蒙古北部伊赫托勒宝尔山谷的旧石器考古——以旧石器时代晚期早段为中心

策·宝勒尔巴特①, 巩琴苏荣·兵巴①, 尼古拉·乔治②,
斯尔盖·格拉德谢夫③, 叶布格尼·热艾兵③, 奥德苏荣·达瓦赫③
（①.蒙古国科学院历史与考古研究所
②.美国加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校人类学系③.俄罗斯新西伯利亚考古学和人种学研究所）
 

　　2004至2016年，蒙古—俄罗斯、蒙古—美国旧石器考古队在蒙古北部色楞河一支流附近的伊赫托勒宝尔山谷发掘了3处遗址。
　　第一处遗址是Tolbor-4：发掘时间是2004至2006年，此处遗址共有6个地层。Tolbor-4第6层出土物的测年时间为距今37.400± 2600 (АА-79314, USA) BP到35.230 ± 680 (АА-93141,USA) BP。
　　第二处遗址是Tolbor-15：发掘时间是2008至2011年，此处遗址共有7个地层。第7层出土物的测年时间为距今34.010± 200 (MAMS-14934) 到33.470 ± 190 (MAMS-14935)BP。
　　第三处遗址是Tolbor-16：共分7层，发掘时间为2012至2016年。第7层出土物的测年时间为距今40.480±320BP (MAMS-20985)，40.910 ± 340 BP (MAMS-20983)，41.720 ± 160 BP (MAMS-20984)。
　　从伊赫托勒宝尔旧石器遗址最下层出土的石叶组合来看，该遗址属于旧石器时代晚期初。其技术风格与外贝加尔和西伯利亚地区出土的石叶组合非常相似。

 

Paleolithic study of Ikh Tolbo valley, Northern Mongolia:
Initial and Early Upper Paleolithic

Tsedendorj Bolorbat ①, Gunchinsuren Byambaa①, Nicolas Zwyns②,Sergei Gladyshev
③, Evgeny Rybin③, Odsuren Davaakhuu①
(①.Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolia Academy of Sciences, Mongolia
②.Department of Anthropology, University of California-Davis, USA
③.Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, SB RAS, Russia)
 

Mongolian-Russian and Mongolian-American joint Paleolithic expeditions worked on three sites of Ikh Tolbor valley, one of the streams to Selenge River, in northern ongolia,between of 2004 - 2016. 
The first site is Tolbor-4; excavation done on 2004 - 2006 and the site has 6 tratigraphic. The illustrated by the finds from Horizon 6 at Tolbor-4 site with the uncalibrated dates 37.400 ± 2600 (АА-79314, USA) BP and 35.230 ± 680 (АА-93141, USA) BP.
The next site is Tolbor-15; excavation completed between of 2008 - 2011. This site has 7 tratigraphic. The horizon 7 dated 34.010 ± 200 (MAMS-14934) and 33.470 ± 190 (MAMS-14935) BP.
The third site is Tolbor-16 has 7 stratigraphic. It’s excavation completed in 2012 - 2016. The horizon 7 dated 40.480 ± 320 BP (MAMS-20985), 40.910 ± 340 BP (MAMS-0983), 41.720 ± 160 BP (MAMS-20984).
Blade-based lithic assemblage from lowest layers of Ikh Tulbur Paleolithic sites are belongs to Initial Upper Paleolithic. The technical system is very similar with assemblage from Trans-Baikal and Siberian territory. 


 

新疆博尔塔拉河流域青铜时代文化研究新进展

贾笑冰
副研究员
中国社会科学院考古研究所
 

　　2013年开始，由中国社会科学院考古研究所负责开展的“温泉县博尔塔拉河流域青铜时代区域考古调查”发现了一处规模庞大的青铜时代早期遗址——呼斯塔遗址。呼斯塔遗址位于温泉县东北约40公里的阿拉套山脚下，它的面积达到了惊人的12平方公里，是目前为止温泉县境内发现的规模最大的青铜时代早期遗址，年代不晚于距今3600年。2016年6月，中国社会科学院考古研究所呼斯塔遗址发掘与研究课题组开始了对呼斯塔遗址的发掘工作。
　　呼斯塔遗址由从北至南的3部分组成：北侧黑山头的军事瞭望与防御性建筑；中部阿拉套山山前冲积扇内的呼斯塔遗址主体部分；南侧小呼斯塔山顶的长方形居址及其西侧山顶居址和墓地。遗址内的大型石构居址组合是遗址最重要的组成部分。这处居址组合由长方形主体建筑、前室、西侧室、院落、院墙组成，面积达到了惊人的5000余平方米，这是目前已知的西天山地区面积最大的建筑组合。在主体建筑西南角，还发现了1座祭祀坑，出土了人骨、陶器、铜器等遗物，其中角柄青铜短剑和角柄青铜锥保存完整、做工精良，锥柄表面还装饰了细密规整的刻划网格文，是目前亚欧草原地区最为完整的角柄青铜武器，弥足珍贵。
　　复杂的结构、惊人的规模、精美的出土遗物，构成了这处等级较高、规模较大的中心性聚落遗址，对认识这一地区青铜时代早期的社会组织结构和社会发展阶段，具有重要意义。


 

Recent advances in the study of
the Bronze Age culture in the Bortala River basin, Xinjiang

Jia Xiaobing
AssociateResearcher
Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
 

Beginning in 2013, a regional survey carried out by the Institute of Archaeology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences entitled “Regional survey of the archaeology of the Bronze Age in the Bortala River valley, Wenquan county”, resulted in the finding of a very large early Bronze Age site, the Husita site.
Husita is located about 40 kilometers northeast of Wenquan count. It is set at the feet of Mount Alatao, and covers an impressive surface of 12 square kilometers. This is the largest Bronze Age site found in Wenquan county, dating back no later than 3600 years ago. In June 2016, the excavation and study of the Husita site began, led by the team of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science.
Husita consists of three parts from north to south. Military watchposts and defensive architectures are located in the north, on Heishantou. The main part of the site is located in the alluvial fan at the feet of Mount Alatao. In the south, remains of buildings on a rectangular groundplan were found on the top of the small Husita Hill, and more buildings and a cemetery were found on the west side of the hill. The main structural element found in the site is a residential complex made out of large stones. The composite buildings include a rectangular body building, a front room, a west side room, a courtyard and a courtyard wall. Such complex reached more than 5000 sq. m., which makes it the largest known structure in the western Tianshan area. In addition, in the southwest corner of the main building, a sacrificial pit was found with human bones, pottery, bronze artefacts, etc. Among those, a well-preserved bronze short sword and a bronze awl with a horn handle were found. The surface of the awl handle is engraved with an impressively dense and regular grid pattern. These bronze items with horn handles are the best preserved examples found so far in the Eurasian Steppe region.
The complex architectural structures at such an impressive scale and the refined craftmanship of the unearthed items are of great significance for the understanding the social organization of early Bronze Age groups in the region.

 
 

图拉—达什聚落——中亚北部文化起源的纪念碑

弗拉基米尔·斯米诺夫
研究员
俄罗斯科学院物质文化史研究所
 

　　图拉—达什聚落址有着10数层堆积，坐落于叶尼塞河右岸，比赫姆奇克河河口低5千米。对于此地的研究始于1978年，至1984年止，历经了7次田野工作。在此期间，13层文化层被揭开，文化层的总厚度约达3米。我们对每层堆积进行编号，以便展示不同文化的年代序列。最底部4层堆积的数据在公元前三千年左右，仍处于新石器时代。这一时期的标志性器物有：饰有篦纹的寰底陶器、凹底的箭头、两面修饰的容器，刮削器与边刮器。骨角器的代表为单面带刺的鱼钩、织网的工具、骨针以及尖凿。项链的制作使用的是马拉赤鹿萎缩的牙齿。这些遗物大多集中于小形灶坑的周围，这里也正是轻便的圆锥形帐篷的分布所在。碳14测年显示这一阶段持续了500年时间，从公元前三千纪的早期一直延续到了中期。这一时期的文化因素在更早时期的库伊拉格—赫姆洞穴遗址的1到2层堆积当中也有发现。新石器时代具有篦纹陶器的文化广泛分布于北亚地区，因而试图去寻找Verhneyeniseiskaya新石器时期文化的源头也显得困难重重。
　　风相沉积表明，由于气候变干，萨彦—阿尔泰高地逐步变成草原地貌，使早期的养牛人在此定居。在图拉—达什堆积的第5层中，阿凡纳谢沃文化的陶器开始出现。这一文化的人群可能来自米努辛斯克盆地，他们逐步向外扩张并穿越了萨彦—阿尔泰高地。在蒙古和东突厥斯坦也有一些阿凡纳谢沃文化的墓葬存在。人种与一些物质文化的特征显示，阿凡纳谢沃文化与欧洲东部的雅玛那亚和卡塔孔布文化颇有相似之处。在图瓦，阿凡纳谢沃文化的聚落则被发现于赫姆奇克河流域的哈伊拉坎山附近。
　　阿凡纳谢沃文化与篦纹陶文化短暂的交流与渗透的同时，早期奥库涅夫文化已经在图瓦地区形成。这一阶段的代表是图拉—达什的第6文化层。典型器物为饰有篦纹以及其他类型装饰的平底陶器、长约2~5cm的杏仁形箭镞。而葬于艾麦尔丽格第13地点的奥库涅夫文化墓葬中的人群，与带来阿凡纳谢沃文化的那群人有着相似的人类学特征。
　　图瓦地区奥库涅夫文化第二阶段的代表是图拉—达什的第7文化层。这是的陶器装饰发生了显著的改变，以三角形纹饰为例，这无疑是受到了卡拉苏克文化的影响。在相同的地层里发现了两把青铜刀，其一拥有特制的把手，另一个则有锻造的刃部和突出的钩。这些器物表明这一期的年代大约在公元前14~13世纪。此时米努辛斯克盆地的文化对于图瓦地区的影响已经式微。图瓦地区奥库涅夫文化的陶器制造者们有了另一个世界观，而安德罗诺沃文化与卡拉苏克文化的几何风格则与他们不同。
　　第8与第9层堆积中只包含极少量器物，可能属于图瓦的原始塞西亚人时期的蒙甘—泰加文化。第10与10A层包含的即为塞西亚人时期的器物，包括青铜器的碎片，以及“horn bipedal psalm”的碎片。10A层与塔施提克文化有着某种联系。其与图瓦的科凯尔文化亦有相似之处。第11与12层则属于原始蒙古时期。13层堆积至公元17世纪，是阿尔泰可汗建国以及索雅特（图瓦人）从放牧的蒙古人以及说突厥语的部落的环境中分离出来的时候。17世纪，来自于斯河的图瓦部落居住在叶尼塞河岸边。虽然图拉—达什聚落址的地层序列并不具有明确的遗传学联系，但是我们可以将其划分为3个两两之间互相影响的群组。第一组——第1至7层——由新石器时代向青铜时代中期转变；第二组——第8至10层——原始塞西亚人时期，青铜时代晚期与早期铁器时代；第三组——第11至13层，中世纪时期。族群之间的联系与交流被从物质层面进行讨论，而由书面记载得以证实。

 
 

The Toora-dash settlement:
A key monument of culture formation in northern Central Asia

Vladimir Semenov
Principal Research Fellow
Institute of History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences
 

The multi-layered settlement of Toora-Dash is situated on the right bank of the Yenisei River, five kilometers downstream of the estuary of the Khemchik River. It was studied during seven field seasons from 1978 to 1984. During this time 13 cultural layers in a vertical sequence were uncovered. Those layers are separated with streaks of alluvium. The total thickness of stratification is of about 3 meters.  The numbering of layers starts from the lowest, to show the chronological sequence of cultures. The four lowest layers are dated to the third millennium BC, which corresponds to the Neolithic period (Verhneyeniseiskaya culture). They feature round-bottom ceramic vessels decorated with combed stamp, arrowheads with a concave base, bifacial retouched inclusions, scrapers on flakes, and side scrapers. The bone and antler industry is represented by unilaterally barbed harpoon, tools for knitting nets, antler adze, needles and point drills. Pendants were made of the atrophied teeth of maral deer. Archeological materials are concentrated near the small hearths,
around which light tepee-shaped dwellings were organized. According to C14 dating this period lasted for 500 years from the beginning to the mid-3rd millennium BC. Traces of this culture were also found in the first and second layers of Kuilug-khem grotto, which are dated to an earlier period. Neolithic cultures with combed ceramics were widely distributed in Northern Asia, so it is difficult to trace the origins of the Verhneyeniseiskaya Neolithic culture.
Later, according to aeolian deposits, the Sayan-Altai upland began to wither so that the landscape changed into a steppe, which in due time allowed early cattle-breeders to settle here. In the 5th layer of Toora-Dash, ceramic from the Afanas’evo culture was discovered. Bringers of that culture could have come here from the Minusinsk basin, and settled in a wide area across the Sayan-Altai upland. Several burial sites of the Afanas’evo culture are known in Mongolia and Eastern Turkestan. Anthropological type and some features of the material culture has analogies within the Yamanaya and Catacomb cultures of Eastern Europe. In Tuva, settlements of Afanas’evo culture were discovered near the Khayirakan mountain and in the basin of the Khemchik River.
During the rather short period of interaction and acculturation of Afanas’evo and combed ceramics cultures, an early stage of the Okunevo culture formed in Tuva. This stage is represented by the 6th cultural layer of Toora-Dash. It is characterized with
flat-bottomed ceramics with combed ornament along with other types of ornamentations and almond-shaped arrowheads of 2-5cm in length. People buried in the Okunevo-type grave field of Aimyrlyg XIII had anthropological features similar to the bringers of Afanas’evo culture.
The second stage of the Okunevo culture in Tuva is featured in the 7th cultural layer of Toora-Dash. Significant changes appear at that time in ceramics ornamentation - rapports from shaded triangles for example attests the undoubtedly influence of Karasuk. Two bronze knives were found in the same layer - one with a dedicated handle,
another with a forged blade and pointed hitch. Those items point to a the date near the 14-13th centuries BC. The influence of the Minusinsk basin cultures on Tuva was not significant. Ceramists of the Okunevo culture in Tuva had another worldview, and the geometric style of the Andronovo and Karasuk cultures remained alien to them.
Layers 8 and 9 contained little material and could be referred to Mongun-taiga culture of proto-Scythian times in Tuva. Layers 10 and 10A contained Scythian period
material, including fragments of bronze items, and a piece of horn bipedal psalm. Layer 10 alpha is associated with Tashtyk culture. It finds analogies also within the Kokel’ culture of Tuva. Layers 11 and 12 refer to the proto-Mongolian period. Layer 13 dates to the 17th century AD, when the state of Altyn-khan appeared and Soyot (Tuvans) separated from the environment of nomadic Mongolian and Turk-speaking tribes. In the 17th century AD, Tuvan tribes from the Us river lived on the shores of Yenisei.
Stratigraphic sequence on the settlement of Toora-dash surely does not belong to a single genetic group, we can divide it instead into three groups, who interacted with each other. The first group, in layers 1 to 7, marks the transition between Neolithic and middle Bronze Age. The second group, in layers 8 to 10, dates from proto-Scythian times, in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. The third group, in layers 11 to 13, dates from medieval times. Ethnic connections and ethnogenesis can be discussed with this material, and confronted to historical texts.


 

发现与挑战——区域背景下的蒙古西部早期青铜时代

查·特尔巴图
主任
蒙古国科学院历史与考古研究所青铜至铁器时代部门
 

　　过去的10年中，学者们对蒙古国各区域都进行了广泛深入的调查，但只有阿尔泰蒙古或西蒙古地区的青铜时代早期遗迹是清晰可辨的。相反，蒙古中部和东部的戈壁地带仍然没有发现青铜器时代早期的证据。
　　在此视角下，公元前3000年至公元前2500年青铜时代早期的克尔木齐（Khemceg）文化对于我们认识蒙古及其周边区域如西伯利亚南部、新疆北部及东哈萨克斯坦文化内涵的过程中发挥着重要作用。由俄罗斯学者提出的公元前3000年至公元前2500年米努辛斯克盆地的奥库沃夫（Okunevo）文化新序列，也促使我们对克尔木齐文化的起源与文化间的联系进行反思。当前的研究表明可能存在着一个克尔木齐—奥库沃夫文化，发端于欧亚草原的西部。传统上认为是阿凡纳羡沃（Afanasievo）文化源头的东欧颜那亚（Yamnaya）文化，或许对克尔木齐—奥库沃夫文化的形成也发挥了作用。
　　事实上我们对克尔木齐文化的认知较若干年前研究刚在蒙古国起步时已更为深入。这种文化在今天通常表现在几种形式的丧葬特征、人形石像、岩画与礼仪建筑上。近年来蒙古和俄罗斯学者在巴彦乌列盖（Bayan-Olgii）和科布多省（Khovdaimag）的考古工作发现了丰富的物质文化和有趣的丧葬礼仪。与此同时，2015年在中国阿尔泰墩布拉克地区发现的岩画，其与阿尔泰岩画的关联性，使得克尔木齐文化更加复杂。最近发现的礼仪建筑上的岩画证实了我对岩画风格归属的猜想。最后，由俄罗斯学者在科布多河盆地Khar Chuluutiin Gol地区发掘的礼仪建筑补全了这一文化遗存的序列。
　　克尔木齐文化在青铜文化畜牧业产生中所起的作用仍是我们研究的主题。尽管有证据表明其与阿凡纳羡沃文化在同一区域有共存关系，但它们彼此之间的关联尚不明晰。

 
 

The Early Bronze age of WestMongolia in a regional context:
Discoveries and challenges

Tsagaan Turbat
Head　of the Department of Bronze and Iron Age
Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences
 

Despite extensive investigations in Mongolia during the last decennia in different parts of the country, the only region with clearly distinguishable Early Bronze age monuments is the Mongolian Altai, or West Mongolia. Unfortunately, Central and East Mongolia along with Gobi region still yield no evidence of early Bronze age occupation.
In this perspective the Early Bronze age Khemceg culture (Ke’ermuqi culture in Chinese archaeological literature), dated back to the mid to end of 3rd millennia BCE, plays a key role in the understanding of not only Mongolian but also neighboring regions like South Siberia, North Xinjiang and East Kazakhstan. In the light of the new series of C14 datation of Okunevo culture in the Minusinsk Basin, proposed by Russian colleagues to the mid-end of the 3rd millennium BCE, the origin and cultural connections of Khemceg culture needs to be re-considered. One could suggest that Khemceg-Okunevo was a cultural phenomenon that had origins in the western end of the Eurasian Steppe. The Yamnaya cultural community in East Europe is traditionally considered as the source of Afanasievo culture, and it seems to have also played a role in the formation of the Khemceg-Okunevo cultural phenomena.
Today, our knowledge of the Khemceg culture is deeper and much more complex than a few years ago when the study of this culture just began in Mongolia. IT is now represented by funeral features of several forms, anthropomorphic stone statues, rock art and ritual structures. Recent excavations by Mongolian archaeologists and Russian colleagues in Bayan-Olgii and Khovd aimag delivered a rich material culture and interesting funeral rites. Meanwhile, the discovery of the rock art site of Dundabulake in Chinese Altai, and its correlation with Altai rock art presented by the author in 2015, conferred more complexity to the Khemceg culture. The recent discovery of petroglyphs on the slabs of ritual structures confirmed my hypothesis concerning the cultural attribution of rock art styles. Finally, the ritual structure of Khar Chuluutiin Gol in Khovd river basin, excavated by Russian colleagues, completed the set of monuments from this culture.
The role and place of Khemceg in the emergence of bronze age cultures associated with animal herding and pastoralism is still subject to study. Its connection with Afanasievo culture are still unclear, alhtough the co-existence of both in the same area is documented.

 
 

蒙古国西南部的巨型遗迹和政治景观

约书亚·怀特
讲师
英国阿伯丁大学
 

　　本论文介绍Dornod Mongol Survey（DMS）项目近期在蒙古国苏赫巴托尔省的田野调查情况。DMS包括一系列田野研究，例如以全新世为跨度的调查、发掘、地质考古等。我们近期的工作主要集中在德勒格尔汗山附近青铜时代的居住遗址、墓葬遗址以及空间型遗迹的关系。
　　特别聚焦于“巨型遗迹”的认定，这里的“巨型遗迹”指的是运用遗迹与附属关联结构的关系去创造有计划的文化景观的大型结构。从中我们可以得知，青铜时代权利的制定、区域身份与政治性集体的出现。

 
 

Macro-Monuments and Political Landscapes in Southeastern Mongolia

Joshua Wright
Lecturer
University of Aberdeen
 

This paper will present recent fieldwork by the Dornod Mongol Survey (DMS) in Sukhbaatar Aimag, Mongolia. The DMS encompasses a range of field research including survey, excavation, and geoarchaeology spanning the Holocene. Our recent work has focused on the relationship of habitation sites and mortuary and spatial monuments of the Bronze Age around the hills of Delgherkhan uul.
Particular focus has been on the identification of “macro-monuments”, large　structures that use both the relationships of their component monuments and additional linking structures to create designed cultural landscapes. In this we see the enactment of power, emergence of regional identities and political collectives in the Bronze Age.


 

古代农牧关系的不同模式

王建新
教授
西北大学文化遗产学院

　　　一、东亚地区的二元互动模式
　　约从公元前500年开始，东亚地区分为以黄河流域和长江流域为中心的农业地带和以蒙古草原为中心的游牧地带。从此，东亚地区走上了农业人群与游牧人群二元对立、南北互动的历史演变轨道。
　　二、中亚地区的交错共存模式
　　中亚地区除最北部的哈萨克草原、阿尔泰—西伯利亚地带之外，广大区域内游牧人群与农业人群交错分布。游牧与农业不同人群交错分布、和平共处是中亚地区古代农牧关系的主要模式。中亚地区是游牧经济最早出现的区域，开始时间约在公元前1000年前后。
　　 三、欧洲的农牧分工模式
　　同一族群的内部分工，一部分人在平原地区从事农业，另一部分人在山前、丘陵地带游牧，应该是欧洲古代农牧关系的主要模式。


 
 

Different Modes of the Relationship between Ancient Agriculture and Nomadism

Wang Jianxin
Professor
School of Cultural Heritage, Northwest University
 

1. Binary interaction in East Asia
From about 500 BC, East Asia was divided into an agricultural belt centered on the Yellow River valley and the Yangtze river basin, and a nomadic zone centered on the
Mongolian steppe. The historical evolution of East Asia is based on north-south
interaction and a binary opposition between agricultural and nomadic populations.
2. Staggered coexistence mode in Central Asia
In central Asia, the nomadic and agricultural populations are distributed in an alternate, “staggered fashion, except for the northern  Kazakh Steppe and the
Altai-Siberia belt. This alternate distribution allowed the peaceful coexistence
of nomadic and agricultural groups in Central Asia. Central Asia hosted the earliest known nomadic groups, starting around 1000BC.
3. The “division of labour” for subsistence modes in Europe
Within a single ethnic group, part of the population lives in the plains area and is engaged in agriculture, while another part lives in


 

中亚不同地区中世纪早期突厥文化的共性与个性——基于墓葬复合体的比较性阐释

尼古拉·赛瑞金
副教授
俄罗斯阿尔泰国立大学
 

　　在历史上的众多民族中，生活在中世纪早期中亚地区的突厥人留下了相当浓墨重彩的一笔。他们的历史主要见于各种文字记载当中，包括北欧的古字碑文以及中国各朝代的史书。与此同时，尽管只有零星地使用，对于考古遗址的阐释亦是了解其历史相当重要的一种途径。而其中蕴含最丰富信息的，无疑是中世纪早期突厥人的大型墓地。现在，中亚的不同地区已经发掘了超过450座游牧民族的墓葬（阿尔泰地区——大约200座；图瓦地区——大约80座；米努辛斯克盆地——大约120座；蒙古境内——大约50座）。并且，在吉尔吉斯斯坦和哈萨克斯坦地区，还有许多突厥文化的混合体。对于这些材料的比较性阐释，使得研究各个地区突厥考古学文化形成与变化过程成为可能，并且对于游牧民族重建自己的民族文化历史也有很大的帮助。
　　由已知的信息来看，最早的突厥遗址发掘于阿尔泰山地区。5世纪下半叶至6世纪上半叶时期代表性的器物主要有一些宗教性建筑与一些墓葬。这一时期的墓葬显示了由阿尔泰地区早于突厥时期的布兰—高比（Bulan-Cuby）文化传统继承而来的独特因素。总之，这些遗址印证了以往对于宗教实践之形成的探索。
　　突厥文化葬式标准的形成是在公元6世纪中叶。其时，第一突厥汗国建立，这也成为将突厥传统传播到其他重要地区的基础。6世纪下半叶至7世纪上半叶的突厥墓葬则见于阿尔泰、图瓦、米努辛斯克盆地，以及哈萨克斯坦和乌兹别克斯坦地区。每一地区的遗址都会有一些区别于其他地区的特色，这些差异展现了突厥文化发展的具体特征。而最具特征性的当属米努辛斯克盆地的文化复合体，这是突厥文化本土化的一个特殊变体。在第一汗国时期，不仅仅是广阔区域内的遗址分布呈现一种固定的状态，游牧民族的某种宗教实践的演变也处在这种状态当中。这种状态最突出的表现便是建筑风格的复杂化以及多样化。一方面，墓葬风俗的趋同是显而易见的；而另一方面，多种其他因素的背离也被记录了下来。
　　在中世纪早期突厥文化发展的下一个时期（8世纪下半叶至10世纪上半叶），这种墓葬结构的复杂化以及多样化趋势也发展到了一个新的阶段。这一时期的大多数突厥墓葬使我们能够为这种显著的变化趋势做出更详尽的说明。
　　突厥文化发展历程的最后一个阶段（10世纪下半叶至11世纪）的墓葬遗存同样非常重要。这一时期遗址的分布范围急剧收缩，除了少数例外，所有调查已知的这类墓葬都分布于阿尔泰地区。发掘所得的器物显示了中世纪早期突厥传统的衰落以及其他游牧群体影响的增加。本项研究由俄罗斯联邦政府批准的教育与科研项目“西伯利亚地区的早期人群——亚洲北部文化的起源与发展”支持（决议№220），阿尔泰州立大学，批准号：№14.Z50.31.0010



 

General and special features of the culture of early medieval Turks in different parts of Central Asia: A comparative analysis of burial complexes

Nikolai Seregin
Associate Professor
Altai State University
 

Early medieval Turks of Central Asia left a mark inthe history of many peoples. Their history is known mainly from written sources – runic texts and Chinese dynasty chronicles. However, the analysis of archaeological sites, which are still only fragmentarily used, is important too. The most informative sites are the necropolises of the early medieval Turks. To this day, more than 450 burials of nomads have been excavated in different parts of Central Asia (in Altai – about 200, in Tuva – about 80, in the Minusinsk basin – about 120 and in Mongolia – about 50). In addition, a group of Turkic complexes are located in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. A comparative analysis of this material makes it possible to study the process of the formation and evolution of the Turkic archaeological culture in various territories, as well as to carry out the reconstruction of the ethnocultural history of nomads. Judging by the available information, the earliest Turkic sites are excavated in the Altai Mountains. Remains dated to the second half of the 4th to the first half of the 6th century AD are mainly represented by ritual structures, as well as by several burials. The graves of this time show individual elements of continuity with the traditions of the Bulan-Cuby culture of the Altai of the pre-Turkic period. In eneral, these sites are evidence for the evolution of ritual practices.
The standard funeral rite of the Turkic culture formed in the middle of the 4th century AD. At that time the first Turkic Kaghanate was created, which became the basis for the spread of Turkic traditions to surrounding areas. Turkic burials dated to the second half of the 6th to the first half of the 7th century AD are known in the Altai, in Tuva, in the Minusinsk Basin, as well as in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Sites in each of these areas differ in a number of characteristics, indicating specific features of the development of Turkic culture. The greatest specificity is found in the complexes of the Minusinsk Basin, which form a local variant of Turkic culture.
At the time of the first Kaghanate, sites were not only distributed over a vast area, but they also show a certain evolution in the ritual practice of nomads, mainly the gradual complexification of structures and their increased variability. On the one hand, a unification of funeral customs is noted, and on the other hand, deviations related to various factors are recorded. In the subsequent stages of the development of early medieval Turkic culture (from the second half of the 8th to the first half of the 10th century AD), the tendency was to further complexify burial structures, with an increase in the variability of structures. Most Turkic burials dated to this period allow us to illustrate the marked changes more fully.The number of burials dated to the late stage in the development of Turkic culture (from the second half of the 10th to the 11th century AD) is insignificant. The sites are distributed over a greatly reduced territory: with a few rare exceptions, all the investigated burials are located in the Altai region. Excavated materials demonstrate the decline of early medieval Turkic traditions and the growing influence of other nomadic groups.
This project, entitled “The Early Peopling of Siberia: Origins and Evolution of Cultures in Northern Asia” (Resolution no.220), by the Altai State University, was supported by a grant of the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and Science (grant no.14.Z50.31.0010).


 

赤谷城地理位置的探索及研究展望

孙危 教授  肖霄 硕士研究生
郑州大学历史学院
 

　　乌孙是两汉时期我国西北地区重要的少数民族之一，是汉代西域三十六国中的第一大国。西汉的两位公主先后与乌孙昆莫和亲，因此这期间乌孙与汉王朝保持着密切的联系。赤谷城是乌孙的都城，是其政治、经济、军事和文化中心。对赤谷城的研究是研究汉乌两国文化交流和与“丝绸之路”相关研究的重要一环。而关于赤谷城的地理位置至今仍众说纷纭，没有定论。对该问题的研究，长期以来都是以文献为主。但随着伊塞克湖及其周边地区的考古调查和发掘工作的不断开展，发现了许多遗迹和遗物。这对赤谷城地理位置的判定，提供了一些真实可靠的证据，也对文献的研究起到了促进作用。由于乌孙是一个以畜牧经济为主的国家，因而很可能会有冬都和夏都之分。而根据文献和考古资料，我们推断伊塞克湖附近地区很可能为乌孙冬都，即赤谷城的所在地。而同样也发现了大量相关考古遗迹的特克斯河流域，则或许为乌孙夏都之所在。另外，赤谷城地理位置的确定，对该城性质的研究、乌孙的经济形态以及判断游牧民族是否存在定居和农业均有重要的意义。本文对赤谷城地理位置所做的初步探索，为今后的研究工作确定了方向。


 

Research on the geographical location of Chigu City

Sun Wei (Professor)　Xiao Xiao (Postgraduate)
Department of Archaeology, School of History, Zhengzhou University
 

The Wusun were an important ethnic group in northwest China during the Han dynasty. It is was the most important among the thirty-six western countries recognized by the Han dynasty. Two princesses of the Western Han dynasty successively married with the Wusun Kunmo. Therefore, in this period, the Wusun maintained close contact with the Han dynasty.Chigu Citywas the capital of the Wusun and their political, economic, military and cultural center. The study about Chigu City played an important role in cultural exchanges between the Han and the Wusun, and on the Silk Road in general. The geographical location of the Chigu City is still widely debated. Until now, most studies are based on historical texts. Many remains, however, were found during archaeological survey and excavations at Issyk-Kul Lake and its surrounding area. The latter provide some reliable evidence for the geographical location of Chigu City. The Wusun were mainly sustained by a pastoralist economy, so that their capital cities were likely divided into winter and summer capitals. Based on both historical texts and archaeological data, we concluded that Issyk-Kul Lake and its surrounding area was the location of the winter capital of the Wusun, thus the location of Chigu City. In addition, a large number of relevant archaeological sites were found in the Tekesi River basin, which might have been summer capital of the Wusun.
The enquiry on the geographical location of Chigu City is essential to research on the subsistence mode of the Wusun, to determine whether these pastoralist groups also had settlements and practiced agriculture.



 

蒙古国后杭爱省和日门塔拉城址（三连城）考古发掘收获

程鹏飞
馆员
内蒙古自治区文物考古研究所
 

　　和日门塔拉城址位于蒙古国后杭爱省乌贵诺尔苏木境内，东南距苏木政府所在地约20公里。城址坐落于塔米尔河下游北岸，扼守在塔米尔河与鄂尔浑河交汇处的西北角，地理位置十分重要。该城址是蒙古国境内保存最好，规模最大的古城群落之一，现遗址包括有东西相邻、结构相同的3座城址，故俗称“三连城”。
　　2014至2017年，内蒙古自治区文物考古研究所与蒙古国游牧文化研究国际学院组成联合考古队对该城址进行了调查、勘探、测绘，并对西城和中城部分遗迹作了发掘工作。发掘揭露了西城、中城的中心台基，西城东门，中城内西南土台；解剖了西城东墙、城壕和城内踏道等。
最为重要的发现当属中城中心台基，土台呈覆斗形，正南北方向，现高2.85米。台体由红土堆筑，周围、顶部发现直径约1米的大型圆形柱洞，柱洞底部有扁平柱础石块。推测为间宽、面阔各9间的一座大型土木建筑基址。各遗迹堆积中发现的人工遗物极少，仅累计出土数片碎陶片，铜泡钉、铜刀、铁刀各1件。
　　通过地层学、类型学和碳十四测年，确定了“三连城”的年代为匈奴时期，结束了蒙古国考古学界对于城址年代的争讼。结合文献记载，初步推测该城址是与匈奴祭祀有关的礼制性建筑，或为“祠社”遗址。“三连城”中城中心台基是蒙古国境内第一座被完整揭露的匈奴时期大型土木建筑台基，对于匈奴考古研究具有重要的学术价值。

 
 

Archaeological excavations at the Khermen Tal site (“three interconnected cities”) in Arkhangai Province, Mongolia, by the Sino-Mongolian Archeological Team

Cheng Pengfei
Research Fellow
Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Inner Mongolian
 

The urban site of Kheremen Tal is located in the territory of Ogiinuur Sum, Arkhangai Province, Mongolia, about 20 kilometers southeast from the administrative centre of Ogiinuur. From its strategic location on the north bank of the lower Tamir River, Kheremen Tal overlooks the point where the Tamir River and the Orhon Gol met. This site is one of the best preserved and one of the largest ancient cities in Mongolia. It is composed of three adjacent sites on an east-west axis, all three of similar design, here after refered to as “three interconnected cities”.
From 2014 to 2017, the Archaeological Institute of Inner Mongolia and the International Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations in Mongolia have joined forces to investigate, survey and record of this site. Moreover, excavations were led in the western and central area of the ancient city. The excavation revealed a central platform in the middle city and in the western city, and the eastern door of the western city. The eastern wall, the moat and path were dissected.
The most salient find was a central platform in the central area of the city. The mound is a trapezoidal volume, oriented on a north-south axis, and its present height still reaches 2.85 meters. The platform was built in beaten red earth, with on its top a large circular pillar hole which diameter is of about 1 meter. A flat stone lies at the bottom of pillar hole. This is possibly part of the foundations of a large building. Only a small number of artefacts were found on the spot such as pottery sherds, copper nails, one copper knife and one iron knife.   
Through stratigraphy, typology and C14 dating, the “three interconnected cities” were dated to the Xiongnu period, putting an end to previous discussions in Mongolian archeological academic circles. Based on historical texts, the site could be a ritual architecture related to the Xiongnu. The central platform in the central city among the “three consecutive cities” is the first large scale Xiongnu period structure of its kind to be found in Mongolia. This discovery is an important contribution to the field of Xiongnu archaeology.


 

中西伯利亚阿凡托瓦遗址的新材料——1世纪末的图瓦即北部中亚匈奴出现之证据

玛丽娜·库鲁诺甫斯卡娅
研究员
俄罗斯科学院物质文化史研究所
 

　　公元前最后几百年是中亚地区发生重大变化的时期。这些变化与匈奴活动的开始有着千丝万缕的关系（匈奴初登上历史舞台是在头曼单于（Shan-U Tauman）和冒顿（Maodun）单于统治时期）。当萨彦—阿尔泰（Sayan-Altai）高地已经被纳入匈奴的影响范围时，上叶尼塞河（Yenisei）流域的人们依然按照由乌尤克—赛格力（Uyuk-Sagly）文化带来的方式生活，而这种文化则是斯基泰—西伯利亚（Scytho-siberian）联合体的一部分。这些事件都能够由考古学证据，特别是墓葬遗址反应出来——不同文化的混合，使他们随葬有从别处传入的器物，包括武器、珠宝，以及一些精美的艺术和手工艺品。
　　考古学与人类学的数据使我们能够对同时存在于图瓦（Tuva）地区的这两种考古学文化得出结论。这两种文化，其一是本土的乌尤克——赛格力文化，而另一种，我们可以试着叫它乌卢格—赫姆（Ulug-Khem）文化，这种文化产生于外来民族的影响之下。乌尤克—赛格力文化的最后一期被称作“奥臻—艾拉—贝丽格（Ozen-Ala-Belig）期”。该时期的埋葬形式发生了变化，出现了采用木棺葬的集体墓地，但与之前一样，埋葬深度并不甚深，墓穴深度大约在两米左右。墓主人头下放置小块的“枕石”，角落里随葬动物的部分肢体，原木的底板和顶板垂直放置。这一时期的墓中普遍随葬陶器。这些陶器的特征千差万变，包括罐形或者瓶形，并装饰以不同类型的彩绘和装饰纹饰。铁制品也开始传播开来。在木棺葬的邻近地区，也有集体的石室葬或窖穴葬。由V.A.Semenov发表的专著《萨格拉格和哈维拉坎（Suglug-Khem and Khayirakan）墓地》，可以看做是奥臻—艾拉—贝利格（Ozen-Ala-Belig）时期的标准遗迹。同时，艾麦尔丽格（Aymyrlyg）墓地的一些墓葬，赛格力—巴支（Sagly-Bazhy）第2地点、大甘—泰利（Dagan-Tely）第1地点、图瓦西部的杜哲丽格—霍乌祖（Duzhelyg-Hovuzu）遗址、厄尔贝克河（Eerbekriver）山谷地带的绍斯肯（Sausken）1到3地点、蒙古的乌兰高姆（Ulangom）墓葬址都有可能属于这一时期。而近年还发现有部分带墓道的墓穴遗址，亦属于这个时期。墓葬构件以及随葬品的特征显示，奥臻—艾拉—贝格丽期的年代大约在公元前3~1世纪。除了有组织的放射性碳测年外，V.A.Semenov还界定了一系列标准器型，包括一些与匈奴有联系的物品或仿照这些物品所制的器物，抑或一些具有特征性的物品，这些物品虽然未曾匈奴遗址中出土过，但常常与某种组合形式共同出现。例如饰有五环渔网纹的斑块，骨勺形的钩子，青铜的碗状坠饰，特定类型的箭镞，厚重的方形带扣，渔网上的铜铃，以及骨质带扣等。　　
　　同时现在已知的在图瓦境内的一些考古学遗址，也有可能与匈奴有关。例如拜—戴格（Bai-Dag）第2地点的一些墓葬遗址，艾麦尔丽格31地点，乌尔拜恩（Urbyn）第3地点，以及最近发现的，尚未完成研究的泰瑞辛（Terezin）和艾拉—泰伊（Ala-Tey）地区的墓葬遗址。所有这些遗址都分布于乌拉格—赫姆盆地，即通往叶尼塞河萨彦峡谷的入口处。这是一处十分重要的，具有战略意义的地方。穿过萨彦地区，通往米努辛斯克（Minusinsk）盆地的路径即从这里开始。不仅如此，中图瓦地区最大也最肥美的草场亦坐落于此。因而历史时期这里一直是各个势力优先争夺的重要地区，这也就无怪于会在此发现匈奴的器物了。而他们征服米努辛斯克很有可能即是经由此地。在艾拉—泰伊和泰瑞辛的墓葬址当中，发现有大约有50座匈奴时期的浅墓，并正在进行研究中。这些墓葬有这几种类型：由石头或木头环绕的石棺石室墓。大部分墓中采用仰身直肢葬式，但也有部分为仰身曲肢。通常每座墓葬里都会随葬一到两件陶质容器。与艾拉—泰伊地区不同，在泰瑞辛的墓葬当中还发现了一些武器，包括骨质的弓箭助力器和箭头。在那些墓葬的发掘过程中，还发现了许多腰带和衣服上的装饰品、串珠、坠饰以及耳环、中国的五铢钱，汉代铜镜和这些物品的碎片。带有网眼的铜腰带饰板引起了很大的兴趣。他们实在是古游牧民族的杰作。由发掘所得的器物及加速质谱仪（AMS）的测定，这些遗址的年代应当在公元前2~1世纪。



 

New materials from the Afontova　site in middle Siberia：
Sites of the end of the first millennium BC in Tuva as evidence of Xiongnu presence in northern Central Asia

Maria Kilunovskaya
Principal Research Fellow
Institute of History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences
 

The last centuries BC were times of significant changes on the territory of Central Asia. Those changes were connected with the start of Xiongnu activity, who appeared on the historical arena during the reign of Shan-U Tauman’ and Maodun’. Sayan-Altai upland was included into Xiongnu’s zone of influence, where in the basin of upper Yenisei still lived bringers of Uyuk-Sagly culture, which was part of Scytho-siberian unity. Those events are reflected in the archaeological sources, particular in the burial sites where, due to the mixing of different cultures, imported items appeared - weapons, jewelry, items of fine arts and crafts.
Archaeological and anthropological data bring us to the conclusion that two archaeological cultures coexisted on the territory of Tuva at that time. One of those cultures was local Uyuk-Sagly. Another one, which we can on probation call the Ulug-Khem culture, emerged under the influence of alien ethnic groups. The last phase of the Uyuk-Sagly culture was named Ozen-Ala-Belig stage. At that time funeral rites changed, there are collective burials into timbers, but not so deep, like before - the depth of grave pits is about 2 meters. There are small flagstones under the heads of buried - the “pillows”, parts of animal carcasses in the corners, logs of floors and ceilings are stacked perpendicularly. Ceramics are always present in the burials of that phase. There is an amazing diversity of ceramic vessels types, can-shaped , vase-shaped, and decorated with different types of painted and adorned ornament. Iron items start being widespread. Nearby the timber burials, there are collective burials into stone boxes or crypts. The cemeteries of Suglug-Khem and Khayirakan, published as monographs by V.A. Semenov, could be considered as a standard for monuments of Ozen-Ala-Belig stage. Also several burials on the Aymyrlyg grave field, burial sites of Sagly-Bazhy 2, Dagan-Tely 1, Duzhelyg-Hovuzu on the west of Tuva, Sausken 1, 2, and 3 in the valley of Eerbek river and Ulangom burial site in Mongolia could be dated to this period. Another type of site was discovered in recent years: burials in pits with dromoses. Ozen-Ala-Belig stage is dated to the 3rd-1st centuries BC by the inventory and features of burial construction. Besides radiocarbon dating, V.A. Semenov distinguished a number of chronological indicators. Those are some items, or their copies, which can be connected with the Xiongnu, or items not known in Xiongnu sites, but that are found in the same complexes. These items include five-ringed fishnet plaques, bone spoon-shaped clasps, bronze bowler-shaped pendants, arrowheads of certain types, rectangular massive iron belt buckles, fishnet bronze bells, rectangular bone buckles.
There are several archeological sites known by now on the territory of Tuva, which could be connected with Xiongnu. Those are the burial sites of Bai-Dag 2, Aymyrlyg XXXI, Urbyn III, as well as the recently found burial sites of Terezin and Ala-Tey, which is esearch on-going. All those sites are situated in the Basin of Ulug-Khem, at the entrance to the Sayan canyon of Yenisei. This is a crucial, strategically important place as the way through Sayans leading to Minusinsk basin begins here. Besides, the largest and best grazings in Central Tuva were situated on this territory. Control of this land was an important priority in all historical periods, so that detection of Xiongnu artifacts here is not surprising. The Xiongnu conquest of the Minusinsk basin likely passed through these places. About 50 flat graves of Xiongnu period were detected and studied on the burial sites of Ala-Tey and Terezin. There are several burial types: stone cists and pits surrounded with stones or wood. The majority of buried bodies lay in stretched supine position, but several ones have their legs bent. One or two ceramic vessels are found in all the graves. Unlike in Ala-Tey, on the Terezin burial site some weaponry was found-bone bow strengthener and arrowhead. During the excavation, a large number of belts decorations and clothes, beads, pendants and earrings were found, as well as Chinese Wu Zhu coins, Han mirrors and fragments of them. Openwork bronze belt plaques attract the greatest interest: those are real masterpieces of ancient nomadic art. Based on the unearthed artifacts and AMS dates, those sites can be dated to the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.


 

内蒙古准格尔旗脑包湾唐代陈氏家族墓地的考古发掘收获

宋国栋
研究员
内蒙古自治区文物考古研究所
 

　　为配合陕京四线输气管道工程准格尔段的建设，内蒙古自治区文物考古研究所、鄂尔多斯市文物考古研究院、准格尔旗文物管理所联合对准格尔旗脑包湾村的工程建设区域进行了勘探和发掘，2015年清理墓葬7座，2016年清理墓葬13座，这些墓葬全部为带斜坡式墓道的砖室墓，坐北朝南。墓室结构主要有甲字形墓和船形墓两类，少数甲字形墓的主室或墓道一侧带有侧室。大多数墓葬已被盗，出土各类遗物230余件，主要有陶碗、陶壶、陶俑、泥俑、瓷瓶、漆盘、漆碗、漆盒、铜镜、铜带饰、铜锁、铜项饰、铜钱、铁锅、铁剪、铁刀、石像生、石砚台、石球、镇墓石、蚌壳、墓志等。出土墓志12方，可辨认身份信息的有8方，皆为陈氏家族成员，其中年代最早的是先天二年（713年），最晚的是开元廿七年（739年）。据志文记载，该陈氏家族由颍川迁徙而来，部分成员生前曾在军队任职，志文还反映出墓地向北1.3公里处的十二连城古城为唐代的胜州榆林城。这批墓葬由西向东、由南向北依次排位，发掘区周围还有一些陈氏家族成员的墓葬尚未发掘。颍川陈氏是以汉末名士身份起家的巨姓望族，世代传袭，名重魏晋。此次发掘的陈氏家族墓地，为研究唐代胜州社会历史、颍川陈氏的迁徙流布及葬俗葬制提供了重要的考古资料。


 

Archaeological excavations of the　Tang period Chen family graveyard, Jungar banner, Inner Mongolia

Song Guodong
Researcher
Institute　of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Inner Mongolia
 

Preceding the　construction of the Shaanxi-Beijing gas pipeline in Jungar Banner, exploration　and excavation work was carried by a joint team of by the Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Inner Mongolia, the Ordos Archaeological Institute and the Heritage Management Office of Jungar Banner. In Naobaowan village, seven tombs were excavated in 2015 and 13 tombs in 2016. These tombs are all brick-built chambers with a sloped entrance, facing south and turning their back to the north. Most burial chambers are T-shaped or crescent-shaped. A few of the T-shaped chambers have an additional side chamber. Most tombs have been looted, but about 230 items were unearthed, mainly pottery bowls, pottery pots, pottery figurines, clay figurines, porcelain bottles, lacquer dishes, lacquer bowls, lacquer boxes, bronze mirrors, copper strips, copper locks, copper sautoirs, copper cashes, iron pans, iron scissors, iron knives, stone figurines, stone inkstones, stone balls, tombstones, epitaphs, etc. Among the 12 unearthed epitaphs, eight contain information on the identity of the deceased. All are members of the Chen clan, with the earliest date being the 2nd year of Xiantian (713 CE), and the latest date being the 27th year of Kaiyuan (739 CE). According to local records, the Chen clan came from Yingchuan. Some members of the clan had served in the army. The local records also indicate that the Chen clan cemetery was located 1.3 kilometers south of Yulin city in Tang period Shengzhou. Some tombs of the Chen clan members were not excavated. The Chen clan in Yingchuan was a noble family, founded by a famous scholar in the late Han dynasty. The excavation of the Chen clan cemetery provides important archaeological materials for studying the social history of Tang period Shengzhou, migration movements and burial customs.

辽河流域辽代城郭的特征浅析

高桥学而
主任
日本博多女子高校
　　

　　在2013、2014两年时间里,笔者在当地老师们的幇助下,有幸访问中国辽宁省北部的铁岭市、开原市、昌图市以及西部康平、法库、新民等各县，并考察了位于阜新市的各个辽代遗迹。本文以辽宁省文物工作队从1960年代就开始致力于并推进了辽代古城研究考察的冯永谦老师为首的诸多学术研究成果为根据，也是这两年实地访问成果的一部分,在研究辽河流域各城址的同时着重关注其分布特征，并对今后研究的方向进行一些说明。

Liao period walled cities in the Liao　River basin Takahashi Gakuji

Dean
Hakata Girls' High School
 

In 2013 and 2014, with the help of local archaeologists, I was able to visit Liao period sites located in the northern part of Liaoning Province. The sites are distributed the municipalities of Tieling, Kaibei, Kaiyuan and Changtu, and in the counties of Kangping, Faku, Xinmin, etc. Additionally, I had the occasion to visit Liao dynasty sites in Fuxin City.
This paper is based on the research led by the archaeologists’ team of the Liaoning Province Archaeological Office, headed by Feng Yongqian, who studied Liao period sites since the 1960s, as well as on other previous scholarship. My own two-years field visit collected these research results.
This presentation covers several ancient cities located in the Liao River basin, focusing on their distribution, and proposes directions for further study.



 

金上京遗址考古收获

赵永军
副所长\研究员
黑龙江省文物考古研究所
 

　　金上京城，即上京会宁府遗址，是金王朝的早期都城。位于黑龙江省哈尔滨市阿城区南2公里，阿什河左岸，俗称“白城”。自金太祖完颜阿骨打建国称帝,至海陵王完颜亮贞元元年（1153年）迁都到金中都燕京(今北京)，金朝以上京为都城，前后经历四代皇帝统治，历时三十八年。作为一处重要的都城遗址，金上京城保存之完好程度，在历代都城中也是少有的。
　　金上京遗址地处我国东北腹地，是我国古代­­兼具渔猎文明和农业文明特征的一处重要的大型遗址。为加强金上京考古工作力度，2013年，黑龙江省文物考古研究所制定了《金上京遗址考古工作计划》，旨在从全局着眼,从长远计议，开展连续性的考古工作，全面把握和认识金上京遗址的文化内涵，从而使金上京城的保护和研究得到科学和可持续发展。该考古计划于同年启动实施，目前已取得阶段性成果。2013年度工作重点是对城址进行测绘，对城墙遗迹进行解剖发掘，首次从考古层位学上确认了城址的营建使用情况；2014年对南城南垣西门址进行考古发掘，初步掌握了金代都城城门址的基本特征与结构；2015至2017年重点对皇城内西部和东部建筑址进行考古发掘，并对皇城区域做全面勘探，了解了皇城的布局和范围。近年来开展的考古工作,拓展了对金上京城址形制结构特征和历史沿革的认识，将进一步推动金上京都城遗址的考古学研究，并为金上京遗址的有效保护提供可靠的依据和学术支撑，具有重要的学术价值。



 

Results of archaeological research on the Jin period capital city site of Shangjing

Zhao Yongjun
Deputy Director\Researcher
Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology
 

The Jin period Shangjing site (上京, the upper capital of the Jian dynasty, a location also known as Shangjing Huiningfu), was the early capital of Jin dynasty. It is located on the left bank of the Kashi River, two kilometres south of A City in Harbin municipality, Heilongjiang province. It also called “Bai City” (白城, literally “white city”). From the moment when the founder of the Jin dynasty (Jin Taizu金太祖), Wanyan Aguda (完颜阿骨打), was coronated emperor to 1153 CE, when the king of Hailing (Hailingwang海陵王), Wanyan Liang (完颜亮) transfered the capital of the empire to Jin Zhongdu or Yanjing (modern Beijing), Shangjing was the capital of the Jin dynasty. The dynasty was ruled by four generations of emperors and lasted for 38 years. As an important capital city site, Shangjing was well preserved.
Jin Shangjing is located in the hinterland of Northeast China. It is a large site, whose inhabitants subsisted in fishing, hunting and farming. In 2013, the Heilongjiang Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology initiated the “Jin Shangjing site archaeological project”, to develop in a scientific and sustainable way the archaeological study and the preservation work of Shangjing. The present archaeological research project was launched in the same year, with some preliminary results available today. In 2013, the work focused on surveying and mapping the city, as well as dissecting and excavating the city walls. An understanding of the construction of the site was gained and a stratigraphy was established. In 2014, the basic characteristics of a Jin period city gate were known from the excavation of the Jin period capital south city gate. Between 2015 and 2017, excavations were led in the interior and western section of imperial city (or inner city) and a group of buildings to the east. The inner city was fully explored, to understand its structure and content. In recent years, archaeological research has improved our understanding of the structural features and historical evolution of the Shangjin site. The archaeological study of Jin period Shangjing and its established academic interest provide arguments for the protection of the site.