The Studies of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Cultures of Southern Siberia by Chinese Archaeologists in the First Half of the 20th Century
https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2024-23-5-35-44
Abstract
Purpose. The article present the study of the cultures of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Southern Siberia by Chinese archaeologists in the first half of the 20th century and gives historiographical review of this study. The date of liberation, namely 1949, is an obvious chronological reference point for Chinese history and for the scientific development of China as well. But as for studying of Siberian cultures of Bronze and Early Iron ages in the 1950s, Chinese archaeologists simply continued previous tendencies. During this decade there was a quantitative increase in publications and even the first direct contacts were made, but external political obstacles prevented the transition of research to a higher level of quality.
Results. We can state now that only the materials of Yinxu at Anyang were used by Chinese scholars for comparative analysis with Bronze Age finds from Southern Siberia. Consequently, in our investigation we address the period from 1920s to 1950s as one historiographical stage.
Conclusion Nevertheless, it was in the 1950s that the foundation was laid for the subsequent rapid growth of scientific interaction in the field of archeology in general and in the study of the paleometal age of Southern Siberia in particular. The period of active research began in the late 1970s and early 1980s and continues to the present day.
About the Author
Peng Wang
Institute of Archaeology of Chinese Academy of Social Studies
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Wang Peng, Magister of History
Beijing
References
1. Bergman F. Newly discovered graves in the Lop-nor desert. Geografiska Annaler, 1935, vol. 17, suppl., pp. 44–61.
2. Gao Quxun. Ping hanyiqiande gu jingzhi yanjiu bing lun “huaishi”zhi shidai wenti [高去寻。评含 以前的古镜之研究并论“淮式”之时代问题 // 历史语言研究所季刊]. Critique of the study of pre-Han ancient mirrors and a review of the problem of dating the “Huai style”. In: Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo yanjiu jikan [Collection of papers of Institute of History and Philology] (Taibei), 1949, vol. 14, pp. 1–19. (in Chin.)
3. Gao Quxun. Zhan’guo munei daigou yongyude tuize [高去寻。战国墓内带钩用遇的推则 // 历史 语言研究季刊]. Hypothesis about the use of belt hooks found in Zhan’guo period graves. In: Lishi yuyan yanjiu jikan [Collection of papers of Institute of History and Philology] (Taibei), 1952, vol. 23, part 2, pp. 489–510. (in Chin.)
4. Gao Quxun. Yindaide yimian tongjing ji xiangguanzhi wenti [高去寻。殷代的一面铜镜及相关 之问题 // 历史语言研究所集刊]. Bronze mirror of Yin Dynasty and the problems connected. In: Lishi yuyan yanjiusuo jikan [Collection of papers of Institute of History and Philology] (Taibei), 1958, vol. 29, pp. 685–719. (in Chin.)
5. Guo Moruo. Qingtong shidai [郭沫若。青铜时代]. Bronze Age. Beijing, Kexue chubanshe, 1957, 334 p. (in Chin.)
6. Jettmar K. The Karasuk Culture and its South-Eastern Affinities. Bulletin of the Museum of Far-Eastern Antiquities, 1950, no. 22, pp. 115–123.
7. Jixieliefu S. V. [Kiselev]. Sishi niandai sulian jingnei qingtong shidaide yanjiu [C. B. 吉谢列夫。 四十年来苏联境内青铜时代的研究 // 考古]. Study of the Bronze Age in the USSR over 40 years. Kaogu [Archaeology], 1959, no. 6, pp. 302–313. (in Chin.)
8. Jixieliefu S. V. [Kiselev] tongxun yuanshi zai Beijing suozuode xueshu baogao [C. B. 吉谢列夫通 讯院士在北京所做的学术报告 // 考古]. Scientific reports given by Corresponding Member S. V. Kiselev in Beijing. Kaogu [Archaeology], 1960, no. 2, pp. 45–53. (in Chin.)
9. Karlgren B. Some Weapons and Tools of the Yin Dynasty. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1945, no. 17, pp. 101–144.
10. Kiselev S. V. Issledovanie bronzovogo veka na territorii SSSR za 40 let [Study of the Bronze Age on the territory of the USSR over 40 years]. Sovetskaya arkheologiya [Soviet Archaeology], 1957, no. 4, pp. 28–43. (in Russ.)
11. Kiselev S. V. Neolit i bronzovyi vek Kitaya [Neolithic and the Bronze Age of China]. Sovetskaya arkheologiya [Soviet Archaeology], 1960, no. 4, pp. 244–266. (in Russ.)
12. Kitova L. Yu. Istoriya sibirskoi arkheologii (1920–1930-e gody) [A history of Siberian archaeology (1920s and 1930s)]. Novosibirsk, IAET SB RAS Publ., 2007, 272 p. (in Russ.)
13. Li Hairong. Beifang diqu chutu xia shang zhou shiqi qingtongqi yanjiu [李海荣。北方地区出土 夏商周时期青铜器研究]. Study of the bronze implements of Xia, Shang and Zhou epoch, found in the northern regions of China. Beijing, Wenwu chubanshe, 2003, 336 p. (in Chin.)
14. Li Ji. Yinxu tongqi wuzhong ji qi xianguanzhi wenti [李济。殷墟铜器五种及其相关之问题 // 庆 祝蔡元培先生六十五岁论文集]. Five types of bronze implements from Yinxu and the problems connected. In: Qingzhu cai yuanpei xiansheng liushiwu sui lunwenji [Collection of papers devoted to 65th anniversary of Mr. Qai Yuanpei]. Beiping, Institute of History and Philology of Academia Sinica, 1933, vol. 1, pp. 73–104. (in Chin.)
15. Li Ji. Ji xiaotun chutuzhi qingtongqi (zhong bian) [李济。记小屯出土之青铜器（中篇） // 中国 考古学报]. Descriptions of the bronze implements, found in Xiaotun (2nd part). Zhongguo kaogu xuebao, 1949, vol. 4, pp. 1–70. (in Chin.)
16. Loehr M. Ordos Daggers and Knives: New Material, Classification and Chronology. First Part: Daggers. Artibus Asiae, 1949, vol. 12, no. 1/2, pp. 23–83.
17. Loehr M. Ordos Daggers and Knives: New Material, Classification and Chronology. Second Part: Knives. Artibus Asiae, 1951, vol. 14, no. 1/2, pp. 77–162.
18. Loehr M. Weapons and tools from Anyang and Siberian analogies. American Journal of Archaeo logy, 1956a, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 126–144.
19. Loehr M. Chinese Bronze Age Weapons: The Werner Jannings Collection in the Chinese National Palace Museum, Peking. Ann Arbor, Uni. of Michigan Press; London: Geoffrey Cumberledge, Oxford Uni. Press, 1956b, XVI, 233 p. + 155 ill.
20. Mair V. H. The rediscovery and complete excavation of Ördek's Necropolis. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 2006, vol. 34, iss. 3, pp. 273–318.
21. Matyushchenko V. I. Istoriya arkheologicheskikh issledovanii Sibiri (do kontsa 1930 kh godov): ucheb. posobie [A history of archaeological studies of Siberia (before the end of 1930s): Textbook]. Omsk, Omsk Uni. Press, 1992, 132 p. (in Russ.)
22. Molodin V. I., Komissarov S. A. Kul'tura Syaokhe [Xiaohe Culture]. In: Istoriya Kitaya s drev neishikh vremen do nachala XXI veka [History of China from the earliest times to the beginning of the 21st century]. Moscow, Vost. lit. Publ., 2016, vol. 1: Drevneishaya i drevnyaya istoriya (po arkheologicheskim dannym): ot paleolita do V. do n. e. [The earliest and early history (according archaeological data): From Paleolithic to 5th century BC], pp. 509–512. (in Russ.)
23. Wang Peng. Xiboliya kaoguxuede lanshang [王鹏。西伯利亚考古学的滥觞 // 光明日报]. The birth of Siberian archaeology. Guangming ribao, 22.12.2017, p. 16. (in Chin.)
24. Xu Zhongshu. Gudai shoulie tuxiang kao [徐中舒。古代狩猎图像考 // 庆祝蔡元培先生六十五 岁论文集]. Study of ancient hunting pictures. In: Qingzhu cai yuanpei xiansheng liushiwu sui lunwenji [Collection of papers devoted to 65th anniversary of Mr. Qai Yuanpei]. Beiping, Shangwu yinshuguan, 1933, vol. 2, pp. 569–618. (in Chin.)
25. Xu Zhongshu. Beidi zai qian yin wenhua shang zhi gongxian – lun yinxu qingtongqi yu lianglun dachezhi youlai [徐中舒。北狄在前殷文化上之贡献 – 论殷墟青铜器与两轮大车之由来 // 中华文化论坛]. The contribution of the northern di tribes to the pre-Yin culture: on the origin of bronze implements of the Yinxu and two-wheeled large chariots. Zhonghua wenhua luntan [Chinese Culture Forum], 2000, no. 1, pp. 31–50. (in Chin.)
Review
For citations:
Wang P. The Studies of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Cultures of Southern Siberia by Chinese Archaeologists in the First Half of the 20th Century. Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology. 2024;23(5):35-44. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2024-23-5-35-44
Views:
175
Email this article 