기원전 4 ~ 서기 1세기의 고고학자료로 본 흉노와 동아시아 - 흉노학의 정립을 위한 토대구축을 겸하여

Abstract

Apparently, Xiongnu studies in recent years are awesomely increased. From 1990 to present many international cooperative excavations have been conducted in the People's Republic of Mongolia, and Chinese scholars also autonomously investigate the Southern Xiongnu sites(mainly Inner Mongoila of China). Besides, the researchs on Cis-baikal area are relatively diminished compared to the period until 1980s, when the Cis-baikal was one of most distinctive areas for Xiongnu studies. Although many attempts to shed light on the Xiongnu archaeology, the connection between Xiongnu and East Asia have been poorly researched for reasons as below. 1) historical researches are mainly based on the Chinese historical records, written actually on the diplomatic and martial actions with Xiongnu in the background of chinese determinism. 2) most of Xiongnu excavations are concentrated on Mongol and Cis-Baikal, actually these regions belonged to Northern Xiongnu. In contrast, Southern Xiongnu are poorly researched and definition of Northern vague because of strong influence of Chinese mortuary tradition. 3) In relation with spacial inclination, most of Xiongnu tombs are dated from middle of 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D. It means that the materials. accumulated up to now are just concerned after the spilt of Northern and Southern Xiongnu. These reasons also concern to the matter why the relation between Xiongnu and East Asia have been poorly researched. To suggest a new perspective on Xiongnu archaeology, author suggest to actively include 4th~3th B.C., of chinese norther region included in Ordos Bronzes in Xiongnu archaeology. Since the Ordos bronzes could be used as the evidence of Eurasian nomad's influence to ancient chinese culture, the research on the Ordos Bronzes became the one of the most important ground in Chinese archaeology. Interests on the Ordos bronzes by Western and Japanese researchers did not involve serious archaeological analysis. That's the reason why Northern Chinese zone so poorly contributed to Xiongnu archaeology. Generally, according to Chinese chronicles about Xiongnu, they formed a prominent complex society on the borderline of Northern China in 4-3th B.C. In 4-3th century B.C., in spite of absence of big barrows or fortresses, Ordos plateau, Southern Siberia(Altai region) and Western Turkestan has strong similarities in gold prestige goods as crown, diadem, and monstrous animal style ornaments. We can assume that if we include Northern Chinese regions in 4-3th B.C. centuries, then we could manage to discuss the whole cultural change of Xiongnu. Furthermore, this conception of 'widened' Xiongnu area could shed light on the relation between Xiongnu and East Asia. Most of researchers on the Xiongnu archaeology concentrate on the barrows in Mongolia dated from 1th B.C., but Kochosun(Old Chosun). which was believed to have close relation with Xiongnu, were collapsed by Han Dynasty in 108 B.C., until the flourish of nowaday well-known Xiongnu tombs. So, in this article, author suggest to expand Xiongnu chronological range until 4th century B.C., and spacial range to Ordos plateau and neighboured steppe region of North China. In this case, we can trace the relationship between Xiongnu, dynasty Yan, and Kochosun(or lute-shaped dagger culture of Manchuria). Xinzhuangtu tomb No.30 in Yanxiatu revealed many steppe style gold plaque and gold gilt daggers with Korean style spear of halberd type Ge. Like this, new perspective on Xiongnu studies could be founded if we give more contributions on Xiongnu and East Asian relations. After the power of Xiongnu dissolved in 1st c. A.D., previously subordinated peoples as Xianbi, Wuhuan, Wusun rose in the Eurasia steppes and opened medieval age in Eurasia. As long as "Northern type" materials found in Korea are dated to Xiongnu age or slightly later, we need to give more attention to contemporary studies on Xiongnu.