This article was downloaded by: [141.216.78.

40]
On: 28 August 2015, At: 22:13
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Anthropology & Archeology of

Eurasia
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/maae20

Ancient Xinjiang Between

Central Asia and China; The
Nomadic Factor
Nicola Di Cosmo
Published online: 08 Dec 2014.

To cite this article: Nicola Di Cosmo (1996) Ancient Xinjiang Between Central Asia
and China; The Nomadic Factor, Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, 34:4, 87-101

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/AAE1061-1959340487

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
 expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015
 DI COSMO
NICOLA

Ancient Xinjiang Between

Central Asia and China
The Nomadic Factor

Historical knowledge of Central Asia in China dates back to the second century
B.C.,and is associated with the odyssean journey of the imperial envoy Zhang
Qian. Contacts between China and Central Asia had certainly been in existence
long before then. The momentum behind the expansion of communication is
commonly traced back to the development of a mobile way of life among the
pastoral peoples of the Central Asian steppe, and to the increased level of eco-
nomic specialization of farmers and herders, which provided both a means and a
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

need for trade. Findings from the burials of the Pazyryk culture [Hiebert, 19921
show the extraordinary network of exchange woven by the pastoral nomadic
cultures of the Sayano-Altai region. Though the findings cannot document the
existence of any actual trade, it is clear that these people had access to products
that were produced far away, in China and possibly the Near East. The evolution
of the early nomadic cultures is also associated with developments in metallurgi-
cal production, accumulation of wealth in form of metal o b j e c t s i n particular
gold ornaments-and sophisticated burial complexes. Archeologists of Central
Asia have traditionally paid attention to both the evolution of nomadism and
nomadic interaction with sedentary cultures.
In China, archeological work on these themes was begun in earnest only
recently. Unlike Soviet scholars, mostly interested in mapping cultures and trac-
ing stages of social and economic evolution, Chinese archeologists have for a
long time been chiefly concerned with the development of Chinese civilization,
which involved the excavation of royal cities and burials, the exploration of the
earliest written sources (oracle bones and bronze inscriptions), and the material
basis of its political and social life. Pastoral cultures fell outside the scope of
mainstream Chinese archeology.
The bronze metallurgical tradition that developed to the north of the Shang

English text 8 1996 by Nicola Di Cosmo. Original manuscript.

87
 88 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

and Zhou states is now regarded as a discrete cultural complex, fully separate
from the Sinitic tradition of the Central Plains [Lin Yun, 19861. The study of
sites in Hebei, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, and the Chinese northeast has
dramatically increased our knowledge of these non-Chinese cultures, of their
material basis, economic evolution, and cross-cultural interaction. Though opin-
ions differ as to the ultimate extension of the Northern Zone, it is clear that, even
limiting its scope to the areas immediately to the north of the Shang and Zhou
territory, they were connected to a much broader cultural region, extending to
southern Siberia, with whose Bronze Age cultures they appear to share a com-
mon metallurgical language.
Xinjiang is commonly reputed to have played a pivotal role in the relationship
between China and Central Asia. Because of its proximity to the centers of
nomadic cultures in the Altai mountains, and because of the existence of both
pastoral and sedentary oasis cultures, Xinjiang is of crucial importance to the
definition of the extent of contacts among cultural centers in the Bronze Age,
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

ethnic migrations across Asia, the relationship between sedentary oasis people
and pastoralists, and the existence of routes of communication between China
and Central Asia. These are questions of great import to our knowledge of early
Chinese history, which the articles by Hou Can and Wang Binghua address from
different perspectives.
Hou Can’s article takes an environmental perspective to describe a large
number of oases that bear evidence of the existence of settlement sites and
walled cities, allowing us to gain a new perspective on the so-called Silk Road in
early historical times, that is, between the first century B.C. and the seventh
century A.D.. It also describes patterns of environmental impact on the settle-
ments. Given the central role of the Xinjiang oases in cross-cultural communica-
tion, religious transmission, and trade throughout the premodern period, the
evidence presented here is essential to any reconstruction of settled life and
mapping of routes. This study also shows that there was considerable economic
disparity among the people of the oases. Regardless of instances of concentra-
tions of great wealth, and of a large network of cultural contacts that included
India, Hellenized Asia, and central China, most people lived poorly and in close
contact with pastoral nomads.
On a different plane, Wang Binghua argues for the early emergence of bronze
metallurgy in Xinjiang. By presenting abundant circumstantial evidence, he
reaches the tentative conclusion that bronze was already used in Xinjiang in the
early second millennium B.C., and had become very common by the end of the
millennium. The existence of various mining and smelting centers also shows
Xinjiang as a center of metallurgical production.
The fundamental issues in the relationship between China and Central Asia
revolve around the nature and extent of contacts between the Northern Zone and
the archeological cultures of southern Siberia, in particular the Karasuk culture.
The Karasuk metal inventory has many features in common with the Northern
 SPRING 1996 89

Zone bronzes. Among the knives, we find the style with a hunched back. The
short daggers with straight guard are also similar, and in both areas the pickaxes
display tubular sockets for hafting.
Half a century ago these similarities triggered a longstanding dispute among
Western scholars as to the influence and primacy of the Chinese culture over the
Karasuk, as the Northern Zone bronzes were seen as evidence of Sinitic cultural
diffusion. Karlgren regarded the northern-style bronzes found at Anyang as a
product of the Shang cultures, and hypothesized that in the latter part of the
Shang dynasty several bronze types From Anyang were transmitted to their im-
mediate neighbors in the North, and from there reached the Siberian Yenisei
region in the eighth century B.C.[Karlgren, 19451.
Karlgren’s hypothesis of Anyang’s influence on the Siberian bronzes was
countered by Max Loehr’s theory of continuity of the bronze metallurgical tradi-
tion in Central Asia [Loehr, 19491. The seminal work by Kiselev on southern
Siberia [Kiselev, 19511 and the analysis of the Karasuk and Shang affinities by
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

Jettmar [ 19501 indicated the presence of a new racial type in Karasuk, akin to the
population of northern China. Hence, Jettmar endorsed the hypothesis that the ap-
pearance of a distinct bronze inventory in the Karasuk region might have been the
result of a migration from northern China in the eleventhenth century B.C. and
related it to the emergence of steppe societies of mobile*// pastoralists, charac-
terized by the “animal style” as their distinctive mode of artistic expression.
Most scholars, however, no longer support this theory. The discovery of a
“Northern Zone” cultural complex-which includes northern Shaanxi and
Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Hebei, the Chinese northeast, and, to the west, Gansu
and Ningxia--as an independent cultural unit is now a generally accepted con-
cept [Lin Yun, 1986; Wu, 19851, and the people who inhabited the Northern
Zone are thought to have been a filter as well as a link between China and Inner
Asia. However, the importance of this complex was not limited to that of a
cultural bridge: many features, especially bronze decorations, originated here
and were later transmitted elsewhere [Tian, 1983, p. 231.
Others see a closer relationship between the Northern Zone and southern
Siberia. According to Chernykh, northern China, together with the Sayano-Altai
region, Mongolia, Transbaikalia, and northwestern China (Xinjiang), should be
regarded as part of the Central Asian Metallurgical Province. In view of the scant
archeological information from Mongolia and Xinjiang, however, the full extent
of the relationship among these areas, and between these areas and China, re-
mains foggy, and finds are too scattered to establish clear patterns. Yet the
similarity between some Central Asian forms and the Seima-Turbino knives
with animal terminals and socketed Celts leads Chernykh to hypothesize an
initial western stimulus to the metallurgy that developed in the Sayano-Altai
region and other zones of the Central Asian Metallurgical Province. Chernykh also
admits to a possible symbiosisbetween Central Asian metallurgy and “true Chinese
examples of high-quality casting,” especially with respect to weapons and ritual
 90 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

objects. In a later period typical artifacts of this broad “Central Asian” zone
gradually penetrated the West [Chemykh, 1992, pp. 269-71; Jettmar, 1950, p. 1191.
At the present stage of research it is possible to recognize only that the Northem
Zone is home to a distinctive metallurgical culture with close ties not just to China,
but also to the West, and in particular to the Sayano-Altairegion.
Once a link between China and Central Asia had been established-whether
direct or indirect-archeologists and historians hied to isolate cases of more
direct interaction between the two. Leaving aside the issue of bronze metallurgy,
which is too broad and complex to be addressed here, we shall limit our brief
overview to jade, the war chariot, and iron metallurgy.

Jade

Some of the most important evidence of early contacts between China and north-
em and western areas comes from the tomb of Fu Hao (Xiaotun, Anyang), the
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

wamor-consort of King Wu Ding (c. 1200-1 180 B.C.), excavated in 1976. Here
are several items that certainly did not originate in the Shang culture, such as a
northern-style knife with a goat- or ibex-head terminal, four bronze mirrors, and
a bronze hairpin. But by far the most surprising data came from the jades. In
order to locate the provenance of the 756 jade objects excavated, over 300 pieces
were sent to various laboratories in Beijing and Anyang, including that of the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Examination by fingerprinting is reported
to indicate that all but three pieces came from quarries in Xinjiang [Wang, 1993,
p. 1671. The Khotan region is known to have provided jade in historical times,
and these data seem to indicate an extremely early connection, but how jade is
supposed to have been transported to the Yellow River region from such a
distant area remains in the realm of speculation.

The war chariot

Numerous studies show that the war chariot was almost certainly imported into
China from the West, possibly around the thirteenth century B.c. [Hancar, 1956;
von Dewall, 1964; Shaughnessy, 1988; Piggott, 1978; Littauer and Crouwel,
19791. Wagons and carts were first made in the Near East in the third millennium
B.c., as bronze tools and the domestication of the horse made possible the con-
ception and technical realization of horse-drawn wheeled vehicles. Chariots are
different from the four-wheeled wagons and two-wheeled carts. Carts, like wag-
ons, were confined to the transport of men and goods, and had solid or spoked
wheels and a central axle on which people sat. Chariots had spoked wheels and a
rear axle, attached to a box, where normally no more than two people could
stand [Piggott, 1983, p. 951. Recent discoveries have revealed fully formed chari-
ots with spoked wheels in sixteenth-century B.C. sites of the Andronovo culture,
such as Sintashta I and 11. These are technically and conceptually very similar to
 SPRING 1996 91

chariots found both in western Asia (e.g., the Lchashen site in the Caucasus) and
in eastern Asia (such as those unearthed at Anyang). Though based on preexist-
ing models of wheeled vehicles, the war chariot seems to be a development that
took place either among sedentary people or the mixed agro-pastoralists of the
Andronovo culture. This was a very successful culture, and the development of
the war chariot may have been one of the factors accounting for its rapid spread
across the Eurasian steppe from the Caucasus to southern Siberia, documented in
the articles by P'iankova and by Vinogradova and Kuz'mina.
The first Chinese chariots have been found in burials of the Shang dynasty at
Anyang, together with horses and drivers, who served as sacrificial victims. This
type of vehicle was used by the aristocracy for display, hunting, and war. It was
made of a central pole with one horse harnessed on each side, and a box with two
spoked wheels attached to the end of the pole. The box was typically rectangular
or oval. The chariot appears in China already fully formed, not preceded by
intermediate stages of development such as wagons or carts pulled by cattle or
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

equids. During the Zhou dynasty, chariots were common in the funerary inven-
tory of the richest tombs, and charioted troops were the central core of both Zhou
and foreign armies. The presence of early chariots in Xinjiang, southern Siberia,
and the Northern Zone is documented to date only by the presence of numerous
petroglyphs from the Altai, the Tien Shan Mountains, and the Yinshan Moun-
tains in Inner Mongolia. For instance, a rock carving from the Yinshan Moun-
tains illustrates a hunting scene in which a hunter is shooting game after having
dismounted from a chariot with eight-spoked wheels, pulled by two horses [Gai,
1993; Shaughnessy, 1988, pp. 202-31. The presence of similar drawings on the
so-called deer stones, where they appear together with daggers with bent hilt
common in the Northern Zone during the Shang period, have suggested a dating
of the petroglyphs to that period [Wu, 19921. The arrival of the chariot in north-
ern China might therefore be contemporaneous with the early Shang period,
around the fifteenth or fourteenth century B.C.
The petroglyphs, as well as the actual chariots found in the Sintashta burials,
indicate essentially the same design and technical characteristics as the Chinese
chariot. It is therefore highly probable that the war chariot with light box and spoked
wheels, pulled by two horses, originated in Central Asia and was later adopted by
the surrounding civilizations of China, Mesopotamia, and the Caucasus.

Early iron technology

In Wang Binghua's article the emergence of iron technology in Xinjiang is dated

to the Waning States period, that is, the fifth to the third century B.c.. This
opinion must be modified in light of recent studies. The earliest appearance of
iron is found at the burial site of Chawuhu Pass [Anonymous, 19881, which, on
the basis of multiple calibrated radiocarbon analyses, has been dated to a period
from the tenth to the seventh century B.c. [Chen, 19891. The graveyard consists
 92 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

of stone mounds with multiple burials encircled within rings of stones. The
fbnerary assemblage includes gold, bronze, and iron objects. Among the bronze
objects are knives with ringheads, a spearhead, and horse-bits. A bone cheek-
piece in the form of a ram’s head is representative of early animal style. Iron
objects are few and small, such as an awl and a ring. The extensive evidence of
animal sacrifices buried in sacrificial pits, either separately from or together with
human remains, points to a pastoral culture. No agricultural tools have been
found among the funerary objects.
The existence of iron in this region at a time that precedes the appearance of
iron in the Central Plains (possibly seventh-sixth century B.C.), is confirmed by
analogous findings in Qunbake, the Pamirs, and the area near Urumqi [Anony-
mous, 1981al. Comparable iron and bronze knives found in the Chust culture in
Ferghana and skeletal remains of Europoid stock point to a connection with the
Pamir and Ferghana regions. Iron was also present in other parts of Central Asia
and southern Siberia, but there is no unified opinion concerning its transmission.
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

The date usually assigned to the early Iron Age in Central Asia (Transoxiana) is
the late second millennium B.C. (eleventNenth century B.C.). The early Iron Age
in the steppe regions of Kazakhstan, Tuva, southern Siberia, and Mongolia is
usually dated to the early first millennium B.c., even though sites of this period in
the Kazakh steppe do not contain iron artifacts, and iron metallurgy developed in
Mongolia only from the fifth century B.c.. Yet undoubtedly iron existed in Tuva
at least from the eighth century B.C., as documented by the finds of the Arzan
royal burial and other kurgans of the early nomadic period [Askarov, 1992, p.
457; Askarov, Volkov, and Ser-Odjav, 1992; Grjaznov, 1984; Kenk, 1986;
Martynova, 1988, p. 741.
In the part of the Northern Zone closer to China, and in particular in the
north-central sector, iron was present at a time roughly comparable to the general
period of diffusion throughout the steppe region. An iron knife was found at the
Taohongbala burial site (Ordos, Inner Mongolia), which yielded radiocarbon
datings (calibrated) of 840-600 B.C. and 8 10-434 B.C., therefore chronologically
close to the early nomadic (Scythian) period of the western and Central Asian
steppe regions.
In China, on the other hand, the earliest evidence of iron, usually a blade
combined with a bronze hilt, may possibly be dated to around the seventh cen-
tury B.c., where it appears in the burials at Shangcunling (Sanmenxia, Henan), in
the ancient state of GUO,a region with considerable contacts with the north [Li,
1985, pp. 80-841. A connection between the introduction of iron smelting into
China and contacts with the steppe region seems increasingly likely.
The issue of whether jade, the chariot, or iron technology were directly trans-
mitted to China from the northern cultures is far from being conclusively proven,
but the line of investigation taken by Wang Binghua and other Xinjiang archeol-
ogists, which pays attention not only to the regional characteristics of cultural
phenomena but also to their cross-cultural implications, seems to be bearing
 SPRING 1996 93

fruit. One of the most important aspects of this type of research concerns the
evolution of pastoral cultures in the Chinese northwest and of their relationship
to sedentary oasis cultures.
The studies by P‘iankova and by Vinogradova and Kuz’mina may be profit-
ably used, with respect to Xinjiang, in a comparative perspective. Taking cues
from the more advanced knowledge of Russian scholars on the interaction be-
tween sedentary and nomadic peoples, research hypotheses can be formulated, or
reformulated, in such a way that Xinjiang archeology may acquire partial inde-
pendence from the dominant themes of Chinese archeology and hence become
no longer peripheral to China, but central to processes of cultural evolution and
transmission that undoubtedly also involved western and northern areas. One
cluster of issues that emerges most clearly from the Russian articles presented
here as particularly relevant to the future of Xinjiang archeology is the formation
of sedentary oasis cultures and their interaction with pastoral peoples. As we
noticed above, there is ample evidence in Xinjiang to assume the existence of
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

prolonged contacts and continuous exchange between agriculturalists and herd-

ers. Many questions, however, are still unanswered: Can we establish in Xinjang
a cultural chronology similar to those worked out by Russian archeologists for
the rest of Central Asia? Can any cultural relationship be established between
cultural centers in Xinjiang, such as Alagou and Gumugou, and the Andronovo
and Karasuk cultures? Was the development of metallurgy in Xinjiang closely
linked to the expansion of nomadism, and if so, how? Is there any evidence of
migrations and subsequent sedentarization of nomadic people? What was the
direction or the pattern of migration of pastoral people in Xinjiang, if any? Given
that we find centers of mining activities, such as Nileke, are these in any way
related to a definite pattern of metallurgical production and trade, and what are
the possible social implications?
In her article, P’iankova deals with the issue of chronology, as well as with
the question of nomadic migration and sedentarization.The early Bronze sites in
the south Aral Sea area are associated with waves of settlements of steppe tribes
from the north. For instance, the pastoral Tazabag’iab culture, once it moved to
the south, took a definite agricultural orientation,with permanent settlements and
irrigation canals. In the Bronze Age, metalworking had already evolved into an
independent economic activity among the steppe tribes. Identification of the
settlements of pastoral nomads and mixed agro-pastoral people, which were
not lasting and therefore distinct from those inhabited permanently by agricul-
tural communities, as well as distinctive burial and ceramic types, allow
P‘iankova to establish that pastoral and agricultural people lived in close prox-
imity to each other.
In the southern regions of Central Asia a significant infiltration of northern
peoples is noted, around the end of the second millennium B.C.,which gave birth
to various forms of contacts with the preexisting cultures: coexistence, exchange,
and the development of multicultural complexes. The opportunity for exchanges
 94 ANTHROPOLOGY di ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

and increasing economic specialization must have been behind the phenomenon
of the disappearance of the steppe ceramic tradition in the contact zone between
steppe and sown, as the ceramic industry becomes dominated by forms typical of
the agricultural, sedentary tradition. By contrast, the northern steppe centers of
metalworking continue to play a dominant role. Finally, P'iankova shows how
inadvisable it is to assume an extreme evolutionist viewpoint. Rapid transforma-
tion of certain cultural complexes must be attributed to external influences,
though it is often impossible to clearly determine whether a given development
is the result of exchanges, contacts, or hll-scale migrations.
The article by Vinogradova and Kuz'mina tackles the issue of migrations
even more pointedly. The evidence of intrusive nomadic movements into agri-
cultural areas presented in this article illustrates various processes. In Tekkem
Tepe the anival of nomads brought to an end the extant settled culture. This
southern migratory wave was followed by others that led to the expansion of the
Andronovo culture in Central Asia. As predominantly pastoral people estab-
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

lished themselves in these southern areas, patterns of interaction emerged be-

tween them and the agricultural sedentary population. Again, we have some
evidence that proximity of different cultures eventually led to specialization:
agricultural centers specialized in farming and some craftsmanship, while im-
porting bronze (probably in the form of ingots) from the pastoral people. Eventu-
ally, conditions were created for the integration of both productive systems in a
comprehensive economic system. This condition, according to the authors, was
due to the ability of the nomads to move from their northern steppe pastures to
southern areas, in closer proximity to agricultural centers. By arguing for a
north-to-south direction of migrations, the authors show the vital role played by
the Andronovo nomads in the diffusion of their metallurgical culture.
Wang Binghua points out in his article how similar some of the features of
Xinjiang archeology are to Central Asian archeological cultures such as the
Afanasievo, Andronovo, and Karasuk. This type of comparative work,however,
so far has not been carried out systematically, and, if parallels are to be drawn,
these cannot be limited to noticing the existence of broadly similar objects.
Processes of cultural development also need to be explored and compared. Gen-
erally speaking, two directions of research seem particularly important for the
future of Xinjiang archeology: the study of the early pastoral nomadic cultures
and of their interaction with settled people. The following is a brief introduction
to our knowledge of both questions.

Early nomads

The silk and lacquer of obvious Chinese provenance unearthed at Pazyryk and at
the Alagou I1 cemetery show that the region to the far northwest of the Central
Plains in this period had a degree of interaction with China. Archeological stud-
ies have allowed a partial mapping of the presence of nomadic people in
 SPRING 1996 95

Xinjiang from the eighth to third century B.c., who are referred to as Saka
[Wang, 19851. The archeological “Saka culture” has been based primarily on the
discovery of a cache of bronzes in Xinyuan County (Ili, Xinjiang) in 1983,
described in Wang Binghua’s article. Most large bronzes show clear connections
with southern Siberia, the Altai region, and Central Asia. Thefu cauldron also
found in Xinyuan County and regarded as a typical nomadic artifact was cast in
sectional molds, a Chinese technique that must have been imported through the
Northern Zone complex in the western Zhou and Spring and Autumn periods.
North of the Tien Shan Mountains of western Xinjiang, a poorly known
culture of large earthen kurgans, all visible on the surface, has been attributed to
the Wusun. One of the few excavated “Wusun” cemeteries at Xiatai (Zhaosu)
has revealed different types of burial customs, dated to three different phases.
The earliest phase, pre-Han, exhibits a funerary chamber with earthen walls and
an entrance reinforced with wooden poles, whereas the later tombs make greater
use of timber. The assemblage includes small bronze and iron objects. Iron and
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

gold objects appear in greater quantity in burials of the later period. Findings of
silk, undated, may be contemporary with the Pazyryk finds, and point to contacts
with China.
Another example of early nomadic culture is the Xiangbaobao cemetery in
the Pamir region (Tashkurgan, Xinjiang), where forty tombs have been investi-
gated [Anonymous, 1981al. Two different types of burial customs were evenly
distributed: interment in stone kurgans and cremation. The funerary assemblage
includes only small bronzes, almost all ornamental, some of which, such as the belt
plaques, resemble those from the Ordos region. In general this site shows signs of
partly settled, partly nomadic habitation and a relatively poor grave inventory.
The people are Europoid of the Indo-Afghan type, common in Central Asia.
The later Saka phase, represented by the Alagou I1 culture of the Alagou
necropolis (Toqsun, Xinjiang) to the south of the Tien Shan range, is dated to the
Warring States and Western Han period [Anonymous, 1981bl. The Alagou I
phase, attributed to the Gushi people, already displayed elements characteristic
of a pastoral culture. Alagou 11, however, has a far richer funerary inventory,
which includes large bronzes, such as a square basin similar to the one found in
Ili, decorative plaques in gold and silver, small iron knives, lacquer, and silk.
The decoration on the ornamental plaques, with facing tigers, recumbent felines,
and wolf heads in gold and silver, belongs fully to the Ordos artistic idiom. This
decorative art, and the presence of luxury goods imported from China, hint at a
possible evolution in the funerary inventory from utilitarian or ritual bronzes,
such as weapons and vessels, to ornamental objects and precious metals. A
similar pattern can be discerned also in the Ordos region.
Archeologists date the use of copper mines found in Xinjiang in the locality
of Nulasai and Yuantoushan (Nileke) to a period from 700 to 490 B.C. This
dating places the mines in the context of the bronzes found in the Ili region and
attributed to a Saka cultural sphere. The prolonged use of the mines indicates
 96 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

that these sites were centers of metallurgical production, and their extensive
exploitation may have been an important, perhaps decisive, factor in the expan-
sion of Saka culture in the region.

Interaction between nomads and settled people

From Hou Can’s article we deduce the existence of a far wider network of
populated settlements than is usually acknowledged. Though his data refer to a
later period, the environmental situation described is conducive to thinking that
conditions for settled life were more favorable in earlier periods, when the de-
gree of land exploitation, wind erosion, and desertification must have been less
severe, since most sites were only abandoned in historical times [Hoyanagi,
1975, pp. 95-96; Zhao and Xing, 19841.
Findings from settlements and burial sites in Xinjiang and Gansu show the
existence of a close relationship between agricultural and nomadic groups. More
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

than other regions of Asia, Xinjiang was characterized by economically diverse

groups living in close proximity. The anthropological picture also shows a vari-
ety of different types. Investigation of human skulls and bones from Wusun
tombs and other sites has demonstrated the existence of various Europoid types:
meso-dolichocranial proto-Caucasoid in the Lob-nor region in the Bronze Age;
brachycranial Caucasoid in the early Iron Age in the upper Ili region; and dolicho-
cranial Caucasoid in the Pamir region who later entered the Lob-nor region and
mixed with the local people. At the same time we also have a Indo-Afghan or
eastern Mediterranean type that infiltrates the Tien Shan region [Han, 1986; Han
and Pan, 1987; Han, 1990; Keith, 19291.
During the Bronze and early Iron Ages we find vestiges of agricultural pro-
duction in several areas. Millet seems to have been the main staple in Xintala,
Gumugou, and Sidaogou. Wheat was cultivated in Xintala, Gumugou, Shirenzi,
Kuisu, Lanzhouwanzi, Ranjiagou, and Qunbake; barley has been found in Al-
agou [Debaine-Francfort, 1989, p. 207; Hiebert and Chen, 19951. Moreover,
millet was found in kurgans of the Pazyryk culture, showing that it was “ex-
ported” to areas inhabited by nomads [Jettmar, 1967, p. 1281.
In the oases around the depression of the Takla Makan, a number of “states”
and settled communities flourished in the second half of the first millennium B.C.
According to historical sources, the majority of the states and peoples of Central
Asia were sedentary and had trade and tribute relations with the Xiongnu, a
nomadic people who in the second century B.C. became the political masters of
the region [T’ang, 1981; Ban Gu, vol. 70, p. 30101. These states had a relatively
small population and the range of their political and administrative control is
unlikely to have gone beyond the system of a single oasis or river valley. The
scope of their economic activities, however, must have been wider. Their cities
had walls, and their inhabitants lived by cultivating fields and raising domesti-
cated animals [Bergman, 1939, p. 501. Recently archeological evidence has
 SPRING 1996 97

shown that in several areas of Xinjiang, agriculture was practiced. At Niya, in

the northern part of Minfeng county, the main economic activities consisted of
agriculture, horticulture, and animal breeding [Anonymous, 1983, pp. 64481.
Permanent settlements stretched for several kilometers along both banks of the
Niya River. The residents of this settlement used developed iron agricultural
tools and exchanged their farming products for woollen textiles produced by
people who specialized in animal husbandry [Ma and Sun, 19941. Other ancient
settlements investigated in Xinjiang include the ruins of Quhui, Shaerdun, and
Xikeqin, respectively identified with the ancient states of Yanqi, Weixu, and
Yuli [ibid., pp. 68-69]. At Loulan, however, people relied chiefly on domestic
animals, fishing, and hunting; farming apparently did not take place, but grain
was imported from neighboring areas [Ma and Wang, 1994; Ma and Sun, 19941.
Another important element is the discovery of settlements and farming in
predominantly nomadic areas from Gansu to the Ili region. Gansu and Qinghai
were part of the vast Eurasian region where steppe cultures thrived, and they had
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

close cultural ties with Xinjiang. A citadel has been found in Minqin county, in
the Gansu corridor, as part of a site of the Shajing culture. Crudely made stone
tools and the presence of a permanent fortified settlement point to the existence
of a settled society. At the same site a large number of bronze artifacts include
ornamental plates, buckles, axes, knives, arrowheads and other objects whose
nature, shape, and style are usually associated with steppe nomads. The C 14 date
of the settlements is 560 ( 90) B.c.,with a calibrated date of 780 B.C. [An, 1992,
pp. 330-311.
At several sites in the eastern part of Xinjiang both metal and stone agricul-
tural implements (sickles, millstones, and pestles) are found together with bronze
“nomadic” elements. This pattern is common to several cultures spanning ap-
proximately from 1000 to 400 B.c.,from which we can recall the Aketala culture
(Shuh county), the Sidaogou culture in eastern Xinjiang, the Wupu culture
(Hami region), and the Alagou culture in the Turfan Basin. In Kezierqieqia, a
site associated with the Wupu culture, a plowing tool with a long handle was
found, and also a body of Europoid type, with blonde hair and a prominent nose;
the tattoos on his hands, arms, and upper back are similar to those of the body
from the Pazyryk burials [Debaine-Francfort, 1988, p. 19].The Alagou culture,
dated around the fifth-fourth century B.c., is more typically nomadic. Here the
presence of stone pestles and other implements points to the existence of limited
agriculture [Mu, 19841.
In Xinjiang numerous bronze objects related to the Ordos cultural complex,
which date from about 1000 B.c.,have been recovered in, for example, Hami,
Balikun, and Mulei counties [Wang, 19861. Although the findings seem to sug-
gest an evolution in certain local culturessuch as Sidaogou [Debaine-Francfort
1988, p. 25Efrom an earlier agricultural stratum to a later nomadic stratum, this
cultural and temporal divide is by no means as clear-cut as it is sometimes made
to appear. In fact, in the Bronze and Iron Ages the stone tools are only gradually
 98 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

replaced by bronze and iron ones, including technologically advanced iron plows
[Chen, 19891. In Xintala and Quhui, located to the south of the Tien Shan
mountain range, both stone and iron tools were used in an economic environ-
ment where agriculture still played the major role, although stock breeding,
hunting, and fishing were also practiced [Zhang and Wang, 19891.
In the Ili region, an area associated in Chinese archeological literature with
the Saka and Wusun nomadic peoples [Wang, 19851, findings indicate the pres-
ence of farming. The remains of earthen walls of dwellings and ancient irrigation
canals in Tekesi county, together with bronze objects of pastoral nomads of the
Wamng States period [Wang, 19621, are clear evidence of fanning communities.
Moreover, iron agricultural tools (such as an iron hoe) have been found in tombs
of Wusun peoples [Mu, 1984, p. 58; Anonymous, 19621. The excavation of
Wusun tombs at Xifengou has brought to light a variety of agricultural iron
implements that established not only the existence of agriculture but also a quite
advanced level of development [Lin Gan, 1988, p. 31. In the western part of
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

Xinjiang the presence of Bronze Age stone agricultural tools, such as sickles and
hoes, which have been found in the areas of Aksu and Shufu, is also evidence of
the widespread importance of agriculture in the region [An, 1992, pp. 33 1-32].
Therefore, the area roughly included in what is today Xinjiang and Gansu
indicates various degrees of interaction between nomads and agriculturalists.The
southern city-states and sedentary settlements in the Tarim Basin and Turfan
region, with an essentially agricultural economy, had close commercial and po-
litical ties with the surrounding nomadic peoples, who were presumably organ-
ized in groups with a certain degree of social, political, and territorial cohesion.
In addition to these there were other communities in which agriculture and stock
breeding complemented each other. Examples of this can be found in the Loulan
region and more generally in the eastern part of Xinjiang. Given the large num-
ber of bronze artifacts found in the eastern areas (and in particular in Hami and
Barkol) it is likely that nomadic people lived in close proximity to the local
agropastoral communities. Stylistic elements in their textiles and other features
also reveal that this region had cultural and possibly commercial links with the
settled communities of Ferghana and Bactria [Sylvan, 1941, pp. 89-98; Debaine-
Francfort, 1987, p. 2031.
In conclusion, we have sufficient evidence to start considering, in Xinjiang,
questions such as those now discussed in the Russian literature on Central Asian
archeology, which involve the general patterns of evolution of different cultural
complexes. The questions that can be asked in Xinjiang archeology do not in-
volve only the issue of affinities in the material cultures of Xinjiang and Central
Asia, but especially, and in my view more interestingly, issues related to the
formation of nomadic cultures and their interaction with settled oases’ agricul-
tural cultures. Reaching an understanding of these questions is essential in as-
sessing the nature and extent of the contacts between China proper, Xinjiang,
and areas further west in the Bronze and early Iron Ages.
 SPRING 1996 99

References

An Zhimin. “The Bronze Age in the Eastern Parts of Central Asia.” In History of the
Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. 1. The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700
B.c.. eds. A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson. Paris: UNESCO, 1992, pp. 319-36.
Anonymous. “Zhaosu xian gudai muzang shiju jianbao.” Wenwu, 1962, no. 7-8, pp.
98-102.
Anonymous. “Pamier gaoyuan gu mu.” Kaogu xuebao, 198 I , no. 2, pp. 199-2 16.
Anonymous. “Xinjiang Alagou shuxue muguo mu fajue jianbao.” Wenwu, 1981, no. 1,
pp, 18-22.
Anonymous. Xinjiang kaogu sanshi nian. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 1983.
Anonymous. “Xinjiang Hejingxian Chawuhu goukou yi hao mudi.” Kaogu xuebao, 1988,
no. 1, pp. 75-99.
Askarov, A. “The Beginning of the Iron Age in Transoxiana.” In History of the Civiliza-
tions of Central Asia. Vol. 1. The Dawn of Civilization:Earliest Times to 700 B.c.,pp.
441-58.
Askarov, A.; Volkov, V.; and Ser-Odjav, N. “Pastoral and Nomadic Tribes at the Begin-
ning of the First Millennium B.c.”In ibid., pp. 459-75.
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

Ban Gu.Hun Shu. 12 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1964.

Bergman, Folke. Archeological Researches in Sinkiang, Especially the Lop-nor Region.
Stockholm: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1939.
Chen Ge. “Xinjiang chutu de zaoqi tie qi-jian tan wo guo kaishi shiyong tie qi de shijian
wenti.” In Qingzhu Su Bingqi kaogu wushiwu nian lunwen ji. Beijing: Wenwu
chubanshe, 1989, pp. 425-32.
Chemykh, E. Ancient Metallurgv in the USSR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992.
Debaine-Francfort, Corinne. “Archhlogie du Xinjiang des origines aux Han.” Part 1.
Paleorient, 1988, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 5-29.
. “Archeologie du Xinjiang des origines aux Han.” Part 2. Paleorient, 1989, vol.
15, no.,l, pp. 183-213.
. “Etude comparative des matkriels lithiques protohistoriques chinois (Chine m b
politaine et Asie Centrale).” In L ’Asie centrale et ses rapports avec les civilisations
orientales, des origines a I’age du fer. Memoires de la Mission Archeologique
franqaise en Asie Centrale, vol. 1. (Actes du colloquefranco-sovietique). Paris: D i f i -
sion de Boccard, 1987, pp. 197-206.
Di Cosmo, Nicola. “Ancient Inner Asian Nomads: Their Economic Basis and Its Signifi-
cance in Chinese History.” JournalofAsianStudies, 1994, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1092-126.
Gai Shanlin. “Cong Nei Meng Yinshan yanhua kan gudai beifang youmu minzu de lishi
gongxian.” In Sichou zhi lu yanhua yishu, ed. Zhou Jinbao. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin
chubanshe, 1993, pp. 1-43.
Grjaznov, Michail P. Der GroJkurgan von Artan in Tuva, Sudribirien. Munich: C. H.
Beck, 1984.
Han Kangxin. “Xinjiang Kongjiaohe Gumugou mudi rengu yanjiu.” Kaogu Xuebao,
1986, no. 1, pp. 361-84.
. “Xinjiang Hami Yanbulake gumu rengu zhongxi chengfen yanjiu.” Kaogu
Xuebao, 1990, no. 3, pp. 371-90.
Han Kangxin, and Pan Qifeng. “Xinjiang Zhaosu Wusun mu ku renleixue cailiao de
yanjiu.” Kaogu Xuebao, 1987, no. 4, pp. 503-23.
Hancar, F. Das Pferd in prahistorischer undfriihhistorischer Zeit. Vienna: Herold, 1956.
Hiebert, Fredrik T. “Pazyryk Chronology and Early Nomads Reconsidered.” Bulletin of
the Asia Institute, 1992, vol. 6, pp. 1 17-29.
 100 ANTHROPOLOGY & ARCHEOLOGY OF EURASIA

Hiebert, Fredrik T., and Chen, Kwang-tzuu. “The Late Prehistory of Xinjiang in Relation
to Its Neighbors.” Journal of World Prehistory, 1995, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 243-300.
Hoyanagi, Mutsumi. “Natural Changes of the Region Along the Old Silk Road in the
Tarim Basin in Historical Times.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo
Bunko, 1975, no. 33, pp. 85-113.
Hulsewe, Anthony F. P. China in Central Asia. The Early Stage 125 B.C.-A.D.23. An
Annotated Translation of Chapters 61 and 96 of the History of the Former Han Dy-
nasty. Sinica Leidensia XIV. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Jettmar, Karl. “The Karasuk Culture and Its South-Eastern Affinities.” Bulletin of the
Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1950, no. 22, pp. 1 16-23.
.Art of the Steppes. New York: Crown Publishers, 1967.
Karlgren, Bernhard. “Some Weapons and Tools of the Yin Dynasty.” Bulletin of the
Museum ofFar Eastern Antiquities, 1945, no. 17, pp. 101-44.
Keith, Arthur. “Human Skulls from Ancient Cemeteries in the Tarim Basin.” Journal of
the Anthropological Institute, 1929, no. 59, pp. 149-80.
Kenk, Roman. Grabfunde der Skythenzeit aus Tuva, Sud-Sibirien. Munich: C. H. Beck,
1986.
Kiselev, S . V. Drevniaia istoriia Iuzhnoi Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, 195 1.
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

Kuz‘mina, Elena E. “Les steppes de I’Asie centrale a I’Epoque du bronze: la culture

d’Andronovo.” Dossiers d’archeologie, no. 185 (Sept. 1993), pp. 82-89.
Li Xueqin. Eastern Zhou and Qin Civilizations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
Lin Gan. “Guanyu yanjiu Zhongguo gudai beifang minm wenhua shi de wo jian.” Nei
Menggu Dwue Xuebao, 1988, no. 1, pp. 1-1 3.
Lin Yun. “A Reexamination of the Relationship Between Bronzes of the Shang Culture
and of the Northern Zone.” In Studies of Shang Archaeology ed. K. C. Chang. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1986, pp. 237-73.
Littauer, M. A., and Crouwel, J. H. Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient
Near East. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Loehr, Max. “Weapons and Tools from Anyang, and Siberian Analogies.” American
Journal ofdrchaeology, 1949, no. 53, pp. 126-44.
Ma Yong, and Sun Yutang. 1994. “The Western Regions Under the Hsiung-nu and the
Han.” In History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol 2. The Development of Seden-
tary and Nomadic Civilizations: 700 B.c.-A.D. 250, ed. J. Harmatta. Paris: UNESCO,
1994, pp. 221-46.
Ma Yong, and Wang Binghua. “The Culture of the Xinjiang Region.” In ibid., pp. 209-
25.
Martynova, Galina S. “The Beginning of the Hunnic Epoch in South Siberia.” Arctic
Anthropology, 1988, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 61-83.
Mu Shunying. “Development and Achievement of Archeology in Xinjiang Since the
Founding of New China.” Journal of Central Asia, 1984, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 55-72.
Piggott, Stuart. “Chinese Chariotry: An Outsider’s View.” In Arts of the Eurasian
Steppelands, ed. Philip Denwood. Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia, no. 7.
London: Percival David Foundation, 1978, pp. 32-5 I .
. The Earliest Wheeled Transport: From the Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.
Shaughnessy, Edward. “Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot into
China.” Harvard Journal ofAsiatic Studies, 1988, vol. 4, no. I , pp. 18P-237.
Sylvan, Vivi. Woollen Textiles of the Lou-Ian People. Stockholm: Elanders Boktryckeri
Aktiebolag, 1941.
T’ang Ch’i. “Agrarianism and Urbanism, and Their Relationship to the Hsiung-nu Em-
pire.’’ Central Asiatic Journal, 198 1, no. 1-2, pp. 1 10-20.
 SPRING I996 I01

Tian Guangjin. “Jinnianlai de Nei Menggu diqu de xiongnu kaogu.” Kaogu xuebao, 1983,
no. 1, pp. 7-24.
von Dewail, Magdalene. Pferd und Wagen imfriihen China. Bonn: Habelt, 1964.
Wang Binghua. “Tekesi xian chutu de gudai tongqi.” Wenwu, 1962, no. 7-8, pp. 114-16.
. “Gudai Xinjiang Sairen lishi gouchen.” Xinjiang shehui kexue yanjiu, 1985, no.
16, pp. 8-19. (Translated by Corinne Debaine-Francfort, and published as “Recher-
ches historiques preliminaires sur les Saka du Xinjiang ancien,” Arts Asiatiques, 1987,
no. 42, pp. 3 1 4 4 . )
. “Xinjiang dongbu faxian de jibi tongqi.” Kaogu, 1986, no. 10, pp. 887-91.
. “Xi Han yi qian Xinjiang he Zhongyuan diqu lishi guanxi kaosu.” In Wang
Binghua, Sichou zhi lu kaogu yanjiu. Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin, 1993.
Wu En. “Yin zhi Zhou chu de beifang qingtong qi.” Kaogu xuebao, 1985, no. 2, pp.
135-56.
. “A Preliminary Study of the Art of the Upper Xiajiadian Culture.” The Inferna-
tional Academic Conference of Archaeological Cultures of the Northern Chinese An-
cient Nations (Collected Papers), ed. Zhongguo kaogu wenwu yanjiusuo. Huhhot,
1992, no. 8, pp. 11-18.
Zhang Ping, and Wang Bo. “Heshuo xian Xintala he Quhui yizhi diaocha.” Kaogu yu
Downloaded by [] at 22:13 28 August 2015

wenwu, 1989, no. 2, pp. 16-19.

Zhao Songqiao, and Xing Jiaming. “Origin and Development of the Shamo (Sandy De-
serts) and the Gobi (Stony Deserts) of China.” In The Evolution of East Asian Environ-
ment, ed. Robert Orr White. Vol. 1. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University
of Hong Kong, 1984, pp. 230-5 1.