您的位置:



美国匹兹堡大学呼尼河谷考古研究计划


By Francis Allard and Jean-Luc Houle;胡亚毅译
2004-10-08 11:18:43 阅读
University of Chicago Eurasian Archaeology Conference beyond the Steppe and the Sown

中国史研究网络资源导航
 文章搜索
 近期热点文章
 累计热点文章
阿拉德、霍勒合著

考古文博学院硕士生胡亚毅译

2002年12月10日星期二

编者注:呼尼河流域位于杭爱山北麓,古称“匈河水”,是匈奴冒顿单于和突厥第一汗国重要活动中心之一。目前所知规模最大的匈奴墓葬和突厥佗钵可汗陵园都位于呼尼河流域。美国考古队正在呼尼河谷开展田野考古工作,本文介绍了他们近年一些工作进展。

【志谢】本文之介绍、翻译得到北京大学考古文博学院林梅村教授之指导,特此志谢!



原文:
   Recent archaeological research in the Khanuy River valley, central Mongolia. By Francis Allard (Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh) and Jean-Luc Houle (expert in East Asia and specializes in the archaeology of that region). After University of Chicago Eurasian Archaeology Conference beyond the Steppe and the Sown: Integrating Local and Global Visions, May 3-4, 2002.Initiated in 2001.

   The Khanuy Valley International Collaborative Project on Early Nomadic Pastoralism in Mongolia aims to clarify the nature of the early stages of nomadic pastoralism in central Mongolia. Nomadic pastoralism, which remains the most widely practiced subsistence economy among modern Mongolians, has attracted the attention of many anthropologists and historians, many of whom have proposed various explanations to account for its origins and features. An early and now discredited model proposed that it had developed from a hunting and gathering subsistence economy, being a transitional stage on the path to full sedentism.
   Scholars now recognize that nomadic pastoralism emerged from an earlier sedentary life way associated with food and animal domestication, a process that archaeology reveals to have been a lengthy one. Parts of the Eurasian steppes appear to have witnessed such a transition over the course of the last millennia B.C., a development suggested by various findings, such as the increasingly ephemeral nature of habitation sites and the increasing importance over time of the horse and its accoutrements. However, explaining why nomadic pastoralism developed in the first place has proven to be a more difficult issue to resolve. While some point to population pressure or economic specialization as the stimulus behind the adoption of a life way characterized by regular patterned movement and an almost total reliance on animal products, others see climatic perturbation as the agent of change, with increasing desiccation forcing sedentary agriculturalists to adopt a migratory lifestyle in search of sufficient quantities of consumables for their already domesticated herds. Finally, some have also pointed out that agriculture and nomadic pastoralism exist at the opposite poles of a subsistence economy continuum along which various combinations of levels of sedentism and nomadism exist.
   Lying at the eastern end of the Eurasian steppe belt, the extensive non-urbanized grasslands of present-day Mongolia continue to be inhabited by nomadic pastoralists whose seasonal movements are determined in large part by the needs of their herds, which include horses, sheep, goats, cattle, yaks, and camels. Significantly, the steppes of Mongolia are dotted with numerous, often impressive, archaeological sites built of stones. These sites generally show little evidence of structural disturbance, the salutary outcome of an absence of industrialization and cultivation in most areas, and of the fact that stones are not normally used by nomads in the building of living quarters or other structures. Sites, which range widely in size, include small burials marked on the surface by corner flagstones, as well as structurally complex sites called khirigsuurs, which are larger square or round stone enclosures surrounding a stone mound. Structures typically found at the largest of these khirigsuurs include burials, small stone mounds, stone circles, stone paths, and sometimes deer stones, the latter large stone stelae carved with images of stylized deer and other representations. Mongolian archaeologists have paid close attention to the khirigsuurs, especially to the (sometimes looted) burials that lie beneath the central mound. Although they have also excavated smaller structures such as burials, small stone mounds and circles at the khirigsuurs, these undertakings have typically been undertaken with the hope of recovering beautiful artifacts.
   Partly on the basis of comparisons with material excavated from better-dated contexts outside their country, Mongolian archaeologists have dated the khirigsuurs to the last two millennia B.C., a period they identify as the Bronze and Iron Age. Significantly, Mongolian archaeologists believe that the builders of the khirigsuurs were nomadic pastoralists, a claim that appears to be supported by various lines of evidence, including the nomadic pastoralist associations of the dated non-Mongolian material, the recovery of many horse remains and horse equipment from the khirigsuurs, and the rarity or absence of above ground habitation remains, suggesting the ephemeral nature of settlements and the frequent movement of people at that time. A number of sites located in some areas of Mongolia have been dated to an earlier Neolithic period and have yielded polished lithics, ceramics and milling stones, thus presenting us, as in other parts of Eurasia, with a possible sequence that would have witnessed sedentism and animal domestication preceding the emergence of nomadic pastoralism, at least in those regions of Mongolia where such early sites have been found. Significantly, as history reminds us, the greatest military victories of the ancient Mongols were not achieved by settled agriculturalists but rather by confederacies of horse riding nomadic pastoralists. One such group, known as the Xiongnu, who practiced agriculture, achieved military victories over the Chinese Han dynasty to its south during the last centuries B.C. and first centuries A.D.
   An understanding of the nature of early nomadic pastoralism and the circumstances of its emergence in Mongolia is hampered by an archaeological record that remains fragmentary and uneven. To begin, there are as yet no absolute dates published for any of the so-called Neolithic sites or the Bronze and Iron Age khirigsuurs thought to be associated with the earliest nomadic pastoralist populations in Mongolia. Second, an emphasis on the excavation of large tombs and the recovery of prestige goods has meant that we have relatively little information on the full range of extensive ritual activities that clearly took place at the khirigsuurs, many of which are likely to have centered at least in part on herded animals, as suggested by the recovery of horse and other animal parts at these sites. Mongolian archaeologists have also shown little inclination to develop a methodology aimed at the identification of habitation sites, an attitude that results from the fact that nomadic encampments are notoriously difficult to locate and do not yield material that is considered valuable. Without absolute dates, knowledge of habitation sites or a fuller understanding of the range of activities that took place at the stone-built sites, it remains impossible to draw a fuller picture of nomadic pastoralist society in ancient Mongolia or gain an understanding of the developmental trajectory that may have seen a sedentary agricultural lifeway give way to nomadic pastoralism.
   Our collaborative project, established in conjunction with the Institute of History of Mongolia, is a long-term multidisciplinary program that aims at a fuller understanding of the nature and emergence of early nomadic pastoralism in Mongolia, an objective that can only be met by addressing the real problem of its uneven and limited archaeological record. A four-week long Pilot Project carried out in 2001 in the Khanuy River valley of central Mongolia provided us with an ideal opportunity to better acquaint ourselves with the broad range of archaeological data that is relevant to the issues being addressed by the project. Located at an altitude of 1,500 meters, the 250 square kilometer portion of the Khanuy river valley that is the focus of the research program remains economically undeveloped and is inhabited by nomadic pastoralists. Agriculture is practiced in the valley only on a limited basis by a few families. Numerous stone-built sites dot the valley bottom and hillsides in the research area. Aside from smaller graves, the sites include many impressive khirigsuurs as well as one very large site where deer stones are found. Significantly, all of the sites appear to be ritual/burial in nature, with none of the above ground stone constructions in the research area structured in a manner that would suggest permanent or temporary residences. According to Mongolian archaeologists, the sites in the area range in date from the Bronze Age (2nd millennium BC) to the Turkic period (6-8th century AC).
   The 2001 Pilot Project team established camp beside a large khirigsuur said to date to the Bronze Age. Measuring 400 by 400 meters, the well-structured site consists of a central five meter tall stone mound that is surrounded by a ring shaped area comprised of 1,750 small stone mounds measuring up to three meters in diameter. Also centered on the central mound, a further second ring shaped area consists of 1100 stone circles. A total of 16 graves are concentrated in another section of the site. A number of activities were carried out at the khirigsuur over the four-week period. Aside from mapping the site, we excavated two stone mounds, two burials, three stone circles, as well as a portion of the stone path connecting the central mound to one side of the site. The stone mounds yielded selected horse parts, a set of front teeth and neck vertebrae in one mound and a complete horse skull in another. The stone circles provided important evidence of ritual activity. All three contained large numbers of whitened cremated bone fragments (about 33,000 in the case of one circle) belonging to various animals (horse, sheep/goat and possibly cattle). The absence of charring or burning inside the circles suggests that the bones were cremated at another location, collected and then deposited within the stone perimeter of the circle. One human burial contained the fragmentary remains of an adult (probably a secondary burial) while only the outline of a child was detected in another grave. No artifacts were recovered from the burials.
   A systematic survey of a portion of the research area located a total of 150 sites: most of these were single small graves. A few of the larger sites were mapped in detail, while the rest of the graves were sketched, permitting us to begin discerning the outlines of a site typology. One important finding in this regard has been the high level of structural similarity among the large sites, all of which also tend to have an orientation of about 280 - 290 degrees. A further important component of the Pilot Project was the initiation of an ethnographic study of the valley aimed at the collection of data that may shed light on site formation processes and past behavioral responses to environmental constraints. Thus, the interviews we conducted with many of the nomadic families in the valley allowed us to learn about the river's seasonal flooding, the lateral movement of the channel over time, the practice of agriculture in the valley, and the nature of the yearly migratory cycle. This information has been helpful in helping us determine likely places where habitation and other sites could have been located in ancient times, as well as make predictions regarding the preservation of the sites in different locations within the valley. A final and unexpected discovery was that of a large Xiongnu cemetery located in a tributary valley of the Khanuy valley at an altitude of 1800 meters. We mapped the entire cemetery, which turned out to consist of over 400 tombs, many of these elevated square platforms with long ramps leading to them. Dubbed a 'royal' cemetery by the Mongolian archaeologists, it includes what appears to be the largest Xiongnu burial ever found, a ramped tomb whose length exceeds 80 meters.
   The research area has turned out to be an ideal location for the investigation of early nomadic pastoralism in Mongolia and the project plans to continue working in this same area over the next few years. Sites are not only well preserved; they are also abundant, pointing to the intensive use of the valley at the time of their use. However, little is in fact known of the nature of occupation in the valley during the last millennia B.C. and the project must concentrate on recovering basic archeological data before addressing more complex issues.
   The following provides an outline of the overall long-term objectives of the project and of the reasoning behind the activities that will be carried out over the course of the next few years:
   1) The clarification of the region's culture and historical framework:
   An understanding of developmental trajectories and synchronic processes is not possible without first establishing the outlines of the spatio-temporal framework. This will involve the collection of datable organic materials from different types of sites, combined with the further refinement of the region's site typology.
   2) The identification of habitation sites:
   Knowledge of habitation sites is important for many reasons, including the determination of whether they are associated with a mainly agricultural or pastoralist lifeway. In the case of the latter, the sites might be temporary locations occupied by nomads (such as presently in the valley), or possibly the sites of more sedentary pastoralists. Certainly, it is possible that different regions in Mongolia may have practiced types of pastoralism that differed in their degree of mobility. Thus, the marked intensity of use of the valley at the time of the khirigsuurs may have necessitated a labor force, supporting population, and possibly even a leadership that displayed less mobility than other, less intensively occupied, parts of Mongolia. Over the course of the next field season, a methodology will be developed whose aim will be the identification of habitation sites. Such sites are typically difficult to locate owing to the ephemeral nature of nomadic sites, the fact that occupants of the valley appear to have never used stones in the construction of their dwellings and camps, and the fact that sites near the river may been buried under alluvial (sand, clay) deposits, or destroyed by the meandering channel.
   3) The clarification of ritual behavior at the many stone-built sites in the valley:
   At present, the bone material recovered from the few 'ritual' structures excavated so far reveals the importance of the horse and other animals at the time the khirigsuurs were in use. However, more work is required before we are able to determine more precisely the sequence of events involved in rituals, as well as the spatial and temporal dimensions of ritual behavior at any one site or during an entire time period. The relationship that existed between ritual and power is certainly a topic that deserves special attention.
   4) Developing a better understanding of geomorpholo- gical processes in the valley:
   Such information is essential if we are to understand the processes that may have led to the preservation or destruction of archaeological sites in the valley. We hope to obtain the help of a geomorphologist two years from now. In the meantime, we will be extending our ethnographic study to try and obtain further information on these issues.
   5) Understanding the migratory cycle of nomadic pastoralists:
   An important component of the ethnographic study is the collection of information on the seasonal movements of local pastoralists. We are interested to learn why, where and when nomads move during the year, all of which may provide important insights into the behavior of those who inhabited the valley during the last millennia B.C.
   6) Charting and explaining changes in the subsistence economy:
   At present, we are not even sure whether agriculture was in fact ever practiced in the valley prior to, or even at the time of, the stone-built sites. It is possible that, in contrast to other parts of the steppes, or other regions of Mongolia, agriculture was never practiced in our research area in ancient times owing to the high altitude and/or inclement climate, in which case we will not recover evidence of a transition from an agricultural to a nomadic pastoralist subsistence system. Although it is presently possible to grow more recent domesticates (e.g. potatoes) in the valley, it is unknown whether crops such as millet (cultivated in northern China from very early on) could have been cultivated in this area. It is not even known whether wild millet stands - or stands of other grains - exist presently in central Mongolia. In order to answer these and other relevant questions, the project intends to undertake a more comprehensive ethnobotanical study that will involve working with botanists in Mongolia as well as foreign experts. Here again, the local nomads may provide us with relevant information. We will begin next season to float the excavated soil samples from different types of sites as a way to recover possible plant remains that are contemporary with the excavated contexts. Such remains will be analyzed to determine the type of plant and, if possible, whether or not it was domesticated. In the eventuality that we do recover evidence that an agricultural life-way was replaced by nomadic pastoralism, we will then need to ask about the possible cause(s) for such a transition. Explanations such as population pressure and economic specialization can be tested archaeologically, albeit with some difficulty. Understanding whether climate changes such as desiccation may have played a role in this process is certainly an important objective of the project. At present, limited palaeobotanical and other studies in other parts of the Eurasian steppes and northern China have begun to provide information that is relevant to this issue. We will continue monitoring those palaeoclimatic studies carried out in nearby regions.
   7) Understanding the socio-political trajectory:
   The presence of the large burial mounds and the very significant amount of labor needed to construct the many khirigsuurs in the valley point to the likely presence of some type of leadership associated with these sites. These sites bring to mind a number of important questions and issues that the project regards as highly interesting and relevant. For example, how can we best define the nature and expression of power at the time of the khirigsuurs? We know from the excavation of other large burial mounds in Mongolia that in some cases, few artifacts accompanied the deceased, reversing the usual association made between the scale of mortuary structures and the amount of prestige goods. Possibly, then, the power of leaders may have been expressed more simply through the impressive scale of his or her tomb and associated structures than by the grave’s goods displayed at the funeral. Although not entirely consistent, this is a pattern that is witnessed in other nomadic societies as well. Another possibility is that religious specialists were buried under these large mounds and that the associated rituals were meant to confirm the power of the religious system and position of the specialist rather than honor the achievements or status of a single individual. Importantly, the excavation of smaller burials, both independent graves as well as burials at the khirigsuur, helps to further clarify the nature of the regional socio-political hierarchy, and provides further data to support or reject the idea that the amount of burial goods is not correlated with the scale of the burial structure. Finally, we also wonder about the circumstances that may have permitted or encouraged the development of the hypothesized complex socio-political hierarchy. Here again, a number of possible scenarios exist including one that sees a climatic amelioration leading to increased productivity. In such a scenario, khirigsuurs became centers of territories whose increasingly productive lands needed to be protected and in which leadership was dependent on the ability to manage the defense of the territory. The testing of these models remains an important objective of the project, although much more data must be collected before answers to these and other related questions can be proposed.
   The activities planned for the 2002 field season aim to collect data that can be used to address all of the above issues. They will include many of the tasks already begun during the Pilot Project: the excavation of burials, mounds, and circles at the khirigsuur, surveys of parts of the research area, the mapping of sites, and interviews of nomads. We also plan to begin excavating a small Xiongnu burial at the cemetery discovered by our team last summer. In contrast to the usual emphasis on large burials, the team has agreed that we will first focus on excavating a small ramped burial and its associated satellite burial. This will yield important material that can be compared to that recovered from elite graves. One new component of the project in 2002 will be the initiation of a settlement pattern study aimed at the identification of habitation sites.
   1)Excavations:
   Excavations of burials, stone mounds, and stone circles will be carried out at the large khirigsuur, while other excavations will focus on a few isolated gravesites and a small burial at the Xiongnu cemetery. Except for the Xiongnu burial, all of these structures tend to be small in area (less than 20 square meters) and shallow in depth (soil depth usually less than one meter). In the case of the stone mounds, as many as 500 stones must first be removed before the soil can excavated to reveal the cultural level. A range of simple techniques are used to excavate these structures and record information. The equipment includes trowels, tape measures, plumb bobs, string, compasses, levels and a one-meter grid. Levels are drawn and photographed at different stages of the excavation. All materials are bagged and labeled. Soil samples are screened and floated to recover charred and other materials. Similar techniques will be used in the excavation of the small Xiongnu tomb.
   2) Regional Survey:
   Teams of two or three are assigned to a portion of the research area, usually a unit measuring one by one minute in the Latitude/Longitude system. Walking at a distance of 60 meters from one another and using a compass to follow a path along the north-south axis, the line of team members stops whenever one of them locates an archaeological site. All team members then join at the site to measure and sketch it using tape measures and compasses, and to take its location using a GPS unit. After finishing their work at the site, the team members return to their earlier locations before resuming the survey. Once the team reaches the northern or southern end of its unit, they move eastward to begin a new sweep. Notes are rewritten at night and the sites found that day located on a master map. One responsibility of the survey members will be to search for rock paintings and carvings along the rocky outcrops that line the valley.
   3) Mapping of sites:
   A number of sites will be selected for detailed mapping. A team of at least two people are assigned to a particular site, whose structures (central mound, small stone mounds, circles, paths and fences) they map using a compass and tape measure. The distance and angle values are recorded and used to draw the site at night using a ruler and protractor. The basic layout of very large sites with many structures is drawn using a GPS. It is hoped that a transit can be purchased and used during the 2002 field season.
   4) Ethnographic work:
   Teams of a few people travel by vehicle to visit the gers of local inhabitants, who are then interviewed with the help of a translator. The visits can last from 20 minutes to over one hour. The team members ask the families a number of questions that pertain to the project. These include, among others, questions about the frequency and scale of flooding events by the river, the movement of the river channel, erosion, their migratory cycle during the year, whether they cultivate and/or collect wild plants, their views about the archaeological sites, etc. In some cases, the team members might be taken by the nomads to a particular location away from the camp (e.g. winter camp, agricultural field). Because the project wishes to begin collecting more general ethnographic information about the valley, the interviews will also include questions about topics that are more relevant to present-day life in the valley.
   5) Settlement Pattern Study:
   This walking survey will attempt to locate habitation sites. A methodology will be developed by one of the field assistants at the very beginning of the field season. Although for that reason it cannot yet be described in detail, it is likely to involve team members walking in straight lines (using a compass) at some distance from one another and picking up artifacts such as ceramic sherds from the surface. It may also involve digging small shovel probes at regular intervals, and screening their contents in order to recover artifacts.
   At the local level, no systematic study of the archaeologically rich Khanuy river valley has yet been conducted. The project will therefore recover much needed basic information on the Bronze and Iron Age of this part of Mongolia. The planned systematic full coverage survey, identification of habitation sites, and radiocarbon dating of excavated material are all field and analytical methods that have yet to play a significant role in Mongolian archaeology. It is expected that these will provide a more complete picture of social structure and development at this time in Mongolia. Archaeologists working in other parts of Eurasia have been making use of these methods for some time and it is essential that archaeological fieldwork in Mongolia keep up with developments in surrounding regions in order to provide further comparative material for general models that focus on the economic and sociopolitical foundations of nomadic pastoralism.
   A better understanding of nomadic pastoralism during the Bronze and Iron Age is also likely to provide insights into modern economic practices in rural Mongolia, where this subsistence strategy continues to play a central role. While developments over the past thousands of years in Mongolia display a certain degree of continuity, it will also be interesting to note how populations continually need to adapt to changing economic, social, political and environmental circumstances, even as these same basic environmental parameters (i.e. steppes covered by grasslands) impose certain limitations on the nature and scale of such developments. It is expected that the project’s findings will provide insights into some of the economic, political and environmental pressures that nomadic pastoralists face in present-day Mongolia, such as changes in the size of territories, responses to climatic change, and the introduction of private land ownership.
   Finally, this project is one of the few collaborative archaeological projects presently operating in Mongolia. The project has been promised access to the research area for the next four years. There exists an ideal opportunity to make a significant contribution to knowledge of this little understood region and to help strengthen academic ties with Mongolia. As stated in the collaborative agreement, the results of the fieldwork will be published jointly by both sides in a range of journals, including Mongolian and possibly Russian journals, as well as English language journals. The latter may include the Journal of East Asian Archaeology, Antiquity, the Journal of Field Archaeology, and the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. Articles may also appear in popular publications such as Archaeology and Earthwatch Magazine.



译文:

                        蒙古中部呼尼河谷近年考古调查

阿拉德(匹兹堡大学人类学系)、霍勒(东亚问题专家,尤其擅长东亚考古)合著,选自《芝加哥大学欧亚大陆远方草原和农业考古讨论会:本地与全球综合研究》(2002年5月3至4日)。

   2001年发起的“呼尼河国际合作研究计划”,将课题定为古代蒙古游牧研究。这项研究的目的在于搞清楚蒙古中部游牧经济的早期发展的几个阶段。迄今为止,游牧生活仍是现代蒙古人广泛采用的一种经济生活方式,因而引起广大人类学家和历史学家的关注。关于游牧起源及其社会性质,研究者提出了种种解释。曾盛极一时的一种观点是:游牧是从狩猎和采集经济发展而来,属于走向定居生活的过渡阶段。如今,这一观点似乎已丧失说服力。

   学者们意识到,游牧是从古代定居生活发展而来,这种定居生活与获取食物和饲养家畜有关。正如考古学所揭示的,这是一个漫长的发展过程。各种考古发现表明,这个过渡在欧亚草原一部分地区完成于公元前1千纪。例如:这一时期短期居住遗址数量增加,马和马具重要性的不断加强,都可证明这一演变。然而,游牧为什么首先发展起来,仍是一个棘手的问题。有些人主张:人口的压力或经济分工促使人们选择定期迁徙方式,并且几乎完全依赖于动物产品。另一些人则认为:气候变化起了关键作用,持续干旱迫使定居农民为了给家畜找寻足够的食物而迁移。最后,还有人指出,尽管农业和游牧业作为互相对立的经济方式而存在,同时,两者又存在着不同程度的结合。

   今天的蒙古位于欧亚草原尚未城市化的东部边缘,许多游牧民族仍在此地居住,过着为牧群寻找食物,逐水草而居的日子。他们的牧群包括马、牛、羊、山羊、牦牛和骆驼。值得注意的是,蒙古草原上分布着大量石头构筑的遗址,这些遗址很少有打破关系。这正好是由于大多数地方缺乏工业化和耕作的原因才使遗址得以保留。没有迹象表明,在游牧民族的房屋或其他遗址中,不把石头当作普通建材使用。各个遗址的面积大小不一,不仅有地表立角石的小型墓,而且还有结构复杂的所谓“石板墓”(Khirigsuurs),它们是用方形或圆形石围墙围起来的石头墓。目前所见规模最大的石板墓,其典型结构由墓葬、低矮的石封堆、石围圈和石甬道组成,有时还立有鹿石。晚期大型石碑上刻有鹿纹以及其他动物纹。蒙古考古学家十分重视这些石板墓,尤其是那些埋在中心封土之下的墓葬(有些已被盗掘)。尽管他们发掘过一些较小的遗迹,诸如石板墓地中的墓葬,小石冢和石围栏。这些发掘工作还是相当认真的,以期发现精美的文化遗物。

   部分材料可以同国外发现的经认真断代的发掘品进行对比。在此基础上,蒙古考古学家将这些石板墓的年代定在公元前2千纪的最后阶段,也就是所谓青铜和铁器并用时代。更为重要的是,考古学家确认这些石板墓的建造者属于游牧人。这一点亦被考古发现证实,表明游牧人和有确定年代的非蒙古人交流物品,石板墓中发现了数量庞大的马和马具,但是缺少地面居住遗址。凡此表明,当时人们定居的时间短,频繁迁徙。蒙古另外一些地区的遗存定在了新石器时代早期,出土有抛光石器、陶器和磨制石器。这就告诉我们,蒙古和欧亚大陆其他地区一样,在进入游牧社会之前也存在着定居和家畜饲养。至少在蒙古,这类早期遗存已有发现。正如历史告诉我们的,古代蒙古最辉煌的军事胜利不是由定居农业民族取得的,而是由骑马游牧民族部落联盟实现的。其中有个部落,称作匈奴。他们进行农业生产,在公元前1世纪到公元1世纪之间,他们向南对汉帝国发动战争,并取得军事上的胜利。

   考古资料的不完整性和不均衡性,阻碍了人们对古代游牧民族生活习俗以及他们在蒙古形成过程的了解。目前尚未发表任何资料,能为确认新石器时代或铜铁并用时代的石板墓的绝对年代提供证据,而这些石板墓又被认为与蒙古地区古代游牧文化有关。其次,人们只注重发掘大墓,获取奇珍异宝,这就意味着我们相对缺乏对在石板墓所用礼仪活动的全面了解。许多石板墓至少是将中心的部分地方用来随葬动物,遗址中出土的马或其他动物肢骨也证实了这一点。再次,蒙古考古学家几乎没有对提高居住遗址鉴别能力的研究方法表现出丝毫兴趣。从实践中得出的一个结论是:游牧人宿营地非常难找,也发现不了什么有价值的东西。无法判定遗址的绝对年代,没有鉴别居住遗址的知识,没有全面了解在石筑遗址中所发生的活动,从而就不可能复原蒙古地区古代游牧社会的生活状况,并从中获取从农业定居向游牧过渡的线索。

   我们的合作研究计划,是和蒙古历史研究所联手进行的。这是一个长期的有多重规定的项目,目的在于较为全面地了解蒙古游牧人的产生及其生活习俗。这一目标的实现,只能通过致力于对考古记录中出现的不均衡性和有限性问题的解决来实现。2001年在蒙古中部呼尼河流域进行了为期四周的考古发掘,给我们提供了大范围考古学文化的详细资料。这个资料与我们要研究的对象有关。海拔1500米、面积250平方公里的呼尼河流域被作为重点研究区域,这里的经济依然落后,大部分地区为游牧人占居,大面积遗存尚未揭露,农业种植是仅有的几户人家的基础,大量的石构建筑遗址分布在河谷两岸和山脚下。除了小型墓葬外,还有许多石板墓以及一座立有鹿石的大型石板墓。所有的古墓在本质上都反映了一定的埋葬制度。在研究范围内,没有发现可以告诉我们是临时还是永久性居住的地面石构房屋遗址。

   2001年试掘计划工作组将宿营地建在一座青铜时代的石板墓旁,勘测了其中400×400平米区域。这座墓葬的结构保存完好,中心有高5米的石冢,四周环绕一圈环形石圈,内有1750个直径约3米小型石冢,同样以中心大墓为中心。更远的第二圈环形区域由1100座石围圈组成。遗址内另一部分集中了16座墓。通过四周时间的勘测,除了绘图中外,我们还发掘了两座石封堆、两座墓葬、三个石围圈以及中心封土堆与遗址另一侧相联系的部分石甬道。在一个石封堆中,出土了成组的马肢骨、一组前门齿和颈椎骨;另一座墓出土了一副完整的颅骨。石围圈提供了进行祭祀活动重要的证据。这三座墓保留了大量白色的经过焚烧的骨头残片(一个石围圈内大约有33000片)。这些骨头属于不同动物(马,羊/山羊,可能还有牛)。石围圈内不见骨灰(即火烧痕迹),表明骨头是在另圸抔篵緲E'E圸抔篵緲来放在石围圈内。一座墓葬中有一具成年人尸骨(可能是二次葬),另一座墓中有一类似小孩轮廓的残迹。

   我们在对研究范围内部分区域进行系统调查时,发现了150个遗存。绝大多数是孤立的小墓,我们对几个较大的墓进行了详细制图,其余墓葬只画了草图。这就使得我们开始大致辨别出不同类型的遗存。这方面的一项重大发现是:在大型遗址中,建筑物的高度都是相似的;建筑物的方向大多在280度至290度之间。试掘计划的一个重要组成部分是开始了河谷人类学研究,目的在于收集资料,通过这些资料来研究遗址的形成以及过去人们对待环境压迫所采取的措施。因此,我们组织了同河谷中许多游牧家庭的会面,这使得我们了解到呼尼河季节性的洪水,历史时期河床的横向摆动,河谷中农业种植情况,一年一度迁徙的循环规律。这些信息有助于我们预测古代居住遗址和其他遗址的分布状况,并对预测在河谷不同地区遗址的保存情况非常有用的。最后一个的出乎意料的发现是:在呼尼河谷一支河流域发现一座巨大的匈奴墓,当地海拔1800米。我们对整个墓地进行了测绘,其中有400多座墓葬,许多墓葬都有高的平台式封土堆和斜坡墓道。蒙古考古学家谓之“皇家墓地”。这批墓葬中包括迄今所见规模最大匈奴墓,长度超过80米。

   我们调查的地区恰恰是考察蒙古早期游牧生活的理想场所,研究计划将在今后几年内继续在这一地区执行。这里不仅遗址保存完好,而且遗存相当丰富,说明在他们生活的那一时期,这个河谷曾频繁使用。然而,我们对在公元前1千纪河谷的使用情况几乎一无所知。所以在探讨更为复杂的课题之前,研究计划将重点放在发现最基本的考古资料上。下面是这个项目的一个远景规划及其逻辑论证过程。当然,这项论证还要在今后几年开展的工作中进行。

   (1)地域文化和历史框架的辨识。

   如果不首先建立一个大概的时空框架,就想去了解事物的发展轨迹和伴生过程,这几乎是不可能的。了解过程包括从不同类型遗址中收集有组织的(同一单位)细节性资料,并将其与这个地区遗址类型学更为深入的细部特征结合起来。

   (2)居住遗址的鉴别。

   了解居住遗址非常重要,原因是多方面的,包括识别它们究竟和农业还是同游牧有关。如果是后者,遗址可能就是游牧人临时性住所(这和今天河谷中游牧人一样)或者是定居成分稍多的畜牧人的住所。当然,蒙古的不同地区可能采取不同的游牧方式,其区别主要在于其流动程度的大小。因此,在石板墓时代,河谷的使用明显加强,这就使劳动力、谋生者乃至领导者缺一不可,这些领导者的地位通过他们较少迁移,居地相对分散得以体现。在下一个季度田野工作中,将使用改进过的方法来鉴别居住遗址。由于游牧民族居住遗址短期性的特征,这些遗址非常难找。目前反映出来的一个问题是:河谷的占据者在建造他们的居住地和营地时,好像是从不使用石块。另一个问题是:遗址可能被淤积土掩埋或被河床摆动破坏。

   (3)河谷中众多石构遗址中祭祀活动的鉴别。

   迄今为止,从发掘的零星的几座“祭祀”建筑中发现的骨头,披露出马和其他动物在所随葬的石板墓时代的重要性。然而,为了能够更加准确的判断祭祀仪式中每一道程序,任何一个遗址中祭祀仪式的时空范围以及整个历史时期祭祀仪式存在的时空范围,我们还得做更多工作。关于祭祀仪式和权力之间的关系,也值得给予特殊关注。

   (4)更好的了解河谷地貌的演变。

   如果我们要了解导致河谷中遗存保留或破坏过程,地貌状况相当重要。今后两年内,我们希望得到地貌学家的帮助,同时,我们还将扩大人类学研究,尝试在这些课题上有所突破。

   (5)了解游牧民族的迁徙周期。

   人类学研究的一个重要方面是收集当地游牧人季节性迁徙资料。我们非常感兴趣地了解到:一年当中,游牧人什么时候开始迁徙,迁往哪里,迁徙的原因是什么。所有这些答案都给我们提供了一条了解公元前1千纪这个地区居民的生活方式的线索。

   (6)用图表展示生存经济类型的演变。

   目前,我们尚不能确定在早于石构遗址或同时期河谷地带是否有过种植农业。同草原其他地区或蒙古其他区域相比较,在我们调查区域内古代可能从未产生过种植农业,原因在于海拔高或者气候多变。在这种情况下,我们不可能发现从农业向游牧过渡的证据。尽管河谷地带现在可以生长近代人工培育的作物,但是他们仍不知道庄稼,诸如粟类作物(很早就在华北栽培)是否能在这里生长。他们甚至不知道当今蒙古中部是否存在野生粟种或其他谷物的种子。为了回答这个问题以及相关问题,计划组决定同蒙古植物学家和外国专家联合,着手进行更为广泛的人类学研究。这里再重复一下,当地游牧人可能会给我们提供相关信息。我们将在下一季度对不同类型遗址中土壤样品采用浮选法进行测试分析,以便发现与遗址同时期的植物遗存。通过分析这些遗存,鉴定植物的品种。如果有可能的话,我们还将进一步鉴定这些植物是否经过人工训化。最后,我们的确发现农业被游牧替代的证据,接着就要提出导致这个演变的最可能的原因是什么?诸如人口压力或经济分工这方面的原因,皆可作为考古学的佐证,尽管还存在不少困难。这个研究计划的一个重要目标,是了解气侯变化,如干旱在这个演变进程中所起的作用。目前,通过和欧亚草原其他地区及中国北方的有限的研究进行比较,给我们提供了更多和经济方式演变的有关资料。我们将继续在附近区域开展史前气候测控研究。

   (7)了解社会政治线索。

   河谷中分布的大墓和构筑石板墓时所需大量劳动力,表明当时可能存在和这些遗址有关的某种类型的领导体制。这些遗址使人联想起那些相关而又有趣的问题。举例来说,如何以最准确的语言来描述石板墓时代的社会性质和它的强盛。从蒙古发掘出土的大墓中得知,在某些情况下,墓主人几乎没有留下任何随葬品。这个现象否定了通常将墓葬规模大小和随葬品数量多寡相联系的做法。上层统治者可能认为,用宏大的墓葬结构展示其身份地位,要比在墓中陈列大量随葬品更一目了然。虽然这种说明方式并非一成不变,但是这种方式在其他游牧民族中同样有案可稽。另一可能性是,大型封土堆下埋的是宗教祭司,祭祀仪式是用来确立宗教系统的统治力量和祭司的地位,而非用来表彰某个人的功绩或某个要人的社会地位。发掘小墓和发掘石板墓地中单独的墓葬同样重要,都有助于进一步辨明当地社会等级制度的本质,并提供更多的证据来支持或否定随葬大量随葬品并不表示墓葬规模大这一观点。最后,我们对当时社会背景有所怀疑,那个背景允许或鼓励预测复杂的社会等级制度的发展。我们可以举出一系列可能出现的剧情性设想,如气候改善引起物质产量的增长。在这样的一种剧情模式下,石板墓成为统治政区的中心,随着政区进行生产的土地面积扩大,需要保护。在这种状况下,领导者依靠他的才干来管理保护其政区。对这些模式的检验,仍是这项研究计划的一个重要目标。尽管在回答这些具体模式以及相关问题之前,仍需要更多材料。

   为2002年度田野工作做准备工作,收集和上述研究课题相关的资料。其中包括许多在试掘计划业已开始的任务:发掘墓葬、封土堆、石板墓的石围圈,在调查区域内对部分地区进行调查,对遗址进行测绘,以及和游牧民族进行交流。我们还计划发掘去年发现的墓地中的一座匈奴小墓。和平常所强调的大墓葬比较,工作队首次着眼于发掘带有斜坡墓道的小墓以及相关的卫星墓。这些墓将出土一批可以和豪华墓出土物进行比较的重要资料。2002年度研究计划的另一个新的组成部分,是开始居住方式的研究,以便进一步确认居住遗址。

   (1)发掘

   我们对墓葬、石封堆、石围圈的发掘将在大墓中进行,而其他发掘则将着重点放在匈奴墓地中那些孤立的墓葬和小型墓方面。除了匈奴墓,其他所有墓葬结构都面积小(少于20平方米),深度浅(填土深度少于1米)。如果挖石冢,在去掉表土,揭露文化层之前,必须先将500多块大石头搬走。一系列简便的技术将用来发掘这些墓葬,并记录相关信息。这套装备包括手铲、卷尺、铅锤、绳子、罗盘、水准仪、一米规格的地图坐标方格纸。在不同发掘阶段,对不同地层进行绘图和摄影。所有出土物都要装袋,贴上标签。甄别采集样品土壤并用浮选法进行分析,从中发现草木烧焦痕迹和其他有用的资料。同样的技术也将用于发掘匈奴小墓。

   (2)区域调查

   两三人一组分配到所要调查的区域的某个部分,通常一组人测量在高/长系统上为1ⅹ1度的60分之一区域,人与人间隔60米,用罗盘确定正南北方向的行走线路。队员们排成一行,其中任何一个人要确定考古遗存范围时,其他成员都要停下来。所有队员都要集中到这个地点来,用卷尺和罗盘对遗址进行测量绘图,并用全球卫星定位系统(GPS)确定遗址的地理位置。做完这些工作后,队员们回到他们原来的位置,继续原来的工作。一旦这个队到达其测控单元南端或北端,他们将转而向东推进,开始新一轮的踏查。晚上重新写记录,将当天发现的遗址标在主控图上。调查组成员的一项任务,是寻找依傍河谷分布的实岩层表面的岩画和石雕。

   (3)遗址平面图的测绘

   选择一些遗址,详细测绘每个细部。一个队中至少有两个人要安排到那种特殊遗址,用罗盘和卷尺测绘其结构(中心封土堆、小积石塚、石围圈、甬道、防御墙),记录距离和角度,通常在晚上用直尺和量角器绘制遗址平面图。利用全球卫星定位系统(GPS)绘制结构复杂的大型遗址基本布局图,希望能在这个方面有所突破,并运用于2002年度田野工作当中。

   (4)人类学工作

   考察队中一部分人开车走访当地居民的小家庭,队员们借助于翻译和当地居民进行面对面的交流,采访时间20-60分钟不等。队员们向采访家庭提出各种各样与研究计划有关的问题,其中包括河中发洪水的频率和规模,河床摆动、侵蚀,一年之中的迁徙循环周期,是否栽培或者采集野生植物,以及他们对考古遗存的看法等等。在某些情形下,队员们还会被游牧人带到距营地很远的特殊地方(冬窝子,农业地带)。由于计划开始着手收集河谷地带最基本的民族学材料,所以提问也包括当今河谷中居民的生活方面等问题。

   (5)居住方式的研究

   用踏查方式找出居住遗址的位置。在田野工作刚开始进行时,一名田野助理对原有的方法进行改造发展。尽管不能对此方法进行详细描述,它可能包括队员们每两人之间定距离的直线踏查,从地表采集陶瓷碎片等装饰品。按固定距离打探眼调查,辨别其文化性质。

   至于当地的研究水平,从未对考古遗存丰富的呼尼河谷进行过系统研究。因此,研究计划将揭露蒙古这一地区青铜时代和铁器时代急需的基本材料。研究计划将进行系统全面地全方位调查,确认居住遗址,用放射性碳素断代法来确定发掘资料的年代,这些都是结合田野工作进行分析的方法,这套方法在蒙古地区考古上起着非常重要的作用。期望这项工作将会为我们提供这一时期蒙古地区更加完整的社会结构及社会发展的图画。在欧亚大陆其他地区工作的考古学家使用这种方法已有一段时间。蒙古地区的田野考古工作要赶上周围地区的发展的步伐,才能提供更多可相对比的反映游牧社会经济和政治基础的最一般模式的资料。

   如果能更好地了解铜器和铁器时代的游牧社会,就可以提供洞察当今遥远的蒙古地区所采用的经济方式的原因。在蒙古,这种生存战略直到今天仍处于主导地位,而且蒙古地区过去上千年的发展表现出一定程度上的连续性。值得注意的是,人们是如何不断的需要调整来适应经济、社会、政治和环境的变化,甚至于适应同样不变的环境状况(都是大草原),这些环境迫使发展的规模和性质都受到局限。期望通过发掘成果帮助我们来了解当今蒙古游牧民族所面临的经济、政治和环境压力,诸如政区范围的变化,对气候的变化反映以及土地私人占有权的引入。

   最后,这项研究计划是少数几个正在蒙古开展的国际合作计划之一。研究计划已被允许在今后四年继续进入调查区域从事研究工作。这是一个对这块几乎一无所知的区域做出巨大学术贡献的理想机遇,同时也加强了与蒙古人的学术交流。正如合作协议所陈述的那样,田野考古成果将由双方共同发表在一定范围的杂志上,包括蒙古或俄罗斯杂志、英语杂志。后一种包括《东亚考古杂志》、《古物》、《田野考古杂志》和《考古人类学杂志》,有些文章或许还会出现在一些大众流行杂志,诸如《考古》和《大地观测杂志》等。



文字
编辑:liuwensuo


发表评论】 【文章回顾】 【收藏本文】 【发送本文】 【关闭窗口

 相关文章
  • 未找到相关文章。

  •  
    版权所有:欧亚学研究