Chinese Artifacts as a Time Scale: in the Case of Xiongnu Текст научной статьи по специальности «История и археология»

DOI 10.24412/2658-3550-2022-2-37-50 УДК 903.2(571.52)

CHINESE ARTIFACTS AS A TIME SCALE: IN THE CASE OF XIONGNU1

Otani Ikue

The author of this paper compares radiocarbon dating of Xiongnu sites with dates of Chinese artifacts — bronze mirrors, coins and lacquer ware with inscriptions about date of their production unearthed in these sites. Dates of Chinese artifacts make it possible to narrow the time span of the carbon dates to less than 20 years and to determine the bottom limit of the site. The author notes the contradiction between the date Xiongnu Empire from historical texts (from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE) and the fact that majority of excavated Xiongnu tombs and fortresses were built between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE, which is also confirmed by the dates of Chinese artifacts unearthed there. Also the problems of the spread of Chinese artifacts to the Eurasian steppes are considered in this paper. Keywords: Xiongnu, bronze mirrors, laquer wares with dating inscriptions, Han coins, tombs and fortresses of Xiongnu.

INTRODUCTION

It is fundamentally difficult to connect archaeological remains with the ethnic groups written about in historical texts. In the case of Xiongnu, the presumed connection is based on some evidence: many Han artifacts have been unearthed from large elite tombs on the Mongolian plateau. The excavation of the Xiongnu tombs started at the end of the 19th century. Although these investigations were suspended for many decades after WWII, the number of excavations has increased since the 1990s. As excavations have increased, more Chinese artifacts have been found. I would like to present the dates indicated by the Chinese artifacts themselves, from the perspective of Chinese archaeology.

CHINESE ARTIFACTS AS A TIME SCALE

Before exploring the main subject, it is important to understand earlier discussions about the dating of Xiongnu sites. It is generally assumed that the Xiongnu period extended from of the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, based on the "Historical Record (Shi ji j£0c)" and "The History of Han (Han shu fMW'. However, there is another view, namely that

Otani Ikue, Assistant Professor, Institute Отани Икуэ, доцент Института гумани-for Research in Humanities, Kyoto Uni- тарных исследований Киотоского уни-versity, Kyoto, Japan. верситета, Киото, Япония.

1 To the memory of prof. S.S. Miniaev. I could reexamine the reading of the inscription and the 14C measurement by his support. And this work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K13230.

the entire material and cultural complex of Xiongnu monuments in Mongolia and Transbaikalia was built no earlier than the 1st century BCE (Miniaev, Elikhina 2009: 28). There is thus a significant gap between the date cited in the historical texts and the date of the archaeological remains. U. Brosseder (Brosseder, Yerool-Erdene 2011) has addressed this problem in detail, carrying out AMS-radiocarbon measurements to verify the date of the Xiongnu sites. The results of the 14C measurements are presented in (Yang Si-un, Eregzen 2019), who likewise conclude that the Xiongnu tombs were built between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE.

Although radiocarbon dating is widely used in modern excavation research, Chinese artifacts are also important as key objects. In addition to historical evidence of contacts between Xiongnu and Han, these artifacts can be used as a means of cross-dating. I will therefore begin by presenting three types of Chinese objects.

Bronze mirrors

Chinese mirrors have a cast decoration on the back, which is used to classify them. There is a very minute classification as the study of ancient mirrors in China and Japan, but I have adapted the Higuchi (Higuchi 1979) and Okamura (Okamura 1984; 1993) classification. The key characteristic of this classification system is its focus on the transition between time periods and popular motifs, with Han mirrors divided into seven periods (Fig. 1).

1 have gathered all of the mirrors unearthed from the Xiongnu archaeological site and identified their periods, using this classification system (Otani 2014: list 1). The bar graph below (Fig. 3) shows the number of mirrors per period. Most mirrors were made during the IVth Han mirror period, after the number of mirrors began to increase during the IIIrd period. There are 6 mirrors in the IInd period, but three of them were unearthed from the Ivol-ga fortress. Two mirrors before the IInd period were also unearthed from this fortress. When A.V. Davydova researched this fortress, she dated mirrors with minute background patterns (Fig. 4: 6) to the 3rd century BCE and argued that the fortress was built between the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE (Davydova 1995: 58). Her dating is correct; most mirrors from the early period (before the 1st century BCE) are concentrated in this fortress. However, this is an exceptional building within the Xiongnu archaeological site. Most mirrors from the Xiongnu site were made during the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth periods.

Lacquerware

Six lacquerware artifacts found at these sites have Chinese inscriptions2. These inscriptions were carved for product control; they show us when the artifacts were made or repaired. The inscriptions are as below.

2 The reading of each inscriptions depends on as below references; 1: Yeruul-Erdene & Otani (2015), 2: Eregzen & Otani (unfinished), 3: Yeruul-Erdene & Otani (2015) corrected to Polos'mak et al. (2011), 4: Polos'mak et al. (2011), 5: Machida (1974)

ti X n J=

X ^

Í3

Í3 fi

o

H

Olajas

( "Sftan ill " motif)

ra >

K)

o

ÍD

rI

l_M

Fig. 1. The Chinese mirror time scale

ÍD

O

—h

><

o'

IQ

c

ManCheng

ISl3tíÍ iSWSS ( ♦lllSSI (Plant motif)

):113BCE

SSXÜ (Nebulae motif)

(Inscription mirror)

(Inscription mirror) _l_

ifsrâaasi

(Cloud-and-thunder motif)

_I_L

100 CE

200 CE

Later Han VI

Three Kingdoms/

rastiiis

(TLV mirror)

.rasa«

: 105 CE (Consecutive arcs pattern)

b of WanQu marquess LIU Yi 5®*HK¡8IJ!lSS: (PanChi motif) 154BCE

200 BCE

Warring states period

bü^ttjssdi

(Swirly CW-dragon motif)

100 BCE

Former Han

I

(1) Gol mod-I, tomb № 20, Xuan-tray M, 16 BCE [1st year of Yong-shi /7n]

......MB[M]£,

(2) Chandman' khar uul, tomb № 7, Ear-cup, 16 BCE [1st year of Yong-shi

......

xx^M^rnxafflxj.^n, x......//

Bottom (brush writing):

(3) Noyon uul, tomb № 20, Ear-cup, 9 BCE [4th year of Yuan-yan^M]

MB^X.^SB^.^BM // Bottom: Lines for dividing four (x) and two tamga-mark

(4) Noyon uul, tomb № 20, Ear-cup

[M]

(5) Noyon uul, tomb № 6, Ear-cup, 2 BCE [5th year of Jain-ping.^X] EXXXA^.XXifp], // Bottom (brush writing): X# // bronze rim of ear part: a tamga-mark

(6) Noyon uul, tomb № 5, Ear-cup, 2 CE [5th year of Jain-ping^X]

(7) Tsaram, tomb № 7, tableware or container, before 5 BCE

Coins

Two different types of Chinese coins were unearthed from the archaeological site of Xiongnu. Wu zhu coins were first cast in 118 BCE, at the time of Emperor Wu Huo quan coins ^^ were first produced in 14 CE by Wang Mang X# during the Xin dynasty; they continued to be cast until 40 CE in the Later Han period. Coins were unearthed from below the site3. (The number of coins is written in the parenthesis.)

(1) Wu zhu coin: Tamiryn ulaan khoshuu, tomb № 201 (10, combined like a tube); Khovd aimag (1); Chandman' khar uul, tomb № 22 (1); Bay-an bulag (many); Dyrestui, tomb № 7 (2), tomb № 10 (2), tomb № 24 (2), tomb № 38 (2), tomb № 102 (1); Duryeni (2)

(2) Huo quan coin: Solbi uul, tomb № 1 (7)

(3) Not reported the type: Ikh nartin noots gazar (unreported).

corrected to Umehara (1943) (Otani (2020) consider the character Jing M might be corrected Shan ¡¡), 7: Otani (2019) corrected to Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens (2007).

3 Solbi uul: (Tsebeendorj, Erdelyi 1990), Tamiryn uraan khoshuu: (Torbat et al. 2003), Khovd: (Tishkin et al. 2009), Chandman' Khar uul: (Amartuvshin et al. 2015), Bayan bulag: (Kovalev et al. 2011), Dyrestui: (Minyaev 1998), Duryeni: (Davydova, Minyaev 2003).

DISCUSSION: THE DATE OF THE XIONGNU SITE AND XIONGNU

The section above presents three types of Chinese artifacts, which can be dated. As coins cover a large span of time, I have not chosen them for comparison, although I have compared them with the 14C dates (Fig. 2). Sixteen tombs provided both types of data: Chinese artifacts and 14C dates. For investigators, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. We can obtain information more universally using 14C measurement because it is relatively easy to obtain samples from any excavation. However, these dates are based on probability theory, and cannot be used to narrow the timespan to less than 20 years. By contrast, some Chinese artifacts specify the year they were made, which not be when the archaeological site was built. Instead, such artifacts establish the bottom limit for such sites. We must recognize the different meanings of both types of date and consider the Xiongnu sites date from multiple perspectives.

Looking at Fig. 2, we can consider how these two types of dates interrelate. Most of the Xiongnu tombs are dated between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. Then, how can we understand this situation against the historical records?

As above, the Xiongnu period is generally dated between the end of the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE, based on the "Historical Record" and "The History of Han". According to these written sources, the existence of Xiongnu was confirmed at the same time that Qin Shi-huang unified the "world ^T". During the early Former Han pe-

riod, Xiongnu was more powerful than Han; power balance was reversed during the reign of Emperor Wu (141—87 BCE) (Fig. 3). This clearly reveals the gap between the historical record and the archaeological materials of Xiongnu. To explain the problem more concretely, most Xion-gnu tombs are dated between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE. According to U. Brosseder, the beginning phases of material culture attributed to the Xiongnu Empire are not adequately understood (Bros-seder, Yerool-Erdene 2011: 53). The T-shape tombs, which are known as "royal" or "elite" tombs of Xiongnu, were built around the BCE/CE transition. These T-shape tombs appeared and increased in size at a different time from "the strongest period of Xiongnu" written in the historical record. The same gap appears in relation to Chinese artifacts. When I count the number of mirrors, it is clear that the peak occurred during the IVth period (Fig. 3). Lacquerware artifacts were dated at the end of the 1st century BCE (Fig. 2). According to S.S. Miniaev and J. Elikhina, this situation reveals a contradiction between the traditional view, based on written sources, and the archaeological materials (Miniaev, Elikhina 2009: 28).

Ultimately, this problem must be resolved by continuing the new excavations. Once we have more archaeological materials dated between

SJ

250 BCE

200 BCE

150 BCE

100 BCE

50 BCE

50 CE

100 CE

150 CE

200 CE

250 CE

300 CE

Orgoiton №17 №18

Tsaram, №7

Chandmaii' kliar uul №7 .Yi217

Gol mod-1 Gol mod Novon uul

Ail №20 l-ll,J61) -Y«6 * lY»SAS20

Duurlig nars ,Y»2 №3

Salkhitin am jV) 7 lltMHR

Morin lolgoi, Ml

Burkhan tolgoi №19 №33 №71

Tehsh uul„V>S

-342- -342--322 -322 -201 '-194.

-201.

-101

-46 F38

.. . I -46 .:52 -54-38 ^

VI

i—r

107 110

vn

202 217

-176 -150

2S11 -3291

22

-340--324

_0~"-356-: 305 -256—2] -232

124 132 I

206 238

-353-285 -228

35 I -40 -^Tl—

250 295 -310

288- 322

LJ

— inscription on a lacquerware || : HC (L: a1, R:a2) :Han Mirror

Fig. 2. Dates of Chinese artifacts and 14C dating

the end of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, we can discuss the chronological problem of Xiongnu in more detail. We must simultaneously study the transition from slab grave culture in the 7th — 3rd centuries BCE to the material culture of Xiongnu, and discuss the stratification of the Xiongnu tombs.

THE SPREAD OF CHINESE ARTIFACTS TO THE EURASIAN STEPPES

My aim in this paper is to examine Xiongnu dates from the perspective of Chinese artifacts. As I mentioned above, I already presented all data in the case of Xiongnu. In addition, it may be useful to survey the spread of Chinese artifacts across the Eurasian steppes and compare the findings with those from Xiongnu.

As previously discussed, most mirrors from the Xiongnu sites were produced during the IIIrd and Vth Han mirror periods. Only those found in the Ivolga fortress are old, dating from before the IIIrd Han mirror period. Older mirrors from until the IInd Han mirrors period have also been found on the Eurasian steppes. Although most were found in the Sayan-Altai region and Enisei Valley, and the other two older mirrors were found in Hami in the Xinjiang autonomous region and in the Chelyabinsk oblast in Russia (Fig. 4). The key point is that a concentrative distribution exists in the Sayan-Altai region.

In recent years, some Chinese lacquerware artifacts have been unearthed from sites in the Sayan-Altai region (Novikova et al. 2013; Sutyagi-na 2016). We can confirm that the same situation exists for lacquerware, as well as Chinese mirrors (Fig. 5). The patterns drawn on these lacquerware artifacts are old, predating Han style. Lacquered objects from Mawang-dui MX^ are considered a good material complex from the early Former Han period. The date of Tomb № 1 is 168 BCE. The style of lacquerware from the Sayan-Altai region is older than that of Mawangdui. The design resembles patterns from Shuihudi the burial complex of a power-

ful local Oin-era clan.

It seems clear that this concentrative distribution reflects contact with Oin or the early phase of Han. This concentrative distribution contrasts with the situation in Mongolia and Transbaikalia. Even if there is an exception as Ivolga fortress, it is not the Mongolian plateau but the Sayan-Altai region, which had a close connection with China (Oin/Han) at that time. Although it is important to discuss the essential meaning of "exchange" shown as the spread of Chinese artifacts, I cannot do that here4. However, this spread reflects contacts with China. Since the 1st century BCE, (i.e., since the IIIrd Han mirror period), the number of Chinese mirrors increased. This may reflect the advance of the Han into the west. Oin and Han could

4 U. Brosseder (Brosseder 2015) has examined this topic, presenting many interpretations, including economical exchange, gifting, and migration.

In defining "the strongest period of Xiongnu", there is a gap between the historical record and archaeological dates.

Archaeological

materials (Chinese mirror)

Historical record

200 BCE

100 BEC

Q1 r>r The Northern Xiongnu fled to y 1 the West.

111 OF The Soulhem Xiongnu 1 11 entered in the Han |_dynasty's control.

100 CE

Fig. 3. Each period of mirrors excavated from the Xiongnu tombs

x n J=

X ^

fi o

K>

o

4*.

Ln

Aus Ivorga fortress

Minute background pattern mirror with six arcs Wiea0s:S(Qin-i) /

Pazyryk, kurgan №6 \ vil. Ekaterinovka

'Shan" motif mirror W»Si* Feather pattern mirror

(Warring states period) ^^^SttJfeSiS (Warring states period)

Minute background pattern mirror tatSSca (Waning states period)

Chugno Krepinka

Inscription mirror if «KS (iv)

I^ 1 \ \ OKhar' kov Ll'odessa \ \ ^ <¿W

Levedevka-VI,kurgan №39

TLV mirror »»«»Sffi (Vi~)

Ekaterinburg

Krasnoyarsk

^^Chelyabinsk

'Novosibirsk.

Donetsk.

-a/ Volgograd /

1

•Orenbur

,4kUiaanbaatar

Aqtove

■ Astana

Astrakhan

KhoydO*

DaTong

j.y . . .) U3

^/^'BaoTou^/;

Qoqek(TaCheng).

Kaspian sea

<—jQumul^ (HaMI)

h rr-Bishkek v

Turpan.

jUrgench

Tabriz

/\Mosul

Tashkent .jji

.anZhou;

'Samarkand'

'VsOAshkgabat

: Dushanbe

¡><*v\7 Meshed

Hotan^,

/=Mazar.,-Sh8n<

Fig. 4. Distribution of Chinese mirrors (until period VII of the Han mirror)

n> >

n> (-1

n>

o

—h

><

o'

IQ

c

Fig. 5. Distribution of lacquered objects in Eurasia

not move west over the Yellow river for a long time, King Hunye Sffffi of Xiongnu was defeated in 121 BCE and control of the Hexi corridor M® passed from Xiongnu to Han. After this event, Han territory expanded rapidly, reaching Yumenguan in 108 or 107 BCE (Fig. 4). Because the Han constructed a stable system for administering the Hexi corridor, Chinese goods began to spread west along the main Silk Road. As mentioned above, we can use Chinese artifacts not only as markers of historical contact, but also as a time scale, revealing when such contacts occurred.

REFERENCES

Brosseder U. 2015. A Study on the Complexity and Dynamics of Interaction and Exchange in Late Iron Age Eurasia. Complexity of Interaction Along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the First Millennium CE. Bonn, 199—332.

Brosseder U., Yerool-Erdene Ch. 2011. Twelve AMS-radiocarbon Dates from Xiongnu Period Sites in Mongolia and the Problem of Chronology. Arkheologiyn sud-lal [Archaeological Studies], vol. XXXI. Ulaanbaatar, 53—70.

Eregzen G., Otani Ikue [unfinished]. The Chinese Inscription on the Ear-cup Un-earthed from Tomb 7, Chandman' Khar uul, Mongolia.

Kovalev A.A., Erdenebaatar D., Matrenin S.S., Grebennikov I.Yu. 2011. The Shouxiang-cheng Fortress of the Western Han Period: Excavations at Baian Bulag, Nomgon Sum, Omnogov' Aimag, Mongolia. Xiongnu Archaeology. Bonn, 475—508.

Miniaev S.S., Elikhina J. 2009. On the Chronology of the Noyon Uul Barrows. The Silk Road, vol. 7. Saratoga, 21—35.

Chinese Artifacts as a Time Scale: in the Case of Xiongnu

Appendix 1

The 14C date of the T- shape tombs and their satellite tombs

Okamura Hidenori 1984. The Chronology and Style of Earlier Han's Mirrors. Shirin [The Journal of History], vol. 67-5. Kyoto, 1—42.

Okamura Hidenori 1993. The Chronology of Later Han Mirrors. Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History, vol. 55. Sakura, Chiba, 39—83.

Otani Ikue 2014. Chinese Bronze Mirrors Outside of China (1): Mongolia and Transbaikalia. Archaeological Bulletin of Kanazawa University, vol. 35. Kanazawa, 45—72.

Otani Ikue 2019. A Reconsideration of a Chinese Inscription Carved on Lacquer-ware Unearthed from Barrow No. 7 of the Tsaram Xiongnu Cemetery (Bu-ryatia, Russia): New Reflections on the Organization of the Central Workshops of the Han. Asian Archaeology, vol. 25. Springer, 59—70.

Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens M. 2007. A Chinese Inscription from a Xiongnu Elite Barrow in the Tsaram Cemetery. The Silk Road, vol. 5-1. Saratoga, 56—58.

Polos'mak N.V., Bogdanov E.S., Chistiakova A.N., Kundo L.P. 2011. Lacquer Ear-cups from Burial Mound 20 in Noyon Uul. Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisci-plinary Prespectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn, 327—332.

Yeruul-Erdene Ch., Otani I. 2015. The Chinese Inscription on the Lacquerware Unearthed from Tomb 20, Gol Mod I Site, Mongolia. The Silk Road, vol. 13. Saratoga, 104—108.

AmartYvshin Ch., Batbold N., Eregzen G., Batdalay B. 2015. Chandman' khar uulyn arkheologiyn dursgal [Archaeological Sites in Chandman' Khar Mountains]. Ulaanbaatar.

Davydova A.V. 1995. Ivolginskoe gorodishche [Ivolga Fortress]. Saint Petersburg.

Davydova A.V., Minyaev S.S. 2003. Kompleks arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov u sela Dureny [Complex of Archaeological Sitres near Dureny Village]. Saint Petersburg.

Minyaev S.S. 1998. Dyrestuyskiy mogil'nik [Dyrestuiskiy Burial Ground]. Saint Petersburg.

Novikova O.G., Stepanova E.V., Havrin S.V. 2013. Izdeliya s kitayskim lakom iz pazyrykskoy kollektsii gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha [Chinese Lacquer Wares from Pazyryk Collection of the State Hermitage Museum]. Teoriya i praktika arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy, iss. 7, 112—124.

Sutyagina N.A. 2016. Kitayskaya lakovaya chashechka pogrebeniya «zolotogo che-loveka» (po materialam mogil'nika Bugry v predgor'yakh Altaya) [Chinese Lacquer Cup of the "Gold Man" Grave (Basing on Data of Bugry Burial Ground in the Foothills of Altay Mountains)]. Arkheologiya, etnografiya i antropologiya Evrazii, no. 4. Novosibirsk, 83—91.

Tishkin A.A., Munhbayar B.Ch., Seryogin N.N. 2009. Kompleksnoe izuchenie mo-nety «u-shu» iz somona Altay (Hovdskiy aymak Mongolii) [Complex Research of "Wu-shu" Coin from Altai Sum (Khovd Aimag of Mongolia)]. Rol' estestvenno -nauchnykh metodov v arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh [Significance of Natural-Science Methods in Archaeological Researches]. Barnaul, 336—338.

Törbat Ts., Amartuvshin Ch., Erdenebat U. 2003. Egiyngolyn sav nutagdakh' arkheologiyn dursgaluud (Khyrliyn yees Mongolyn ye) [On Excavation and Archeolo-gical Research in the Egin River Watershed (Bronze Age, Mongolian Epoch)]. Ulaanbaatar.

Tseveendorzh D., Erdeli I. 1990. Khudgiyn tolgoy, Solbi uul, Naymaa tolgoyn KhynnY bulsh [Khudgiin Tolgoi, Solbi Uul and Naima Tolgoi Xiongnu Grave Yards]. Tyykhiyn sudlal [Historical Studies], vol. XXIV, f. 10. Ulaanbaatar, 105—128.

Higuchi Takayasu 1979. Kokyö [Ancient Mirrors]. Tokyo.

Machida Akira 1974. Kandai kinenmei shikki shüsei [Complete Collection of Han Dynasty Lacquer Wares with Inscriptions with Dates]. Rakurö kan bo [Lolang Han Tombs], vol. 1. Tokyo.

Chinese in the Case of Xiongnu

Umehara Sueharu 1943. Shina kandai kinenmei shikki zusetsu [Catalogue of Chinese

Lacquerwares of Han Epoch with Inscriptions]. Yang Si-un, Eregzen G. 2019. Mongolzhiyok hyunno shidae bunmyoyongu [The Study of Xiongnu Tombs in Mongolia]. Chong'anggougou yongu, vol. 22, 67—94.

Автор статьи сравнивает радиоуглеродные датировки памятников хунну с датировками китайских изделий — найденными на этих памятниках бронзовых зеркалах, монетах и лаковой посудой с надписями о дате её изготовления. Датировки китайских изделий позволяют сузить широкий диапазон радиоуглеродных дат до периодов менее чем в 20 лет и определить нижнюю временную границу памятника. Автор обращает внимание на противоречие между временем существования империи хунну по историческим текстам (с III в. до н.э. до I в. н.э.) и тем фактом, что большинство раскопанных могил и городищ хунну были сооружены между I в. до н.э. и I в. н.э., что также подтверждается датировками найденных там китайских изделий. Кроме того, рассматриваются вопросы распространения китайских изделий в евразийских степях. Ключевые слова: хунну, бронзовые зеркала, лаковые сосуды с датирующими надписями, ханьские монеты, могилы и городища хунну.

Brosseder U. 2015. A Study on the Complexity and Dynamics of Interaction and Exchange in Late Iron Age Eurasia. Complexity of Interaction along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the First Millennium CE. Bonn, 199—332.

Brosseder U., Yerool-Erdene Ch. 2011. Twelve AMS-radiocarbon Dates from Xiongnu Period Sites in Mongolia and the Problem of Chronology. Археологийн судлал = Археологические исследования. Т. XXXI. Улан-Батор, 53—70.

Eregzen G., Otani Ikue [Unfinished]. The Chinese Inscription on the Ear-cup Un-earthed from Tomb 7, Chandman' Khar Uul, Mongolia.

Kovalev A.A., Erdenebaatar D., Matrenin S.S., Grebennikov I.Yu. 2011. The Shoux-iangcheng Fortress of the Western Han Period: Excavations at Baian Bulag, Nomgon Sum, Omnogov' Aimag, Mongolia. Xiongnu Archaeology. Bonn, 475—508.

Miniaev S.S., Elikhina J. 2009. On the Chronology of the Noyon Uul Barrows. The Silk-Road. Vol. 7. Saratoga, 21—35.

Okamura Hidenori 1984. The Chronology and Style of Earlier Han's Mirrors. Shirin [The Journal of History]. Vol. 67-5. Kyoto, 1—42.

Okamura Hidenori 1993. The Chronology of Later Han Mirrors. Bulletin of the Na-tional Museum of Japanese History. Vol. 55. Sakura, Chiba, 39—83.

КИТАЙСКИЕ ИЗДЕЛИЯ КАК ШКАЛА ВРЕМЕНИ ПРИМЕНИТЕЛЬНО К ХУННУ

Отани Икуэ

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

Otani Ikue 2014. Chinese Bronze Mirrors Outside of China (1): Mongolia and Transbaikalia. Archaeological Bulletin ofKanazawa University. Vol. 35. Kanazawa, 45—72.

Otani Ikue 2019. A Reconsideration of a Chinese Inscription Carved on Lacquer-ware Unearthed from Barrow No. 7 of the Tsaram Xiongnu Cemetery (Bu-ryatia, Russia): New Reflections on the Organization of the Central Workshops of the Han. Asian Archaeology. Vol. 25. Springer, 59—70.

Pirazzoli-t'Serstevens M. 2007. A Chinese Inscription from a Xiongnu Elite Barrow in the Tsaram Cemetery. The Silk Road. Vol. 5-1. Saratoga, 56—58.

Polos'mak N.V., Bogdanov E.S., Chistiakova A.N., Kundo L.P. 2011. Lacquer Ear-cups from Burial Mound 20 in Noyon Uul. Xiongnu Archaeology: Miltidisiplinary Prespectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn, 327—332.

Yeruul-Erdene Ch., Otani I. 2015. The Chinese Inscription on the Lacquerware Unearthed from Tomb 20, Gol Mod I Site, Mongolia. The Silk Road. Vol. 13. Saratoga, 104—108.

АмартYвшин Ч., Батболд Н., Эрэгзэн Г., Батдалай Б. 2015. Чандмань хар уулын археологийн дурсгал = Археологические памятники в горах Чандмань Хар. Улан-Батор.

Давыдова А.В. 1995. Иволгинское городище. СПб.

Давыдова А.В., Миняев С.С. 2003. Комплекс археологических памятников у села Дурены. СПб.

Миняев С.С. 1998. Дырестуйский могильник. СПб.

Новикова О.Г., Степанова Е.В., Хаврин С.В. 2013. Изделия с китайским лаком из пазырыкской коллекции государственного Эрмитажа. Теория и практика археологических исследований. Вып. 7. Барнаул, 112—124.

Сутягина Н.А. 2016. Китайская лаковая чашечка погребения «золотого человека» (по материалам могильника Бугры в предгорьях Алтая). Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии. № 4. Новосибирск, 83—91.

Тишкин А.А., Мунхбаяр Б.Ч., Серёгин Н.Н. 2009. Комплексное изучение монеты «у-шу» из сомона Алтай (Ховдский аймак Монголии). Роль естественно -научных методов в археологических исследованиях. Барнаул, 336—338.

Тербат Ц., АмартYвшин Ч., Эрдэнэбат У. 2003. Эгийн голын сав нутаг дахь ар -хеологийн дурсгалууд (Хурлийн \еэс Монголын уе) = О раскопках и археологических исследованиях в бассейне реки Эгийн-гол (Бронзовый век, монгольская эпоха). Улаанбаатар.

Цэвээндорж Д., Эрдэли И. 1990. Худгийн толгой, Солби уул, Наймаа толгойн ХYннY булш = Хуннуские могильники Худгийн толгой, Солби уул и Наймаа толгой. Туухийн судлал = Исторические исследования. Т. XXIV, ф. 10. Ulaanbaatar, 105—128.

Хигути Такаясу 1979. Древние зеркала. Токио. ЖМ.

Матида Акира 1974. Полное собрание лаковых сосудов эпохи Хань с датирующими надписями. Ханьские могилы в Лэлане. Т. 1. Токио.

Й^ШШ» ШШЙ. I. Жм.

Умэхара Суэхару 1943. Каталог китайских лаковых изделий ханьской эпохи с датирующими надписями. ^ЖШ^Е^ШШ^КШ.

Ян Сы-ын, Эрэгзэн Г. 2019. Исследование погребений хунну в Монголии. Археологические исследования Центрального института культурного наследия. Центральный исследовательский институт культурного наследия. Т. 22, 67—94. G. ^М. 9- vol. 22, 67—94.

Дата поступления в редакцию 08.09.2022