the Slab Grave culture of the Transbaikal region. In the slab graves, standing stone slabs were also used to enclose a rectangular burial area (Цыбиктapoв 1998). In Transbaikal and Mongolia, the majority of Xiongnu tombs show a burial style of stone slabs surrounding wooden burial containers, stones in tomb pits and on the ground above tomb pits. Tombs comprising only stone cists enclosed by several standing slabs with no wooden containers are exceptional in this region (Mиняeв 1998; Кoнoвaлoв 1976). The burial style of the Ivolga Xiongnu cemetery is thus believed to have originated from the earlier local culture, the Slab Grave culture. This stone slab enclosed tomb found in the Ivolga cemetery is an exception in the cemetery and is also exceptional in Xiongnu cemeteries of the Transbaikal. The uniqueness of this tomb may be attributed to the originating location of the residents in Ivolga.

Pottery A considerable proportion of the Xiongnu pottery of the Western Han period is jars with deep bellies and flared mouths (a small number of them have hollow steamers at the bottom) (Fig. 6.21: 4). In Transbaikal and Mongolia, of all the cultures earlier than the Xiongnu culture, similarly shaped pottery jars have only been found in the Slab Grave culture (Fig. 6.21: 5–7) (Цыбиктapoв 1998, Taблицa. 89; Члeнoвa 1992). Therefore, flared-mouthed deep belly jars of the Xiongnu remains might have originated from the Slab Grave culture. In addition to the similar shape, the water ripple pattern incised along the mouth of the Xiongnu jars (Fig. 6.21: 4) is considered a simplified pattern of the saw-toothed decoration or applique decoration incised along the mouth of the Slab Grave cultural jars (Fig. 6.21: 5, 6). Other types of Xiongnu pottery, such as guan jars with bulging bellies and weng urns, show appliqué patterns on the shoulders, with some incised in a saw-toothed pattern. Although this pottery is different from that of the Slab Grave culture in shape, its decorative patterns might have come from the latter (Fig. 6.21: 3).

506

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.21 Comparisons between ceramics from the Xiongnu culture of Late West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from the Slab Grave Culture. 1 M138 at the Ivolga Cemetery; 2 the culture layer of the Ivolga archaeological site; 3 F9 at the Ivolga archaeological site; 4 F49 at the Ivolga archaeological site; 5, 6 the Devolzi Tombs of the Slab Grave culture; 7 slab grave at Dabhar

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

507

Due to its use of the wheel-turned technique, the Xiongnu pottery of the late Western Han period is different from the hand modeled pottery of the Slab Grave culture in shape, with only exceptional ones being similar to the latter (Fig. 6.21: 1, 2). The wheel-turned Xiongnu pottery is more symmetrical and regular than the Stone Slab cultural pottery. For example, flared-mouthed deep-belly jars show even jar walls and wide flared mouths that can only be achieved by the wheel-turned technique.

Bone Arrowheads and Bone Bowheads Bone bowheads are prevalent in the Xiongnu cemeteries and sites of the mid- and late Western Han period. Most of these bowheads are round tipped, with only a small number of square-tipped ones (Fig. 6.22: 1–3). In cemeteries of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, bone bowheads have been found in the Slab Grave and other cemeteries, such as the Yujiazhuang cemetery at Pengbao Township in Guyuan Ningxia, the Xiyuan cemetery of Baotou Inner Mongolia, the Guoxianyaozi cemetery, the Beixinbao cemetery of Huailai County, Hebei, and Tombs at Pingyang of Heilongjiang Province (Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1995; Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Baotou Administration Office of Cultural Relics 1991; Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1989; Cultural Relics Work Team of the Hebei Provincial Bureau of Culture 1966; Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1990, p. 102, Fig. 63; p. 152, Fig. 89). Of these cemeteries, crania unearthed from the Yujiazhuang cemetery and the Guoxianyaozi cemetery have been identified as having Northern Asia Mongolian characteristics. Burial customs of the Xiyuan cemetery together with the Guoxianyaozi cemetery are similar to those of the Xiongnu. The people of the other three cemeteries may consist of people with Northern Asia Mongolian characteristics who came from the Mongolian Plateau (Lin 2002). The bone bowheads of these three cemeteries are all square tipped (Fig. 6.22: 20–23). Additionally, only the Slab Grave culture and the Tombs at Pingyang cemetery yield both the square-headed and the round-headed bone bowheads (Fig. 6.22: 12–14, 29–31). Judging from their overall shape and features, the Xiongnu bowheads are closely linked to the bowheads of the Slab Grave culture. The Xiongnu bone arrowheads of the mid- and late Western Han period are mainly short-headed ones with divided ends. Three-edged ones with short tangs or sockets appear in a very small number (Fig. 6.22: 4–11). Similar to the Xiongnu arrowheads, the Stone Slab culture bone arrowheads are mainly short-headed ones. In contrast to the Xiongnu arrowheads, most of the Slab Grave culture bone arrowheads are three-edged with short tangs. Although split-end arrowheads have also been found, their number is quite limited (Fig. 6.22: 15–19). The tanged bone arrowheads unearthed from the Xiyuan cemetery share a similar shape as those of the Slab Grave culture (Fig. 6.22: 24). A small number of three-edged socketed bone arrowheads have been found in the mid- and late Western Han period

508

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.22 Comparisons between Bone arrowheads and Bone bow ends from the Xiongnu culture of the West Han period in the Transbaikal area and those from other areas. 1, 2, 4–10 the Ivolga archaeological site; 3, 11 the Ivolga cemetery; 12–19 slab grave culture tombs (after Chibictalov, slab grave culture in the Transbaikal area and Mongolia, Figs. 64–67); 20, 25–27 the Guoxianyaozi cemetery; 21 the Beixinbao cemetery in Huailai; 22, 24 the Xiyuan cemetery in Baotou; 23, 28 the Yujiazhuang cemetery in Pengbao; 29–34 the Pingyang cemetery

cemeteries, such as the Xiongnu cemetery, cemetery of the Slab Grave Culture, and the cemeteries of Guoxianyaozi and Yujiazhuang (Fig. 6.22: 10, 19, 27, 28). However, most arrowheads of the Tombs at Pingyang are found with either long heads or long tangs, which are different from those from the cemeteries mentioned

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

509

above. Short arrowheads and split-end arrowheads appear in a very small number in this cemetery (Fig. 6.22: 32–34). Compared with the remains of an earlier stage in the neighboring area, the bone bowheads and bone arrowheads of the Xiongnu are most similar to those of the Slab Grave culture and share some similarity with those of the Great Wall area, such as the Xiyuan, Guoxianyaozi, and Yujiazhuang cemeteries. These cemeteries are related to the Slab Grave culture in some respects, such as ethnicity. In Transbaikal, the history of the split-end bone arrowheads can date back to the Neolithic Age. Later, the existence of this type of arrowhead lasted from the Slab Grave culture to the Ivolga sites. As a local traditional type of arrowhead, the split-end arrowheads passed on to the Xiongnu culture in the Western Han period.

6.2.1.4

Cultural Factors from the Middle Reaches of the Yenisei River in Southern Siberia

One type of pottery, simulating a bronze fu cauldron with a tall ring foot and double handles, unearthed from the Ivolga cemetery is quite similar to those of a culture of the Minusinsk Basin in Southern Siberia. This culture lasted from the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century B.C., a transitional phase from the Tagar culture to the Tastyk culture (Pan 2007b).

6.2.1.5

Cultural Factors from the Scythian Period in the Altai Region of Southern Siberia

The majority of the Xiongnu plaques with zoomorphic motifs during the mid- and late Western Han period is in the form of rectangles, although a limited number of them are in a P-shape or an oval shape. The motifs in the plaques, animals eating each other and a limited number of monster motifs, indicate that these plaques evolved from the zoomorphic motifs of the Pazyryk culture in the Altai region of the late Scythian period. The Xiongnu plaques show highlighted realistic animal styles, mostly of domestic animals. Motifs of the original Pazyryk culture, mysterious animals and animals with their rear hooves upturned, are found less often in the Xiongnu plaques. A small number of buckles with a back-to-back griffin pattern and plaques with a vertical combination of ibexes and other beasts have been discovered in the Derestuy cemetery. These patterns are more commonly found in the woodcarvings of the Altai Pazyryk cultural tombs (Пoлocъмaк 1994, C. 51, Pиc. 58, 1, 2; Кyбapeв 1991, Taбл. L, 7). Two arc-shaped square-cornered wood plaques wrapped in gold sheets unearthed from the Derestuy cemetery exhibit zoomorphic motifs of raptors or predators eating goats or elks on the back, which are very prevalent decorative motifs of the Pazyryk cultural tombs in the Altai region (Киceлeв 1949, Taблицa XXXIV, 7, 9, 10). This technique of wrapping gold sheets on a wooden frame was also popular in the culture of Pazyryk. From the late Warring States period to the Western Han period, gold ornaments in the southern

510

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Siberian region were often inlaid with turquoise, coral, glass, and other colored ornaments in the pear-shaped dimples. The concave pear pattern on the edge of the rectangular scroll of the Xiongnu in the Western Han period likely transformed from this kind of decoration (Du 1993). Zoomorphic motifs from the Pazyryk culture of Southern Siberia are mainly found in the small number of P-shaped and nearly elliptical openwork plaques of the Xiongnu but are rarely seen in their largest number of rectangular openwork ornaments.

6.2.1.6

Analysis of the Source of the Xiongnu Culture

It can be seen from the cultural factors of the Xiongnu in the middle and late Western Han period that the cultural factors of the Central Plain from the Yellow River Basin in China, the local cultural factors in the Transbaikal and northern Mongolia (represented by the Slab Grave culture), and the cultural factors of the Great Wall area in the Northern Zone of China are the three most important components of the Xiongnu culture. The three basic types of archaeological evidence, funeral customs, daily vessels, and culture-specific artifacts, also indicate that the Xiongnu culture is most closely related to the above three cultures. Although the late Tagar culture in the middle reaches of the Yenisei River in Southern Siberia and the Pazyryk culture in the Altai region reached a higher level of development before the formation of the Xiongnu culture, they both had a less important impact on the Xiongnu culture. This is proven by the archaeological evidence that fewer basic cultural factors of the Xiongnu stemmed from these two cultures. It can be seen from the source of the cultural factors that although the Xiongnu culture was formed in the middle of the Western Han period, the cultural factors originating from the Central Plain and the Great Wall area were mainly from the late Warring States period or the early Western Han period. This is in line with the historical records that in the late Warring States period, the Xiongnu had already been active near the Great Wall of the Zhao state. With their rapid expansion, the Xiongnu also controlled the northern Mongolia and the Transbaikal region. These two areas, with their advantageous natural conditions in the north of the desert, are the base areas of the Xiongnu. During the Yuanshou era (122 B.C.–117 B.C.) of Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty, the Xiongnu chose to retreat to these areas when they were defeated in the Great Wall area. Therefore, local cultural factors of these two areas naturally became parts of the Xiongnu culture. During the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States periods, cultural communication within the Great Wall area in the Northern Zone of China was primarily exchanged between the East and the West. A tendency toward north-south cultural integration started with the establishment of the Xiongnu Confederation and lasted until the formation of the Xiongnu culture. The integration process consisted of two steps. First, based on their developed nomadic military entities located in the Great Wall area, the Xiongnu tribes absorbed the cultural factors of the Central Plain in the south through military plunder. Then, these cultural factors, together with those

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

511

from the Great Wall area, were brought to the north of the desert and merged into a new Xiongnu culture through the ability to move quickly over long distances. Therefore, it can be said that the formation of the Xiongnu culture developed from the long-term military confrontation between the tribes of the Great Wall area after their entrance to the nomadic stage and the unified Central Plain regime. The powerful military alliance of nomads made it possible to combine the cultural traditions of the far-off Central Plain, Mongolia, and Transbaikal.

6.2.2

The Spread of the Xiongnu Culture

With the military expansion of the Xiongnu, the culture of the Xiongnu also extended to the surrounding areas. According to the pattern of dispersal, the spread of the Xiongnu culture can be divided into two distinct stages, the middle and late Western Han period and the early Eastern Han period.

6.2.2.1

The Spread of the Xiongnu Culture During the Middle and Late Western Han Period

In the middle of the Western Han period, after the formation of the Xiongnu culture, the Western Han dynasty became stronger and established a strong military defense system against the Xiongnu in the Great Wall area. The Xiongnu were blocked in the grassland north of the Gobi Desert. It was difficult for them to go south and attack the Great Wall area. Therefore, they began expanding to the east and west. Especially since the middle period of the Western Han period, the focus of the Xiongnu’s activities moved westward. Areas such as South Siberia and the southern part of the Altai Mountains had a profound influence of the Xiongnu culture during this period.

Northeast China Of the middle and late Western Han dynasty cemeteries in the western part of northeastern China, three show the most evident influence of the Xiongnu culture: the Wangong cemetery, the Sanjiazi cemetery, and the Xichagou cemetery. The Wangong cemetery, in Huuchin Balaq Banner of Hulunbuir League Inner Mongolia, mainly consists of the Hanshu II culture and the Western Han dynasty Xiongnu culture. Factors of the Hanshu II culture include burial customs of multiple interment and repeated multiple interment, burial objects such as pottery with red engobes, pottery li tripods, duck-shaped pots, bone arrowheads with wedge-shaped tangs and grate-and-dot pattern grids decorating the surface of the li tripods. The artifacts with factors of the Xiongnu culture of Transbaikal in the Western Han period, consist of pottery pots decorated with the underlying vertical decorations

512

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

polished by stone on the neck and a wave pattern on the shoulder, bone arrowheads with a split end, bone bowheads, bone pasters on the bows, spoon-shaped bronze belt buckles, bronze belt buckles with humps, and animal mask motifs, seashells, small iron knives, and iron belt buckles. Elliptical earrings made of twisted silver threads of this cemetery have also been found in cemeteries of the Xiongnu who surrendered the Han dynasty. Regarding burial customs and interred pottery, the Wangong cemetery is most closely related to remains of the Hanshu II culture, which are represented by the Tombs at Pingyang. Comparative studies of ethnology show that “of the remains of all date groups in the Northern Zone steppe area, the Wangong cemetery and the Tombs at Pingyang are most closely related, reflecting in one aspect that the two may be derived from a common ancestor type” (Pan 1990). While maintaining its inherent cultural traditions and major physical characteristics, the population of the Wangong cemetery was strongly influenced by the Xiongnu culture from the northwest (Pan 2007a). The Sanjiazi cemetery (Heilongjiang Museum, Qiqihar City Cultural Relics Management Station 1988) is located 12 km southwest of Qiqihar city. Most of the cemetery was destroyed, with only four disturbed tombs excavated from 1981. The tombs in this cemetery are rectangular earthen shaft graves with round corners. Burial customs include multiple interments and double interments with primary burials or secondary burials. Most of the pottery unearthed from this cemetery is covered with red pigment, including pottery pots and duck-shaped pots. Numerous pottery pots have either a high straight neck or a slightly flared neck. The characteristics of the pottery are more consistent with remains of the Hanshu II culture, and no Xiongnu-style pottery was found. Some of the artifacts unearthed from the Sanjiazi cemetery have been commonly found in Xiongnu tombs of the Western Han dynasty, including elliptical bronze plaques with zoomorphic motifs, step-shaped belt buckles, bronze belt buckles with zoomorphic motifs, spoon-shaped belt ornaments, bracket-shaped pendants, bronze buttons with a bear depicted in frontal view and multi-buttoned bronze pots. Other chance finds from this cemetery include bronze stamps carved with two Chinese characters, “孔缘”, and bronze bells, both in the Han dynasty style. According to the burial customs of the four disturbed tombs and the pottery of the cemetery, the Sanjiazi cemetery is attributed mainly to the Hanshu II culture and was strongly influenced by the Xiongnu culture, like the Wangong cemetery. The dating of the Sanjiazi cemetery is also equivalent to that of the Wangong cemetery, around the middle and late Western Han dynasty (Pan 2007b). Xichagou cemetery (Sun 1957, 1960) is located in Xifeng County of northern Liaoning Province. Only 63 of the tombs were excavated; the other 400-odd had been robbed and damaged, with only a small number of artifacts left. The published documents indicate five types of cultural factors related to the objects unearthed from these tombs. The first type bears the cultural characteristics of remains of the Hanshu II culture, containing polished, reddened long-neck jars with comb patterns, openwork bronze ornaments in the shape of bells, and earrings made of silver wires. The second type is distinct to the Fuyu (Jilin Province) culture of the Han period,

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

513

represented by the middle-layer burials (Jilin Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1987) of Laoheshen cemetery in Yushu, Jilin Province. Its typical artifacts are bronze chest protectors and Xichagou-style iron swords with a bronze hilt (Lin 1998). The third type displays the Xiongnu culture, represented by bronze openwork bells, bracket-shaped bronze pendants, and bronze openwork plaques with staircase or zoomorphic patterns in the shape of a rectangle, oval or “P”. The fourth type is the Han culture, represented by bronze mirrors, iron swords in the Han style, gray untempered pottery guan jars with cord patterns, and wuzhu and banliang coins. The fifth type belongs to the Baoshan culture, displaying an obvious association with the artifacts from the Changbai Mountains in the Late Bronze Age. It is represented by small pottery for funeral use, such as sand-tempered cups and jars.7 Therefore, the Xiongnu culture of the Western Han dynasty is only one among the cultures that can be seen at the Xichagou cemetery. Thorough excavation documents of the Xichagou cemetery have not been published, and it is difficult to infer its cultural origin. It can be inferred that the cemetery might be date the middle period of the Western Han given the fact that banliang coins and wuzhu coins that circulated in the reign of Emperor Wu were among the artifacts unearthed from the cemetery and the bronze mirrors, more than 70 in number and mostly carrying Panchi patterns or grass leaf patterns, which prevailed in the early and middle periods of the Western Han dynasty. The Cailan cemetery in Dongliao County, Jilin Province is similar in dating and cultural characteristics to the Xichagou cemetery. Moreover, the two are located close to each other (Liu 1983). The Xiongnu-style Western Han plaques (Pang 1998) with openwork zoomorphic motifs were also found at Jiefang Yingzi and Toupaizi in Ongniud Banner, east Inner Mongolia.

The West Bank of Lake Baikal On the east side of Lake Baikal, the lower reaches of the Selenga River are the most concentrated areas of Xiongnu remains. In Russia, the east side of Baikal is usually called Transbaikal, while the west side is the Baikal coastal area where a small number of Xiongnu artifacts were found, all dated around the mid- to late Western Han dynasty. Unearthed from Tomb No. 4 in Osinsky District were rectangular openwork bronze plaques, two with a staircase pattern and one with a combat scene of a dragon and a beast (Cмoтpoвa 1991). Objects found in Tomb No. 2 at Tsagan Khushun in the Baikal shore area, including spoon-shaped belt ornaments, oval openwork belt buckles, net-patterned rectangular openwork bronze plaques, and belt ornaments in the form of stairs, resemble those from the tombs in Transbaikal

7

The author of this chapter is currently preparing an excavation report for the Xichagou cemetery. The view that the Xichagou cemetery contains the local cultural factors of Baoshan is a new understanding in the excavation and excavation report; Jin et al. (2011).

514

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.23 Artifacts from No. 2 Cemetery at Tsagan-Khushun in the West Bank of Transbaikal region. 1, 2 Spoon-shaped bronze belt ornaments; 3 bronze plaque with net-shaped pattern; 4 bronze belt buckle; 5 bone belt buckle; 6 bone belt buckle; 7 bronze belt buckle; 8, 9 bone arrowheads with a bifurcated end

(Fig. 6.23) (Cмoтpoвa 1991). Russian scholars proposed that by the 2nd to the 1st centuries B.C., the Xiongnu culture had taken the place of the indigenous culture in Transbaikal (Xapинcкий 2004). However, burials with Xiongnu characteristics along the coastal area failed to form large-scale cemeteries, often coexisting with the indigenous cultures.

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

515

The Tuva Region in Southern Siberia Bordering northwest Mongolia, the Tuva region of Russia demonstrated similar cultural features with west Mongolia, the Minusinsk Basin, and the Altai region before the Xiongnu culture arrived, and multiple burials occurred there. After the Xiongnu culture emerged in the 2nd century B.C., cemeteries began to display features of both the Xiongnu culture and the indigenous culture. There are more than 200 tombs in No. 39 cemetery (Cтaмдyлъник 1983) of Aymrleg in central Tuva, which is characterized by the Xiongnu burial custom of wooden coffins, slab stones standing against the pit walls and pit-graves with side chamber catacombs. The Terezin cemeteries bear similar characteristics to Aymrleg. In 2007, funeral objects with a distinct Xiongnu style were found among the 12 tombs being excavated at Terezin cemetery, including openwork rectangular bronze plaques, openwork bronze rings, bone arrowheads and bow ends, and ceramics (Fig. 6.24) (Khavrin Sergei 2011). The Xiongnu plaques from this cemetery were identified as having been produced locally.

The Minusinsk Basin in the Middle Reaches of the Yenisei River, Southern Siberia The bronze culture was developed with a complete evolutionary sequence at the Minusinsk Basin, where the indigenous culture was the Tagar at its late stage, the Tjesi stage, dated from the 2nd century B.C. to the beginning of the 1st century A.D. when the Xiongnu culture arrived. Archaeological remains of this stage consist of a large number of openwork plaques with zoomorphic motifs or geometrical shapes and many typical Xiongnu artifacts, including openwork bronze rings, P-shaped plaques with zoomorphic motifs, openwork belt buckles, and spoon-shaped belt ornaments. In the nearby area where large-scaled cemeteries of a local style featuring multiple burials with large wooden chamber were found, earthen shaft graves, obviously belonging to the newly arrived Xiongnu people, appeared (Пшeницынa 1992). At the Minusinsk Basin, zoomorphic plaques of the Xiongnu style appeared in large numbers, which, according to former Soviet Union scholars, were mostly made locally. This indicates that the basin had turned into a manufacturing center for the Xiongnu plaques (Дэвлeт 1980, Д 4–7). However, the Minusinsk burial style and conventions were still dominant, and most of the ceramics show indigenous features from this area. Traces of coexisting cultures are evident in the palace ruins, previously called Liling Palace, in Abakan (Кызлacoв 2001). The layout of the palace is similar to that of Central Asia, and the finds from the sites include features of the Tjesi stage of the local area as well as the Xiongnu and Han (Pan 2007b, pp. 112–113). This site has been generally considered to be the Xiongnu official office of the senior administrator for dominion over the Minusinsk Basin.

516

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.24 Artifacts from the Trekin cemetery in the Tuva area of Russia. 1 Openwork bronze plaque with zoomorphic motifs; 2 openwork bronze plaque with net-shaped pattern; 3 openwork bronze ring-shaped ornament; 4 spoon-shaped bronze belt ornament; 5 bone arrowhead with a bifurcated end; 6 bone bow end

The Altai Region of Russia and Mongolia The Altai Mountains run northwest to southeast across the borders between Russia and Mongolia, with the north of the region stretching from South Siberia of Russia to Bayan Ulgii aimag of Mongolia, and the south of the region from southwest Mongolia to the boundary with north Xinjiang Province of China. The north region of the Altai Mountains was the center of the Pazyryk culture, and the wild zoomorphic motifs of this culture had a major impact on the cultures along the Great Wall Belt in the Northern Zone of China. Unlike other areas adjacent to Xiongnu, the north region of the Altai Mountains developed under a minor

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

517

influence from the former, with the domination of the indigenous culture throughout the 2nd to the 1st century B.C. Excavations of the Ialoman No. 2 tombs have been conducted for many years in the Altai Republic in Russia. According to Russian scholars, some of the tombs possess the features of the local Brancorba culture (Tishkin-Alexer 2011; Tишкин and Maтpeнин 2011), with the burial goods at these tombs resembling those from the Xiongnu during the Western Han period, such as belt accessories, horse fittings, bows, and arrows. Coffins built of slab stones also testify to Xiongnu influence. However, the original burial practice of the Altai region still prevailed: the bodies were placed in flexed positions, and an intact horse was laid as a sacrifice (Fig. 6.25). By the Western Han period, the south region of the Altai Mountains in Mongolia had a significant cultural resemblance to the Xiongnu, as shown in the existence of the Xiongnu’s ordinary tombs and large high-status earthen shaft graves in the former area. This indicates that the Xiongnu exerted great influence and control over the southern region of the Altai Mountains (Miller 2011).

Southern Ningxia and Xi’an, China M140 at the site of Keshengzhuang, Xi’an, is a Xiongnu tomb. It is the earliest tomb of this kind and is dated before Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty. It was likely a tomb for the Xiongnu people who had remained in Chang’an, the capital city of the Western Han dynasty, for diplomatic reasons. Its owner was likely a woman. Located in the west section of the Great Wall Belt, Daodunzi and Lijiataozi cemeteries in Tongxin County, Ningxia, are cemeteries of the Xiongnu people and their descendants who surrendered to the Han dynasty. Dated earlier, to the middle and late Western Han dynasty, the Daodunzi cemetery yielded a large number of Xiongnu-style openwork plaques with zoomorphic motifs and bronze rings in openwork as well as typical Xiongnu-style ceramic pots with small mouths and deep bellies. However, unlike the cases of the Xiongnu in the northern part of the Gobi Desert, belts with openwork plaques are usually placed in one corner of the coffin rather than tied to the waist; bows and arrows are not among the funerary objects; and the proportion of side chamber catacomb is higher. Furthermore, Central-Plain-style artifacts and bas-relief plaques with zoomorphic motifs that are prevalent in Han tombs and the Great Wall area are numerous. Comparatively later, Lijiataozi cemetery can be dated to the period from the middle and late Western Han dynasty to the early Eastern Han dynasty. The burial goods there are similar to those in the northern part of the Gobi Desert. In addition, bows, arrows and chariots are found there, some in brick chambers, which indicates that some of the tomb owners were highly Sinicized Xiongnu aristocrats with high social status. Academic circles generally believe that these two cemeteries are cemeteries of the Western Xiongnu tribes and their descendants in the period of Emperor Wu of the Western

518

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.25 Artifacts from Ialoman No. 2 cemetery in the Altai region similar to those of the Xiongnu culture during Western Han period and an example of the tomb plan and profile. 1 Horn-bone tube with a sloped orifice; 2 gilded bronze belt fitting; 3 three-bladed iron arrowhead; 4 socketed two-bladed bone arrowhead; 5 pottery guan jar; 6 the plan and profile of the barrow of No. 43 Tomb (1 ibex bone; 2 headwear; 3, 4 belt plaques; 5 organic organization; 6 Bow; 7 iron belt buckle; 8 iron short sword; 9 arrowhead; 10 horn-bone pendant; 11 bronze spoon-shaped belt buckle; 12 gold ornament; 13 gold earrings; 14 iron sheet; 15 lacquerware; 16 wooden bowl)

Han dynasty. Given their different cultural traditions, the two graves are likely not from the same tribe (Lin 1993; Pan 2007b).

6.2.2.2

The Early Eastern Han Period

During the early Eastern Han period, compared with the mid- to late Western Han period, the influence of the Xiongnu culture on most of the surrounding areas was obviously shrinking and declining despite the fact that in the Mongolian Plateau, the central area of the Xiongnu, a large number of high-level large and medium-scale tombs with dromos were found.

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

519

The Minusinsk Basin in Russia During the early Eastern Han peirod, the Minusinsk Basin was in the Tashtyk culture stage. In this area, the cultural remains with Xiongnu features that can be dated to the early Eastern Han period decreased significantly in proportion. According to the development and evolution of the openwork plaques with net patterns and step-shape patterns in the Great Wall area, it can be inferred that a small number of similar artifacts found in the Minusinsk Basin are Xiongnu plaques of the early Eastern Han period (Baдeцкaя 1992, тaблицa 87, 33/36; Дэвлeт 1980, Taблицa 17, 70). Based on the square belt plaques unearthed from the cemetery at Laoheshen in Jilin (Jilin Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1987), it seems that the square belt plaques discovered in the area also belong to the early period of the Eastern Han period and are closely related to the Xiongnu. Most of the belts mentioned above were unearthed from small earthen shaft graves with wooden burial containers and no grave mounds. Former Soviet Union scholars generally believed that these tombs were the graves of the Xiongnu and the people who were under the influence of the Xiongnu culture.

The Tuva Area in Russia In this area, a small number of Xiongnu artifacts dated to the early Eastern Han period were unearthed, including belt ornaments and bronze fu cauldrons with flat bases (Maндeлыщтaм 1992, тaблицa 81, 58–62). Additionally, some large tombs similar to the large Xiongnu tombs with dromoi were found in the Baidag cemetery of this area. These large tombs are dated to the early Eastern Han period (Maндeлыщтaм 1992, тaблицa 80), similar to their Xiongnu counterparts. This shows that the cultural influence of the Xiongnu in the Tuva area in the early Eastern Han period was stronger than that in the Minusinsk Basin, and the Xiongnu had relatively more direct control over the Tuva area.

Northeast China In the early Eastern Han dynasty, bronze fu cauldrons of the Xiongnu style and ceramic guan jars with flared mouths and deep bellies, similar to the shape of those of the Xiongnu, can be found in Dali Nur (Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1994b) and other cemeteries in the Hulunbuir area. However, the shape and structure and other objects of the tombs reflect cultural characteristics different from those of the Xiongnu. Therefore, Chinese archaeologists have generally regarded such remains as early Xianbei remains. In middle layer tombs of Laoheshen cemetery in Yushu county, Jilin Province, one Xiongnu-style fu cauldron with a high-ring foot and one flat-bottom fu cauldron were unearthed, and one belt buckle and daikou belt ornament on a belt fitting are all in the shape of the Xiongnu style. According to these artifacts, the date of the

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

520

cemetery is comprehensively judged to be from the end of the Western Han dynasty to the early Eastern Han dynasty (Jilin Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1987). It is a cemetery of the Ancient Northeast ethnic group at Fuyu in the Han period (Lin 1998, pp. 352–367). These Xiongnu-style artifacts were likely imported from the territory of the Xiongnu. In short, in the early Eastern Han dynasty, the numbers and types of Xiongnu-style artifacts found in Northeast China were significantly smaller than those found in the middle and late Western Han dynasty, indicating that the influence of Xiongnu on the area had significantly declined.

China’s Ordos Region Typical Xiongnu remains found in Xigoupan M4 Budonggou cemetery of Dongsheng, Erliban cemetery and Dafanpu cemetery in Jungar Banner all date from the early Eastern Han dynasty to the middle Eastern Han dynasty. In particular, in Xigoupan M4, gold headware and stone ornaments modeled after Central Plain jade wares were found. Based on those artifacts, it can be assumed that the owner of the tomb was a woman with a high social status. The artifacts mentioned above are those of the Xiongnu burials. They are all located in the vicinity of Chanyuting, the capital of the Southern Xiongnu, who surrendered to the Han dynasty. According to the comprehensive literature, these are the burials of the descendant tribes of the southern Xiongnu who moved into the Ordos Plateau, among which there are many high-status Xiongnu nobles (Pan 2007b, Chap. 7).

6.2.3

Summary of the Spread of Xiongnu’s Cultural Factors and Their Relationship with the Surrounding Ethnic Groups and the Subordinate Countries of Xiongnu

In the mid- to late period of the Western Han period, the Xiongnu culture spread to the east, northeast, and west as its force expanded (Fig. 6.26). During the process of its cultural spread, the Xiongnu culture always coexisted with the local cultures rather than replacing them, and plaques with zoomorphic motifs played a significant role in the cultural expansion. However, the integration of the Xiongnu culture into the local culture differed in degree in different regions. In the west of Northeast China, small bronzes distinctive to the Xiongnu culture were always found together with one or more artifacts of the local culture in a single tomb. For instance, in the Tuva region, pottery and burial layouts bearing Xiongnu characteristics have frequently been found, which shows the significant impact of the Xiongnu’s funerary customs on the local culture. At the Minusinsk Basin, a great number of locally made plaques were unearthed bearing Xiongnu features. However, the Xiongnu influence on the local burial practice was not as evident as it was in Tuva. At the

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

521

Fig. 6.26 The spread of the Xiongnu culture during the Middle and Late Western Han periods

Minusinsk Basin, the local practice of massive group second burials endured over many years. The southern region of the Altai was under the far-reaching influence of the Xiongnu culture, while the northern region was under its relatively weak influence. The culture of the Xiongnu spread east, northeast and west with the expansion of its power during the mid- to late period of the Western Han period. By the early Eastern Han period, the influence of the Xiongnu culture began to decline. Although the influence remained strong in Tuva, a significant decrease occurred regarding the ratio of factors of the Xiongnu culture in other regions. The expansion of the Xiongnu culture displayed the common feature of coexisting with the indigenous cultures. Among the artifacts with Xiongnu characteristics, plaques with zoomorphic motifs are the majority, while there are a small number of ceramics. Lacking thoroughness and persistence, the Xiongnu culture failed to take the place of the indigenous cultures (with the exception of its neighboring region, Khovd) or to endure long. It was mostly confined within the mid- to late period of the Western Han period with a rare appearance in the early Eastern Han period. The history of the Xiongnu during the periods of the Western and Eastern Han are mainly documented in the Xiongnu Liezhuan chapter of the Shiji, the Xiongnu chapter of the Hanshu, and the Nan Xiongnu Liezhuan chapter of the Hou Han Shu. According to the relevant records, by the early Western Han period, under the reign of Modu Chanyu, the Xiongnu had surrendered the states to its north, such as Hunyu, Dingling, Likun, and Xinli. During the early period of the Western Han, Wuhuan in the east, Dingling in the north, and Wusun in the west had all submitted

522

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

to the rule of the Xiongnu. In this period, the rulers of the eastern Xiongnu expanded their territories to the east of Shanggujun (present-day Zhangjiakou, Hebei), joining Huimo (Yemack) and Korea. Shortly after, the Xiongnu moved their power west to the north of Yunzhongjun (present-day south-central Inner Mongolia) of the Western Han. In the late Western Han period, the Xiongnu suffered from natural disasters, the rebellion of its colonial states and domestic conflicts among royal players. In the early Eastern Han period, domestic conflicts among royal powers arose again and led to the split of the Xiongnu into two parts: the Southern Xiongnu travelled south and surrendered to the Han dynasty, and the Northern Xiongnu were forced farther west by the Eastern Han and Xianbei troops; they retreated from the Mongolian Plateau and eventually perished in 91 A.D. The Xiongnu remains appearing in the following places are nearly all of the same date as in the middle or late Western Han period: Northeast China, the west bank of Lake Baikal, the Minusinsk Basin and Tuva area in Russia, and the northern Altai Mountains in Russia and Mongolia. These remains reflect the significant power of the Xiongnu in the early and middle Western Han period and the subordination of surrounding ethnic groups. According to documents, the relevant remains in Northeast China at this time are closely related to the Wuhuan in the Western Han period, while the remains with factors of the Xiongnu culture in the West Bank of Lake Baikal, the Minusinsk Basin, Tuva, and the northern Altai Mountains might relate to the Hunyu, Dingling, Likun, Xinli, and other countries. In the early Eastern Han period, the cultural influence of the Xiongnu declined sharply in Northeast China and the Minusinsk Basin, but its impact on the Tuva area was relatively large. This is related to the decline of the Xiongnu and the deviation of its subordinate ethnic groups from the mid-Western Han period. The cultural factors of the Xiongnu still accounted for a relatively high proportion in the Tuva area, which indicates the westward movement of the center of the Xiongnu at the beginning of the mid-Western Han period. In addition to the northeastern region, in the south of the Great Wall of China, a small number of Xiongnu remains can be found. Their main characteristics are all of the Xiongnu culture. They are all the remains of the western part of the Xiongnu and the southern Xiongnu in the mid-Western Han period and the early Eastern Han period. Therefore, although the Xiongnu here were the most similar to the Xiongnu in the northern part of the Gobi Desert compared with other areas, they were not politically related to the Xiongnu in the northern part of the Gobi Desert but belonged to the remains of the people of the Han dynasty. Surrounded by the more developed Han culture, Xiongnu people who submitted to the Han dynasty were quickly integrated with Han culture, and the cultural factors of the Xiongnu disappeared in the local area. In the mid-Western Han period, with the Great Wall as the boundary, the Western Han in the south and the Xiongnu in the north formed distinct cultures and tried to expand their cultural influence. With its prosperity, the Western Han consistently expanded its territory as well as its culture. However, the Xiongnu could not compete with the Han in terms of culture, political stability and duration. Therefore, although the Xiongnu’s military force expanded to a large area, their

6.2 Origin and Development of the Cultural Elements …

523

cultural influence was weak, and the duration of their influence on the regions was short compared to that of the Han culture. The Xiongnu culture never took complete control over its colonies as the Han culture did.

6.3

The Transformation of Cultural Interactions Between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe from the Late Warring States Period to the Middle Western Han Period (Pan 2015a)

By the late Warring States period, frequent interactions occurred between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. From the late Warring States to the early rule of Emperor Wu in the Western Han dynasty (3rd–2nd century B.C.), the cultural exchange transformed from being unobstructed to stagnant, a process clearly reflected by the archaeological remains.

6.3.1

Eurasian Steppe Cultural Features in the Northern Zone of China During the Late Warring States Period

In the late Warring States period, there were frequent cultural interactions between the Northern Zone of China and the central area of the Eurasian Steppe, which were reflected in the following three ways. First, the aristocrats of the Northern Zone played an essential role in cultural exchange with the Eurasian Steppe, which was reflected by silver or gold artifacts, such as belt ornaments and horse fittings, and decorative items on some wooden artifacts. A large number of silver and gold artifacts bearing Eurasian Steppe characteristics were unearthed from M2 (Cultural Relics Task station of Yikezhao League, Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team 1981) at Xigoupan cemetery of Jungar Banner, two tombs (Tian and Guo 1980) at Aluchaideng of Hanggin Banner in Inner Mongolia, and three tombs (Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County 2008) excavated in 2006 at Majiayuan in Gansu Province. Similar burial objects were also unearthed from M30 (Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 1996) tomb at Xinzhuangtou, Yi County, Hebei Province. Each tomb contained a large number of burial objects, such as one gold torque, one pair of earrings, one wooden scabbard with gold applique, one pair of rectangular belt plaques, one fingerstall, one grind stone decorated with rolled gold, one circular plaque with a deer motif, seven silver horse strap guides and Xigoupan M2 in particular contained a suit of silver flower pieces. Such a large and ostentatious assemblage of precious metal burial goods suggests that the deceased was of high social status and may have been one of the top aristocrats in the Great Wall Belt.

524

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.27 Comparisons between the Eurasian steppe-style gold and silver artifacts of the Late Warring States period from the Great Wall Belt and their counterparts from the Altai region. 1 Silver ornamental leave with mystical horned creature pattern; 2 gold plaque with mystical horned creature pattern; 3 gold ornamental leave with pattern of wolf in prone position; 4 gold ornamental leave with mystical horned creature pattern; 5 gold ornamental leave with pattern of herbivore bitten by a tiger; 6 torch-shaped gold brooch; 7 saddle pads ornament with mystical horned creature pattern; 8 wooden ornamental leave with mystical horned creature pattern; 9 pendant on the saddle pads with pattern of wolf in prone position; 10 wooden pendant on the saddle pads with Griffin pattern; 11 felt applique on the saddle pads with pattern of deer bit by beast; 12 torch-shaped wooden belt accessory (1, 4, 5 found in M2 on the Bank of Xigoupan, Yek Juu League; 2, 3, 6 found in Aluchaideng, Hanggin Banner; 7 found in No. 1 tomb of Tychta, Altai region; 8 found in Polis-Katangin ancient tomb in Altai region; 9, 10, 12 found in Aka-Alaha tomb in Altai region; 11 found in Bazerek ancient tomb in Altai region)

Second, the stylistic features of these valuable artifacts indicate the direct cultural communication between the central area of the Eurasian Steppe and the Great Wall Belt of the Northern Zone. The majority of the silver or gold artifacts unearthed from the tombs mentioned above of the late Warring States period bear a similarity to those from the central area of the Eurasian Steppe, such as South Siberia. First, the type and style of the artifacts are similar. For instance, the buckles with buttons on the back, plaques, the gold foil pieces with small points along the margin, torch-shaped pins, and torques decorated with wolves or other carnivore motifs on both ends were typical burial goods in the central Eurasian Steppe, particularly the Altai region (Fig. 6.27).8 Second, the similarities can also be seen in the decorative motifs. These artifacts were mostly decorated with zoomorphic motifs. During this period, the motif of imaginary animals with multiple-branching

국립중앙박물관 (1991)《스키타이항금》, 조선일보사. (Fig. 6.27: 7 extracted here); Заднепровский (1992), Таблица 64, 14. (Fig. 6.27: 8 extracted here); Полосъмак (1992), Рис. 48; 58. (Fig. 6.27: 9, 10 extracted here); Киселев (1949, C. 203), Таблица.XXXIV, 7. (Fig. 6.27: 11 extracted here); Российская академия наук сибирское отделение институт археологии и этнографии феномен алтайских мумий. Новосибирск: Издателъство архологии и этнографии СО РАН, 2000. – 169c, Рис. 197a. (Fig. 6.27: 12 is extracted from here). 8

6.3 The Transformation of Cultural Interactions …

525

horns enjoyed popularity on the Eurasian Steppe. Lin named the imaginary animals “horned spirit beasts”. They can be divided into two groups (Lin 2009). Group A features a hawk’s head with a hook-shaped beak and, occasionally, rear hooves reversed (Fig. 6.28: 1–6). Group B features wolves with large canines (Fig. 6.28: 7–9). The artifacts in these two groups of imaginary creature patterns dated to the late Warring States period were unearthed from the Great Wall Belt of the Northern Zone of China and bear a resemblance in shape to those found in Southern Siberia (Fig. 6.27: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8). The artifacts with similar patterns of beasts biting large-horned ibexes and other herbivorous prey were also found in Southern Siberia and the Central Asian steppe. In M3 at the Majiayuan cemetery, Tianshui County, Gansu Province, a large number of burial goods with Eurasian Steppe characteristics were unearthed. These look the same as those from the Kazakh steppe with no evidence of cultural inter-mixture. Thus, it was proposed previously by Yang Jianhua that the owner of this tomb may have been a woman from the Kazakh steppe who brought these artifacts with steppe features to the Northern Zone of China as her dowry (Yang 2010). Third, the craftsmen of the Central Plain were involved in the production of artifacts with Eurasian Steppe features. For instance, gold and silver burial goods carved with Warring States Chinese characters on their back were unearthed from M30 at Xinzhuangtou County in the territory of the Yan state and in M2 at Xigoupan in the middle part of the Great Wall area. According to Huang, the characters on the back of these silver horse strap guides and gold plaques found in M2 at Xigoupan were carved by craftsmen from the Zhao state and the Qin state, respectively. The characteristics on the back sides of the eight pieces of gold plaques unearthed from M30 at Xinzhuangtou were identified to be those of the Zhao state (Huang 1985). The burial goods, including the ceramic molds for plaques with horned spirit beasts and griffin head patterns, were also found in the tombs of bronze craftsmen of the Qin state during the late Warring States period on the north edge of Xi’an Province (Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology 2003, pp. 4– 14). Therefore, by the late Warring States period, craftsmen from the states of Zhao and Qin were at least involved in producing artifacts with Eurasian Steppe features, such as plaques with zoomorphic motifs and harnesses. The fact that these craftsmen from the Central Plain were able to create artifacts with vivid zoomorphic motifs with steppe features indicates that they may have already been quite familiar with the artifacts and motifs or have learned from artifacts directly from the steppe region or high-quality replicas.9 In sum, by the late Warring States period, the cultural exchange with the Eurasian Steppe expanded from the Great Wall region to the states of Qin, Zhao, and Yan with unprecedented breadth and depth. Thus, it is conceivable that the

9

Prof. Luo discussed this issue in detail in his article, cf.: Luo (2010).

526

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Fig. 6.28 A reconstructed drawing of the evolution of horned spirit beast pattern in China from the Late Warring States period to the Western Han period (After Lin’s description in his paper entitled A Study on the plaque with Mythical Horned Creature Pattern in the Eurasian Steppe). 1 M2 at Xigoupan, Yeke Juu League, Inner Mongolia; 2 burials of bronzesmith in Xi’an in the late Warring States period; 3, 5 the Daodunzi Cemetery in Tongxin County, Ningxia; 4, 8 the Xichagou Cemetery in Xifeng County, Liaoning Province; 6 the tomb of King of Chu State in the Lion Mountain in Xuzhou; 7 the Aluchaideng Cemetery in Hangjin Banner, Inner Mongolia; 9 the Tomb of Liu Zhi, Marquis of Wanqu of Western Han in Xuzhou

traffic routes connecting the Northern Zone of China with Central Asia and South Siberia in the Eurasian Steppe were already known by residents of the Northern Zone at that time.

6.3.2

The Eurasian Steppe Cultural Factors in the Northern Zone of China During the Western Han Dynasty

During the Western Han period, the cultural pattern of the Great Wall area in the Northern Zone of China experienced great changes. Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty recaptured the “southern side of the river” (namely, the Ordos Plateau and most of the northern Shaanxi Region), and the Outer Great Wall was extended to present-day north of the Yinshan Mountains. Since the middle period of the Western Han period, the Han culture was distributed among most regions of the Great Wall area in the Northern Zone of China. The Eurasian-steppe-style artifacts found in the Northern Zone of China during this period are mainly rectangular belt plaques with zoomorphic motifs. The plaques in this period can be divided into two types with regard to their pattern and

6.3 The Transformation of Cultural Interactions …

527

Fig. 6.29 Some Xiongnu-style openwork rectangular plaques with Zoomorphic Motifs. 1. M108 in Derestuy Cemetery in Transbaikal, Russia; 2, 3 M1 in Daodunzi Cemetery in Tongxin County, Ningxia; 4 the Xichagou Cemetery in Xifeng County, Liaoning Province; 5 M100 in Ivorga Cemetery in Transbaikal, Russia; 6 A chance find in Bayck Area in Southern Siberia, Russia

form. The first type features bas-relief with decorations of leaf veins or slant lines on the edge and buttons on the back (Fig. 6.28: 3, 5, 6, 9). The second type features openwork carvings with decorations of water-drop or bamboo-joint patterns on the edge and no buttons on the back (Fig. 6.29: 2–4) (Pan 2007b). The late Warring States period witnessed the existence of rectangular bas-relief plaques with zoomorphic motifs in the Great Wall area of the Northern Zone of China and neighboring Qin and Yan states. This type of plaque spread further to the Central Plain and the southern areas from the early to middle Western Han dynasty. According to Lin, most of the animal images on the rectangular bas-relief plaques with zoomorphic motifs of the early to middle Western Han dynasty adopted the two groups of horned spirit beast motifs that appeared in the late Warring States period and further developed into more varieties. For instance, Group A horned spirit beasts can be further divided into two classes: simple horned spirit beasts and horned spirit beasts preyed upon by other beasts. The Western Han dynasty only witnessed the second type of Class I beasts on the plaques, with two spirit beasts laying prostrate back to back (Fig. 6.28: 3). Meanwhile, the Western Han dynasty also witnessed the second type of Class II beasts, which were subdivided into two patterns: one horned spirit beast preyed upon by one beast and one horned spirit beast preyed upon by a pair of beasts (Fig. 6.28: 5, 6). The Group B horned spirit beasts on rectangular bas-relief plaques were lying prostrate with two large-horned sheep on top as decoration (Fig. 6.28: 9). Thus, the Western Han dynasty witnessed richer horned spirit beast patterns and more variations on the bas-relief plaques compared to the late Warring States period. For example, the head of a griffin with a hook-like mouth was replaced by a horse head, the ends of antler branches on the heads of the griffins changed into one

528

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

or two rows of ibex heads, and the stretched-out wolf head of Group B horned spirit beasts turned from a prostrate position into a bowed one. Over time, more variants emerged. By the time of the late Western Han dynasty, many zoomorphic motifs on the plaques changed so much that it is difficult to see their connection with the horned spirit beasts of the late Warring States period. In the early and middle periods of the Western Han dynasty, it was fashion among the upper aristocrats to wear gold or gilded bronze bas-relief plaques with zoomorphic motifs. In addition to the upper-class Han tombs, the bas-relief plaques were found in tombs of the subjugated Xiongnu tribes in the Great Wall area and the middle-west of the northeastern region, and cemeteries of northern ethnic groups with Han culture and the Xiongnu culture elements.10 From the main geographical distribution and inscriptions on the plaques, the makers of the plaques were likely to be the craftsmen of the Han dynasty. Because they were increasingly unable to render the original concepts of the horned spirit beasts popular in the Warring States period, they constantly changed the zoomorphic motifs during the duplication process. However, the edge of the plaques was still the same as the late Warring States period, with buttons on the back of the plaques. Thus, it is safe to conclude that the rectangular bas-relief zoomorphic motifs produced by the Central Plain in the Western Han dynasty were innovated by the horned spirit beasts in the late Warring States period. They did not absorb the zoomorphic motif elements of the Eurasian Steppe that emerged after the Warring States period. The variant forms of the horned spirit beast or griffin patterns were also found on precious metal harnesses in the upper-class Han tombs, such as the Han satellite tomb pits in Luozhuang village, Zhangqiu city, Shandong, dated in the early Western Han dynasty (Jinan Institute of Archaeology, Department of Archaeology of Shandong University, Shandong Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhangqiu Museum 2004) and Mancheng Tomb in Hebei dated to the middle of the Western Han dynasty. Openwork plaques of zoomorphic motifs were prevalent in the Xiongnu’s central territory. Most were in a rectangular shape (Fig. 6.29) and a few were P-shaped or near elliptical from the end of the early period to the middle and late period of the Western Han dynasty. The Xiongnu’s central territory included the present Transbaikal region in Mongolia and Russia, Southern Siberia and Central Asia, Xinjiang, the Northern China Great Wall zone, and the middle-west part of northeast China (Fig. 6.28: 4, 8). These plaques had no back buttons, and the edges were decorated with water-drop or bamboo-joint patterns. The zoomorphic motifs of these plaques were mainly composed of pairs of livestock (or birds) (Fig. 6.29: 2, 3, 4, 6), with only a few derived from the horned spirit beast or griffin patterns in the late Warring States period (Fig. 6.28: 4, 8, Fig. 6.29: 5). A few plaques bore two 10

The plaque decoration and gold foil accessories in Fig. 6.28 are extracted from the following sources: Cultural Relics Task station of Yikezhao League, Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team (1980), Fig. 6.28: 1; Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology (2003), Fig. 6.28: 2; Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. (1988), Fig. 6.28: 3, 5; Liaoning Museum, Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (2006), Fig. 6.28: 4, 8; Wei et al. (1998), Fig. 6.28: 6; Tian and Guo (1986), Plate 16: 1, Fig. 6.28: 7; Xuzhou Museum (1997), Fig. 6.28: 9.

6.3 The Transformation of Cultural Interactions …

529

standing animals, with a beast biting the neck of another livestock or beast. In contrast with the fierce biting posture of imaginary spirit beasts in the late Warring States period, both animals were realistic and engaged in less fierce biting or struggling; they were basically in a standing position (Fig. 6.29: 1). This type of new zoomorphic motifs found in rectangular openwork plaques differed from the bas-relief plaques with regard to their expression techniques, zoomorphic motif themes, edge decorations, and fastening methods. The new plaques of zoomorphic motifs became popular in the Eurasian Steppe areas in the late Warring States period and spread throughout the central and east parts of the Eurasian Steppe under the Xiongnu’s dominance; thus, they can be designated as Xiongnu style (Plate 13).11 The Great Wall area of the Northern Zone of China and the middle-west of Northeast China are the overlapping areas of the distribution of the bas-relief plaques with zoomorphic motifs and the openwork (i.e., Xiongnu) plaques. These areas were populated by the surrendered Xiongnu under the influence of both the Xiongnu culture and the Central Plain culture and the northern ethnic groups under the influence of the Xiongnu culture (Plate 13). The bas-relief plaques with zoomorphic motifs of the Western Han dynasty evolved from the characteristics of the late Warring States period without absorbing the features of Xiongnu-style openwork plaques with regard to zoomorphic motifs and edge decorations, and its distribution did not cross the Great Wall area and Northeast China. Similarly, the Xiongnu-style openwork plaques rarely appear in the Han tombs south of the Great Wall during the Western Han dynasty.12 The distributions of these two types of plaques with zoomorphic motifs imply obstruction of the cultural exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe occupied by the Xiongnu. The craftsmen in the Central Plain culture continued making bas-relief plaques with erroneously transformed horned spirit beasts of the late Warring States period when they were unable to see the newly emerging Xiongnu-style openwork plaques with zoomorphic motifs.

Pan (2007). Materials in Fig. 6.29 are extracted from the following sources: Миняев (1998), таблица 91, 11. (Fig. 6.29: 1 extracted here); Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Ningxia Archaeological Group of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Cultural Relics Management Institute of Tongxin County (1988), (Fig. 6.29: 2, 3 extracted here); Sun (1957) (Fig. 6.29: 4 extracted here); Могильников (1992), C. 254–293. Таблица 113, 10. (Fig. 6.29: 5 extracted here); Дэвлет (1980), Таблица 7, 21. (Fig. 6.29: 6 extracted here). 12 Animal decorations that combined the style of shallow relief animal decoration and Xiongnu-style decoration were also found, but in relatively small numbers. 11

530

6.3.3

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

The Cultural Factors of the Central Plain in the Xiongnu Culture

In the middle of the Western Han dynasty, the Xiongnu culture incorporated cultural elements from the Central Plain dated from the late Warring States period to the Qin and Han periods. The Xiongnu ceramics and production technology absorbed the traditions of the Central Plain. Many of Xiongnu ceramics were decorated with underlying vertical decorations polished by stone that were popular in the late Warring States period but very rare in the Western Han period in the Central Plain. One type of Xiongnu ceramic pot with a ribbed neck in the Western Han dynasty resembled the ceramic pot common in the area east of the Tong Pass from the late Warring States period to the early Western Han period with regard to the form and the underlying vertical decorations polished by stone on the body (Pan 2007b). Additionally, the end of the 1st century B.C. saw square tombs for the Xiongnu of higher status. Their structural techniques were also prevalent in China during the Warring States period. These square tombs were rectangular or square vertical earthen pit tombs with adjoining sloping ramps, as well as plank coffins nested in wooden chambers. There was a large gap between the bottom of the ramp and the bottom of the tomb pit, reaching even to the top of the wooden chamber. Thus, the ramp does not function as a passage into the wooden chamber (Fig. 6.30).13 This type of tomb structure was used to signify higher status for the occupants in China during the Warring States period. From the early Western Han dynasty, the height differences between the floors and the bottoms of the sloping passages of the large Han tombs gradually reduced to 0.6 m in the Huang Chang Ti Cou tomb (the special tomb meant for emperors) of the early Han dynasty and eventually disappeared by the middle to late Western Han dynasty, when the bottom of the ramp and the bottom of the tomb pit adjoined and the tomb chamber was transformed into a functional room that was entered via the ramp and an associated doorway. This process of structural transformation also occurred among the small and medium-sized wooden-chambered tombs (Huang 2003). The above-outlined cultural characteristics of the Central Plain integrated into Xiongnu culture lagged behind their development in the Central Plain, which can be attributed to the long-term military confrontation between the Xiongnu and the Western Han Dynasty.

6.3.4

The Opening of the Silk Road and Its Southward Movement

The late Warring States period to the Western Han dynasty witnessed the transition of cultural exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe Figure 6.30 is extracted from Коновалов (2008), Рис. 9, Рис. 10.

13

6.3 The Transformation of Cultural Interactions …

531

Fig. 6.30 An example of Xiongnu’s large-scale tombs: profile of M54 from Ilmova valley in the Transbaikal, Russia

from smooth to stagnant, which reflected the political and military relations between the two regions. In the late Warring States period, the Xiongnu was only one of the northern ethnic groups that competed with the northern states for power on the steppes and in the Great Wall zone. At that time, there were no pan-regional alliances or political unifications in the steppe area of the Northern Zone of China that could compete with that of the Central Plain. Therefore, the cultural exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe went smoothly. By the time of the emergence of the Qin and Han Empires, the Xiongnu grew powerful and began to annex the northern tribes. By the middle of the Western Han dynasty, the Xiongnu formed a powerful military force after annexing the territory of almost all the ethnic groups near the northern Great Wall zone. It started to confront the Western Han, which had been in passive defense until the first initiative attack launched by Emperor Wu in his first year of ruling in the Western Han dynasty. Thus, the Xiongnu not only occupied the vast northern steppe but also blocked or occupied the Hexi area as the main channel of cultural exchange between the Central Plain and the Eurasian Steppe. Due to the intervention of the powerful Xiongnu, the cultural exchanges between the Western Han dynasty and the Eurasian Steppe stagnated.

532

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Emperor Wu launched a counterattack against the Xiongnu by not merely strengthening the northern frontier defense but also severing the connection between the Xiongnu and other ethnic groups to the west and east. To the west of the Xiongnu territory, Zhang Qian was assigned to visit the western region and form an alliance with the clan of Darouzhi against the Xiongnu. The mission to visit the western region cost him 10 years before he finally returned to Chang’an; he was captured by the Xiongnu twice on his way. Although Zhang Qian did not succeed in his mission, he extended the westbound journey to Dawan territory, which laid the foundation for him to re-enter the western region and establish the Silk Road. Zhang Qian’s determination in his westbound journey was based on the firm belief that there was a passage connecting the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. This belief likely was related to the accumulation of cultural exchanges between the two places 100 years earlier. Therefore, when considering the time from the late Warring States period to the Western Han dynasty as a whole, it can be concluded that Zhang Qian’s journey to the western region and the opening of the Silk Road indicated the restoration of cultural exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe rather than a trail blazing expedition (Plate 13). Cultural exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe had existed since the Shang dynasty, with the Xinjiang area north of the Tianshan Mountains an important channel for the exchange of eastern and western cultures (Lin 2011). Archaeological discoveries in recent years have proven that since the late Warring States period, the Eurasian Steppe culture had been introduced into the Northern Zone of China from the Kazakh steppes in Central Asia through the channel of the Ili River Valley, northern Xinjiang, the Hami region, the Hexi Corridor and the Tianshui region in Gansu Province (Yang 2010). However, with its prosperity, the Xiongnu took control of parts of northern Xinjiang and its neighboring west Mongolia and Southern Siberia. During the rule of Emperor Wu, the southern part of northern Xinjiang was occupied by the Wusun, who consistently switched allegiance between the Han and the Xiongnu. Therefore, after Zhang Qian’s mission to the western region, the Silk Road in the Han dynasty ran along the north and south of the Tarim Basin to the south of Tianshan Mountains in southern Xinjiang. Despite adversities, such as the harsh natural environment of the Taklamakan Desert, the advantages of the route were that Tianshan Mountains blocked the harassment of the nomadic people in the north, and the Oasis states in this area posed no unified threat to trade missions. The Western Han probably controlled these areas and protect merchants (Lin 2011). At that time, the route of east-west exchanges moved southwards from the steppe in northern Xinjiang to the desert, that is, from the Steppe Silk Road to the Desert Silk Road (Plate 13). Bypassing the Tarim Basin, the Desert Silk Road of the Han dynasty moved westward across the mountain ranges and entered Darouzhi territory in the region of ancient India, to the region that produced the Gandharan art that was a mélange of the ancient Indian and Greek cultural traditions. Due to the southward movement of the Silk Road, religions and art from ancient India and ancient Greek civilizations

6.3 The Transformation of Cultural Interactions …

533

had the opportunity to enter the current Xinjiang area through the Silk Road and further merged with the Chinese civilizations. They exerted a far-reaching influence on the religion and art of ancient China as well as East Asia.

References Aceeв, И. B., & Ю, C. (1987). Xyдякoв, Д Цэвэндopж Пoгpeбeниe Xyннcкoгo вoинa нa гope Cyл-Toлгoй. Apxeoлoгия этнoгpaфия и aнтpoпoлoгия мoнгoлии (C.126–136). Hoвocибиpcк. Bai, Y. (2001). Zhanguo qinhan shiqi wengguanzang yanjiu [Research on the urn coffin in the Warring States period and the Qin period]. Kaogu xuebao 4, 305–334 (in Chinese). Baдeцкaя, Э. Б. (1986). Apxeoлoгичecкиe пaмятники в cтeпяx cpeднeгo Eниceя. Лeнингpaд: Hayкa. Baдeцкaя, Э. Б. (1992), Taштыкcкaя кyлътypa //Cтeпнaя пoлoca Aзиaтcкoй чacти CCCP в cкифo-capмaтcкoe вpeмя (C. 236–246). Mocквa: Hayкa. Brosseder, U. (2009). Xiongnu terrace tombs and their interpretation as elite burials. In J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, & D. Tseveendorzh (Eds.), Current archaeological research on mongolia (vol. 4, pp. 247–280). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Chifeng Museum, Ningcheng County Cultural Relics Administration Office. (1995). Ningcheng Xiaoheishigou shiguomu diaocha qingli baogao [Archaeological report on stone-cist burials at Xiaoheishigou, Ningcheng]. Wenwu 5, 5–22, 15 (in Chinese). Cмoтpoвa, B. И. (1991), Пoгpeбeниe c aжypными пpacтинaми нa ocтpoвe ocинcкoм // Пaлeoэтнoлoгичecкиe иccлeдoвaнния нa югe cpeднeй cибиpи. Иpкyтcк (C. 136–143): иpкyтcкoгo инивepcитeтa. Cтaмдyлъник, Э. У. (1983). Hoвыe пaмятники Гyннo-Capмaтcкoгo вpeмeни в Tyвe // Дpeвниe кyлътypы Eвpaзийцcкиx cтeпeй (C. 34–40). Лeнингpaд: Hayкa. Члeнoвa, H. Л. (1992). Кyльтypa плитoчныx мoгил // Cтeпнaя пoлoca Aзиaтcкий чacтa CCCP в Cкифo-capмaтcкoe вpeмя (C. 247–253). Mocквa: Hayкa. Cultural Relics Work Team of the Hebei Provincial Bureau of Culture. (1966). Hebei Huailai Beixinbao zhanguo mu [Tombs of the Warring States period at Beixinbao Huailai county Hebei province]. Kaogu 5, 231–242 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Task station of Yikezhao League, Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1981). Xigoupan Handai Xiongnu mudi diaochaji [Investigation of Xiongnu tombs in the Xigoupan]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu 1, 15–26 (in Chinese). Cultural Relics Task station of Yikezhao League, Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1980). Xigoupan xiongnumu [The Xiongnu cemetery in Xigoupan]. Wenwu 7 (in Chinese). Дaвыдoвa, A. B. (1996). Ивoлгинcкий мoгилъник. Caнкт-Пeтepбypг: Фoнд «Aзиaт ИКA». Дaвыдoвa, A. B., & Mиняeв, C. C. (2003). Кoмплeкc apxoлoгичcкиx пaмятникoв y ceлa Дypeны. Caнкт-Пeтepбypг: фoнд «AзиaтИКA». Du, Z. (1993). Ouya caoyuan dongwu wenshi yu zhongguo gudai beifang minzu zhi kaocha [Research on the zoomorphic motifs of the Eurasian Steppe and the ethnic groups in the Northern Zone of ancient China]. In Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan [Collected papers of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica] (Vol. 64 Issue 2, pp. 333–339) (in Chinese). Дэвлeт, M. A. (1980). Cибиpcкиe пoяcныe aжypныe плacтины // Apxeoлoгия CCCP. Mocквa: Hayкa. Erdenebaatar, D. et al. (2011) Excavations of satellite burial 30, tomb 1 complex, Gol Mod II necropolis. In U. Brosseder, & B. K. Miller Xiongnu (Eds.), Archaeology: Multidisciplinary

534

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

perspectives of the first steppe empire in inner Asia (vol. 5, pp. 303–314). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Eregzen, G. (Ed.). (2011). Treasures of the Xiongnu (p. 202). Ulaanbaatar: The Institute of Archaeology of Mongolian Academy of Sciences. The National Museum of Mongolia. Erööl-Erdene, C. (2011). Animal style silver ornaments of the Xiongnu Period. In U. Brosseder, & B. K. Miller (Eds. ), Xiongnu archaeology: Multidisciplinary perspectives of the first steppe empire in inner Asia (Vol. 5, pp. 333–340). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Gansu Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Museum of Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County. (2008). 2006 niandu zhangjiachuan huizu zizhixian majiayuan zhangguo mudi fajue jianbao [A brief report on the excavation of the Warring States Cemetery in Majiayuan, Zhangjiachuan Hui Autonomous County in 2006]. Wenwu 9, 4–28 (In Chinese). Гpишин, Ю. C. (1978). Pacкoпки гyннcкиx пoгpeбeний y гopы дapxaн // Apxeoлoгия и этнoгpaфия Moнгoлия (C. 95–100). Hoвocибиpcк. Guo, Z. (2000). Shuiquan mudi ji xiangguan wenti zhi tantao [Discussion on the cemetery at Shuiquan and the related questions]. In Zhongguo kaoguxue kuashiji de huigu yu qianzhan [Retrospect and Prospect of Cross-century Chinese Archaeology] (pp. 297–309). Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics. (1995). Cuo mu—zhanguo zhongshanguo guowang zhi mu [Cuo-tomb, the tomb of the King of the Zhongshan state in the Warring States period]. Beijing China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Hebei Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1996). Yanxiadu [Yanxiadu]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1990). Pingyang muzang [Tombs at Pingyang]. Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1995). Pingyang muzang [Tombs at Pingyang]. Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Heilongjiang Museum, Qiqihar City Cultural Relics Management Station. (1988). Qiqiharshi dadaosanjiazi muzang qingli [Archaeological report on tombs at Dadaosanjiazi Qiqihar]. Kaogu 12, 1090–1098 (in Chinese). Huang, S. (1985). Xinchu Zhanguo Jinyinqi Mingwen Yanjiu [Study on the inscriptions of gold and silver wares in the Warring States period: Three Notes]. In Guwenzi yanjiu (Vol. 12, pp. 337–361). China: Zhonghua Book Company (in Chinese). Huang, X. (2003). Hanmu de kaoguxue yanjiu [The Archaeological Study of Han Tombs]. Yuelu shushe (In Chinese). Ikezhao League Cultural Relics Workstation, (1980) Yikeshaomeng Budonggou Xiongnu muzang qingli baogao [Excavation report on the Xiongnu cemetery at Budonggou Ikezhao League]. In Neimenggu wenwu kaogu [Archaeology and cultural relics of Inner Mongolia] (Issue 1, pp. 27–33) (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1961). Neimenggu Dalai Nur gumuqun fajue jianbao [A brief archaeology report of cemeteries at Dalai Nur Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu 12, 673–680 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Work Team. (1986). Maoqinggou mudi [Cemetery in Maoqinggou]. In Ordos-styled bronzes (pp. 227–315). Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1989). Liangcheng Guoxianyaozi [Cemetery at Guoxianyaozi of Liangcheng county]. Kaogu xuebao 1, 57–80 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1994a). Dalai Nur gumuqun 1986 nian qingli fajue baogao [The 1986 excavation report on the cemeteries at Dalai Nur]. In Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji [Collected archaeological works on cultural relics in Inner Mongolia] (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu press (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1994b). Zhalainuo’er gumuqun 1986 nian qingli fajue jianbao [A Brief Report on the Cleaning up and Excavation of Dalai Nur Tombs in 1986]. In: Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji [The Archaeological Collection of

References

535

Cultural Relics in Inner Mongolia] (Issue 1, pp. 369–383). Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2009). Neimenggu Liangchengxian Xinzhouyaozi mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation of Xinzhou Yaozi Cemetery in Liangcheng County, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu 3, 28–46 (in Chinese). Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Baotou Administration Office of Cultural Relics. (1991). In Baotou Xiyuan Chunqiu mudi [Cemetery of the Spring and Autumn period in Xiyuan, Baotou]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu 1: 13–24 (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. (1962). Fengxi fajue baogao [Report on Fengxi excavations] (pp. 138–140 Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1956). Huixian fajue baogao [Excavation report on the cemetery at Hui county]. Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Administration of Cultural Relics, Hebei Province. (1980). Mancheng Han mu fajue baogao [Excavation report on Mancheng Han tombs] (pp. 208–213, 331–333). Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (1994). Shanxian dongzhou qinhanmu [Tombs of the Qin and Han dynasties in Shaan county]. Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Jiang, L. (2008). Zhongguo beifang diqu han mu yanjiu [Researches on the tombs of the Han period in northern China]. Doctoral dissertation, Jilin University (in Chinese). Jilin Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1987). Yushu Laoheshen [Laoheshen cemetery in Yushu county]. Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Jin, X. et al. (2011). Huangyuzhushan M1 leixing yicun zai bianxi [Reanalyzing M1 of the Huangyuzhushan remains]. In Bianjiang kaogu yanjiu (Vol. 10). Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Jinan Institute of Archaeology, Department of Archaeology of Shandong University, Shandong Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhangqiu Museum. (2004). Shandong zhangqiushi luozhuang hanmu peizangkeng de qingli [The clearance of sacrificial pits of Han period Luozhuang Tomb in Zhangqiu, Shandong Province]. Kaogu 8: 3–16 (In Chinese). Khavrin Sergei, V. (2011). Metal of the Xiongnu Period from the Terezin Cemetery, Tuva. In U. Brosseder & B. K. Miller (Eds.), Xiongnu archaeology: Multidisciplinary perspectives of the first steppe empire in inner Asia (Vol. 5., pp. 515–536). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Киceлeв, C. B. (1949), Дpeвняя иcтopия Южнoй Cибиpи. Mocквa: Hayкa. Кызлacoв Л. P. (2001). Гyннcкий двopeц нa eниcee. Mocквa: Bocтoчнaя литepaтypa PAH. Кoнoвaлoв, П. Б. (1976). Xyннy в Зaбaйкaльe. Улaн-Удэ: Бyлятcкoe книжнoe издaтeльcтвo. Кoнoвaлoв, П. Б. (2008). Уcыпaлъницa xyннcкoгo князя в Cyджи (Илъмoвaя пaдъ, Зaбaйкaлъe). Улaн-Удэ: Издaтeлъcтвo Бypятcкoгo нayчнoгo цeнтpa CO PAH. Кoнoвaлoв, П. Б., & Цыбиктapoв, A. Д. (1988). Heкoтopыe мaтepиaлы из нoвыx xyннcкиx пaмятникoв зaбaйкaлъя и мoнгoлии // Пaмятники эпoxи пaлeoмeтaллa в зaбaйкaлъe (C. 95–107). Улaн-yдэ. Кyбapeв, B. Д. (1991), Кypгaны Юcтыдa. Hoвocибиpcк: Hayкa. Liaoning Museum, Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2006). Liaohe wenmingzhan wenhujicui [Collection of cultural relics in Liaohe civilization exhibition] (pp. 104–105) (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (1993). Guanyu Zhongguo de dui Xiongnu zuyuan de kaoguxue yanjiu [An archaeological study on the origin of the Xiongnu in China]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu 1, 2, 127–141. Lin, Y. (1998). Xichagou xing tongbingtiejian yu Laoheshen, Cailan mudi de zushu [The iron swords with a bronze hilt unearthed from the Xichagou Cemetery and the attribution of the Laoheshen and Cailan Cemeteries] Beijing, China: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2002). Xia zhi zhanguo zhongguo beifang changcheng didai youmu wenhuadai de xingcheng guocheng [The formation of the nomadic cultural belt along the Great Wall area of the Northern Zone of China from the Xia period to the Warring States period]. At the seminar

536

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

of ‘Cultural Differences and Social General Principles: Commemorating Professor Zhang Guangzhi’ hosted by the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, et al. (in Chinese). Lin, Y. (2009). Ouya caoyuan youjiao shenshou paishi yanjiu [A study on the plaques with horned spirit beast in the Eurasian Steppe]. Xiyu yanjiu 3, 34–44 (In Chinese). Lin, Y. (2011). Silu kaitong yiqian xinjiang de jiaotong luxian [Traffic routes in Xinjiang before the opening of the silk road]. Caoyuan wenwu 1, 55–64 (In Chinese). Liu, S. (1983). Dongliaoxian Shitouyi gongshe gudai muqun chutu wenwu [The artifacts unearthed from the tombs at Shitouyi Dongliao County]. Bowuguan yanjiu 3, 83–88 (in Chinese). Luo, F. (2010). Beifang zhizao-guanyu beifang dongwuwen jinshu paishi [The production in the Northern zone: the metal plaque with zoomorphic motifs in the Northern zone of China]. Wenwu 2, 56–63 (In Chinese). Luoyang Archaeological Excavation Team. (1959). Luoyang Shaogou Han mu [Tombs of Han dynasty at Shaogou, Luoyang] (pp. 216–227). Kexue press (in Chinese). Maндeлыщтaм, A. M. (1992). Paнниe кoчeвники cкифcкoгo пepиoдa нa тeppитopии Tyвы // Cтeпнaя пoлoca Aзиaтcкoй чacти CCCP в cкифo-capмaтcкoe вpeмя (C. 178–196). Mocквa: Hayкa. Miller, B. (2011). Permutalions of Peripheries in the Xiongnu Empire. In U. Brosseder, & B. Miller (Eds.), Xiongnu archaeology: Multidisciplinary perspectives of the first steppe empire in Inner Asia (Vol. 5 pp. 559–578). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn University Press. Miller Bryan, K. et. al. (2009). Elite Xiongnu burials at the periphery: tomb complexes at Takhitlyn Hhotgor, Monglila Altai. In J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, & D Tseveendorzh (Eds.), Current Archaeological Research on Mongolia (Vol. 4, pp. 301–314). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Mиняeв, C. C. (1998). Дыpecтyйcкий мoгилъник. Caнкт-Пeтepбypг: Eвpoпeйcкий дoм. Mиняeв, C. C. (2002). Caxapoвcкaя Л. M. Coпpoвoдитeлъныe зaxpoнeния 《цapcкoгo》кoмплeкca №7 вмoгилъник цapaм. Apxeлoлгичecкиe вecти №9 (C. 86– 118). Caнкт-Пeтepбypг. Mиняeв, C. C. (2009). Элитный кoмплeкc Cюннycкиx зaxopoнeий в пaди Цapaм (зaбйкaлъe). Apxeлoлгя, этнoгopaфия, и aнтpoпoлoния Eвpaзии (No.1., C. 49–66). Moгильникoв, B. A. (1992). Xyннy Зaбaйкaлья // Cтeпнaя пoлoca Aзиaтcкий чacтa CCCP в Cкифo-capмaтcкoe вpeмя. Mocквa: Hayкa. Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1995). Ningxia Pengbao Yujiazhuang mudi [The Yujiazhuang Cemetery at Pengbao, Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao 1, 79–105 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology et al. (1988). Ningxia tongxin daodunzi xiongnu mudi [Daodunzi Xiongnu Cemeteries in Tongxin County Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao 3 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Guyuan Museum. (1993). Ningxia Guyuan Yanglang qingtong wenhua mudi [The bronze culture cemetery at Yanglang, Guyuan County Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao 1, 13–56 (in Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Ningxia Archaeological Group of Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Cultural Relics Management Institute of Tongxin County. (1988). Ningxia tongxin daodunzi xiongnu mudi [Daodunzi Xiongnu Cemeteries in Tongxin County Ningxia]. Kaogu xuebao 3, 335–356 (In Chinese). Ningxia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Xiji County Cultural Relics Administration Office. (1994). Xijixian Chenyangchuan mudi fajue jianbao [Excavation report on the cemetery at Chenyangchuan of Xiji County]. In Ningxia kaogu wenji [Collected works on Ningxia archaeology] (p. 65).Yinchuan, China: Ningxia renmin press (in Chinese). Pan, L. (2007a). Wangong mudi de wenhua xingzhi he niandai [The cultural nature and dating of the Wangong Cemetery]. Kaogu 9, 78–86 (in Chinese). Pan, L. (2007b). Yiwo’erjia chengzhi he mudi ji xiangguan Xiongnu kaogu wenti yanjiu [Archaeological research on Ivolga site and cemetery and related Xiongnu issues]. Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese).

References

537

Pan, L. (2015a). The transformations of cultural exchanges between Northern China and the Eurasian Steppe from the Late Warring States period to the Middle Western Han. Asian Archaeology, 1(3), 90–101. Pan, L. (2015b). Xiongnu daxing muzang yanjiu gaishu [Overview of the studies of Xiongnu large tombs]. Caoyuan wenwu 2, 100–109 (in Chinese). Pan, L. (forthcoming). Xiongnu wenhua yinsu de chuanbo: jian tan Han wenhua yu Xiongnu wenhua de chabie [The dissemination of the cultural factors of the Xiongnu: On the differences between Han culture and Xiongnu culture] (in Chinese). Pan, Q. (1990) Pingyang muzang rengu de yanjiu (Research on the human skeleton unearthed from the Tombs at Pingyang). In Pingyang muzang [Tombs at Pingyang] (pp. 187–235). Beijing, China: Wenwu press (in Chinese). Pang, H. (1998). Wengniuteqi faxian lianghan tongpaishi [Han dynasty bronze Plaques found in Wengniute banner]. Wenwu 7, 42–43 (in Chinese). Пoлocъмaк, H. B. (1992), Cтepeгyщиe зoлoтo гpифы. Hoвocибиpcк: Hayкa. Пoлocъмaк, H. B. (1994), Cтepгyщиe зoлoтo гpифы (aк-aлaxинcкиe кypгaны). Hoвocибиpcк: Hayкa. Пшeницынa, M. И. (1992) Tecинcкий этaп // Cтeпнaя пoлoca Aзиaтcкoй чacти CCCP в Cкифo-capмaтcкoe вpeмя (C. 234–235). Mocквa: Hayкa. Pyдeнкo, C. И. (1962), Кyльтypa xyннoв и нoинyлинcкиe кypгaны. Mocквa-Лeнингpaд. Shaanxi Institute of Archaeology. (2003). Xi’an beijiao zhanguo zhutong gongjiangmu fajue jianbao [Excavation report of bronze craftsmen’s tombs of the Warring States period in the northern suburb of Xi’an]. Wenwu 9 (In Chinese). Shaanxi Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Yulin Cultural Relics Administration Office. (2001). Shenmu Dabaodang [Excavation report on the cemetery at Dabaodang township Shenmu city]. Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Shanxi Institute of Archaeology. (2004). Houmaqiao mudi (1959–1996) [The Qiaocun Cemetery in Houma city of shanxi province, 1959–1996]. Beijing, China: Kexue press (in Chinese). Sun, S. (1957). Xichagou gumuqun beijue shijian de jiaoxun [The Lessons Learning from the 952 Excavation of the Xichagou Tombs]. Wenwu cankao ziliao 1, 53–56 (In Chinese). Sun, S. (1960). Xiongnu Xichagou wenhua gumuqun de faxian [The discovery of the Xiongnu Xichagou Cemetery]. Wenwu 8, 9: 25–32 (in Chinese). The Shenyang Palace Museum, Shenyang Cultural Relics Administration Office. (1975). Shenyang Zhengjiawazi de liangzuo qingtong shidai muzang [Two Bronze Age tombs at Zhengjiawazi Shenyang]. Kaogu xuebao 1, 141–155, 149 (in Chinese). Tian, G. (1976). Taohongbala de Xiongu mu [The Xiongnu cemetery at Taohongbala]. Kaoguxuebao 1: 131–143 (in Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1980). Neimenggu Aluchaideng Faxian de Xiongnu Yiwu [Xiongnu artifacts discovered in Aruchiden, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu 4, 333–338 (In Chinese). Tian, G., & Guo, S. (1986). E’erduosi Qingtongqi [Ordos Bronzes]. Beijing, China: Wenwu Press (in Chinese). Tishkin-Alexer, A. (2011) Characteristic Burials of the Xiongnu Period at Ialoman-II in the Altai. In U. Brosseder, & B. Miller (Eds.), Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary perspectives of the first steppe empire in inner Asia (Vol. 5, pp. 539–558). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn University Press. Tишкин, A. A., & Maтpeнин, C. C. (2011). Кeнoтaф Xyннcкoгo вpeмeни нa пaмятникe Ялoмaн-II в цeнтpaлънoм Aлтae // Xyннy apxoлoгия, пpoиcxoждeниe кyлътypы, этничecкaя иcтopия (C. 158–172). Улaн-Удэ: БHЦ CO PAH. Törbat, T. (2011). A study on bronze mirrors on Xiongnu graves of Mongolia. In U. Brosseder & B. K. Miller (Eds.), Xiongnu archaeology: Multidisciplinary perspectives of the first steppe empire in inner Asia (Vol. 5, pp. 315–325). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Цыбиктapoв, A. Д. (1998). Кyлътypa плитoчныx мoгил Moнгoлии и Зaбaйкaлъя. Улaн-yдэ: Издaтлъcтвo Бypятcкoгo гocyгивepcитeтa.

538

6 Cultural Connections Between the Northern Zone of China …

Ulanqab Museum. (1994). Chayouhouqi Sandaowan mudi [Cemetery at Sandaogou Chayouhouqi]. In Neimenggu wenwu kaogu wenji [Collected archaeological works on cultural relics in Inner Mongolia] (Vol. 1). Beijing, China: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu press (in Chinese). Umehara, S. (1960). Mōko Noin-Ura hakken no ibutsu (Vol. 72, pp. 28–31). Tōkyō: Tōyō Bunko. Wang, Z. (1954) Luoyang Shaogou fujin de zhanguo muzang [Cemetery of the Warring States period at Shaogou Luoyang]. Kaogu xuebao 8 (in China). Wang, Z. (1984). Handai kaoguxue gaishuo [Introduction to archaeology in the Han Period]. Beijing, China: Zhonghua shuju (in Chinese). Wei, J. (1998). Neimenggu zhongnanbu handai muzang [Burials of the Han period in mid-southern Inner Mongolia]. Beijing, China: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu press (in Chinese). Wei, Z. Li, H., & Zou, H. (1998). Xiangsu xuzhoushi shizishan xihan mudi fajue yu shouhuo [Excavation and harvest of of Lion Mountain Cemetery of the Western Han Dynasty in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province]. Kaogu, 8, 1–20 (in Chinese). Wu, E. (1990). Lun Xiongnu kaogu yanjiu zhong de jige wenti [Several questions in Xiongnu archaeology]. Kaogu xuebao, 4, 409–437 (in Chinese). Xapинcкий, A. B. (2004). Пpecтижныe вeщи в пoгpeбeняx бaйкaльcкoгo пoбepeжья кoнцa Iтыc. н. э. - нaчaлa IIтыc н. э. кaк пoкaзaтeльныx кyльтypнo-пoлитичecкиx пpoцeccoв // Кoмплeкcныe иccлeдoвaния дpeвниx и тpaдициoнныx oбщecтв Eвpaзии (C. 108–118). Бapнayл. Xianyang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (1998). Ta’erpo qinmu [Tombs of the Qin period at Ta’erpo]. Xian, China: Sanqin press (in Chinese). Xuzhou Museum. (1997). Xuzhou Xihan Wanquhou liushimu [Excavation of the Tomb of Liu Zhi, Marquis of Wanqu of Western Han in Xuzhou]. Wenwu, 2, 4–21 (in Chinese). Yang, J. (2010). Zhangjiachuan muzang caoyuan yinsu xunzong—tianshan tongdao de kaiqi [Tracing the steppe factors of Zhangjiachuan burials: the opening of Tianshan passage]. Xiyu yanjiu, 4, 51–56 (In Chinese). Yeruul-Erdene, Ch. (2011). The Xiongnu Elite tombs, Treasures of the Xiongnu (pp. 36–49). Ulaanbaatar. Yun, H.-W., Chang, E.-J. (2011). Excavation of Xiongnu tombs at Durrring Nars cemetery in Eastern Mongolia. In U. Brosseder, & B. K. Miller (Eds.), Xiongnu archaeology: Multidisciplinary perspectives of the first steppe empire in inner Asia (Vol. 5, pp. 262–274). Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology. Bonn: Bonn University Press. Зaднeпpoвcкий, Ю. (1992), Paнниe Кoчeвники Кeтмeн-Tюбe, Фepгaны и Aлтя // Cтeпнaя пoлoca Aзиaтcкoй чacти CCCP в cкифo-capмaтcкoe вpeмя (C. 87–94). Mocквa: Hayкa. Zhangjiakou Municipal Cultural Administration Office, Xuanhua County Cultural Museum. (1987). Hebei Xuanhua xian Xiaobaiyang mudi fajue baogao [Report on the excavations at the Xiaobaiyang Cemetery, Xuanhua County, Hebei]. Wenwu, 5, 47 (in Chinese).

Conclusion

The cultural exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe constituted an important part of the early exchanges between East and West. We dedicated a significant portion of the book to identifying the relevant archaeological cultures in the interactions between the Northern Zone of China and Eurasian Steppe (Table 1). Furthermore, we discussed the spread and influence of bronzes and gold wares and the formation of the steppe Metal Road, the predecessor of the Silk Road. Cultural exchanges between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe were mainly divided into two routes. One of the routes travelled through the eastern Mongolian Plateau in the north of the Northern Zone and the Transbaikal area, and the other travelled through the mountain ranges in the northwest of the Northern Zone. A thousand years of cultural exchange along these two routes witnessed the rise of the Xiongnu Empire and laid the historical foundation for the later Silk Road in the Qin and Han dynasties.

The Development of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province and the Rise of the Xiongnu The rise and development of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province embodied the cultural exchange between the bronze culture of the Northern Zone of China and the culture of the Mongolian and Transbaikal regions. The Northern Zone Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province was formed and became prosperous in the late Shang dynasty. However, the prototype of the metallurgical province is dated as early as the Xia dynasty, as shown in the wide distribution of ring-shaped pommel knives with upturned points and hilts in a concave lens shape from the areas between the northernmost part of the Northern

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3

539

540

Conclusion

Table 1 Archaeological chronology

Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau (Fig. 3.51). Knives underwent changes in shape and form from their early to late stage. The changes occurred at basically the same pace in the Northern Zone of China, Mongolia and Transbaikal. The distribution area of this type of knife overlapped with that of the later Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab-Grave culture. The cultural similarities shared between the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia and Transbaikal indicated the formation and development of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province emerging from the Xia dynasty. Current discoveries indicate that belt ornaments, as the most common ornament of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the Slab-Grave culture, were found in the Siba cultural remains and the Tianshanbeilu remains dated to the Xia dynasty. Most of the bronzes of the Xiajiadian and the Slab-Grave cultures were found in the foothills of Inner Asia, so the belt ornaments were likely influenced by the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. In the future, it is highly likely that similar artifacts in the Xia dynasty will be found in the eastern part of the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau. The early Shang dynasty witnessed well-developed bronze-casting technology in the Northern Zone of China, with a number of bronzes unearthed from various regions, especially bronze staggers and ring-shaped pommel knives with long blades from the Zhukaigou culture in south-central Inner Mongolia as the earliest discovery of bronzes in the Northern Zone of China. However, there are limited references for the unearthed bronzes in Mongolia and Transbaikal for comparison

Conclusion

541

and contrast. Nevertheless, the connections of the Northern Zone of China with Mongolia and Transbaikal are evident, as shown by the type of bag-legged li cauldron with snake patterns that were prevalent in the Zhukaigou culture.1 Furthermore, numerous ceramic li cauldrons in a similar style were found in Mongolia and Transbaikal. A few discoveries of these types of artifacts in Zhangyi village, Changping district of Beijing (Beijing Cultural Relics Research Institute, Beijing Changping District Cultural Committee 2007) and in Kangjiatun village, Beipiao city, Liaoning Province of the Lower Xiajiadian culture (Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2001) suggest the route of transmission. In the Taixi remains of the early Shang dynasty located between the Central Plain and the northern Great Wall area in the Northern Zone of China, some bronzes with special characteristics were unearthed, including ibex-shaped pommel daggers, pecks, ring-shaped pommel knives, and socketed arrowheads. As another source of bronzes in the Northern Zone of China, the Taixi remains played an important role in the prosperity of bronzes in the north. For instance, the ibex-shaped pommel dagger was likely to be the creative inspiration for the animal-shaped pommels of the northern bronzes in the Shang and Zhou dynasties. Therefore, the earliest northern bronzes in China were probably produced with the help of superb bronze-casting technology from the Shang culture to satisfy the needs of northern residents. Thus, the Shang culture played a significant role in the formation of metallurgical provinces in the Northern Zone and the Mongolian Plateau. The Northern Zone of China not only belonged to the metallurgical province together with Mongolia and Transbaikal but also functioned as an important medium for communication between the Central Plain, Mongolia, and the Transbaikal region, with the spread of square hollow-headed axes with no ears in the Shang dynasty important evidence. This type of axes with a hollow head is often decorated with vertical lines and raised bosses, mainly with square sockets. Probably first originating in the Yellow River Basin, the axes were discovered in the Central Plain, central and south Inner Mongolia, and the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau during the early stage, then spread via the Northern Zone of China to Mongolia and Lake Baikal and were popularized along the south edge of the big forest. The Seima-Turbino remains are mainly characterized by hollow-pommel axes, reflecting the common characteristics between the two places. The hollow-pommel axes connect the Ural Mountains with the Central Plain of the early Shang dynasty, which are located in the western part and the eastern end of Siberia, respectively, more than 5000 km apart. The movement of these artifacts through the sparsely populated forest indicates the urgent need for hollow-pommel axes in the forest area (William 1971). By the time of the Western Zhou dynasty, this type of hollow-pommel axes in the Northern Zone of China underwent changes into wider and shorter overall shapes with no ears and no decorations or cross patterns on the

1

The bag-legged ge with a snake pattern is a type of pottery with longitudinally added mud stacks with a form similar to that of snakes on its figurines and the bag-legs.

542

Conclusion

body. The same characteristics were found in the hollow-pommel axes popular in Mongolia and Transbaikal, which indicates their constant contact with the Northern Zone of China. From the late Shang dynasty to the Western Zhou dynasty, the Northern Zone of China, Mongolia, and Transbaikal reached the boom phase for bronze-casting, with the emergence of a large number of bronzes or bronze assemblages that were similar in type and shape. Yinxu Phase II to the middle of the Western Zhou dynasty witnessed at least eight types of bronze assemblages in the Northern Zone of China, with the knife with an animal-shaped pommel found in the Chaodaogou remains as one of the earliest representatives. The knife with an animal-shaped pommel resembles the knife surmounted by an animal in the Seima-Turbino remains and dates from earlier than the Chaodaogou remains, which indicates its inheritance of the earlier Asian bronze traditions. The knife with an animal-shaped pommel has a hilt in a convex lens shape. Thus, its origin is different from that of knives with an upturned point with the hilt in a concave lens shape due to their different bronze-casting techniques. Eight bronze assemblages originated in the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau and the north and south slopes of the Yanshan Mountains, respectively, which were the two most important centers in the Northern Zone of China, with the Taihang Mountains as the line of demarcation. The two centers posed a military threat to the Shang dynasty from the northwest and the northeast, and due to the well-developed weapons in the west of Shanxi and on the Shaanxi Plateau, it posed a forbidding threat. The bell-shaped pommels used as decorations on their weapons reflected the high frequency of warfare. The north and south slopes of the Yanshan Mountains saw knives of different varieties and great numbers with animal-shaped pommels as their preference. The external spread of bronzes from these two centers of the Shanxi and Shaanxi Plateau and the northern and southern slopes of the Yanshan Mountains further stimulated the development of the metallurgical province in the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau. The bronzes found in Mongolia and Transbaikal during this period were quite similar in type and shape to those found in the Shanxi Shaanxi Plateau and the north and south slopes of the Yanshan Mountains. Among them, bronze knives with ring-shaped pommels, animal-shaped pommels, and bell-shaped pommels with notched guards and lan guards appeared in the largest number in these two areas and were influenced by the Northern Zone of China. These bronzes with similar characteristics symbolized the formation of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. The influence extended further to the Karasuk culture of the Minusinsk Basin in the West Sayan of the Inner Asia Mountains (Fig. 3.52). A number of Karasuk type bronzes were also found in vast areas of the Transbaikal to its east, the Mongolian Plateau to its south, and the Northern Zone of China, with many of these bronzes, especially tools and weapons influenced by their northern counterparts. Artifacts such as the swords with concave grids, animal-shaped pommels, bell-shaped pommels, and bow-shaped bronzes found in the Minusinsk Basin appeared later in comparison to their counterparts in the Northern Zone of China or the Central Plain, and they mostly belonged to the late form of bronzes according to the evolution of the bronze shapes. The origin of

Conclusion

543

these bronzes remains unclear. However, some evidence indicates that they originated near the north of the Shang cultural region, gradually crossed the Yanshan Mountains and passed the Mongolian Plateau to reach Transbaikal and the Minusinsk Basin. For instance, the bronze helmets in Gaohong of Liulin County dating to the late Shang and early Zhou dynasties were the earliest bronze helmets of the Northern Zone of China. These bronze helmets were likely influenced by those from the Yinxu in the Central Plain dating to the late Shang dynasty. This type of bronze helmet spread from the Yinxu to the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi, the Baifu tombs in Changping, south of the Yanshan Mountains, the Upper Xiajiadian culture to the north of Yanshan Mountains, and finally to the Mongolian Plateau farther north. They share the same transmission route of northern bronzes along the Great Wall to the Mongolian Plateau during the Bronze Age. In addition, a handful of three-foot egg-shaped urns (Mikhail 1969) were found in the Minusinsk Basin, which originated in Jinzhong region during the late Longshan period and were widely distributed in central and southern Inner Mongolia and on both sides of the Yellow River between Shanxi and Shaanxi, Jinzhong and Guanzhong regions. This undoubtedly demonstrates the spread of the Chinese Northern Zone culture, which surpassed the significance of the spread of bronzes to carry a deeper level of cultural exchange. Of course, this was not a one-way relationship of cultural spread from the Northern Zone of China and Central Plain to the Minusinsk Basin but a mutual relationship with the spread of swords with mushroom-shaped pommels coming from the Minusinsk Basin to the Northern Zone of China (Fig. 3.53). However, the influence of the Northern Zone of China on the Minusinsk Basin dates to the late Shang dynasty, which is earlier than the influence of the latter on the former. The crank-hilt knife unearthed from Fuhao’s Tomb in the Yinxu resembled that from Chaodaogou in Qinglong, which indicates that the influence of the Northern bronzes can be dated to as early as the second phase of Yinxu. However, the influence of the Minusinsk Basin on the Northern Zone of China lasted relatively late upto the Western Zhou dynasty, when a large amount of mushroom-shaped pommel artifacts were found in the Baifu tomb in Changping. In comparison with the early Shang dynasty, the exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Inner Asia narrowed to smaller areas, mainly with the Minusinsk Basin in Southern Siberia and the Mongolian Plateau, because the Central Plain and the Northern Zone of China were only 300–400 km away from the Minusinsk Basin (William 1971). From the late Western Zhou dynasty to the early Spring and Autumn period, the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the Northern Zone of China reached its expansion phase, while the Slab Grave culture was distributed in Mongolia and Transbaikal. Despite the relatively scattered materials, the early Slab Grave culture had an extensive connection with the Upper Xiajiadian culture. The connection started from the formation period of the Upper Xiajiadian culture and became further strengthened in its boom period. First, great similarities are exhibited between the two in the functional bronzes, such as bronze helmets, hollow-pommel axes and bow-shaped vessels, which confirms their close connection. In addition, more extensive connections between the Upper Xiajiadian culture and Slab Grave culture

544

Conclusion

can be observed in their decorations and decorative styles. In contrast to the animal-headed pommel at the top of the swords and knives of the previous stage, this stage saw popular decorative zoomorphic motifs in rows on the hilts of swords and knives. More importantly, great similarities in decorations were found in both places with high consistency in both appearance and decoration, including spoon-shaped ornaments, spring-shaped earrings, two-tailed ornaments, and belt ornaments. Moreover, many identical artifacts were found in both cultures. The great similarity of the various bronzes, such as weapons, tools, and ornaments, in both the Upper Xiajiadian culture and the early Slab Grave culture highlights the very close relationship between the two cultures. The resemblance in ornament shapes and decoration styles reveals the profound connections in trade or migration between the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia and Transbaikal. During this period, cultural identities were thus further deepened among the populations. Although very limited findings are currently available, the discovery of the double-tailed ornament of the Upper Xiajiadian culture in Yulin, northern Shaanxi, indicates that such communication was not limited to the northeast region but expanded to the vast region of the Northern Zone of China. By the Spring–Autumn and the Warring States period, the Northern Zone of China, the Mongolian Plateau and other places had entered the nomadic era. As their connections were further strengthened, the northern cultural belt of China was established along the Great Wall. For example, distinctive stick-shaped ornaments on belt were found in the Mongolian Plateau as well as in the Jinbei areas and the Ordos of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, such as the Xiaobaiyang Tomb and the Yuhuangmiao Tomb. All this evidence shows that the connection between the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau was maintained in the Eastern Zhou dynasty. This stage observed the wide popularity of tiger-shaped plaques in the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau. The tiger-shaped plaques underwent an evolution from a single tiger during the early Spring and Autumn period to multiple tigers during the late Spring and Autumn period and to P-shaped tiger plaques during the late Warring States period. The types of tiger-shaped plaques and their evolution show that the east of the Northern Zone of China and Mongolia were the important cradles of tiger-shaped plaques, which gradually spread to the west and the entire distribution area of the northern bronze culture. In this period, a large number of northern Asian people from the south lived in the northern cultural belt of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia. They were assimilated by the local people of the ancient Northern Zone and adopted the local cultural traditions. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Jibei in the east of the northern Chinese culture belt were barely affected by the influence of Southern Siberia, whose influence was commonly observed in the west of the culture belt. For instance, short swords with double birds pommels (only one sword dated to the mid Warring States period was found in Beixinbao of Huailai), the pickax, and standing animal image were not found in the west of the culture belt or the Mongolian Plateau and Transbaikal region. Therefore, the east boundary of Scythian-Siberia is roughly identified in the central part of Mongolia and the Hunshandak Desert to the north of the Taihang Mountains in the Northern Zone of China, which was also the west

Conclusion

545

boundary of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province at that time. During the late Warring States period, Yan, Zhao, and Qin states moved northward and built the Great Wall to defend against the Hu, which forced the Hu to retreat to western Inner Mongolia north of the Great Wall. Faced with the unification of the Warring States, the Xiongnu continued to form alliances. At the turn of the Qin and Han dynasties, the Xiongnu Confederation gradually formed under the leadership of Modu Chanyu. The evidence of the southward movement of Slab Grave residents from northern Asia to the Great Wall is shown in their possession of bone arrowheads with divided ends that originated in the northern Chinese culture belt during the Warring States period. In addition, animal plaques and belt ornaments as well as the burial sacrifice custom involving animal heads and hooves were found in the Xiongnu remains of the Transbaikal region dating to the middle Western Han period. This evidence reveals the proximity of the Xiongnu culture dating to the beginning of the Han dynasty and the Northern Zone culture dating to the Warring States period as well as the remote relationship between the former and the Slab Grave culture, an earlier culture in the Mongolian Plateau and the Transbaikal region. Thus, it is likely that the Hu inside and outside the Great Wall played an essential role in the formation of the Xiongnu culture. Under attack by Emperor Wu, the Hu continued retreating to the north of the desert, strengthened their ties with Eurasian Steppe in the west, and gradually formed the Xiongnu culture with their distinctive characteristics. The above analysis reveals the close relation of the Transbaikal and the Mongolian Plateau with the Northern Zone of China to the south. Together, they formed a large metallurgical province. This north-south connection lasted for thousands of years, which made it possible for the Transbaikal and the Mongolian Plateau to continuously absorb the cultural influence of the Northern Zone of China during the Xiongnu era. This cultural influence can be seen in everyday artifacts, ornaments, and ceramics. The cultural influence affected all walks of life of the Xiongnu, which became the first nomadic empire on the Eastern steppe. In this sense, the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province laid a profound cultural foundation for the Xiongnu Confederation.

The Contact of the Northern Zone of China with the Inner Asia Piedmont and the Formation of the Silk Road The Inner Asia Piedmont mainly includes Minusinsk, Tuva, Altai, and the Semirechye in Central Asia. These regions had engaged in cultural exchanges with the Northern Zone of China for a long time, and they played an important role in the formation and development of bronze culture in the Northern Zone of China. From the Xia to the early Shang period, the Qijia culture in Northwest China first established close contact with cultures beyond China. The Qijia culture collected

546

Conclusion

bronzes from other places beyond China and borrowed their characteristics to cast their bronzes because they integrated the features of different periods, as shown in the evolution of early bronzes in Eurasia. However, these external influences were not accepted into the bronzes of the Qijia culture as they were, but underwent with some adaptation. Therefore, the bronzes of the Qijia culture were under external influences, but not like their foreign counterparts. External influences on the Qijia culture beyond China mainly came from the Central Asian Oases and the Asian steppe. The Qijia bronzes resembled those in the Central Asian Oases, probably due to their proximity, while the resemblance with those in the Asian steppe might be due to cultural influence. The features of foreign bronzes were not well assimilated into that of Qijia culture, nor did they subsequently exert a significant impact on Chinese bronze. As cultures slightly later than the Qijia culture, the bronze industries of the Tianshanbeilu culture and the Siba culture entered a mature and stable stage of development. Some of their bronzes resembled those of the last stage of the Qijia culture with regard to shape. Some of their bronzes even assimilated to the western traditions, as shown by the mace heads, tubular socketed axes, socketed spears, and swords with trident-shaped guards. Mace heads, as a typical object in western culture, were mostly found in the Near East and Egypt in ancient times; their discovery was rare in China, and mostly limited to the northwest regions. The discovery of a mace head in the Northern Zone of China is undoubtedly important evidence of the early cultural exchanges between the east and the west. Socketed spears underwent a long evolution in the Eurasian Steppe that could not be found in China. Therefore, socketed spears found in the Siba culture were likely an imitation of bronze spears from the Eurasian Steppe. In general, external influences from regions beyond China can be identified on many bronzes from Northwest China at that time. These external influences were from different regions and different channels along the Inner Asian Piedmont, although the specific transmission route has not yet been identified. In the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C., the late bronze culture in the Eurasian Steppe was at the peak of expansion. In this process, there were primarily two types of remains in the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang. One was the Andronovo Cultural Complex in the steppe region, which played an indispensable role in the development of the Eurasian Steppe bronze culture and exerted a great influence on the cultures of Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China through its cultural expansion and population migration. During its expansion period, the Andronovo Complex expanded its eastern frontier to the Tianshan region of Xinjiang and brought the traditional European Type B battle-axes to Turpan and Hami. Additionally, earrings with flared openings unearthed across the Northern Zone of China might be related to the expansion of the Andronovo Complex. However, northern Chinese people borrowed only the shape and the method in their own making of local earrings of oblate flared openings, which were different from the ones with round flared openings favored by the Andronovo people. It is worth noting that during the eastward expansion of the Andronovo Complex, its culture was impeded by the Gansu-Qinghai cultures, characterized by traditional eastern colored pottery and the local Xinjiang culture under the influence of the former.

Conclusion

547

The evidence of competition between the two cultural systems can be seen in the Netara remains of the Yanqi Basin and the northern type of Niya in Xinjiang, where the eastward expansion of the Andronovo Complex stopped. In the meantime, objects such as the C class battle-axes with an Asian tradition spread from the Northern Zone of China to Hami and Turpan in the late 2nd millennium B.C. without going farther to the west of Xinjiang. Similarly, the eastward influence of the European steppe did not pass through Xinjiang to the Hexi Corridor. This demonstrated that the west and east regions of Xinjiang were influenced by the west and east, respectively, during this period. Another culture that exerted a profound impact on the Northern Zone of China and Xinjiang was the Seima-Turbino remains in the forest steppes. The bronze-casting technique of the Seima-Turbino remains was well developed, and the transmission of its most distinctive bronzes, such as axes with ears, reflected the cultural communication in the Eurasian Steppe. This type of axes with ears had already spread to Xinjiang and the Gansu-Qinghai area of China in the Shang dynasty following the transmission path starting from the northwest to south-central Inner Mongolia, then to the Central Plain, Jibei and Liaoxi. In addition, a type of bronze spear known as the Seima-Turbino spear was widely distributed in Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan, and Liaoxi in China. These spears discovered in China were copies produced in China rather than original products directly introduced. However, the discovery of these spears reveals the connection between Seima-Turbino remains and China. From the late Western Zhou dynasty to the early Spring and Autumn period, the Eurasian Steppe experienced a transition from animal husbandry to a nomadic economy with major changes in production and technology, social structure and ideology in many areas. Only a few remains belonging to this period were found scattered in different areas, such as the Pre-Scythian culture in the Circumpontic region, the Arzhan Kurgans in Tuva, the Upper Xiajiadian culture in Northeast China, and the Slab Grave culture on the Mongolian Plateau in the Baikal region. Among them, the Arzhan Kurgans represented the typical culture of the Siberian region, with many factors regarded as the predecessors of the Scythian culture in the Circumpontic region, and was an early nomadic culture found in the Inner Asian Piedmont. The Upper Xiajiadian Culture was regarded as typical remains of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. This culture was consistently associated with the Slab Grave culture. However, in its late stage, it developed into a culture that shared a resemblance to that of the Southern Siberian region. The Upper Xiajiadian culture was dated slightly later than the culture found in Arzhan I and earlier than that found in Arzhan II. The curly zoomorphic motifs, prevalent over-decorative short swords, bronze snaffle bits and cheekpieces and other artifacts of the Upper Xiajiadian culture are similar to those of Arzhan I and Arzhan II, but bear more resemblance to the latter. This similarity reflects the frequent cultural exchanges among the Eurasian Steppe. The frequent cultural exchange was also reflected in the helmet with the opening in the front face and the arched tip at the top, which enjoyed popularity in the Pre-Scythian culture. The early nomadic culture in Southern Siberia may have also been integrated into the formation of the Scythian culture in the north of the Black Sea, with many artifacts

548

Conclusion

found in the Circumpontic area. These artifacts look exactly the same as those in the Southern Siberian region, such as the three-hole cheekpieces with mushroom-shaped heads at both ends and three-bladed bead-shaped ornaments. During this period, the European part and the Asian part of the Eurasian Steppe were connected as a whole for the first time, with the South Siberia region as the central area. This paved the way for the formation of the nomadic age in the entire steppe area after the 7th century B.C. Entering the Eastern Zhou dynasty, the entire Inner Asian Piedmont area entered the nomadic economy. Three key elements consisting of mature tools and weapons, chariots and harnesses, and zoomorphic motif ornaments were discovered in the remains of each area. In the early period, the association between the nomadic culture and the culture of the Northern Zone of China can be divided into three stages. The first stage was around the 7th to the 5th century B.C. (late Spring and Autumn period). The Tuva area and the Minushinsk Basin were the important centers of early nomadic culture, and they formed close ties with the Northern Zone of China from the beginning of the Bronze Age. The artifacts that best reflect these close ties are the spread of short swords with double bird pommels and pickaxes, which were often unearthed together. It is likely that the spread was from the west area to the east area given the quantity and shape of the artifacts. The early formation and production of the artifacts were in places such as the Tuva area and the Minusinsk Basin, which were the most developed areas. However, similar artifacts appeared quite late in the Northern Zone of China, and only a few comparable artifacts originating from the Northern Zone of China were found in the northwest (such as south Yinchuan). Thus, the influence was spread from areas such as the Tuva area and the Minusinsk Basin. Evidence is also available in the standing animal decorations and the handle mirrors. However, unlike the short swords with double bird pommels and the pickaxes, the acceptance of these decorative artifacts by the northern Chinese people occurred relatively late. The second stage dated back to the 5th century B.C. (from the end of the Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States period). During this period, ironware was more popular, the shape and structure of artifacts tended to be unified, and cultural exchanges were strengthened, with increased popularity of chariots and harnesses, weapons, and zoomorphic ornaments. Weapons mainly consisted of short swords with double bird pommels and pickaxes. Varieties of chariots and harnesses gradually decreased from the west to the east. The zoomorphic ornaments were mainly used on practical vessels, while local belt ornaments and plagues with yunwen-spiral pattern were common in daily life. Bronze mirrors with handles were very rare. At this time, the tombs of the warrior class with weapons as burial goods were most prominent. The third stage was dated after the 3rd century B.C. (the middle of the Warring States period), and the zoomorphic ornaments replaced short swords and battle-axes as the dominant artifact. In the early phase of the third stage, the standing animal decorations from the Minusinsk Basin were mostly used as finials, while in the late phase, relief or openwork zoomorphic motif plaques became popular. The Pazyryk culture, as the representative culture of nomadic tribes in the Altai region, suddenly rose as a new center and played an important role in the entire Inner Asian

Conclusion

549

Piedmont area. It greatly influenced the culture of the Northern Zone of China, which is mainly reflected in decorative artifacts. The inverted zoomorphic motifs, horned spirit beast and wing-shaped bird ornaments unearthed from the Northern Zone of China can be seen as influenced by the Altai region. The spreading route may have been from Altai to the Northern Zone of China via Mongolia. At the same time, the tiger-shaped ornaments in the Northern Zone of China spread to the Altai region through this route. Thus, this route provided an opportunity for mutual communication. At the same time, the Xiongnu culture prospered on the Mongolian Plateau and expanded rapidly. It forced people from the Northern Zone of China to seek new communication channels, and its direct cultural exchange with the Semirechye region occurred during this period. Typically, the Majiayuan cemetery in the Zhangjiachuan, Gansu Province, and the Issyk kurgan in the Semirechye resembled each other in their use of luxurious decorative effects and a large amount of gold and silver-foil ornaments. Zoomorphic ornaments in both areas were depicted in flat, two-dimensional relief. The animal shape on the gold and silver ornaments mainly featured northern mountain goats with standing limbs and felines with vertical and transversal stripes. The tombs of these two places shared a remarkable resemblance with regard to decorative motifs and details as well as decorative methods and effects, which reflects the close relationship between the two cultures. In addition, the culture probably spread from west to east, taking their cultural traditions into consideration. The Xinjiang region between the two places was also subject to cultural exchange, with traces of exchange found in Tekes County and Xinyuan in the westernmost part of the Ili region, the Alagou cemetery in the east, and Hami in the easternmost area. Related remains were distributed along the Tianshan Mountains. All the evidence suggests that by the end of the Warring States period, the route along the Tianshan Mountains had connected the Guanzhong area and the Kazakh steppe. Thus, the Xinjiang area no longer only assimilated the East and West cultural influences but provided a channel for eastwest transportation. This route was the prototype of the Silk Road, which was of profound significance in the history of Chinese and Western transportation. The Eastern Zhou dynasty was the final era that bred the formation of the Silk Road. The connection between the Northern Zone of China and the Inner Asian Piedmont extended to the Minusinsk Basin and the Tuva area of the west Sayan Mountains at high latitudes and extended southward to the Altai Mountains and finally to the Tianshan Mountains at low latitudes. The Xinjiang area gradually developed into a communicative channel between the East and the West. Therefore, Zhang Qian in the Han dynasty did not really “open a way” to the western regions because there had been a popular steppe Metal Road for thousands of years before him.

550

Conclusion

The Eastward and Westward Cultural Advances Influenced by Cultures of the Eastern Region and the Western Region In his masterpiece A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia (David 2006), David Christine studied the development of animal husbandry cultures in the eastern Asian steppe and analyzed impetuses for local development in Asia. He proposed that the development of animal husbandry culture in the Asian steppe was driven by two forces. One was the influence from the west, such as the Yamnaya culture, which spread eastward and influenced the formation of the Afanasievo culture and then continued to spread farther east to the north of the Tianshan Mountains. In the 2nd millennium B.C., Caucasians found their way into the Xinjiang area. The second force was the “barbarians” who engaged in agriculture in the tributaries of the Yellow River in the Northern Zone of China around the time of the Shang dynasty. “Di”, the northern tribes in ancient China, was seen as an example of the “barbarians” in the book. This shows that regional development impetus also played an important role in the development of the eastern steppe in addition to the influence of the west. Thus, David Christian’s point of view is very different from that of other European and American scholars. The “barbarians” who engaged in agriculture in his book likely refer to the agricultural residents who had no form of written language and no hierarchy system and who lived outside the Central Plain area. These northern residents engaged in a mixed farming economy in regions to the north of the Central Plain and made great contributions to the development of the Eastern steppe as well as the formation of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. This also illustrates the author’s perspective that “the impetus of social development in the Eurasian inland was mainly driven by the large frontier areas bordering southern agricultural regions.” This local force prevented further eastward expansion of the western steppe. The local forces also included the Siberian Okunevo culture, which replaced the Afanasievo culture established by the European population from the west. The area they inhabited expanded gradually, with more refined burial goods, such as cattle carts, weapons and stone statues, as well as the use of the foundry technique. Further evidence of the strong force of the eastern steppes is the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, an armed migration of steppe herders from Mongolia to Finland and the Carpathian Mountains in the middle of the 2nd millennium B.C. These steppe herders wandered only in the forest steppes of the north, indicating that they were no match for forces in the southern steppes, with the Karasuk culture as the representative of the advanced development level of the eastern steppes from the 13th to the 10th century B.C. The Northern Zone of China experienced four stages of development from the Xia dynasty to the end of the Warring States period. The first stage was contemporaneous with the period from the Xia dynasty to the early Shang dynasty; the second stage, from the late Shang dynasty to the early Western Zhou dynasty; the third stage, from the Western Zhou dynasty to the early Spring and Autumn period;

Conclusion

551

and the fourth stage from the middle of the Spring and Autumn period to the end of the Warring States period or the Qin dynasty. The four development stages of the Northern Zone of China exhibited specific patterns due to the self-driven development force as well as the influence of the Central Plain and the steppe. In the first and third stages, since the governance of the Central Plain was stable and strong, close cultural exchanges were mainly between the Northern Zone and the Central Plain, while loose connections were found among the northern regions. In the second and fourth stages, King Wu of Zhou successfully overthrew the Shang dynasty, and the Central Plain merged and competed for hegemony. Therefore, the Central Plain had no time to attend to matters in the surrounding areas of the north, and the ties were strengthened among different cultures within the Northern Zone of China. The northern cultural belt was gradually formed along the Great Wall, and became particularly interlinked with the cultures of the Eurasian Steppe closely. With the Northern Zone of China as a medium, the Central Plain and the steppe areas established cultural links, and these cultural links exhibited different focuses at different stages. During the Xia dynasty, the influence of the northwestern part of the steppe spread through the Qijia culture. For instance, the Erlitou culture was influenced by the Northwest steppe culture to develop its bronze plaques, bronze knives and grid lines on copper tripods as well as turquoise plaque ornaments shared with the Qijia culture. During the Shang dynasty, the Central Plain’s connection with the steppe changed greatly, mainly with the north or northeast steppe areas via the Yanshan Mountains along a northsouth direction and the north of the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau. This finding resonates with the view that “the culture of the Shang dynasty was placed under the influence of the Yi from the East and Xia from the West” proposed by historians in the first half of the last century. From the Western Zhou dynasty, cultural exchanges between the Central Plain and the steppe as well as the Northern Zone of China and the steppe were enhanced from both the eastern and western regions. By comparing artifacts and their positions in time and space, the 2000 years of endless cultural connection and interaction with metal as a medium between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe from the 2nd millennium B.C. to around the Christian era is revealed. There are still some puzzle pieces that await future archaeological discoveries. However, through our research, some pieces have already found their way into the right place, like the spaces left blank in the periodic table of elements, and the unknown can be predicted by the known. In the long process of the development of the steppe Metal Road, the contact of the Northern Zone of China with the Mongolian Plateau and the Transbaikal region and its connection with the Inner Asian Piedmont formed the east and west regions of the Metal Road between the Northern Zone of China and the Asian steppe. For these two areas, one region was prosperous while the other was depressed, depending on which force was stronger. In the early 2nd millennium B.C., when China remained at the beginning of the Bronze Age, some cultures in the Eurasian Steppe had entered the middle of the Bronze Age, and these cultures were mainly distributed in the Inner Asian Piedmont. The bronzes in the Minusinsk Basin and its eastern regions were still not well developed. Archaeological and cultural studies reveal that the bronzes from

552

Conclusion

Fig. 1 Metal artifacts in the Eurasian Steppe and the Northern Zone of China in the early 1st millennium B.C.

the western part of the Northern Zone of China as well as those from the Qijia culture, the Siba culture and the Tianshanbeilu culture were under the influence of the cultures of the Inner Asian Piedmont. The cultures of the Near East area may have also spread along the road because the Central Plain bronzes that spread into the Erlitou culture show traces of the Qijia culture. The prevalent cultural exchanges with the West were evident, and the trend was that the western cultures advanced eastward. At that time, because metallurgical technology was still in its infancy in the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau, the distribution of bronze knives with warped heads demonstrates the existence of cultural exchanges. The fact that popular belt ornaments shaped in linked bead in the eastern region found their way into the Siba and Tianshanbeilu cultures is further evidence for the exchange (Fig. 1). In the middle of the 2nd century B.C., the distribution of remains of the Andronovo Complex and Seima-Turbino remains along the Asian steppe demonstrated the dominant western cultural exchanges. Artifacts of Seima were spread to the Baikal region, and Andronovo’s typical Class-B socketed battle-axes and flare-shaped earrings entered Xinjiang and the Northern Zone of China. The trend at this time continued to be the eastward advancement of the west. At the same time, the Central Plain entered the early Shang dynasty with well-developed bronzes. The Zhukaigou culture was popularized in the Northern Zone of China, and the northern style of the early Shang culture had formed, with bronzes in a state of readiness (Fig. 2).

Conclusion

553

Fig. 2 Andronovo culture complex and the Seima-Turbino complexes in the mid 2nd millennium B.C. and the Northern Zone of China

In the second half of the 2nd century B.C., the steppe entered the end of the Bronze Age. In the late Shang dynasty, bronzes of the Central Plain entered the peak stage. The superb technology of the Central Plain greatly promoted the development of bronzes in the north, which made the bronzes of the Northern Zone of China the most developed bronzes in the steppe of East Asia. The bronzes developed in the Northern Zone of China and the northern style of the Shang culture entered a period of prosperity with eight types. It spread northward and helped the establishment of the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province. The metallurgical province consisted of the Northern Zone of China, the Mongolian Plateau, the Transbaikal region, and the Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk Basin in the west (Fig. 3). This period rarely saw cultural exchange in the west region. Thus, the dominant trend was the westward advancement of eastern cultures. In the early 1st century B.C., the entire Eurasian Steppe was in a transition period from animal husbandry to nomadism. However, remains in the Northern Zone of China show the domination of the Upper Xiajiadian culture in the northeast. This culture maintained its connection with the Slab Grave culture in the east, and when it reached prosperity, it interacted with the Inner Asian Piedmont in the west. At the same time, cultural exchanges in the west region expanded its area to include the Minusinsk Basin. During this period, the cultures of the east region and west region were equally matched (Fig. 4). By the middle of the 1st century B.C., the nomadicization of the entire steppe had occurred, and nomadic culture had entered prosperity. During exchanges between the Northern Zone of China and steppe, the boundaries between the east and west regions were evident. The west regions featured a Siberian style with short

554

Conclusion

Fig. 3 The rise of the Northern Zone-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province at the end of 2nd millennium B.C. at the turn of Shang and Zhou periods

Fig. 4 Confrontation between the eastern and the western traditions around the 8th century B.C.

Conclusion

555

Fig. 5 Eastward advancement of cultures in steppe piedmonts in the Eastern Zhou period from the 7th to the 3rd centuries B.C.

swords with double bird pommels, pickaxes, free-standing sculpture animals and relief animal decorations. The eastern region still featured the traditional Slab Grave culture, such as ring-shaped pommel knives, belt ornaments, and double-tailed decorations. The trend during this period was the eastward advancement of the West, which is shown in the eastward spread of the short swords with double bird pommels and the pickaxes that originated in the Northern Zone of China. The demarcation between the west and east regions moved eastward to the central part of Mongolia and north of the Taihang Mountains (Fig. 5). By the end of the 1st century B.C., the north-south traffic route in the east region provided convenient transportation for the Xiongnu and made it possible for the Xiongnu to assimilate the culture of the Northern Zone of China. Moreover, this trade route was always expanding, assimilating a large number of cultural factors from the Daihai and Ordos regions in Inner Mongolia. After the formation of the Xiongnu Confederation, the Xiongnu took the northern part of the Gobi Desert as their base. They constantly invaded the Northern Zone of China and the Central Plain in the south, expanded their territory to the west steppe and occupied the east part of the Asian steppe. During the prosperous period of the Xiongnu Confederation, exchanges between the Northern Zone of China and the Mongolian Plateau in the east as well as the Inner Asian Piedmont in the west were virtually stagnant. The exchange route had to be diverted to the desert oasis, and thus the Silk Road came into existence (Fig. 6). The Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe became the forefront of the exchanges between China and Eurasia. The new era of exchanges between China and Eurasia had thus formed with different routes and different means.

556

Conclusion

Fig. 6 Expansion of the Xiongnu Confederation and opening of the Silk Road since the 2nd century B.C.

The Asian steppe, as the main area of exchange between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe, can be divided into the East and the West cultural exchange districts. The east district reached its peak development at the end of the Shang and Zhou dynasties in the second half of the 2nd century B.C., with its range pushed westward to the Minusinsk Basin. The western district reached its prosperity in the Eastern Zhou dynasty in the middle of the 1st century B.C. Its eastern boundary reached the north of the Taihang Mountains and the middle of Mongolia. Therefore, the Minusinsk Basin and the central part of Mongolia were the demarcation of the eastern and western areas. We can thus establish the archaeological chronology of ethnic groups in this region: mainly Europoids in the Afanasievo culture, Mongoloids in the Okunevo culture, Europoids in the Andronovo culture, Mongoloids in the Karasuk culture, Europoids in the Tagar culture, and Mongoloids in the Tjesi stage, each appearing in history alternatively. This ethnic composition of the Minusinsk Basin from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age can indicate the direction (eastward or westward) of the cultural spread in the Asian steppe (Киселёв 1981). It is easier to understand this alternation of populations if we place it in the context of the larger Eurasian Steppe. The latest human genomics study (Willerslev 2015) of the Eurasian Bronze Age showed that in the 3rd millennium B.C., the Eurasian Steppe region entered the Bronze Age. First, the Yamnaya culture that originated in the eastern European steppe spread westward and entered the European continent. It blended with the indigenous Neolithic culture and led to the emergence of the Corded Ware culture, which spread over a long distance eastward to the Altai region and the Minusinsk Basin in Asia and formed the Afanasievo culture. In the 2nd millennium B.C., the Sintashta culture appeared in the Urals, and they may have

Conclusion

557

had close ties with the Corded Ware culture. The Sintashta culture developed eastward and formed the Andronovo culture in the middle of the Asian steppe. In the study of ancient human genes, the population gene of the Afanasievo culture was the same as that of the Yamnaya culture, the genes of the Sintashta culture’s population was very similar to that of the Andronovo culture, and that of the Afanasievo culture was completely different from that of the Andronovo culture. Genes of the Okunevo culture, located between the Afanasievo culture and the Andronovo culture, are related to that of the Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta hunter-gatherer group in the Baikal area. Because the Mal’ta hunter-gatherer group transmitted their genetic information to the American Indians, population genes of the Okunevo culture were similar to those of the American Indians. At the end of the Bronze Age, the Andronovo culture eventually merged with and was replaced by the Karasuk culture and the Iron Age culture. In the book titled The Formation of the Northern Cultural Belt of the Warring States Period in the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, the author proposed that the culture represented by short swords with double bird pommels and pickaxes spread from west to east, and the culture featuring tiger pattern plaques and guan jars with small mouths and large bellies spread from east to west during the period from the late Spring and Autumn period to the early Warring States period. If we put the study of cultural interactions between east and west regions into the larger context of the Asian steppe, we can find the driving force of cultural interactions in the Northern Zone of China, with an eastward spread of the Scythian culture at first followed by a westward spread of the Xiongnu culture. The interactions of the Northern Zone of China with the west and east regions of the steppe were very different. The interactions between the Northern Zone of China and east region were along a north-south line, mainly involving the Mongolian Plateau and the Transbaikal region. Because the cultures in the two areas were relatively close and the cultures were traditionally stable, the Northern Zone of China-Mongolian Plateau Metallurgical Province formed. The exchanges between the Northern Zone of China and the west region were along an eastwest line across the vast Asian steppe. Under the frequent cultural influences of the European steppe along the Circumpontic region in the west, the cultural interaction between the Northern Zone of China and the west region showed little continuity and few inheritances during different periods. In the early Iron Age, the western influences were along the areas of the West Sayan Mountains, the Altai Mountains, and the Tianshan Mountains with a decrease in latitude, which eventually formed the Silk Road. Archaeological studies show that Chinese silk and bronze mirrors, as pieces of archaeological evidence of the Silk Road, were first seen in the Pazyryk cemetery in the Altai region. This evidence dates back to at least 200 years earlier than Zhang Qian’s well-known mission to the West in the Western Han dynasty. It underwent a long process in the formation of Metal Road on the steppe and the Silk Road along the steppe and the desert. After a long period of development, the eastern Xiongnu Confederation quickly emerged, which resulted in the formation of the Silk Road recorded in the Western Han dynasty. Its formation had a profound impact on the history of the later Eurasian land bridge.

558

Conclusion

References Beijing Cultural Relics Research Institute, Beijing Changping District Cultural Committee. (2007). Changping zhangying—yanshan nanlu diqu zaoqi qingtong wenhua yizhi fajue baogao (Changping Zhangying: Excavation report of Early Bronze cultural sites in the South Piedmont of Yanshan Mountains). Beijing: Kexue press. (In Chinese). David, C. (2006). A history of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia-Inner Eurasia from prehistory to the Mongol Empire. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Киселёв, C. B. (1981). Nanxiboliya gudaishi (Ancient history of Southern Siberia). Institute of Ethnic Studies, Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences. (In Chinese). Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. (2001). Liaoning beipiaoshi kangjiatun chengzhi fajue baogao (Excavation report of Kangjiatun Site, Beipiao City, Liaoning Province). Kaogu, 8. (In Chinese). Mikhail, P. (1969). The ancient civilization of Southern Siberia. New York: Cowles Book Company. Willerslev, E. (2015). Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Award-winning projects of the Second World Archaeological Forum, Shanghai. William, W. (1971). Cultural frontiers in ancient East Asia. The University Press of Edinburgh.

Postscript

We finally completed this manuscript in the summer of 2013, which was extremely hot, and the manuscript was revised in the summer of 2014. This book can be considered my “second sword”, a term quoted from Professor Zhang Zhongpei, one of the pioneering Chinese archaeological scholars and former director of the Palace Museum, in his preface to my book entitled Mesopotamia: From Agricultural Village to the City State. In fact, I regard these two books as two assignments that I dedicate to my mentors before I retire. The first book was dedicated to Professor Lin Zhichun of Northeast Normal University and Professor Zhang Zhongpei, my mentors in prehistory of Mesopotamia in Western Asia. This book is dedicated to my supervisor Professor Lin Yun of Jilin University, my mentor of in the study of the Bronze Age in the Northern Zone of China. Looking at this manuscript, I want to clarify the origin of this book. Since I started my doctorate degree under the supervision of Professor Lin Yun in 1997, I have chosen the study of the Bronze Age of the Northern Zone of China as my research interest. When I first encountered the concept of Northern Chinese bronzes, I wondered whether it was possible to distinguish between bronzes unique to the Northern Zone of China and those shared by the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe. However, due to the limited access to the archaeological materials of the overseas steppes at that time, in my doctoral dissertation, I only compared the bronzes in the Northern Zone of China with similar artifacts to which I could obtain access. Experts in my doctoral defense committee suggested that I should further pursue this study in the future. During my visit to the University of Pittsburgh from 2007 to 2008, I attended a course on Eurasian Steppe archaeology for graduate students. This course presented the development of the entire Eurasian Steppe from 3000 B.C. to around the Christian era, which broadened my horizons. Moreover, I had the opportunity to collect materials concerning the adjacent steppe around China and discovered that different areas of the steppe exhibited distinctive cultural features. Thus, I no longer treated the Eurasian Steppe as a whole with unified features. It was therefore possible to accurately pinpoint the specific location of the Eurasian Steppe that had contact with the Northern Zone of China and to © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 J. Yang et al., The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9155-3

559

560

Postscript

speculate on the route of communication and reconstruct the cultural pattern of the steppe Metal Road. Shao Huiqiu, my Ph.D. student, also engaged in research in this field after graduation. His doctoral dissertation was entitled The Evolution of the Cultural Pattern in the Prehistoric Period of Xinjiang and its Relationship with the Culture of the Neighboring Regions, so he is knowledgeable about the Eurasian Steppe. He visited the University of Pennsylvania as a visiting scholar. When he was in the US, we completed most of the content of this book with the assistance of the Internet. Pan Ling also pursued her Ph.D. degree under the supervision of Professor Lin, and she is now an expert in the archaeological study of the Xiongnu in China. The concluding chapter of the book is about the history of the Xiongnu Confederation, so Pan Ling was the most suitable person to write the chapter. The three of us are forming a new research team under the guidance of the older generation of scholars in this field. Studies of cultural exchanges between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe have been the research focus of domestic and international scholars for several decades. It was foreign scholars who first entered this field. In the second half of the 20th century, Chinese scholars began scientific excavation. The archaeologist Professor Tian Guangjin, former director of Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics and Archaeology Institute, provided a large number of scientific excavation materials for this field of study. In his extensive research, Professor Wuen Yuesitu, researcher of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, offered a large number of foreign materials for the study of the steppes. Based on the research of these predecessors, Chinese scholars are gradually deepening research in this area. Increasing international cooperation provides easy access to material and opportunities for the constant exchange of academic views, which has greatly facilitated research in this area. Our book can be considered a stepping-stone for future research. Since I studied archaeology in 1975, I have been working in this field. Archaeology research is my means of living, but more importantly, it is my research interest, so I have dedicated myself to this research. Academic research has not only improved my intellectual faculties and abilities but has also gradually helped me establish my realm of life and beliefs. This belief is based on the understanding that academic research can transcend time. Looking at these manuscripts, I know how I spend my time. I often think of the academic development blueprint that Professor Zhang Zhongpei planned for me when I graduated from my master’s degree in 1984: I could focus my archaeological study of cultural exchanges between West Asia and Central Asia in the period ranging from prehistoric time to the Bronze Age. At the time, I felt that this task was extremely difficult to achieve. The materials on Central Asia were too fragmented, and archaeological studies differed between the Bronze Age and the Neolithic Age. This book studies the cultural exchange from the Northern Zone of China to the Eurasian Steppe and Central Asia, which is similar to the research goal set by Professor Zhang. However, this is just the beginning of the study, and further study is required. At the 20th anniversary of the establishment of

Postscript

561

the archaeological major of Jilin University in 2012, Professor Lin hoped that I could conduct a macro study on the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe, a topic only touched upon by foreign scholars. This book is an effort in this respect. It proposes two major systems of interaction between the Northern Zone of China and the Eurasian Steppe from the perspective of cultural exchange. We have received the help and support of many scholars during the research period. At the defense meeting of my doctoral dissertation, Professor Li Boqian of Peking University, Professor Zhang Changshou of Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and Fang Qidong, former director of Jilin Cultural Relics and Archaeology Institute, proposed some valuable advice that directed my future study. The Wang Kuancheng Fund supported me in visiting the University of Cambridge in the UK, and Professor Colin Renfrew assisted me in collecting data during that period. The Luce Foundation supported me in visiting Pittsburgh University, and Professor Katheryn Linduff offered me considerable help in collecting data in the US. The course of steppe archaeology delivered by Dr. Bryan Hanks of the University of Pittsburgh benefited me significantly. Professor Victor Mair of the University of Pennsylvania assisted Shao Huiqiu in collecting data abroad. Professor Wuen provided me and Pan Ling with a large amount of foreign archaeological materials. For a long time, our consultations and exchanges with Professor Lin Yun have provided us with many insightful ideas. When we asked Professor Lin to preface the book, he made revisions to the book, commented, and provided many valuable suggestions. We can only use this book as a gift to return their favors. Finally, I would like to thank the Research Center for China’s Frontier Archaeology of Jilin University, which provided us with academic materials, information and a useful academic atmosphere. Yang Jianhua July 24th, 2015 in Changchun See Plates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

562

Postscript

Plate 1 Map of vegetation and plant distribution in Eurasia

Plate 2 Bronze knife and swords of Xia, Shang and Zhou Periods from the Northern Zone of China

Postscript

Plate 3 Bronzes of Shang and Zhou Periods from the Shanxi-Shaanxi Plateau

Plate 4 Bronze knives of Shang and Zhou Periods from the Northern Zone of China

563

564

Plate 5 Artifacts from the Eurasian Steppes

Postscript

Postscript

Plate 6 Artifacts and restriction of artifacts from Arzhan II

565

566

Postscript

Plate 7 Comparisons between artifacts from the Eastern Talede Cemetery and those from Arzhan II

Postscript

Plate 8 Artifacts from Issyk Kurgan and related artifacts

567

568

Postscript

Plate 9 Tombs and metal artifacts of the Eastern Zhou Period from the North of Hebei Province

Postscript

569

Plate 10 Animal-shaped artifacts from cemeteries of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Zone of China (1)

570

Postscript

Plate 11 Animal-shaped artifacts of cemeteries of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Zone of China (2)

Plate 12 Plaques from cemeteries of the Eastern Zhou Period in the Northern Zone of China

Postscript

Plate 13 The Silk Road of the Western Han Period and distribution map of related sites

571