<<

. 13
( 15)



>>

43
Shih chi 28, 1383“84; Shih chi chu-yi 28, 988 (Chavannes, M©m. hist., 3: 461).
44
Shih chi 11, 446; Shih chi chu-yi 11, 278.


310
TA M I N G T H E N O RT H



Here the linkage between the eclipse and the Hsiung-nu invasion is ren-
dered by the proximity between two sentences, which implies a correlation
between “warning” and event.
The last example shows a relationship, again by appositional association
of two sentences, between the Chinese invasion of the Ferghana region, in
Central Asia, and a plague of locusts:
In the same year [104 b.c., the Han] attacked Ta-yüan [Ferghana] in the West.
Many locusts appeared. Ting Fu-jen and Yü Ch™u of Lo-yang put a curse on
the Hsiung-nu and Ta-yüan using shamanistic rituals.45
A possible interpretation of this passage is that the anomalous natural phe-
nomenon of the locusts was regarded as a consequence of the Han offen-
sive against the Western Regions, which may have been regarded by Ssu-ma
Ch™ien as “wrong” and likely to cause a natural disturbance. However, it
is also possible that the association was meant to imply that the Hsiung-nu
and the people of Ta-yüan used magic arts to conjure up a plague against
the Han and that the two fang-shih were used to neutralize it.46 Moreover,
the curse may have just been an extra “aid” to the Chinese expeditionary
forces that was intended to weaken the enemy at a time when the Han were
facing unexpected dif¬culties. We should also note that these events are told
immediately after the recording of the crucial event of the adoption of a
new calendar, in 104 b.c., and that all four events “ the new calendar, the
military expeditions, the locusts, and the curse “ may be related in some
way. Whatever the key to the comprehension of this passage, a linkage
between a natural event and a historical one that was taking place outside
China™s borders shows that correlations between the human and the
“natural” spheres had been extended to Inner Asia.

45
Shih chi 28, 1402; Shih chi chu-yi 28, 1001 (Chavannes, M©m. hist., 3: 515).
46
On the fang-shih see B. I. Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China
(Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press, 1985), pp. 375“78.




311
Conclusion




In this book I have aimed to establish a basis for the study of the early rela-
tions between China and Inner Asia. Looking for a beginning often means
approaching the goal from multiple avenues. Hence, I have examined the
archaeological record, which can yield information lost to the written
sources; the textual materials, which required placing the information pro-
vided by them in their historical contexts; and the ancient historians™
methods and intentions, which can enlighten us of the intellectual and his-
torical background of historiography. In my conclusions, even when pre-
sented as partial critiques of earlier theories, I have tried primarily to offer
interpretations that are consistent with the evidence not only internal to a
single set of sources but also drawn from multiple sources.
Yet the subject of this book is crossed by too many open questions, and
thus arguments can be only offered tentatively; there is no doubt that much
will need to be corrected as more materials and new interpretations become
available. Archaeology is the area in which most of these advances may be
expected in the short term, for the materials already accumulated are vast
(and growing daily) and new archaeological projects are being negotiated
and carried out as we write. Moreover, the study of historiography in China
is far from obsolete; ¬nally, texts excavated from ancient graves are adding
new dimensions to our knowledge of the early history of China, and of its
social and intellectual life.
The picture of the early history of the relations between China and Inner
Asia that I have presented is a composite formed by four related and yet
relatively independent narratives, each of which not only corresponds to a
distinct “phase” in a historical process of change of the frontier but also
presents a special quality determined by the particular sources and prob-
lems that we must consider. These four narratives are not fully compatible,
and seeking to present a single “master narrative” would have forced such
313
ANCIENT CHINA AND ITS ENEMIES



over- and underinterpretations of the sources that it would eventually
have presented a dramatically impoverished picture of an otherwise truly
complex phenomenon. To preserve that complexity, the four “narratives”
have been kept to a certain extent separate and independent.
The ¬rst “instantiation” of a recognizable frontier between China and
the north can de detected in the earliest archaeological records since we see,
already in the second millennium b.c., that people inhabiting the “north”
begin to develop their own cultural norms, social structures, and religious
beliefs. Yet this early frontier cannot be represented as one between a
“Sinitic” sphere and a northern, more or less uniform, cultural block. This
block must be broken down into separate focuses of political and economic
activity and into discrete cultural areas. This frontier, moreover, did not
appear in isolation. Indeed, its emergence is a function of the permeability
of the north to multiple external in¬‚uences and of its own internal
dynamism. Finally, relations between northern peoples and the core areas
of Chinese civilization do not occur with the same intensity at all times and
places. Further research will be needed to identify the factors that most
in¬‚uenced the relationship, and the lines along which it developed.
The second “frontier” I endeavored to analyze is one that tends to sep-
arate China (the Chou community) from the world outside by means of a
cultural barrier. The image of a “civilized” world pitched against a barbaric
wilderness is, however, only a partial, and an ideologically loaded, inter-
pretation of the relations between China and the north, which, as several
scholars have noted, does not exhaust the range of relations between
Chinese and northern peoples. In reality, these “cultural” statements, if ana-
lyzed in their contexts, re¬‚ect some important elements constitutive of the
Chinese political realities in the Spring and Autumn period. In particular,
as we have seen, they can be interpreted as an expression of the Chou states™
expansionist strategies and search for new resources. This is, then, a fron-
tier determined to a large extent by the ebullient politics of the Eastern
Chou period. Of what was happening on the Inner Asian side, however,
little is known. What we can detect is limited to the existence of scattered
polities, some of them possibly quite large and powerful, which in the long
run could not sustain the competition with the stronger Chinese states and,
one after the other, succumbed to and were incorporated by the growing
Central Plain states. This frontier cannot be recognized as one dictated by
ecological conditions or deeply different lifestyles. Differences among the
Hua-Hsia peoples, Jung, Ti, and Yi surely existed, but similar cultural dis-
tinctions also existed among Chinese states, and, as the example of the cul-
turally “sinicized” Chung-shan state proves, cultural gaps could be ¬lled
even though a community retained a foreign “ethnic” name. This political
frontier reached its maximum northward expansion at the end of the
Warring States period, with the construction of the northern “walls.”
Although they represent the maximum expansion of Chinese power before
314
CONCLUSION



the uni¬cation of China, they are also the ¬rst step towards the creation of
a much “harder” frontier, which will emerge with the encounter between
“true nomads” and Chinese, in the third century b.c.
The third “frontier” is the frontier of treaties and tributes, diplomatic
correspondence, and bridal exchange between the two “superpowers” of
the age: the Hsiung-nu, who had uni¬ed the nomadic tribes, and the Han
dynasty, ruling over a uni¬ed China. Whereas the previous “narrative” was,
in the last instance, created by Chinese politics as a spin-off of interstate
relations, this frontier “narrative” assigns to Inner Asia a much more central
role. The transformation of frontier relations that followed the appearance
of the Hsiung-nu empire should not be seen as yet another (more virulent)
example of the age-long competition between the nomadic north and the
sedentary south. Instead, the dynamics that led to the formation of a uni¬ed
nomadic confederacy are examined from a perspective that takes into
account other instances of state formation in an Inner Asian context. This
analysis indicates that the probable cause for the emergence of a statelike
structure lay in a political mechanism already in existence within the tribal
society of the nomads, which allowed for the centralization of political and
military power at times of crisis. This mechanism of social survival was
“triggered” by the growing threat posed to the Hsiung-nu by the Ch™in inva-
sion of the Ordos territories. The initial impetus of the uni¬cation, however,
was directed not against China but against other nomads, who were
defeated and assimilated, or allowed to join. As the frontier started to be
de¬ned in territorial and political terms as a boundary between Hsiung-nu
and China, frontier relations started to be regulated through court-to-court
correspondence, diplomatic missions, and exchanges of tribute. Trade
relations were also subject to stricter supervision, and their implementation
carried out according to international agreements. The frontier, therefore,
marked the limits of the political in¬‚uence of the two states. If this frontier
in part coincided with an ecological boundary between a predominantly
steppic zone and a predominantly agricultural zone, this is because the
nomads had recovered previously lost pastureland and, secondarily, because
their raids into Chinese territory did not take the shape of migrations: the
Hsiung-nu, who cannot have been originally a very numerous people, pre-
ferred to expand to the west and to the north, in territories with which they
had possibly had contacts for a long period of time. When the Chinese coun-
terattacked during the time of Wu-ti, that ecological boundary was once
again violated as the Han troops pushed the borders of the dynasty far
beyond the traditional extension of China.
Finally, the fourth “frontier” is the one created by the historian himself,
Ssu-ma Ch™ien. Two elements contributed to the appearance of the “master
narrative” of the north that to this day, partly consciously, partly uncon-
sciously, informs our knowledge and conceptualization of the frontier:
the great expansion of historical knowledge collected and transmitted by
315
ANCIENT CHINA AND ITS ENEMIES



Ssu-ma Ch™ien, and the particular frame in which he inserted it. The detailed
descriptions of the Hsiung-nu makes them come alive, with their horses and
animals, bows and arrows, simple laws and martial ardor. These are the
ancient nomads as we know them, and this is the history that needs to be
constantly tapped to study not only the early but also the later relations
between China and the nomads. But Ssu-ma Ch™ien also strove to insert the
nomads in a general frame of history that ¬nally placed the northern peoples
in a position central to historical knowledge as was understood then, that
is, as part of a larger order of cosmic and human actions mutually in¬‚u-
encing each other. This last narrative gives to the history of the northern
frontier independent status as an object of investigation, but at the same
time it places the north in a position whose only referent is China: the
history of the nomads came into existence, as it were, because it was rele-
vant to China. This polarity has within itself the power to generate a false
causal relationship, namely, that not only Ssu-ma Ch™ien™s narrative, but
also very the history of the Hsiung-nu, and perhaps of the nomads, came
into existence as a product of the timeless frontier relationship between
nomads and China. Without denying that the frontier was a place vibrant
with exchanges and mutual stimuli, we need to recognize that Ssu-ma
Ch™ien™s narrative “interprets” history according to his own age™s beliefs
and his own intent, and therefore we need to approach it critically. This is
not a simple task, because virtually all we know about the rise of the
Hsiung-nu and the transformation of the frontier in the Ch™in-Han transi-
tion derives, in a historical sense, from the Shih chi, as does the model itself
of a monograph on the Hsiung-nu. In the last part of my book I introduced
the distinction between the descriptive and the normative aspects of Hsiung-
nu history as a ¬rst attempt to use this source critically and to identify its
different strands.
In sum, this book, by seeking to identify processes that appear to be
beneath and behind the creation of historical paradigms “ be they ideolog-
ical, ethical, or “cosmological” “ endorses a perspective that is consciously
directed toward the acquisition, ¬rst of all, of a better understanding of
ancient Inner Asian history. Naturally, this affects deeply also our under-
standing of Chinese history, as the two are intimately related, but while the
depths of China™s complex early history have been plumbed for some time
(and continue to be plumbed at an extraordinary rate), Inner Asian history
is still virgin territory.
At present, research carried out on Inner Asian topics, for example, on
the origin of pastoral nomadism, on the development of trade, or the “rise
and fall” of northern cultures, is based on a perspective very often subor-
dinated to the history of China. Thus the development of intensive agri-
culture and state institutions in the Central Plain are often held to be the
main stimulus to social and economic developments identi¬able in the
north, at least from the point in time in which the Chinese civilization
316
CONCLUSION



emerged as the dominating cultural force in East Asia. There is no denying
that the Shang and Chou civilizations had contacts with the north, and
surely a dialectical relationship was established, as we have seen, early on.
But surely too these relations were subject to variations in time, space, and
intensity; moreover, they cannot be regarded as “exclusive” as northern
peoples had also contacts among themselves (the archaeological record is
explicit about this) and with other cultures elsewhere in Asia. The full real-
ization of the complexity of China™s northern “history” should generate
questions that would take account of dynamics of cultural and social devel-
opments that cannot be assumed to have been derivative or secondary.
Finally, the Inner Asian perspective also allows us to question traditional
interpretations of Chinese history. In this book I have re-examined, for
instance, the question of the origin of the Great Wall. The conclusion I have
reached is at odds with the standard narrative of a wall that was protect-
ing China against barbarous invaders but possibly is closer to a historical
analysis that does not take the timeless opposition between the martial
north and the civilized south as an obligatory blueprint. Clearly, a recon-
ceptualization of Inner Asian history needs to account for both the advan-
tages and the limitations that Chinese sources present and try to eschew as
much as possible those positions that would excessively subordinate the his-
torical narrative to the frame of reference provided by the Chinese sources.




317
Glossary




A
A-ha-t™e-la
A-lu-ch™ai-teng
An-yang
Ao-han

C
Ch™a-wu-hu-kou
Chan-kuo Ts™e
Chan-tou
ch™an-yü (shan-yü)
Ch™ang (Earl of the West)
ch™ang ch™eng
Chang Ch™ien
Chang Wu
ch™ang yüan
Ch™ang-an
Ch™ang-men
Ch™ang-p™ing (county)
Chang-yi (commandery)
ch™ao (court visit)
Chao (state)
Chao Li
Chao P™o-nu
Ch™ao Ts™o
Chao-hsin
Ch™ao-hsien
Ch™ao-tao-kou
Ch™ao-yang

319
G L O S S A RY



Chao-yao
Ch™en (state)
Ch™en Hsi
Cheng (state)
ch™eng (assistant)
Cheng-chia-wa-tzu
ch™eng-li
Ch™eng Pu-chih
ch™eng yi chia chih yen
Ch™eng-yüeh
chi (crisis)
chi of fu
chi (heavenly stem)
chi ch™i ch™eng-pai hsing-huai chih li
ch™i t™ien-hsing yeh
Ch™i (state)
Ch™i (Mt.)
Ch™i-chia
Ch™i-lao-t™u (Mountains)
Ch™i-lien (Mountains)
Chi-men
Chi-ning
ch™ien-jen
Ch™ih Ti
Ch™ih-feng
Ch™ih-yu (astronomical term)
Chia Yi
chia-tou
Chiang
Ch™iang
Chiang Jung
Chiang-kao-ju
Chiao-huo
Chieh-shih
Chin (state)
Ch™in (state)
Ch™in K™ai
chin Jung chih chih
Chin Mi-ti
Ch™in Shih Huang-ti
Ch™in-an
Ch™in-wei-chia
Chin-yang
Ching (river)
Ch™ing Ying
Ch™ing-chien (county)
ch™ing-chü chiang-chün


320
G L O S S A RY



ching-lu
Ch™ing-lung
Ching-pien
Ching-ti (Han emperor)
Ch™ing-yang
chiu chi (nine zones)
chiu chou (nine continents)
chiu t™ien jen chih chi
Chiu-ch™üan (commandery)
chiu-yi ling
Chiu-yüan
ch™iung-lu
chou
Chou li
Chou She
Chou Ya-fu
Chou-chia-ti
Ch™u (state)
chü hu
chu jung
chü-ch™i chiang-chün
Chu-chia-yü
ch™u-chiao shih
chü-ch™ü (Hsiung-nu title)
Chu-fu Yen
chu-hou-wang
Chu-k™ai-kou
Chu-na
Chü-shih
Chu-shu chi-nien
Ch™ü-wu
Chü-yen
Ch™ü-yen
Chü-yang
Ch™ü-yi
Ch™üan Jung
Chuan-ch™ang
Ch™üan-yi
chüeh
chüeh (vessel)
chüeh-t™i
Ch™un Ch™iu
chün-ch™en (Hsiung-nu title)
Ch™ün-pa-k™e
Chün-tu-shan
Chung
Chung-erh


321
G L O S S A RY



Chung-hang Yüeh
Chung-kuo
Chung-ning
Chung-shan
Chuo-tzu

D
Duke Huan of Ch™i
Duke Hsien of Chin
Duke Hui of Chin
Duke K™ang of Liu
Duke Li of Ch™i
Duke Mou-fu of Chai
Duke Mu of Ch™in
Duke Wen of Chin

E
E-chi-na
Emperor Mu
Erh-ch™ü
Erh-k™o-ch™ien
Erh-li-kang
Erh-li-t™ou
Erh-shih general
erh-shih-ssu ta ch™en

F
fa (law)
fan
Fan Hsüan-tzu
Fan K™uai
Fan-chia-yao-tzu
fang
Fang Shu
fang-shih
Fei
Fei-hu Pass
Fen (river)
fen-wen
fen-yeh
feng (sacri¬ce)
Feng (region)
Feng Shu
fu (zone)
Fu Ch™en
Fu Hao
322
G L O S S A RY



Fu-hsin
Fu-li
Fu-shih


H
Ha-ma-tun
Han An-kuo
Han Fei-tzu
Han Wu-ti
han-ch™e (astronomical term)
Han-shu (culture)
Hann (state)
Hann Wang Hsin
Hao
Heng-shan
Ho Yi
Ho-ch™i marquis Kung-sun Ao
ho-ch™in
Ho-hsi
Ho-lin-ko-erh
Ho-t™ao (commandery)
hou (captain)
Hou Ying
Hou-chia-chuang
Hou-yi-lu Marquis Nan-chih
Hsi-ch™a-kou
Hsi-feng
Hsi-kou-p™an
Hsi-liu
Hsi-yang
hsi-yü
hsi-yü tu-hu
Hsia (dynasty)
Hsia-chia-tien (culture)
Hsia-yang (city)
Hsiang-p™ing
Hsiang-tzu of Chao
Hsiao Wang-chih
hsiao-ch™i chiang-chün
Hsiao-t™un
Hsien-lei
Hsien-yü
Hsien-yün
Hsin-ch™in-chung
hsin-hai
Hsin-li
Hsin-tien
323
G L O S S A RY



Hsin-yüan P™ing
hsing (phase)
Hsing (state)
Hsing-ho
hsiu-t™u (Hsiung-nu title)
Hsiung-nu
Hsü Tzu-wei
Hsü Jung
Hsü-pu (Hsiung-nu clan)
Hsü-wu tribe (shih )
Hsüan (Queen Dowager of Ch™in)
Hsüan-ti (Han emperor)
Hsün Wu
Hsün-tzu
Hsün-yü
Hu Chi
hu Ch™iang hsiao-wei
hu Wu-huan hsiao-wei
Hu-chieh
Hu-han-yeh (Hsiung-nu chief)
Hu-lu-ssu-t™ai
Hu-Mo
Hu-shen-ha-pao T™ai-shan
Hu-yen (Hsiung-nu clan)
Hu-yen-t™i (Hsiung-nu ruler)
Hua-Hsia
Huai-lai
Huai-nan-tzu
Huan K™uan
huang
Huang Wen-pi
Huang-niang-niang-t™ai
huang-ti
hui (gathering)
Hui-mo
Hun-mi
Hun-yeh
Hun-yü
Huo Ch™ü-ping
Huo-shao-kou


J
Jen An
Jung
jung ch™e


324
G L O S S A RY


K

K™a-yüeh
Kan Fu
Kan-ch™üan
k™ao chih hsing shih
Kao-ch™üeh (commandery)
Kao-hung
Kao-nu
Kao-t™ai
Kao-tsu (Han emperor)
Ken-mou
King Chao of Ch™in
King Chao of Yen
King Chao-hsiang of Ch™in
King Chien of Chou
King Hsi of Yen
King Hsin of Hann
King Hsiang of Chou
King Hsüan
King Hsüan of Ch™i
King Hui
King Li
King of Po-yang
King of Tai
King P™ing of Chou
King Wei-lieh
King Wen of Chou
King Wu Ting (Shang)
King Yi
King Yu of Chou
ko
Ko-k™un
K™o-yin-chieh
Kou-chu (Mount)
k™ou-fu
k™u
Ku (city)
Ku Chieh-kang
Ku-liang
Ku-liang
Ku-shih
Ku-tu (Hsiung-nu title)
Ku-yen (Mount)
Ku-yüan (county)
kuan (pot)
kuan tu-wei


325
G L O S S A RY



Kuan Chung
Kuan Ying , Marquis of Ying-yin
Kuan-tung (place)
kuei (demons)
Kuei (river)
Kuei-fang
Kun Jung
K™un-lun
K™un-yi
kung (musical note)
Kung Yu
Kung Liu
Kung-sun Ho
Kung-sun Ao
Kung-tzu Ch™eng
Kung-yang
Kuo (state)
Kuo Ch™ang
Kuo Kung
Kuo Yi
Kuo-hsien-yao-tzu
Kuo-lang (city)
Kuo-yü

L
Lai-shui
Lan (Hsiung-nu clan)
Lang (Mount)
Lang-chü-hsü (Mount)
lang-chung
li (mile)
li (propriety)
li (tripod)
li (pattern)
Li Jung
Li Chi
Li K™o
Li Kuang
Li Kuang-li
Li Ling
Li Mu
Li Ssu
Li-chi
Li-chia-ya
Liang Ch™i-ch™ao
Liang-ch™eng
Liang-p™ing

326
G L O S S A RY



Liang-wu
Liang-yü Mi
Liao-hsi (commandery)
Liao-tung (commandery)
Lin (city)
Lin Hu
Lin Lü-chih
Lin Kan
Lin-che-yü
Lin-hsi
Lin-t™ao
Ling Mien
Liu Pang
Liu Li
Liu yüeh
Liu Ching
Liu-lin
lo
Lo
Lo (river)
Lo-yang
Lo-yi (city)
Lou-fan
Lou-lan
Lu (state)
Lu Po-te
Lu Wan
Lu (chiefdom)
Lü Hou (Han Empress Dowager)
Lu-ch™ü (Mount)
Lu-fu
Lu-hun
Lu-li king (Hsiung-nu title)
Lü-shih ch™un-ch™iu
Lu-t™u king (Hsiung-nu title)
luan (bells)
Luan (river)
Lun-t™ai
Lung (region)
Lung-ch™eng
Lung-hsi (commandery)
Lung-men

M
Ma Ch™ang-shou
Ma-chia-yao
Ma-wang-tui

327
G L O S S A RY



Ma-yi
Man
Man-Mo
Mao (Lunar Lodge)
Mao Jung
Mao-ch™ing-kou
Mao-t™ou (atronomical term)
Marquis of Sung-tzu
meng (covenant)
Meng T™ien
Meng Wen-t™ung
mi-li
Mi-yün
Mien
Mien-chu
Min-ch™in
Min-hsien
Mo
Modun (Mao-tun)
Mu T™ien tzu chuan

N
Na-lin-kao-t™u
nan (baron)
Nan-shan-ken
Nieh Weng-yi
Ning-ch™eng
No-mu-hung
nung tu-wei

P
Pa
Pa-shang
Pai Ti
Pai-chin-pao
Pai-fu
Pai-teng
pan (basin)
Pan Ku
Pao (river)
Pao-chang-shih
Pao-t™ou
Pao-te
pei chou
Pei Yi
Pei-chia
pei-fang ti-ch™ü
328
G L O S S A RY



Pei-hsin-pao
Pei-ti (commandery)
pen-chi
P™eng-p™u
Pi (Lunar Lodge)
pien
pien-sai
Pin (city)
ping
P™ing-ch™eng
P™ing-ch™üan
P™ing-shan
P™ing-yang (culture)
P™ing-yang
Po-hai
Po-tsung
Prince Tan of Yen
P™u
pu mu chih min
P™u-ni
Pu-tung-kou


S
San-chia-tzu
San-chiao-ch™eng
Sha-ching
Sha-ching-ts™un
shan (sacri¬ce)
Shan Jung
Shan hai ching
Shan-hai-kuan
Shan-tan (county)
shang (chief)
Shang (commandery)
Shang-ku (commandery)
Shang-sun
Shang-tang
Shen (Lunar Lodge)
Shen Nung
Shen-mu
Shi-erh-t™ai-ying-tzu
shih (circumstances)
shih (historian)
shih (lineage)
shih (to serve)
Shih (city)
Shih Nien-hai
329
G L O S S A RY



Shih ching
Shih-erh-lien-ch™eng
Shih-hui-kou
Shih-la-ts™un
Shih-lou
Shou-hsiang-ch™eng
Shu
Shu ching
shu-kuo
shu-kuo tu-wei
Shu-le (river)
Shui-chien-kou-men
Shun (Yü )
Shun-wei
Shuo-fang (commandery)
Shuo-yüan
ssu yi
Ssu-pa (culture)
Ssu-ma Ch™ien
Ssu-ma T™an
Ssu-wa (culture)
su
Su Chien
Su Yi , Chancellor of Ch™u
Su Ping-ch™i
Su-chi-kou
sui
Sun Ang
Sung (state)

T
ta ch™en
Ta ssu-ma
Ta hsing-ren
Ta-ch™ing (Mountain)
Ta-ching
ta-chung ta-fu
Ta-he-chuang
Ta-hei (river)
Ta-hsia (Bactria)
Ta-li
Ta-ling (river)
Ta-p™ao-tzu
ta-shu-chang (title)
Ta-ssu-k™ung (site)
ta-tang-hu (Hsiung-nu title)


330
G L O S S A RY



Ta-yüan
Tai (commandery)
Tai (name)
tai lin
T™ai-hang
T™ai-lai
t™ai-p™u
T™ai-shih-ling
t™ai-shou
T™ai-yüan (commandery)
Tan-fu
Tao Yi
T™ao-hung-pa-la
t™ao-t™u
Tao-tun-tzu
te
t™i-hu
ti-li chih
Ti-tao
T™ieh-chiang-kou
tien
T™ien
T™ien Tan
T™ien-chieh
t™ien-hsia
T™ien-shan
tien-shu-kuo
tien(t™o)-t™i
t™ien-tsu
T™ien-yen (Mountains)
t™ien-wen
ting (vessel)
Ting Fu-jen
Ting-hsiang (commandery)
Ting-ling
T™o-k™e-t™o
T™ou-man (Tumen)
Ts™ai (state)
Ts™ai ch™i
ts™ai-kuan chiang-chün
Ts™ai-sang
ts™ang
Tsao-yang
Tso-chuan
tso-ts™e (maker of bamboo books)
T™u-ch™i (Hsiung-nu title)
T™u-chüeh


331
G L O S S A RY



tu-wei
Tun-huang (commandery)
t™ung
Tung Hu
Tung Chung-shu
t™ung ku chin chih pien
Tung-ching (Lunar Lodge)
Tung-kuan
T™ung-kuan
Tung-nan-kou
tzu (viscount)
Tzu-ling (Mountain)



W
wang (king, prince)
Wang Huang
Wang Hui
Wang Kuo-wei
Wang Mang
wang-lo t™ien-hsia fang-shih chiu wen
Wen Hou of Wei
Wei (river)
Wei (state)
Wei Chiang
Wei Ch™ing
Wei Kuang
Wei-yang
Wen-ti (Han emperor)
Weng-niu-t™e-ch™i
Wey (state)
wu (Heavenly stem)
Wu
Wu-ch™ang
wu-chi hsiao-wei
Wu-chia
Wu-chih Lo
Wu-chih
Wu-chung Jung
Wu-huan
Wu-la-t™e-ch™ien-ch™i
Wu-ling, King of Chao
Wu-sun
Wu-ti (Han emperor)
wu wei
Wu-wei (commandery)
Wu-yüan (commandery)

332
G L O S S A RY


Y

Yang (Mountains)
Yang (area)
Yang-lang (site)
yao
Yao (T™ang )
yeh (wilderness)
Yen (state)
Yen t™ieh lun
yen-chih (Hsiung-nu title for queen)
Yen-chih (Mountain)
Yen-ch™ing
Yen-men (commandery)
yi (rigtheousness)
yi man-yi kung man-yi
yi yi chih yi
Yi (river)
Yi of Huai
Yi of Lai
Yi-chih-hsien
Yi Chou shu
Yi-ch™ü Jung
Yi-hsien
Yi-k™o-chao-meng
Yi-wu
Yin Jung
Yin (river)
Yin-hsü
Yin-shan
yin-yang
Ying Erh
yu
Yu Yü
Yü Ch™u
Yü Kung
yü jung
Yü-chia-chuang
Yü-hsi
Yü-lin
Yü-lung-t™ai
Yü-men
Yu-pei-p™ing (commandery)
Yü-shan
Yü-shu-kou
Yü-yang (commandery)
yüan kuo
yüan-kuang (reign title)
333
G L O S S A RY



yüan-shou (reign title)
Yüeh
Yüeh-chih
Yün-chung (commandery)
Yün-yang
Yung-ch™ang
Yung-teng




334
Select Bibliography




AA. VV. “Radiocarbon Dates of the Institute of Archaeology II.” Radiocarbon 12
(1970): 130“55.
“Ch™ang ch™eng wen-hsien tzu-liao chi-lüeh.” In Chung-kuo ch™ang-ch™eng yi-chi
tiao-ch™a pao-kao chi. Peking: Wen-wu, 1981, pp. 119“37.
“Ning-hsia ching-nei Chan-kuo Ch™in, Han ch™ang-ch™eng yi-chi.” In Chung-kuo
ch™ang-ch™eng yi-chi tiao-ch™a pao-kao chi. Peking: Wen-wu, 1981, pp. 45“51.
Aalto, Pentti. “The Horse in Central Asian Nomadic Cultures.” Studia Orientalia
46 (1975): 1“9.
Academy of Sciences MPR. Information Mongolia. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1990.
Akiner, Shirin. “Conceptual Geographies of Central Asia.” In Sustainable Devel-
opment in Central Asia, ed. Shirin Akiner et al. New York: St. Martin™s Press,
1998, pp. 3“62.
Alekseev, Valery P. “Some Aspects of the Study of Productive Forces in the Empire
of Chengiz Khan.” In Rulers from the Steppe, ed. Gary Seaman and Daniel
Marks. Los Angeles: Ethnographics Press/The University of Southern Califor-
nia, 1991, pp. 186“98.
Alekshin, V. A. “Problème de l™origin des cultures arch©ologiques du n©olithique et
de l™‚ge du Bronze en Asie centrale (d™après les rites fun©raires). In L™Asie cen-
trale et ses rapports avec les civilisations orientales des origines a l™Age du Fer.
Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1988, pp. 255“64.
Ames, Roger T. The Art of Rulership: A Study in Ancient Chinese Political Thought.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983.
An Chih-min. “Shih-lun Chung-kuo te tsao-ch™i t™ung-ch™i.” K™ao-ku 1993.12:
1110“19.
An Lu and Chia Wei-ming. “Hei-lung-chiang Ne-ho Er-k™e-ch™ien mu-ti chi ch™i
wen-t™i t™an-t™ao.” Pei-fang wen-wu 1986.2: 2“8.
An Zhimin [Chih-min]. “The Bronze Age in the Eastern Parts of Central Asia.” In
History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. 1: The Dawn of Civilization:
Earliest Times to 700 B.C., ed. A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson. Paris: Unesco,
1992, pp. 319“36.

335
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY


Andersson, J. C. “Researches into the Prehistory of the Chinese.” Bulletin of the
Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 15 (1943): 197“215.
Andreski [Andrzejewski], Stanislav. Military Organization and Society. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968 [1954].
Anthony, David. “The Opening of the Eurasian Steppe at 2000 bce.” In The Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, ed. Victor H. Mair.
Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 94“113.
Anthony, David W., and Dorcas R. Brown. “The Origin of Horseback Riding.”
Antiquity 65.246 (1991): 22“38.
Anthony, David, and Nikolai B. Vinogradov. “Birth of the Chariot.” Archaeology
48.2 (1995): 36“41.
Askarov, A. “The Beginning of Iron Age in Transoxiana.” In History of
Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. 1: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times
to 700 B.C., ed. A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson. Paris: Unesco, 1992, pp. 441“
58.
Askarov, A., V. Volkov, and N. Ser-Odjav. “Pastoral and Nomadic Tribes at the
Beginning of the First Millennium b.c.” In History of Civilizations of Central
Asia. Vol. 1: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Times to 700 B.C., ed. A. H.
Dani and V. M. Masson. Paris: Unesco, 1992, pp. 459“75.
Bacon, Elisabeth. Obok: A Study of Social Structure in Eurasia. New York: Wenner-
Gren Foundation, 1958.
Bagley, Robert. “Shang Archaeology.” In Cambridge History of Ancient China, ed.
Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1999, pp. 124“231.
Bailey, H. W. Indo-Scythian Studies. Khotanese Texts VII. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.
Balazs, Etienne. “L™histoire comme guide de la pratique bureaucratique.” In Histo-
rians of China and Japan, ed. W. G. Beasley and E. G. Pulleyblank. London:
Oxford University Press, 1961, pp. 78“94. [Trans. as “History as a Guide to
Bureaucratic Practice,” in Etienne Balazs, Chinese Civilization and Bureau-
cracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.]
Bar¬eld, Thomas. “The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign
Policy.” Journal of Asian Studies 41.1 (November 1981): 45“61.
The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China. Cambridge, Mass.: Black-
well, 1989.
Bazin, Louis. “Une texte proto-turc du IVe siecle: le distique Hiong-nou du ˜Tsin-
chou.™ ” Oriens 1 (1948): 208“19.
Les Systemes Chronologiques dans le Monde Turc Ancien. Budapest: Akad©miai
Kiadó, 1991.
Beckwith, Christopher I. “Aspects of the History of the Central Asian Guard Corps
in Islam.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4 (1984): 29“43.
“The Impact of the Horse and Silk Trade on the Economies of T™ang China and
of the Uighuir Empire.” Journal of the Social and Economic History of the
Orient 34.2 (1991): 183“98.
Benzing, J. “Das ˜Hunnisches.™ ” In Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, vol. 1, ed.
Jean Deny. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1959.
Bibikova, V. I. “On the History of Horse Domestication in South-East Europe.” In
Dmitriy Yakolevich Telegin, Dereivka: A Settlement and Cemetery of Copper
336
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY


Age Horse Keepers on the Middle Dnieper, ed. J. P. Mallory and trans. V. K.
Pyatkovskiy. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1986, pp. 163“82.
Bielenstein, Hans. The Bureaucracy of Han Times. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1980.
“The Restoration of the Han Dynasty. With Prolegomena on the Historiography
of the Hou Han Shu.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 26
(1954): 1“209.
“The Restoration of the Han Dynasty, Vol. 3: ˜The People.™ ” Bulletin of the
Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 39, part II (1967): 1“198.
Birrell, Anne. Chinese Mythology: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1993.
Bivar, A. D. H. “The Stirrup and Its Origin,” Oriental Art, n.s. 1, 1 (1955): 61“65.
Bodde, Derk. China™s First Uni¬er: Li Ssu. Leiden: Brill, 1938.
Statesman, Patriot and General in Ancient China. New Haven: American
Oriental Society, 1940.
Bokovenko, Nikolai A. “History of Studies and the Main Problems in the Archae-
ology of Southern Siberia during the Scythian Period.” In Nomads of the
Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age, ed. Jeannine Davis-Kimball et al. Berke-
ley: Zinat Press, 1995, pp. 255“61.
“Scythian Culture in the Altai Mountains.” In Nomads of The Eurasian Steppes
in the Early Iron Age, ed. Jeannine Davis-Kimball et al. Berkeley: Zinat Press,
1995, pp. 285“95.
“The Tagar Culture of the Minusinsk Basin,” In Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes
in the Early Iron Age, ed. Jeannine Davis-Kimball et al. Berkeley: Zinat Press,
1995, pp. 299“314.
“Tuva during the Scythian Period.” In Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the
Early Iron Age, ed. Jeannine Davis-Kimball et al. Berkeley: Zinat Press, 1995,
pp. 265“81.
Boodberg, Peter. “Turk, Aryan and Chinese in Ancient Asia.” In Selected Works of
Peter A. Boodberg, ed. Alvin P. Cohen. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1979, pp. 9“12.
Brentjes, Burchard. Arms of the Sakas. Varanasi: Rishi Publications, 1996.
Britton, Roswell. “Chinese Interstate Intercourse before 700 b.c.” American Journal
of International Law 29 (1935): 616“35.
Brodianskii, D. L. “Krovnovsko-Khunnskie paralleli.” In Drevnee Zabaikal™e
i ego kul™turnye sviazi, ed. P. B. Konovalov. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1985, pp. 46“
50.
Bulling, A. G. “Ancient Chinese Maps. Two Maps Discovered in a Han Dynasty
Tomb from the Second Century b.c.” Expedition 20. 2 (1978): 16“25.
Bunker, Emma C. “The Anecdotal Plaques of the Eastern Steppe Regions.” In
Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands, ed. Philip Denwood. Colloquies on Art
and Archaeology in Asia no. 7. London: Percival David Foundation, 1978,
pp. 121“42.
“Ancient Ordos Bronzes.” In Ancient Chinese and Ordos Bronzes, ed. Jessica
Rawson and Emma Bunker. Hong Kong: Museum of Art, 1990, pp. 291“307.
“Unprovenanced Artifacts Belonging to the Pastoral Tribes of Inner Mongolia
and North China during the Eighth“First Century b.c.” In The International
Academic Conference of Archaeological Cultures of the Northern Chinese
337
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY


Ancient Nations (Collected Papers), ed. Chung-kuo k™ao-ku wen-wu yen-chiu-
so. Huhhot, 11“18 August 1992.
“Gold in the Ancient Chinese World.” Artibus Asiae 53.1“2 (1993): 27“50.
“Cultural Diversity in the Tarim Basin Vicinity and Its Impact on Ancient Chinese
Culture.” In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central
Asia, ed. Victor H. Mair. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, 1998,
vol. 2, pp. 604“18.
Cao Wanru. “Maps 2,000 Years Ago and Ancient Cartographical Rules.” In Ancient
China™s Technology and Science, ed. Inst. of History of Natural Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1983,
pp. 251“55.
Cartier, Michael. “Barbarians through Chinese Eyes: The Emergence of an Anthro-
pological Approach to Ethnic Differences.” Comparative Civilizations Review
6 (Spring 1981): 1“14.
Chai Te-fang. “Chung-kuo pei-fang ti-ch™ü ch™ing-t™ung tuan-chien fen-ch™ün yen-
chiu.” K™ao-ku hsüeh-pao 1988.3: 277“99.
Chan Kuo Ts™e. 3 vols. Annotated by Liu Hsiang. Shanghai: Ku-chi, 1978.
Chang, Claudia, and Perry A. Tourtellotte. “The Role of Agro-pastoralism in the
Evolution of Steppe Culture in the Semirechye Area of Southern Kazakhstan
during the Saka/Wusun Preriod (600 BCE“400 BCE).” In The Bronze Age and
Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, ed. Victor H. Mair. Washing-
ton: Institute for the Study of Man, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 264“79.
Chang, K. C. The Archaeology of Ancient China, 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1977.
Art, Myth and Ritual. The Path to Political Authority in Ancient China. Cam-
bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1983.
“Sandai Archaeology and the Formation of States in Ancient China: Processual
Aspects of the Origin of Chinese Civilization.” In The Origins of Chinese Civ-
ilizations, ed. David Keightley. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983,
pp. 495“521.
Chang Ch™ang-ming. “Shih-lun Hsi Han te Han Hsiung kuan-hsi chi ch™i kuan-hsi
chi ho-ch™in cheng-ts™e.” Chiang-huai lun-t™an 1983.6: 83“88.
Chang Chun-shu. “Military Aspects of Han Wu-ti™s Northern and Northwestern
Campaigns.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 21 (1966): 68“173.
Chao Hua-ch™eng. “Chung-kuo tsao-ch™i ch™ang-ch™eng te k™ao-ku tiao-ch™a yü yen-
chiu.” In Ch™ang-ch™eng kuo-chi hsüeh-shu yen-t™ao-hui lun-wen, ed. Chung-
kuo ch™ang-ch™eng hsüeh-hui. Chi-lin-shih: Chi-lin Jen-min, 1994.
Chao Shan-t™ung. “Hei-lung-chiang kuan-ti yi-chih fa-hsien de mu-tsang.” K™ao-ku
1965.1: 45“6.
Ch™ao Ts™o chi chu-yi. Shanghai: Jen-min, 1976.
Chavannes, Édouard. Les m©moires historiques de Se-ma Ts™ien. 5 vols. Paris: Ernest
Leroux, 1895“1905.
“Les deux plus anciens sp©cimens de la cartographie chinoise,” Bulletin de l™École
Fran§ais d™Éxtrême Orient 5 (1903): 214“47.
Les documents chinois decouverts par Aurel Stein dans les sables du Turkestan
Oriental. Oxford: Impr. de l™Universit©, 1913.
Chen Ching-lung. “Chinese Symbolism among the Huns.” In Religious and Lay
Symbolism in the Altaic World, Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Meeting of
338
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY


the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, ed. Klaus Sagaster. Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 1989, pp. 62“70.
Chen Kuang-tzuu, and Frederick T. Hiebert. “The Late Prehistory of Xinjiang in
Relation to Its Neighbors.” Journal of World Prehistory 9.2 (1995): 243“300.
Ch™en Po. “Shih-lun Hu-han-yeh Ch™an-yü tsai yü Han ˜ho-ch™in™ chung te chu-tao
tso-yung.” Hsi-pei Ta-hsüeh Hsüeh-pao 1990.4: 36“39.
Chen Shih-tsai. “Equality of States in Ancient China.” American Journal of Inter-
national Law 35 (1941): 641“50.
Ch™eng Te-hsu. “International Law in Early China.” Chinese Social and Political
Science Review 11 (1927): 38“55, 251“70.
Chernykh, E. N. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1992.
Ch™iao Hsiao-ch™in. “Kuan-yü pei-fang yu-mu wen-hua ch™i-yüan te t™an-t™ao.” Nei
Meng-ku wen-wu k™ao-ku. 1992.1“2: 21“25.
Ch™in Chien-ming. “Shang Chou ˜kung-hsing-ch™i™ wei ˜ch™i-ling™ shuo.” K™ao-ku
1995.3: 256“58.
Chin Feng-yi. “Lun Chung-kuo tung-pei ti-ch™ü han ch™ü-jen ch™ing-t™ung tuan-chien
te wen-hua yi-ts™un,” K™ao-ku hsüeh-pao 1982.4: 387“426 (part I), and 1983.1:
39“35 (part II).
“Hsia-chia-tien shang-ts™eng wen-hua chi ch™i tsu-shu wen-t™i.” K™ao-ku hsüeh-
pao 1987.2: 177“208.
Chu Kuei. “Liao-ning Ch™ao-yang Shih-erh-t™ai-ying-tzu ch™ing-t™ung tuan-chien-
mu.” K™ao-ku hsueh-pao 1960.1: 63“71.
Ch™u T™ung-shu. Han Social Structure. Seattle: University of Washington Press,
1972.
Chu Yung-kang. “Hsia-chia-tien shang-ts™eng wen-hua te ch™u-pu yen-chiu.” In
K™ao-ku-hsüeh wen-hua lun-chi, ed. Su Ping-ch™i. Peking: Wen-wu, 1993, vol.
1, pp. 99“128.
Ch™un-ch™iu Ku-liang chuan chin-chu chin-yi. Ed. Hsüeh An-chih. Taipei: Taiwan
Shang-wu, 1994.
Ch™un-ch™iu Tso-chuan chin-chu chin-yi. 3 vols. Ed. Li Tsung-tung and Wang Yun-
wu. Taipei: T™ai-wan shang wu, 1973.
Ch™un-ch™iu Tso-chuan chu, ed. Yang Po-chün. Peking: Chung-hua, 1990 [1981].
Chung K™an. “Ning-hsia Ku-yüan hsien ch™u-t™u wen-wu.” Wen-wu, 1978.12:
86“90.
“Ku-yüan hsien P™eng-p™u Ch™un-ch™iu Chan-kuo mu-tsang.” Chung-kuo k™ao-
ku-hsüeh nien-chien 1988 (1989): 255“56.
Chung K™an, and Han Kung-le. “Ning-hsia nan-pu Ch™un-ch™iu Chan-kuo shih-ch™i
te ch™ing-t™ung wen-hua.” Chung-kuo k™ao-ku hsüeh-hui ti-ssu-tz™u nien-hui
lun-wen-chi 1983. Peking: Wen-wu, 1985, pp. 203“13.
Chung-kuo li-shih ti-t™u chi. The Historical Atlas of China, ed. T™an Ch™i-hsiang
[Tan Qixiang] et al. Peking: Ti-t™u ch™u-pan-she, 1982.
Claessen, Henri J. M. “The Early State: A Structural Approach.” In The Early State,
ed. Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik. The Hague: Mouton Publishers,
1978, pp. 533“96.
Couvreur, S. Chou King. Ho Kien Fou: Imprimerie de la Mission catholique, 1897.
Creel, Herrlee G. “The Role of the Horse in Chinese History.” The American
Historical Review 70.3 (1965): 647“72.
339
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY


The Origins of Statecraft in China. Vol. 1: The Western Chou Empire. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Shen Pu-hai. A Chinese Political Philosopher of the Fourth Century B.C. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Cressy, George B. Asia™s Lands and Peoples. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.,
1963.
Crump, J. I., Jr. Chan-Kuo Ts™e. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
Csorba, Mrea. “The Chinese Northern Frontier: Reassessment of the Bronze Age
Burials from Baifu.” Antiquity 70 (1996): 564“87.
Daf¬nà, Paolo. “The Han Shu Hsi Yu Chuan Re-Translated. A Review Article.”
T™oung-pao 68.4“5 (1982): 309“39.
Il nomadismo centrasiatico. Parte Prima. Roma: Istituto di studi dell™India e
dell™Asia orientale, Università di Roma, 1982.
David, T. “Peuples mobiles de l™eurasie: contacts d™une p©riph©rie ˜barbare™ avec le
monde ˜civilis©™, à la ¬n de l™Age du Bronze et au 1er Age du Fer.” In L™Asie
centrale et ses rapports avec les civilisations orientales des origines a l™Age du
Fer. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1988, pp. 159“68.
Davydova, A. V. “The Ivolga Gorodishche. A Monument of the Hsiung-nu Culture
in the Trans-Baikal Region.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungar-
icae 20 (1968): 209“45.
Ivolginskii kompleks (gorodishche i mogil™nik) “ pamiatnik khunnu v Zabaikal™e.
Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo Universiteta, 1985.
Davydova A. V., and V. P. Shilov. “K voprosy o zemledelii y gunnov.” Vestnik
drevnei istorii 2.44 (1983): 193“201.
De Crespigny, Rafe. Of¬cial Titles of the Former Han Dynasty as Translated and
Transcribed by H. H. Dubs. An Index compiled by Rafe de Crespigny. Can-
berra: Centre of Oriental Studies in association with Australian National Uni-
versity Press, 1967.
Northern Frontier: The Policies and Strategy of the Later Han Empire. Canberra:
Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, 1984.
De Groot, J. J. M. Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte Asiens I: die Hunnen der
vorchristlichen Zeit. Berlin and Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1921.
Debaine-Francfort, Corinne. Du N©olithique à l™Age du Bronze en Chine du Nord-
Ouest: la culture de Qijia et ses connexions. Paris: Editions recherche sur les
civilisations, 1995.
Deguignes, H. Histoire general des Huns, des Turks, des Mongols et des autres
Tartares, 5 vols. Paris, Desaint & Saillant, 1756“58.
Derevianko, A. P. Rannyi zheleznyi vek Priamur™ia. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1973.
Derevyanko, A. P., and D. Dorj. “Neolithic Tribes in Northern Parts of Central
Asia.” In History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. 1: The Dawn of Civi-
lization: Earliest Times to 700 B.C., ed. A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson. Paris:
Unesco, 1992, pp. 169“89.
Dergachev, V. “Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultural Communities of the Steppe Zone
of the USSR.” Antiquity 63.241 (1989): 793“802.
Dewall, Magdalene von. Pferd und Wagen im fruhen China. Bonn: Habelt,
1964.
Di Cosmo, Nicola. “The Economic Basis of the Ancient Inner Asian Nomads and
Its Relationship to China.” Journal of Asian Studies 53.4 (1994): 1092“126.
340
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY


“The Northern Frontier in Pre-Imperial China.” In Cambridge History of Ancient
China, ed. Michael Loewe and Edward L. Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999, pp. 885“966.
“State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History.” Journal of World
History 10.1 (Spring 1999): 1“40.
Doerfer, G. “Zur Sprache der Hunnen.” Central Asiatic Journal 17.1 (1973): 1“50.
Dolukhanov, P. M. “Pal©o©cologie de l™Asie centrale aux ages de la pierre et du
bronze,” in L™Asie centrale et ses rapports avec les civilisations orientales, des
origines à l™age du fer. M©moires de la Mission Arch©ologique Fran§aise en
Asie Centrale. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1988, pp. 215“21.
Dolukhanov P. M., et al. “Radiocarbon Dates of the Institute of Archaeology II.”
Radiocarbon 12 (1970): 130“55.
Downs, J. F. “Origin and Spread of Riding in the Near East and Central Asia.”
American Anthropologist 63 (1961): 1193“203.
Drompp, Michael R. “The Hsiung-nu Topos in the T™ang Response to the Collapse
of the Uighur Steppe Empire.” Central and Inner Asian Studies 1 (1987): 1“46.
Dubs, Homer. “The Beginnings of Chinese Astronomy.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 78.4 (1958): 295“300.
“The Reliability of Chinese Histories.” Far Eastern Quarterly 6.1 (1946): 23“43.
Dvornichenko, Vladimir. “Sauromatians and Sarmatians of the Eurasian Steppes:
The Transitional Period from the Bronze Age.” In Nomads of the Eurasian
Steppes in the Early Iron Age, ed. Jeannine Davis-Kimball et al. Berkeley: Zinat
Press, 1995, pp. 101“4.
Dzo, Ching-chuan. Se-ma Ts™ien et l™historiographie chinoise. Paris: Publications
Orientalistes de France, 1978.
Eberhard, Wolfram. Conquerors and Rulers. Leiden: Brill, 1952.
A History of China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977 [1960].
“The Political Function of Astronomy and Astronomers in Han China.” In
Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. John K. Fairbank. Chicago: Chicago Uni-
versity Press, 1957, pp. 37“70.
Egami, Namio. “The Kuai ti, the Tao you, and the Dao xi: The Strange Animals of
the Xiongnu.” Memoirs of the Research Department of Toyo Bunko 13 (1951):
87“123.
Enoki, Kazuo. “On the Relationship between the Shih-chi, Bk. 123 and the Han-
shu, Bks. 61 and 96.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko
41 (1983): 1“31.
Erdy, Miklos. “Hun and Xiongnu Type Cauldron Finds throughout Eurasia.”
Eurasian Studies Yearbook (1995): 5“94.
Erkes, Edouard. “Das Pferd im Alten China.” T™oung Pao 36 (1942): 26“63.
Falkenhausen, Lothar von. “On the Historiographical Orientation of Chinese
Archaeology.” Antiquity 67 (1993): 839“49.
“The Regionalist Paradigm in Chinese Archaeology.” In Nationalism, Politics and
the Practice of Archaeology, ed. Philip L. Kohl and Clare Fawcett. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 198“217.
Fang Ch™ing-ho. “Hsi Han te tsai-huang.” Shih-yüan 7 (1976): 12.
Ferguson, John. “China and Rome.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen
Welt, vol. 9.2, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. New York: W.

<<

. 13
( 15)



>>