CC BY
21
Research Article / Научная статья
УДК 738.1: 902(235.226)
https://doi.org/10.14258/tpai(2022)34(3).-10
CHINESE PORCELAIN IN WESTERN MONGOLIA (THE QING DINASTY)
Alina Yu. Ozheredova1*, Yuri I. Ozheredov2
'Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan; alguniang@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-66'0-8722 2M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University, Chukotka Branch, Anadyr, Russia; nohoister@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4849-0745 *Corresponding author
Abstract. The paper examines Chinese porcelain collected at the Chinese fortress in the Khovd city, Shar Sum monastery and two archaeological sites in the Barun Khurai Depression in southwest Mongolia. The sites were built for Chinese military administration and Mongolian Buddhist clergy during the Qing period. The study concludes that the decorative motives of the porcelain reflect the tastes of the mentioned categories of Mongolian population and is predominantly related to Tibetan Buddhism elements of the Chinese folk culture. The discovered material also indicates originally "non-Han" components of the Chinese history. The results of the study play an important role in understanding stylistic preferences in Chinese porcelain outside China. It also serves as a reference for a better evaluation of Chinese porcelain export trajectories within Central Asia and in the territories up north.
Key words: Chinese porcelain, Mongolia, Qing dynasty, archaeology, Buddhism, decorative art
For citation: Ozheredova A. Yu., Ozheredov Yu. I. Chinese Porcelain in Western Mongolia (the Qing Dynasty). Teoriya i praktika arheologicheskih issledovanij = Theory and Practice of Archaeological Research. 2022;34(3):164-175. (In English). https://doi.org/10.14258/tpai(2022)34(3).-10
КИТАЙСКИЙ ФАРФОР В МОНГОЛИИ (ДИНАСТИЯ ЦИН)
Алина Юрьевна Ожерелова1*, Юрий Иванович Ожерелов2
'Университет Фэнцзя, Тайчжун, Тайвань; alguniang@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-66l0-8722
2Северо-Восточный федеральный университет имени М.К. Аммосова, Чукотское отделение, Анадырь, Россия; nohoister@gmail.com,https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4849-0745 *Автор, ответственный за переписку
Резюме. Исследование представляет обобщающий анализ китайского фарфора, собранного на китайской крепости в г. Ховде, руинах дацана Шар-Сум и двух памятниках на территории Барунхурайской впадины на юго-западе Монголии. Названные объекты служили целям китайской военной администрации и представителям буддийского духовенства Западной Монголии в период Цин. По итогам анализа очевидно, что в декоре фарфоровых изделий преобладают ти-бето-монгольские элементы китайской народной культуры, а также частности, отражающие «не-ханьскую» часть истории Китая. Результаты исследования играют важную роль для понимания стилевых предпочтений в фарфоре за пределами Китая, а также для изучения траекторий перемещения китайского фарфора через Центральную Азию далее на север.
Ключевые слова: китайский фарфор, Монголия, династия Цин, археология, буддизм, изобразительно искусство
Для цитирования: Ожередова А. Ю., Ожередов Ю. И. Китайский фарфор в Монголии (династия Цин) // Теория и практика археологических исследований. 2022. Т. 34, №3. С. 164-175. https://doi.org/: 10.14258Лра1(2022)34(3).-10
Introduction
geographical position of Mongolia and China predetermined their long shared history. During more than two millennia of Chinese and Mongolian statehood there were a number of periods when the dominating positions interchanged between the two power centers. The first large scale conflict between the Chinese empire and the steep nomads followed the rise of the Xiongnu empire which existed between 209 BC and 93 AD. The confrontation lasted for three centuries and ended in the collapse of the latter. The Xiongnu hordes retreated to the outer Mongolia and their territories were occupied by the Xianbei, the Rou-ran, the Tujue, the Uyghurs, the Kyrgyz people and the Mongols who continued the confrontation with China. Weakening Chinese Empire failed to resist the nomads, and in 1260-1280 the Mongols defeated the Chinese army. Beijing throne was conquered by a first non-Han dynasty which subsequently was overthrown by the Ming dynasty in 1386. In 1629 Mongolia submitted to the Manchu who captured the Forbidden city in 1644 and ruled for over 300 years (Kurc, 1929, p. 7).
Political turmoil between Mongolia and China directly influenced the culture of these two empires. This is clearly reflected in historical records, and is also demonstrated by the archaeological finds analyzed in the paper. The authors focus on the Chinese porcelain shards collected from the Qing period sites in Western Mongolia: the ruins of the Chinese fortress in the Khovd City, the Shar Sum datsan outside the city, a fortified construction and a datsan located in the Barun Khurai Depression near Mount Oshka.
The preliminary studies of the sites have been presented in a number of publications (Ozheredov, 2005a, 2005b; 2009a, 2009b; Ozheredov, Ganbold, 2009; Ozheredov et al., 2008; Ozheredova, Ozheredov, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2012, 2015), however some degree of incompleteness and inaccuracies were inevitable at the initial stages of the research. As time went by, more finds and information collected by the authors allowed different approach to evaluating the overall material. It resulted in the present paper aimed at summarizing the information available so far.
Historcial Background of the Archaeological Sites
Considerably large addition to the collected material was made over the years with the new fragments from the Khobdo fortress, located at the left bank of the Buyant river within the territories of the modern Khovd city (Fig. 1.-2). The fortress was built three times. Its history began in 1718 at the Khovd river, however the exact location of the first building has not been established (Pozdneeev, 1883, p. 307). Two works by Pozdneev mention close but different dates of the construction: 1731 (Pozdneeev, 1883, p. 334, 335, 340; Kiselyov, 1957, p. 101) and 1730. The new city, or, to be exact, the fortress was built ".. .at the Khobdo river with the purpose to station leading garrison there and in order to have supply warehouses for the troops". The war with the Dzungar people was the main reason for building this fort (Pozdneev, 1896, p. 304).
Fig. 1. The map of the archaeological sites in West Mongolia: 1 - Khobdo fortress; 2 - Shar Sum datsan; 3 - The sites in the Barun Khurai depression
Рис. 1. Карта археологизированных объектов Западной Монголии: 1 - Крепость Кобдо; 2 -дацан Шар-Сум; 3 - памятники в Барунхурайской впадине
Modern Khovd city, where Chinese porcelain shards were collected, was founded in 1762 on the right bank of the Buyant river, about 40 km to the south-west from the previous fortress, which is now called "Old Khovd" among the local people (Pozdneeev, 1896, p. 304).
According to the staff-captain Printz, who was seconded to Mongolia in 1864, the city "... was built half a versta away from the water, on the right bank of the Buyant river.A small brook divides the city into two main parts: the northern administrative one and the southern trade district — the northern part of the city ... is constructed as a fortress, surrounded by a stone wall in a shape of a square with sides 130 sazhens long. There are towers in the corners
of the square. Crenellated walls are sazhens thick and about 2 sazhens high" (Printz, 1869, p. 8). A detailed description of the fortress can be found in Pozdneev 's Mongolia and Mongols (1896, p. 303-337).
After the revolution of 1912 the Qing administration departed from the city and the fortress was destroyed. Parts of the ruined adobe walls and old poplars — remnants of the former park — are the only reminder of the original constructions. For a long period of time the city land was ploughed for gardens, cut by irrigation canals and roads. The destruction of the cultural layers led to shifting artifacts between different levels which resulted in accumulation of ceramic shards on the surface.
Similar material was discovered at the ruins of the Buddhist datsan Shar Sum, located about 1 km to the north from the fortress (Fig. 1.-2). Short history of the site, its architectural reconstruction, collected artifacts and their preliminary study have been discussed in a number of works (Ozheredov, 2005a, 2005b; Ozheredov et al., 2008; Ozheredov, Ganbold, 2009; Ozheredova, Ozheredov, 2012), here we would like to focus on the basic information.
The first documented Russian description of Khovd and nearby territories was done by Printz and doesn't offer much information about the Shar Sum monastery (1869, p.8). More detailed introduction appears in Potanin's studies where it is mentioned among the buildings constructed by the order of Chinese emperor to provide residency for Mongolian high rank religious administration — gegens (Potanin, 1881, p. 40, 78-79; 1948, p. 63). According to the Mongolian chronicle Erdeni-yin erike, the temple was built in 1762 by Olot lama Don-dok, supposedly, as a mobile monastery consisted of yurts. Only in 1766 the Chinese emperor ordered to build a stone datsan, which was finished in 1767 (Pozdneev, 1896, p. 327, 334). According to Grum-Grzhimailo, after some time local residents started calling it "Shar Sume" (Grum-Grzhimailo, 1926, p. 251).
The ruins of the sites in the eastern part of the Barun Khurai depression near Oshka mountain represent the remains of fortified constructions with ramparts and a moat. Two of them have a typical fortress architecture. Within the outer fortified elements of the third one we identified some fragments of a stone foundation and, supposedly, the remains of a kang type heating construction.
According to the written records this territory traditionally was populated by Oirat Zakh-chins, who guarded the frontiers of Manchurian China from hostile Dzungaria (Grum-Grzhi-mailo, 1926, p. 263-264).
Oral communication with an ethnologist from Hovd State University M. Ganbold revealed that one of the sites used to be a Tibetan style datsan built by the lamas from Shar Sum monastery to facilitate spiritual practices of local Zakhchins. Grum-Grzhimailo also documented a large monastery (200 lamas) on this territory populated by the same ethnic group (Grum-Grzhimailo, 1926, p. 261).
Chinese Porcelain Analysis
The fortress in Khovd and the Shar Sum datsan are in relative proximity from each other. The sites near Oshka Mountain are located considerably far from them (about 300 km to the south-west) (Fig. 1.-3), however, according to the written records, they are related to the Shar Sum monastery. Apart from the verbal sources the indirect connection of all three locations is confirmed by the archaeological data recovered by the authors — the fragments
of Chinese porcelain with similar technological and decorative characteristics. 44 fragments of Chinese porcelain produced between the 17th and the beginning of the 20th centuries were found on the territory of Shar Sum within the areas where religious ceremonies would take place (hure) and at the living quarters of the lamas (bayshina). 158 porcelain fragments from the 18th — beginning of 20th centuries were collected on the territory of the Khovd fortress. 16 fragments of the late 19th — the beginning of 20th centuries were gathered at the constructions in the Barun Khurai depression. The analysis of large fragments suggested that most of the objects represented utilitarian tableware — cups (bowls) and small plates.
The shards found at the fortress and within the territory of the monastery confirm Pota-nin's records about Chinese merchants who came from Beijing to Khobdo once a year with special goods, that included porcelain (Potanin, 1881, p. 74). According to the participants of the expedition to Mongolia organized by Tomsk Society of Siberian and Mongolian Studies in 1910, "In some places it is possible to see Chinese faience and porcelain tableware. Many Chinese stores sell cheap faience tableware. But this type of ware is unlikely to be in big demand among nomads...", because "the Mongols eat and drink tea, other beverages and liquid food from wooden bowls ayaks, and every Mongol has a bowl like this. The bowls are brought by Chinese and are known for their durability" (Bogolepov, Sobolev, 1911, p. 140-141). Later, Grum-Grzhimailo wrote that tableware sets in Khalkha Mongol families "consist of several wooden bowls, and only on a rare occasion they are replaced by porcelain" (Grum-Grzhi-mailo, 1926, p. 330).
Considering the fact that there are much more porcelain fragments in the fortress that is not much larger than the monastery, it is possible to suggest that the discovered Chinese artifacts mainly belonged to the ethnic Chinese and a small group of local people (lamas). According to Printz, about a thousand Chinese lived in the fortress and the neighboring trade district maimacheng in 1864 (Printz, 1869, p. 8). The population stayed the same even about 50 years later in 1910 (Bogolepov, Sobolev, 1911, p. 22).
Stylistic characteristics of the decoration applied to the Chinese porcelain fragments serve as an important source of information about the preferences in decorative household art common among the residents of Mongolia during the mentioned historical period. The analysis of the material demonstrates a clear dominance of religious and auspicious symbolic motives that were popular in Chinese folk art.
One example is the group of the fragments with a Chinese character shou("longevity". Shou already appears among the pictograms on the neolithic ceramics. The association of this symbol with the concept of long life is traced back to the period before the 3rd century BC. The so called "longevity culture" that started to form in 8th century BC represents one of the basic components of Chinese worldview (Yin Wei, Yin Weiran, 2005, p. 147; Su Kem-ing, 2009, p. 102).
There is a large collection of styles applied to the ideograph shou in Chinese tradition. Su mentions 13,822 variants of this character found only in written sources (Su Keming, 2009, p. 103). As applied to ceramics there are 1000 different styles just on a single zun vase from Kangxi period (Johan's autumn auction., 2018, p. 48-51).
The most common motif on the fragments from Shar Sum and Khobdo is stylized sanscrit symbols Fanwen combined with a character shou (Fig. 2.-1-3). There are more frag-
ments with this decoration at the fortress, and in general it constitutes one fourth of the finds from all of the mentioned sites in Mongolia.
Fig. 2. Chinese porcelain fragments from West Mongolia (the images are provided without scale): 1-2 - Central character shou (?) on the porcelain fragments decorated with Fanwen motif; 3 -Porcelain decorated with Fanwen motif on cavetto; 4 - Porcelain with Wufu shou motif; 5 - Tuji mark; 6-7 - Porcelain decorated with Lingzhi motif
Рис. 2. Фрагменты китайского фарфора из Западной Монголии (иллюстрации даны без масштаба): 1-2 - центральный иероглиф шоу (?) на фарфоре с орнаментом Фаньвэнь; 3 -фарфор с орнаментом Фаньвэнь в зоне каветто; 4 -фарфор с орнаментом Уфу шоу; 5 -марка типа Ту Цзи; 6-7 - фарфор с изображением магического гриба Линчжи
Fanwen is very often rendered in cobalt blue on white, with parallel rows of Sanskrit symbols. This ornament can either cover the whole body of an object (a vase or a bowl), or only a part of a piece, for instance a cavetto of a plate on the outside or inside (Fig. 2.-3). Apart from the parallel lines of the Sanskrit symbols some plates also have a large image of a character Shou in the center (Fig. 2.-1-2).There are researchers who believe the central character rendered in the similar style as the fragments from Mongolia represent a Sanskrit symbol Om (Brown, Sjostrand, 2004, p. 106-107). However, there are examples of the plates with identical Fanwen motif on the cavetto and a character Shou in Regular script or in round form in the center. Hence highly stylized central symbol on the porcelain found in Mongolia merit further academic research. The authors are more convinced with the second interpretation and suggest that the style of the character shou on the objects from Mongolia is close to Mongolian square script also called Phags-pa script, or to Chinese Seal script Zhuanshu.
Fanwen is relatively common motif in Chinese art of the 18th — 19th centuries, and it is used for utilitarian as well as for ceremonial ware. Some of it was discovered in Chinese burials dated to Qianlong period (Yu Jiadu, 1997, fig. 224).
Despite the differences in interpretation, the cultural and historical context of this motif, in one way or another, is related to Tibetan Buddhism element of Chinese culture. There is an opinion that objects decorated with fanwen were specifically produced for export to Tibet (Vestfalen, Krechetova, 1947, p. 28).
Another auspicious ornament that includes shou was discovered in Barun Khurai depression (Fig. 2.-4). It consists of the character shou surrounded by bats and called Wufushou, "five blessings and longevity". This combination of symbols also belongs to a large group of auspicious ornaments popular in Chinese folk art. Interestingly, the bowls with the similar ornament that were found in Olun Sume are viewed as porcelain produced for export to Mongolia (Vestfalen, Krechetova, 1947, p. 53).
One more group of shards found at the Khobdo fortress and Shar Sum datsan consists of the bottom parts with marks Tuji (Fig. 2.-5) also called Doufu Gan, "dried tofu". It belongs to a larger category of marks referred to as Huayang Kuan "marks-pictures". According to 14th century Chinese historian Tao Zunyi, the introduction of this type of marks to Chinese decorative art is directly connected to the Manchu and other non-Han ethnoses, so called "the colored eyes", who held high rank positions in the Yuan government, however, could not write or speak Chinese. As a result, the objects previously marked with Chinese characters to indicate the higher quality and status instead started to be branded with pictures and patterns. Later, during the Ming and Qing periods, this tradition spread onto more coarse mainstream household porcelain (Zhongguo gu taoci..., 1998, p. 345).
Another large group of porcelain fragments has a plant motif based on the image of the magical mushroom lingzhi (Fig. 2.-6-7). Lingzhi is associated with Daoist immortals who lived on the magic islands in the Eastern Sea. In order to find them one would require this mushroom (Grube, 1912, p. 145). Hence the motif is closely connected to the "longevity cult" popular during Ming and Qing period. Multiple discoveries of this type of porcelain at the trade shipwrecks (Christie's Amsterdam., 1995, p. 124; Tek Sing., 2000, p. 115) suggests that it was produced in large numbers and met the demand outside China.
A large portion of the porcelain collection from Khobdo and Shar Sum is taken up by light green celadon also called douqing or "bean green". Celadon history started in the Shang period when this type of glaze was a result of a natural chemical reaction during the firing process. Only in the end of the Han dynasty Chinese ceramists managed to develop a technology which would allow them to control the color and texture of this glaze. According to some researchers, celadon became popular due to its resemblance to bronze and jade objects (Gom-pertz, 1968, p. 23-30). Interestingly, the history of the Chinese export ceramics is also closely related to celadon, as the objects covered with this type of glaze were already popular outside China at the early stages of its production.
Conclusions
A complex analysis of the collected material suggests that the Qing porcelain in Mongolia was mainly used by Chinese military administration and Mongolian Buddhist clergy. The decorative motif applied to the porcelain reflects basic values of Chinese folk culture, however the design elements predominately signal Tibetan Buddhism stylistic framework. The decoration also reflects the preferences originally related to non-Han components of Chinese culture. Hence these two characteristics allows us to suggest that the porcelain exported to Mongolia was intended for local tastes, even though it was used predominantly by Chinese population.
Identifying the porcelain in Mongolia provides a better understanding of how Chinese products corresponded to the needs and decorative preferences of the neighboring territories. It also demonstrates the degree of cultural interchange between different territories.
In addition, the study sheds more light on the trajectory of porcelain trade routes that ran across Central Asia further west and north. The discussed Chinese artifacts serve as a reference for a more complete interpretation of Chinese porcelain fragments recently identified among archaeological material in Siberia.
REFERENCES
Bogolepov M. I., Sobolev M. N. Essays on the Trade Between Russia and Mongolia. Expedition to Mongolia in 1910. Tomsk : Tipografiya Sibirskogo tov-va pechat. dela, 1911. 500 p. (Proceedings of Tomsk Society of Siberian studies. Vol. I.) (In Russ.).
Vestfalen E. H., Krechetova K. N. Chinese Porcelain. Leningrad : Gosudarstvennyj Er-mitazh, 1947. 56 p. (In Russ.).
Grube W. Spiritual Culture of China. Literature, Religion, Cult. St. Petersburg : Brokgauz-Efron, 1912. 251 p. (In Russ.).
Grum-Grzhimailo G. E. Western Mongolia and Uryankhay Krai. Vol. III. Issue 1. Anthropological and Ethnographic Essays of These Countries. Leningrad : Leningradskij Gub-lit, 1926. 415 p. (In Russ.).
Kiselev S. V. Ancient Cities of Mongolia. Sovetskaya arheologiya = Soviet Archaeology. 1957;2:91-101. (In Russ.).
Kurc B. G. Russian-Chinese Relations in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. Kiev : Gosu-darsvennoe izd-vo Ukrainy, 1929. 158 p. (In Russ.).
Ozheredov Yu. I. The Beginning of the Research in the Shar Sum Complex in West Mongolia. In: Archaeology of Southern Siberia: Ideas, Methods, Discoveries. Krasnoyarsk : RIO KGPU, 2005a, Pp. 131-133. (In Russ.).
Ozheredov Yu. I. On the Complex Expedition of Tomsk State University in 2004 in Western Mongolia. In: Natural Environment, History and Culture of Western Mongolia and Neighbouring Territories. Kyzyl : Izd-vo TuvIKOPR SO RAN, 2005b. Pp. 77-81. (In Russ.).
Ozheredov Yu. I. On the History of the Temple Complex Shar Sum in Western Mongolia. Mir Evrazii = The World of Eurasia. 2009a;2(5):38-49. (In Russ.).
Ozheredov Yu. I. Preliminary Study of the Buddhist Temple Shar Sum in Khovd Aimak in Western Mongolia. In: Problems of Archaeology and History of Northern Asia. Tomsk : Agraf-Press, 2009b. Pp. 178-197. (In Russ.).
Ozheredov Yu. I., Ganbold M. The Results of the Preliminary Survey of the Buddhist Temple Shar Sum in the Khovd Aimak in Western Mongolia. Erdem shinzhilgeeniy bichig (Niygem humuunlegiin uhaan) = Research Paper (Social Humanities). 2009;2(14):109-116. (In Russ.).
Ozheredov Yu. I., Munkhbayar Ch., Ozheredova A. Yu., Tomko V. S. The Results of the Preliminary Territory Survey in the Shar Sum Temple of the Khovd Aimag in Western Mongolia. In: Ethnocultural History of Eurasia: Modern Research and Reconstruction. Barnaul : Azbu-ka, 2008. Pp. 255-256. (In Russ.).
Ozheredova A. Yu., Ozheredov Yu.I. The Porcelain from the Chinese Fortress Khobdo. In: Ancient Cultures of Mongolia and Baikal Siberia. Issue II. Irkutsk : Izd-vo IrGTU, 2011a. Pp. 540-545. (In Russ.).
Ozheredova A. Yu., Ozheredov Yu. I. Barunfurayi yiseki shutsudo chugoku tojiki. In: Bulletin of Kotani-dzyo Museum. Osaka : Scientific Research Society of Chinese Porcelain and Ko-tani Fortress Museum, 2011b. Pp. 1-12. (In Jap. and Russ.).
Ozheredova A. Yu., Ozheredov Yu. I. Hobudo chugoku zosai shutsudo tojiki. In: Bulletin of Kotani-dzyo Museum. Osaka : Scientific Research Society of Chinese Porcelain and Kotani Fortress Museum, 2011c. Pp. 15-34 (In Jap. and Russ).
Ozheredova A. Yu., Ozheredov Yu. I. Chinese Porcelain from the Ruins of the Shar Sum Temple Complex in Western Mongolia. In: Ancient Cultures of Mongolia and Baikal Siberia. Ulanbaatar : Izd-vo Mong. gos. un-ta, 2012. Pp. 409-419. (In Russ.).
Pozdneev A. Mongolia Chronicle "Erdeni-yin Erike". Original Text with Translation and Commentaries, Including the Materials on the Khalkha History from 1636 to 1736. St. Petersburg : Tipografiya Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1883. 413 p. (In Russ.).
Pozdneev A. Mongolia and the Mongols. The Results of the Travel to Mongolia in 18921893. Vol. I: Traveling Journal and the Itinerary in 1892. St.Petersburg : Tipografiya Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1896. 337 p. (In Russ.).
Potanin G. N. Essays on the North-West Mongolia. Issue II: Ethnographic materials. St.Pe-tersburg : Tip. V. Kirshbauma, 1881. 90 p. (In Russ.).
Potanin G. N. Travels in Mongolia. Moscow : Ob'edinenie gosudarstvennyh knizhno-zhur-nal'nyh izdatel'stv, 1948. 483 p. (In Russ.).
Printz A. A Trip to Khobdo. Tomskie Gubernskie Novosti = Tomsk Guberniya News. 1869;20:8. (In Russ.).
Ozheredova A. Yu., Ozheredov Yu. I. Chinese Clay Shaped Vessels from Barun Khurai Tract. In: Ancient Cultures of Northern China, Mongolia and Baikal Siberia. Vol. II. Hohhot : Kex-ue chubanshe, 2015. Pp. 629-633.
Yin Wei, Yin Weiran. Zhongguo shou wenhua. Kunming : Yunnan renmin chubanshe, 2005. 212 p. (In Chin.).
Su Keming. Shou, Shouli, Shouxin — Zhongguo minjian cishou xisu. Chengdu : Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 2009. 209 p. (In Chin.).
Johan's Autumn Action Catalogue. Hong Kong : Zhonghan paimai chubanshe, 2018. 246 p. (In Chin. and Engl.).
Yu Jiadu. Jiangxi taoci shi. Kaifeng : Henan daoxue chubanshe, 1997. 524 p. (In Chin.).
Zhongguo gu taoci tudian. Beijing : Wenwu chubanshe, 1998. 469 p. (In Chin.).
Brown R., Sjostrand S. Maritime Archaeology and Shipwreck Ceramics in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur : Department of Museums and Antiquities, 2004. 118 p.
Gompertz G. Celadon Wares. London : Faber & Faber, 1968. 216 p.
Tek Sing Treasures. Nagel Auktionen. Stuttgart, Germany : Stuttgarter Kunstauktionshaus Dr. Fritz Nagel, 2000. 396 p.
Christie's Amsterdam: The Diana Cargo. Amsterdam : Christie's Amsterdam, 1995. 154 p.
СПИСОК ИСТОЧНИКОВ
Боголепов М. И., Соболев М. H. Очерки русско-монгольской торговли. Экспедиция в Монголию 1910 года. Томск : Типография Сибирского тов-ва печат. дела, 1911. 500 с. (Труды Томского общества изучения Сибири. Т. 1).
Вестфален Э. Х., Кречетова К. Н. Китайский фарфор. Л.: Государственный Эрмитаж, 1947. 56 с.
Грубэ В. Духовная культура Китая. Литература, религия, культ. СПб. : Брокгауз-Ефрон, 1912. 251 с.
Грум-Гржимайло Г. Е. Западная Монголия и Урянхайский край. Т. 3. Вып. 1. Антропологический и этнографический очерк этих стран. Л. : Ленинградский Гублит, 1926.415 с.
Киселев С. В. Древние города Монголии // Советская археология. 1957. №2. С. 91-101.
Курц Б. Г. Русско-китайские отношения в XVI, XVII и XVIII столетиях. Киев : Гос. изд-во Украины, 1929. 158 с.
Ожередов Ю. И. Начало исследований комплекса Шар-Сум в Западной Монголии // Археология Южной Сибири: идеи, методы, открытия. Красноярск : РИО КГПУ им. В. П. Астафьева, 2005а. С. 131-133.
Ожередов Ю. И. О работе комплексной экспедиции Томского государственного университета в 2004 г. в Западной Монголии // Природные условия, история и культура Западной Монголии и сопредельных регионов. Кызыл : Изд-во ТувИКОПР СО РАН, 2005б. С. 77-81.
Ожередов Ю. И. К истории храмового комплекса Шар-Сум в Западной Монголии // Мир Евразии. 2009а. №2 (5). С. 38-49.
Ожередов Ю. И. Предварительные исследования буддийского храма Шар-Сум в Ховдском аймаке Западной Монголии // Проблемы археологии и истории Северной Азии. Томск : Аграф-Пресс, 2009б. С. 178-197.
Ожередов Ю. И., Ганболд М. Итоги предварительных исследований территории буддийского храма Шар-Сум в Ховдском аймаке Западной Монголии // Эрдэм шинжил-гээний бичиг (Нийгэм хумуунлэгийн ухаан). 2009. №2(14). С. 109-116.
Ожередов Ю. И., Мунхбаяр Ч., Ожередова А. Ю., Томко В. С. Итоги предварительных исследований территории буддийского храма Шар-Сум в Ховдском аймаке Западной Монголии // Этнокультурная история Евразии: современные исследования и опыт реконструкций. Барнаул : Азбука, 2008. С. 255-256.
Ожередова А. Ю., Ожередов Ю. И. Фарфор китайской крепости Хобдо // Древние культуры Монголии и Байкальской Сибири. Вып. 2. Иркутск : Изд-во ИрГТУ, 2011а. С. 540-545.
Ожередова А. Ю., Ожередов Ю. И. Барунфурай изэки шутсудо тюгоку тодзики (Китайский фарфор на памятниках Барунхурая) // Котанидзё кёдо хакубуцукан киё (Бюллетень Музея Котани-дзё). Осака : Тюгоку котодзи тёсакэнкюкай и Котани-дзё кюдо-кан (Научно-исследовательское общество китайского фарфора и Музей крепости Ко-тани), 2011b. C. 1-12 (на яп. и русс. яз.).
Ожередова А. Ю., Ожередов Ю. И. Кобудо тюгоку дзосай сюцудо тодзики (Фарфор китайской крепости Хобдо) // Котанидзё кёдо хакубуцукан киё (Бюллетень Музея Ко-тани-дзё). Осака : Тюгоку котодзи тёсакэнкюкай и Котани-дзё кюдокан (Научно-исследовательское общество китайского фарфора и Музей крепости Котани), 2011c. C. 1534 (на яп. и русс. яз.).
Ожередова А. Ю., Ожередов Ю. И. Китайский фарфор на развалинах монастырского комплекса «Шар-Сум» в Западной Монголии // Древние культуры Монголии и Байкальской Сибири. Уланбаатар : Изд-во Монг. гос. ун-та, 2012. С. 409-419.
Позднеев А. Монгольская летопись «Эрдэнийн эрихэ». Подлинный текст с переводом и пояснениями, заключающими в себе материалы для истории Халхи с 1636 по 1736 г. СПб. : Типография Императорской Академии наук, 1883. 413 с.
Позднеев А. Монголия и монголы. Результаты поездки в Монголию в 1892-1893 гг. Т. 1. Дневник и маршрут 1892 года. СПб. : Типография Императорской Академии наук, 1896. 337 с.
Потанин Г. Н. Очерки Северо-Западной Монголии. Вып. II. Материалы этнографические. СПб. : Тип. В. Киршбаума, 1881. 90 с.
Потанин Г. Н. Путешествия по Монголии. М. : ОГИЗ, 1948. 483 с.
Принтц А. Поездка в Хобдо // Томские Губернские Новости. 1869. №20. С. 8.
Ozheredova A. Yu. Ozheredov Yu. I. Chinese clay shaped vessels from Barun Khurai Trad: // Древние культуры Северного Китая, Монголии и Байкальской Сибири. Т. II. Хух-Хото : Кэсюэ чубаньшэ, 2015. С. 629-633.
Инь Вэй, Инь Фэйжань. Чжунго шоу вэньхуа (Культура долголетия в Китае). Куньмин : Юньнань женьминь чубаньшэ, 2005. 212 с. (на кит. яз.).
Су Кэмин. Шоу, Шоули, Шоусин — Чжунго миньцзянь цишоу сису (Долголетие, Ритуалы долголетия, божество Шоусин — Народная традиция поклонения долголетию в Китае). Чэнду : Сычуань жэньминь чубаньшэ, 2009. 209 с. (на кит. яз.).
Чжунхань цюли паймай тулу (Каталог осеннего аукциона Чжунхань). Гонконг : Чжунхань паймай чубаньшэ, 2018. 246 с. (на кит. и англ. яз.).
Ю Цзяду, Цзянси таоци ши (История керамики провинции Цзянси). Кайфэн : Хэнань дасюэ чубаньшэ, 1997. 524 с. (на кит. яз.).
Чжунго гутаоци тудянь (Иллюстрированная энциклопедия древней керамики Китая). Пекин : Вэньучубаньшэ, 1998. 469 с. (на кит. яз.).
Brown R., Sjostrand S. Maritime Archaeology and shipwreck ceramics in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur : Department of Museums and antiquities, 2004. 118 p.
Gompertz G. Celadon wares. London : Faber & Faber, 1968. 216 p.
Tek Sing Treasures. Nagel Auktionen. Stuttgart, Germany : Stuttgarter Kunstauktionshaus Dr. Fritz Nagel, 2000. 396 p.
Christie's Amsterdam: The Diana Cargo. Amsterdam : Christie's Amsterdam, 1995. 154 p.
CONTRIBUTION OF THE AUTHORS/ ВКЛАД АВТОРОВ
A. Yu. Ozheredova: data recovery, processing artefacts, analyzing and interpreting technical, historical and cultural characteristics of the artefacts, writing the relevant part of the paper, editing and translating the text.
Ожередова А. Ю.: сбор материала, обработка материала, анализ и интерпретация технических, исторических и культурных характеристик найденных артефактов, написание соответствующего раздела статьи, редактура и перевод текста статьи.
Yu. I. Ozheredov: organization and executing archaeological expeditions that allowed data recovery; conducting historical and archaeological analysis of the studied sites; writing the relevant part of the paper.
Ожередов Ю. И.: организация и руководство археологических экспедиций, в ходе которых осуществлялся сбор материала, обработка материала, историческое и археологическое исследование памятников, написание соответствующего раздела статьи.
There is no conflict of interest / Конфликт интересов отсутствует.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS / ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Alina Yur'evna Ozheredova, Master's Degree, Department of History and Historical Artefacts, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Ожередова Алина Юрьевна, мастер кафедры истории и исторических реликвий Института гуманитарных и социальных наук, Университет Фэнцзя, Тайчжун, Тайвань.
Yuri Ivanovich Ozheredov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Researcher, M. K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University, Chukotka Branch, Anadyr, Russia.
Ожередов Юрий Иванович, кандидат исторических наук, научный сотрудник Северо-Восточного федерального университета имени М. К. Аммосова, Чукотское отделение, Анадырь, Россия.
The article was submitted 09.07.2022; approved after reviewing 03.08.2022; accepted for publication 16.08.2022.
Статья поступила в редакцию 09.07.2022; одобрена после рецензирования 03.08.2022;
принята к публикации 16.08.2022.
