Fasc. 1.indd

STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
Тянь, Гуо 1986 – Тянь Гуанзинь, Гуо Сусинь. Эрдуоси ши чин тун чи
(Ордосын хүрэл зэвсэг). Бээжин.
У Энь 1990 – У Энь. Лунь сюнну каогу яньчжю цзундэ чжигэ вэньти
(Хүннүгийн археологийн судалгааны зарим асуудал). – Kаогу
сюэбао, №4.
У Энь и др. 1990 - У Энь, Жун Кань, Ли Зиньзэн. Могильник сюнну в
древне Даодуньзы уезда Тунсинь в Нинся. – История и культура
Востока Азии. Новосибирск.
Khazanov 1984 – A.Khazanov. Nomads and outside World. Cambride:
CUP.
Aalto 1975 – P.Aalto. The Horse in Central Asian Nomadic Cultures. Studia
Orientalia 46: 1–9.
Barfield 1989 - T.Barfield. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and
China. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Di Cosmo 1991 - N. di Cosmo. Asian Frontier Nationalism: Owen Lattimore
and the American policy debate.
Creel 1965 – H.G.Creel. The Role of the Horse in Chinese History. – The
American Historical Review 70.3.
Crump 1970 – J.Crump. Chan-Kuo Ts’e. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lattimore 1940–O.Lattimore. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York:
OUP.
Pulleyblank 1983 – E.G.Pulleyblank The Chinese and Their Neighbors in
Prehistoric and early Historical times. – In thе Origins of Chinese
Civilization D.Keightley. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Prusek 1971 – J.Prusek. Cultures and Ethnic Groups West China in the 2nd half
and first Millenium BC. – Asian Perspectives.
Yu 1967 - Yu Ying-Shih. Trade and Expansion in Han China: A study in the
Structure of Sino-Barbarian Econоmic Relations. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
52
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
INSTITUTI ARCHAEOLOGICI
ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM MONGOLICAE
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 4
U.BROSSEDER, CH.YERUUL-ERDENE
with D.Tseveendorj, Ch.Amartuvshin, Ts.Turbat, Ts.Amgalantugs
and a contribution by M.L.Machicek
TWELVE AMS-RADIOCARBON DATES
FROM XIONGNU PERIOD SITES IN MONGOLIA
AND THE PROBLEM OF CHRONOLOGY
Introduction
The knowledge of the archaeology of the Xiongnu period has grown
considerably over the past ten years. Traditionally this period is dated
according to the written sources between the end of the 3rd century BCE to
the 1st century CE.
Recently S.Miniaev and Ju. Elikhina [2009: 28] analyzed the date of
the Noyon Uul cemetery by dating the lacquer vessels and establishing a
series of radiocarbon dates. They conclude that the square ramped burials of
Noyon Uul belong to the end of the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE.
Taking into consideration the results achieved at Tsaram kurgan 7 [Miniaev,
Sakharovskaia 2007: 54-55] they suggest that the whole material cultural
complex from Xiongnu monuments in Mongolia and Transbaikalia dates
no earlier than the 1st century BCE [Miniaev, Elikhina 2009: 28]. This dating
contradicts the traditionally held view, which is based on the written record
[Miniaev, Elikhina 2009: 28]. While these dates are applicable for terrace
burials and their accompanying features, a chronological attribution which
recent research has pointed out [Konovalov, Brosseder 2008; Brosseder 2009],
it has yet to be discussed if this late date can be assigned to all sites that
are attributed to the Xiongnu and can also be applied to monuments and
cemeteries which consist only of so-called ‘ring’ or ‘circular’ burials. There
are presently radiocarbon dates for “Xiongnu” sites, for which we cannot rule
out a date of the 2nd century BCE [e.g. Honeychurch 2004: 131; Wright et al.
2009: 378]. Therefore, we believe that the beginning phases of material culture
attributed to the Xiongnu empire are still not sufficiently understood.
Equally interesting is the determination of the end of the Xiongnu
empire. While the Chinese dynastic histories of the “Han shu” and “Hou Han
shu” narrate the details of events surrounding the end of the formal Xiongnu
political entity around the end of the 1st century CE, the question is still open
as to what we can determine archaeologically about the time period between
53
Tomus XXXI
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
the fall of the Xiongnu polity and the rise of the First Turkic khaganate in
the 6th century CE. So far, this time span, which includes the historicallydocumented rule of the Rouran in the steppes, is a “dark age” in archaeology:
we know of no burial, settlement or other site which belongs to this particular
intermediary period.
It seems that in archaeological discussions the historically-documented
Xiongnu political phenomenon and the archaeological material labeled
“Xiongnu” are often too hastily intertwined and equated. Methodologically,
it is necessary to distinguish between those peoples and places related to the
“Xiongnu” as we understand them from the Chinese written records and those
materials and sites that we know in the archaeological record and attribute
to the “Xiongnu”. In fact the archaeological culture which is nonchalantly
labeled “Xiongnu” has yet to be classified and delineated and still remains a
research question in need of further clarification.
With these research problems in mind, a project was set up to
determine the absolute dating of burials and elements of the material culture
that have been attributed to the Xiongnu, through the use of an independent
scientific method (radiocarbon dating) in order to understand the formation
and development of the archaeological material culture of the Late Iron Age.
In the framework of this project, it was possible to date 12 radiocarbon
samples from six sites in Mongolia, which were excavated by the Institute
of Archaeology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences (Fig. 1). All samples
were analyzed by the Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and
Isotope Research in Kiel, Germany1 and they were dated by Accelerator Mass
Spectrometry (AMS). The results of these datings are discussed in this paper
(Tab. 1).
Radiocarbon dates from sites in Mongolia
Already existing 14C Dates for Xiongnu burials in Mongolia
Four satellite burials of the cemetery Gol Mod, Khairkhan sum,
Arkhangai aimag, were dated with the radiocarbon method2. The material
dated was charcoal in all cases. The dates for the burials 21B, 21C and 43
range between the 2nd century BCE and the 1st century BCE while the date
for burial 45 dates in the second half of the 1st century CE and the beginning
of the 2nd century CE. However, looking at the 1 Sigma-range the satellite
burials 21B and 21C which belong to a terrace tomb belong most probably
1
This project was generously sponsored by the Gerda Henkel Foundation whom I thank for
the support. Moreover I would like to thank Prof. Johannes Müller, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte and Prof. Pieter Grootes, Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope
Research at the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel for their kind support of this project.
Our sincere thanks go also to Zhamian-Ombo Gantulga and Tsend Amgalantugs who kindly
helped taking the samples.
2
Yeruul-Erdene 2004, 93: Gol Mod tomb 21B, charcoal, SNU 04-395, 2050±40, tomb 21C,
charcoal, SNU 04-396, 2040±60, tomb 43, charcoal, Pa 2306: 2080±60; tomb 45, charcoal,
Pa 2293: 1885±30.
54
2011
Fasciculus 4
to the 1st century BCE. Moreover one has to keep in mind that charcoal does
not necessarily give a true date since it is unclear which portion of a tree
has been dated, one can generally can take the dating only as a terminus post
quem. Therefore those dates cannot be taken as an argument that terrace tomb
complexes, of which the satellite burials 21B and 21C are part.
Similar results were obtained for radiocarbon dates from four burials
of Khudgiin Tolgoi, excavated in the course of the Mon-Sol project3. If we look
at the first four dates achieved for burial 1 one can see that the actual date of
the grave falls into the 1st century CE. The older date (SNU 02-051) could
easily be explained with an “old” tree being used in the burial. The same
circumstances would explain old date for burial 2 (SNU 02-055). However,
the dates of Khudgiin Tolgoi show that we cannot rule out the possibility that
those “Xiongnu” burials already belong to the 2nd century BCE.
Burkhan Tolgoi and Ukhaa Khudag
Four radiocarbon dates were analyzed from the cemetery of Burkhan
Tolgoi in the Egiin Gol valley, excavated between 1995 and 1999 by the Mission
archéologique française en Mongolie (MAFM). In the course of the research
conducted at this necropolis, 31 radiocarbon dates were taken and dated
at the Instituts Universitaire de Technologie Paris Jussieu. The dates were
published in 2003, and the calibrated time ranges were used to fix the time
span for which the cemetery was in use to a range approximately between the
4th century BCE and the 2nd century CE [Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003:
136-137]. All samples were bone samples, yet it remained unclear if human
bones or animal bones were taken for the radiocarbon analysis. Because of
the insufficient information a new list of radiocarbon dates is in preparation
for the final publication of the Burkhan Tolgoi cemetery by Ts.Turbat.
For the present study, four samples of animal bones were taken
from burials 8, 27, 38a and 46 (Tab. 1) in order to test the already published
radiocarbon dates. The four dates range between the 1st century BCE and the
2nd century CE (Fig. 2; 3)4. Burials 8 and 46, both located in the western part
of the cemetery from Burkhan Tolgoi, yield the same date range, between
110/100 and 40 BCE (Fig. 2).
The other two samples are younger. According to our dates burial 27
with the polychrome inlayed plaques belongs to the time period around the
turn of the era (Fig. 3; 38BCE – 46 CE). This stands in clear contrast to the date
obtained earlier for this burial, which then was dated between 351 and 107 BCE
[Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003: 136]. The same is the case for burial
38A which also turns out to be younger (Fig. 3; 84 CE – 128 CE) compared to
the earlier published date [158 BCE – 67 CE, Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat
Mon-Sol 2003, 268-277: four dates for burial 1: SNU 02-051: wood, SNU 02-052: charcoal,
SNU-053: charcoal; SNU 02-054: animal bone; two dates were achieved for burial 2: SNU
02-055: wood and SNU 02-056: wood; one date for burial 3: SNU 02-057: charcoal and two
dates for burial 4: SNU 02-058: wood and SNU 02-059: charcoal.
4
In the text we will only refer to the 1σ-range; the 2σ-range can be seen in the singe plots for
each date.
3
55
Tomus XXXI
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
2003: 136]. How can such discrepancies be explained?
First of all, we have to acknowledge that methods in radiocarbon
dating have developed within the last 10 years, which explains the higher
precision of our new dates. Second, we see that the relative ages are the same
for the dates from the two different laboratories: in both cases burial 27 is
older than burial 38A.
In the following discussion, we argue that the discrepancy between
the old and new radiocarbon dates of Burkhan Tolgoi can probably be
explained by the simple fact that the material taken for dating in the French
laboratory was probably collagen from human bone, which is subject to a
reservoir effect.
In the recent years, reservoir effects and diet-derived offsets in 14C
Ages have been dealt with in several studies [e.g. Lanting, Van der Plicht
1998; Fischer, Heinemeier 2003; Shishlina et al. 2007; Lillie et al. 2009; Higham
et al. 2010; Olsen et al. 2010]. The problem is that the original assumption
that the concentration of 14C in an organism is in equilibrium with that of
the atmosphere is not always true [Higham et al. 2010, 653]. 14C-depleted
carbon can be found in freshwater systems and can enter the food chain. If
then humans base their diet to a larger extent on fish, then this causes the
radiocarbon age of human bone collagen to be too old [Lanting, Van der
Plicht 1998]. In order to detect a diet-based reservoir effect in human bone
collagen, one must therefore study stable isotope ratios – usually δ13C and
δ15N. For this study it was not possible to measure 15N, which would give an
indication for the diet.
But because of the isotopically “heavy” δ13C-values in combination
with the archaeological evidence we suggest that fish was an integral part of
the diet: According to the original information from the French laboratory
the δ13C-values of Burkhan Tolgoi are isotopically “heavy” in that they yield
values around -16‰5. These values were also obtained for a larger series of
radiocarbon dates of human bone from the cemetery of Ivolga [Brosseder/
Marsadolov 2010] as well as from Ukhaa Khudag (Tab. 1). In Ivolga the samples
for human bones show a δ13C-value between -11‰ and -16‰. Normally
human bones yield δ13C-values roughly around -20‰ [Stuiver, Polach 1977,
358 Fig. 1]. Because of the fact that fishbone were found in several burials in
Ivolga [Davydova 1996] a diet including fish is obvious there. Even though
we do not know of any fishbone finds at Burkhan Tolgoi, we do, however,
know of fish remains from another Xiongnu site in the Egiin Gol valley [EGS
486: Wright et al. 2009, 381]. Since Burkhan Tolgoi is located in immediate
vicinity of the Egiin Gol, one of the bigger rivers rich in fish in Mongolia,
we can assume that a diet, which also included fish, is plausible. Therefore
we might take the results for the δ13C-value of Burkhan Tolgoi as an indirect
indicator for a fish diet, which explains why the dating of human bone samples
5
Our sincere thanks goes to Ts. Turbat and P.-H. Giscard, who shared this valuable information with me.
56
2011
Fasciculus 4
turn out to be older than the dating of animal bone6. In a recently finished
PhD dissertation thesis, M. Machicek supports this assumption through her
dietary analysis of Burkhan Tolgoi human bone samples (see contribution by
Machicek below). We plan to further investigate this issue.
As a consequence of this result we suggest a very careful use of the
list of published radiocarbon dates for Burkhan Tolgoi [Turbat, Amartuvshin,
Erdenebat 2003, 136-137]. This list can definitely not be used as the only basis
to establish a fine relative and absolute chronology for the cemetery. Our
result for burial 38A also seems to contradict the assumption that the eastwest oriented burials are possibly older than the north-south oriented burials.
However, this also requires further investigation.
Burial 2 of Ukhaa Khudag is located in the Southern Gobi, Ömnögov’
aimag and was excavated in 2008 [Amartuvshin et al. 2008]. The deceased was
laid down in a stone cist, which was disturbed in the upper part, accompanied
by several artifacts among others bow strengtheners, cowry shell imitations
and bone arrowheads. According to our radiocarbon date obtained from
human bone collagen the burial appears to be quite old with a date between
395 and 262 BCE (Fig. 4). Again the δ13C-value with -15‰ is relatively high
instead of the expected norm around -20‰ (see Tab. 1), which might indicate
a reservoir effect. However this reservoir effect would need further analysis.
Since we found similar old dates for Xiongnu burial contexts (4th and 3rd
century BCE) in our whole study only in those cases when collagen from
human bones was dated, we suggest, for the time being, that in the case of
Ukhaa Khudag the date probably also shows a reservoir effect.
Nariiny Am – Naimaa Tolgoi
In Nariiny Am, east of Ulaanbaatar in Delgerkhaan sum, a burial
attributed to the Xiongnu period was reported on in 2003 [Tseveendorj et al.
2003]. In a wooden coffin which was covered by wooden planks, a skeleton,
disturbed in its upper part, was found. The person was equipped with bow
and arrows with poorly preserved iron arrowheads. At the waist remains
of iron belt plaques were traced. The date for this burial, which was also
achieved by human bone collagen, turns out to be between 45BCE-17CE in
the 1σ-range (Tab. 1; Fig. 4) and fits with the time of the Xiongnu empire. The
δ13C-values with -16‰ are fairly high, so we can cautiously take this dating
as a terminus post quem.
The dates for Naimaa Tolgoi burials 12 and 13A, also achieved from
human bone collagen, show interesting effects. Both burials were excavated
in the course of the Mongolian-Hungarian expeditions [Erdélyi 2000].
Grave No. 12 in Naimaa Tolgoi was visible on the surface by an
unspecific cluster of stones. The deceased was buried with the head to the
south and accompanied by a bead and a storage jar, two blue ribbed-glass
beads and some iron objects. The date for this burial as 790 – 670 BCE is
δ13C-values of animal bones may also vary but this does not have an effect on the radiocarbon date of the individual.
6
57
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
too old and would attribute this burial to the early Iron Age (Fig. 5). With a
“normal” δ13C-value we have no indication for a possible reservoir effect (see
Tab. 1). For the time being we cannot explain the old age.
Burial 13A was a disrupted interment where the deceased again was
placed with the head south. The inventory comprised, among other objects,
an iron bit with antler cheek-pieces and an iron belt plaque. The radiocarbon
date from human bone collagen shows a time span between 175 and 100 BCE
(Fig. 7). Again we can take this date as a terminus post quem since the δ13Cvalue around -17‰ does not necessarily indicate a possible reservoir effect.
Khirgist Khooloi – Tevsh Uul
Of great importance are the dates which were achieved for the graves
from Khirgist Khooloi and Tevsh Uul. In Khirgist Khooloi we obtained dates
for burial 4 and 5 (Tab. 1; Fig. 6). In burial 4, a typical so-called ‘ring’ burial, a
wooden coffin was excavated [Tseveendorj 1989]. In addition to the remains
of a bow with bone strengtheners, wooden details, a dish, and cooking pots
were preserved. The achieved date of the human bone collagen between 47
BCE and 0 BCE gives a terminus post quem.
Burial 5 of Khirgist Khooloi was marked on the surface by some
stones without apparent order (Fig. 6). To the north, the burial pit had an
almost circular extension in which animal bones were deposited, a feature
not usual for “Xiongnu” burials. The coffin was constructed with several
planks, and the skeleton was deposited with its head to the north. A cauldron,
a narrow necked jar, and a jug were found together with some iron rings
and arrowheads. It turns out that the burial dates between 180 and 321 CE
(human bone collagen), thus into a time period long after the collapse of the
Xiongnu empire (Fig. 6). With a δ13C-value of -16‰ it cannot be excluded that
we have to reckon with a reservoir effect (see Tab. 1). If this were the case the
burial would date even younger.
A similarly late date from a piece of wood was achieved for burial 8
in Tevsh Uul, a circular “ring” burial, in which the deceased was buried in
a coffin with its head north (Fig. 8). Accompanying artifacts were a Chinese
mirror of the “siru” style and an iron belt [Tseveendorj 1985]. While the burial
construction and the Han Chinese mirror indicate a date of the “classical”
historically-defined Xiongnu period, the radiocarbon date, 139–252 CE,
shows that this burial also belongs to the time after the collapse of the empire
(Tab. 1; Fig. 9). Moreover, this is a case that reminds of the fact that absolute
dates from foreign goods, like Chinese mirrors, can only provide us with a
terminus post quem and do not necessarily reflect the true date of a burial.
Burial 20 in Tevsh Uul, a classical so-called ‘ring’ type burial containing
a wooden coffin with iron quatrefoil decoration, a lacquer bowl, and a narrownecked jar dates to the time between 42BCE and 17CE (Tab. 1; Fig. 9). Again
the sample was wood.
58
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 4
Conclusion
The radiocarbon dates provide us with highly interesting information
about the Xiongnu period.
First of all, we see that the use of radiocarbon dates is challenging in
that the full information of all data, not only of the material dated but also of
the δ13C-values, have to be published in order to be able to properly interpret
and balance achieved results. Moreover, in several instances a reservoir effect
when dating human bone collagen seems to be detectable, which probably
was caused by a freshwater fish diet. This gives new inspiration for future
research.
In two cases we were able to date burials, which are labeled as
“Xiongnu” burials, into the time period between the collapse of the Xiongnu
empire and the rise of the first Turkic khaganate. This is interesting since
neither the burial construction nor the interred goods, despite few unusual
objects, indicate clearly that the complexes do not date to the Xiongnu time
period. Probably some more “simple” burials could belong to this time period
if they were dated. And we also know of the opposite case in which unusual
burials belong to the Xiongnu time period even though they display unusual
features [Nelson et al. 2009]. These results remind us that the delineation
and definition of the archaeological culture and the discussion of the exact
applications of the term “Xiongnu” need further attention. Our study is of
course only a bright light which shows that more systematic research in this
direction is necessary.
Palaeodietary information for Egiin Gol
by Michelle Machicek
The results of palaeodietary reconstructions based on dental pathology
and stable carbon and nitrogen isotopic analyses of human skeletal remains
suggest that these individuals from Burkhan Tolgoi and other Xiongnu
period sites in the Egiin Gol valley relied on several dietary resources
[Machicek forthcoming]. The results of these analyses indicated that these
individuals subsisted mainly on terrestrial animals, with additional input
from other sources. Delta 13C and 15N values from the human bone collagen
and comparisons of trophic level shifts from domesticated fauna suggest that
these individuals had diets that that were supplemented by other resources in
addition to the domesticated fauna. Some suggestions of additional resources
are wild (hunted) fauna and plants (e.g. legumes, berries) and aquatic
resources (e.g. riverine fish). While it is not possible to directly determine the
degree to which freshwater fish was included as a dietary staple, the isotopic
results fall within ranges for a population that could have supplemented their
diet with this resource. The location of this site within a major river valley
also substantiates this possibility. Furthermore, the results of comparative
studies of individuals from Xiongnu burials from other sites in Mongolia (e.g.
Baga Gazaryn Chuluu in the north Gobi Desert) also support the findings of a
relatively more mixed diet for the individuals from Egiin Gol.
59
Tomus XXXI
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
У.Бросседер, Ч.Ерөөл-Эрдэнэ
Монголын Хүннүгийн үеийн дурсгалаас тогтоосон
12 радиокарбоны он цаг ба Хүннүгийн он цагийн асуудал
Монголын нутагт малтсан Бурхан толгой, Ухаа худаг, Нарийны
ам, Наймаа толгой, Хиргист хоолой, Тэвш уул зэрэг Хүннүгийн
оршуулгын газрын нийт 12 булшны он цагийг АМS радиокарбоны аргаар
тогтоосон үр дүнг толилуулжээ. Ингэхдээ хүний ясанд тулгуурлан он
цагийг тогтоохдоо тухайн хүний амьддаа хэрэглэж байсан хоол хүнс
радиокарбоны он цагт хэрхэн нөлөөлж байгааг тодруулахыг чухалчлан
үзсэн байна.
Bibliography
Amartuvshin et al. 2008 – Ч.Амартүвшин, Б.Гүнчинсүрэн, Ч.Ерөөл-Эрдэнэ,
Ж.Гантулга, Ц.Амгалантөгс, Б.Жаргалан. Ухаа худагт хийсэн археологийн
малтлага судалгааны үр дүн. – Studia
Archaeologica. Tom. XXVI, Fasc. 11, УБ., 213-234.
Brosseder 2009 – U.Brosseder. Xiongnu Terrace Tombs and their Interpretation
as Elite Burials. – In: J. Bemmann, H. Parzinger, E. Pohl, D.Tseveendorzh
(eds.), Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia. Papers from the
First International Conference on “Archaeological Resesarch in Mongolia”
held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007. Bonn Contributions to Asian
Archaeology 4, Bonn, 247–280.
Brosseder, Marsadolov 2010 – У.Бросседер, Л.С.Марсадолов. Новые
радиоуглеродные даты для Иволгинского археологического комплекса
обьектов в Забайкалье (предварительные результаты) – In: Древние
культуры Монголии и Байкальской Сибири. Материалы международной
научной конференции 20-24 сентября 2010 г.). Улан-Удэ, 183-186.
Davydova 1996 – А.В.Давыдова. Иволгинский археологический комплекс. Том
II. Иволгинский могильник. Археологические памятники Сюнну. Вып.
2, Санкт-Петербург.
Erdélyi 2000 – I.Erdélyi. Archaeological Expeditions in Mongolia. Budapest.
Fischer, Heinemeier 2003 – А.Fischer, J.Heinemeier. Freshwater Reservoir effect in
14
C Dates of Food Residue on Pottery. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 45, 3, 449–466.
Higham et al. 2010 – Th.Higham, R.Warren, A.Belinskij, H.Härke, R.Wood.
Radiocarbon Dating, Stable Isotope analysis, and Diet-Derived Offsets in 14C
Ages from the Klin-Yar Site, Russian North Caucasus. – In: A.J.T. Jull (ed.),
Proceedings of the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference. – Radiocarbon.
Vol. 52, 2-3, 653-670.
Honeychurch 2004 – W.Honeychurch. Inner Asian Warriors and Khans: A Regional
Spatial Analysis of Nomadic Political Organization and Integration.
Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Konovalov/Brosseder 2008 – P.B.Konovalov, U.Brosseder. The dating of barrow No.
54 and its significance. – In: P.B.Konovalov, The Burial Vault of a Xiongnu
prince at Sudzha (Il’movaia Pad’, Transbaikalia). Bonn Contributions to
60
2011
Fasciculus 4
Asian Archaeology 3, Bonn, 53-54.
Lanting, Van der Plicht 1998 – J.N.Lanting, J.Van der Plicht. Reservoir Effects and
Apparent 14C-Ages. – In: The Journal of Irish Archaeology. Vol. 9, 151-165.
Lillie et al. 2009 – M.Lillie, Ch.Budd, I.Potekhina, R.Hedges. The radiocarbon reservoir
effect: new evidence from the cemeteries of the middle and lower Dnieper
basin, Ukraine. – In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 36, 256–264.
Machicek forthcoming – M.L.Machicek. Reconstructing Diet, Health and Activity
Patterns in Early Nomadic Pastoralist Communities of Inner Asia.
Unpublished PhD thesis University of Sheffield.
Miniaev, Elikhina 2009 – S.S.Miniaev, J.Elikhina. On the Chronology of the Noyon
uul Barrows. – The Silk Road Journal Vol. 7, 21-35.
Mon-Sol
2003
–
Monggol
Hodŭgin
T’olgoi
Hyungno
mudŏm
몽골호드긴톨고이흉노무덤. Han-Mong kongdong haksul chosa pogo 3
[Hunnu Tombs at Hudgiin Tolgoi in Mongolia. Research Report on KoreanMongolian Joint Expedition in Mongolia 3]. Seoul.
Nelson et al. 2009 – A.R.Nelson, Ch.Amartüvshin, W.Honeychurch. A Gobi Mortuary
site through time: Bioarchaeology at Baga Mongol, Baga Gazaryn Chuluu.
– In: J.Bemmann, H.Parzinger, E.Pohl, D.Tseveendorzh (eds.), Current
Archaeological Research in Mongolia. Papers from the first International
Conference on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia” held in Ulaanbaatar,
August 19th–23rd, 2007. Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology 4, 565-578.
Olsen et al. 2010 – J.Olsen, J.Heinemeier, H.Lübke, F.Lüth, Th.Terberger. Dietary
habits and freshwater reservoir effects from a neolithic NE German cemetery.
– In: A.J.T.Jull (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Radiocarbon
Conference. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 52, 2-3, 635-644.
Shishlina et al. 2007 – N.I.Shishlina, J. van der Plicht, R.E.M.Hedges, E.P.Zazovskaya,
V.S.Sevastyanov, O.A.Chichagova. The Catacomb Cultures of the NorthWest Caspian Steppe: 14C Chronology, Reservoir Effect, and Paleodiet. – In:
C.Bronk Ramsey, T.F.G. Higham (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International
14
C Conference. – Radiocarbon. Vol. 49, 2, 713–726.
Stuiver, Polach 1977 – M.Stuiver, H.A.Polach. Reporting of 14C Data. – Radiocarbon.
Vol. 19, 3, 355-363.
Tseveendorj 1985 – Д.Цэвэндорж. Новые данные по археологии хунну (по
материалам раскопок 1972–1977 гг.). - In: Р.С.Васильевский (ред.),
Древние культуры Монголии. Новосибирск, 51-87.
Tseveendorj 1989 – Д.Цэвээндорж. Хиргист Хоолой, Оньтолтын хүннү булш. –
Studia Historica. Tom. XXIII, УБ., 59-81.
Tseveendorj et al. 2003 – Д.Цэвээндорж, Д.Баяр, Б.Цогтбаатар, Ч.Амартүвшин,
Д.Болдхуяг, Ж.Гантулга, Б.Эрдэнэ. Хэрлэнгийн хөдөө арал орчимд
хийсэн археологийн хээрийн шинжилгээний ангийн ажлын тайлан.
Unpublished Field Report, Institute of Archaeology, Ulaanbaatar.
Turbat, Amartuvshin, Erdenebat 2003-Ц.Төрбат, Ч.Амартүвшин, У.Эрдэнэбат,
Эгийн Голын сав нутаг дахь археологийн дурсгалууд (Хүрлийн үеэс
Монголын үе). УБ.
Yeruul-Erdene 2004 – Ч.Ерөөл-Эрдэнэ. Гол модны хүннү булшны судалгааны
зарим үр дүн. – Studia Archaeologica. Tom. XXII, УБ., 76–109.
Wright et al. 2009 – J.Wright, W.Honeychurch, Ch.Amartuvshin. The Xiongnu
settlements of Egiin Gol, Mongolia. – Antiquity. Vol. 83, 372-387.
Xiongnu Tombs 2008 – Xiongnu Tombs in Mongolia [몽골흉노무덤자료집성]. Seoul.
61
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 4
Fig. 1. Location of sites from where the samples were taken.
1 Burkhan Tolgoi; 2 Khirgist Khooloi; 3 Naimaa Tolgoi;
4 Nariiny Am; 5 Tevsh Uul; 6 Ukhaa Khudag.
Tab. 1. Chart with radiocarbon dates and δ13C-values as determined
by the Leibniz-Laboratory for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research in
Kiel, Germany (stars mark human bone samples).
62
Fig. 2. Single plots for the animal bone samples from Burkhan Tolgoi
(BT) burial 8 and 27. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1.
63
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
Fig. 3. Single plots for the animal bone samples from Burkhan Tolgoi
(BT) burial 46 and 38A. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1.
64
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 4
Fig. 4. Single plots for human bone sample from burial 2 at Ukhaa
Khudag and burial 1 from Nariiny Am. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1.
65
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
Fig. 5. Single plots for the human bone samples from Naimaa Tolgoi,
burials 12 and 13A. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1.
66
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 4
Fig. 6. Single plots for the human bone samples from Khirgist
Khooloi, burials 4 and 5. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1.
67
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
Fig. 7. Single plots for wooden samples from Tevsh Uul,
burials 8 and 20. Calibrated with OxCal 4.1.
68
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 4
Fig. 8. Tevsh Uul, burial 8
69
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
STUDIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
INSTITUTI ARCHAEOLOGICI
ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM MONGOLICAE
Tomus XXXI
2011
Fasciculus 5
Ч.ЕРӨӨЛ-ЭРДЭНЭ
ХҮННҮГИЙН БУЛШНЫ ТАРХАЦИЙГ ЗАСАГ
ЗАХИРГААНЫ ХУВААРЬТАЙ ХАРЬЦУУЛАН НЯГТЛАХ НЬ
Fig. 9. Tevsh Uul, burial 20
70
Өмнөтгөл. Сүүлийн үест Хүннүгийн оршуулгын дурсгал, ялангуяа
язгууртны булшийг малтан судлах ажил идэвхижиж дэлхийн олон орны
эрдэмтэд оролцох болжээ. Ялангуяа сүүлийн 10 жилийн хугацаанд
Монгол, ОХУ-ын нутгаас илэрсэн Хүннүгийн язгууртны бараг бүх
оршуулгын дурсгалт газарт судалгаа хийгдэж, баримт хэрэглэгдэхүүн
хуримтлагдахын хэрээр Хүннүгийн язгууртны оршуулгын дурсгалын
талаар тусгайлан судлах боломж тодорхой хэмжээгээр бүрдсэн билээ.
Энэхүү өгүүлэлд Хүннүгийн булш, тэр дундаа язгууртны
оршуулгын дурсгалын байршил, тархацийг засаг захиргааны хуваарьтай
харьцуулан тодотгох оролдлого хийв.
Хүннүгийн газар нутаг ба засаг захиргааны хуваарь. Хүннү гүрэн
хүчирхэгжихдээ дорно зүгт Солонгосын хойгоос өрнө зүгт Тэнгэр уул,
умар зүгт Байгал нуураас өмнө зүг Их Говь, Шар мөрнийг хүртэлх
нутгийг эзэмшиж байсан билээ.
Хятад сурвалжид тэмдэглэснээс үзэхэд Модун шаньюй хөрш
аймаг, улсуудыг амжилттай довтолсны дараа улсаа төв, зүүн, баруун
гэсэн гурван жигүүр болгон хуваасан нь цэрэг, стратеги, газар зүйн
талаас төдийгүй тэдгээр нутагт оршиж байсан угсаатны бүрэлдэхүүний
онцлогтой холбоотой хэрэг билээ. Гэхдээ тэрхүү гурван жигүүрийн
байршлын талаар Хятадын түүхэн сурвалжид дэлгэрэнгүй дурдсан
зүйлс хомс байна.
“Ши Цзи”-д Хүннүгийн гурван жигүүрийн талаар дурдсан нэгэн
мэдээг ишлэвэл…“Зүүн жигүүрийн ноёд, тэргүүлэгчид Шангу мужийн
эсрэг этгээдийн зүүн талаас Хуйхэ, Чаосянь хүртэл, баруун жигүүрийн
ноёд тэргүүлэгчид Шанцзюнь мужийн эсрэг этгээдээс баруунш Юэчжи,
Ди болон Цян хүртэл нутгийг эзэлнэ. Шаньюйн орд өргөө шууд Дай,
Юнь-чжун мужийн эсрэг талд байдаг” [Материалы.., 1968, стр. 40] тухай
мэдээ байна.
Энэ мэдээг үндэслэн судлаачид Хүннүгийн газар нутгийн талаар
зарим саналыг гаргасан байдаг. Тухайлбал, Ма Чаншоу Хүннүгийн
зүүн гарын нутаг нь Хэбэй мужийн Яньцин сяниас яг хойших Цахараас
зүүн тийш Ляонин мужийн Пинъюань сянь хүртлэхийг оролцуулан
Монголын Хэрлэн, Ононгийн сав ба баруун гарынх нь Шэньси мужийн
71