The Bronze Age in the Eurasian Steppes
MATSUMOTO Keita1
ABSTRACT

Scholars have long been aware of the interaction and migration sweeping across the vastnessof the Eurasian Steppes in the Bronze Age, but the historical signiﬁcance of individual cases ofinteraction has not been clear. This study demonstrates the major qualitative change that took placein interactions in the Steppes immediately before the emergence of the Scytho-Siberian culture andpresents a new theory of interaction to replace the monistic/pluralistic approach.
KEYWORDS: Eurasian Steppes, Bronze Ages, Early Iron Age, Scytho-Siberian culture, Mongolia,
Siberia, Karasuk, Tagar style, bronzeware of northern origin, east–west interaction, Silk Road,
horse-riding nomadism

Introduction
This paper analyzes the characteristics of the Eurasian Steppes, particularly the easternpart of the region, during the Bronze Age—namely from the second millennium to thebeginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC—to consider the signiﬁcance of interaction between
people in prehistoric times.
The west-to-east inﬂuences across the Eurasian Steppes in the said period, exempliﬁedby the transmission of metallurgy and chariots have long been discussed, but somescholars have also pointed to the east-to-west influences originating in the eastern partof the Steppes. The latter correspond to the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon(Chernykh and Kuz’minykh 1989), the spread of Cimmerian and Karasuk (Terenozhkin
1976; Takahama 1995; Bokovenko 1995) elements, as well as elements of Scytho-Siberiancultures (Ryaznov 1980; Takahama 1999). Potential phenomena of diﬀusion originatingin the Eastern Steppes become extremely important when we consider the inﬂuence thesecurrents may have exerted on other areas of Eurasia. However, the process of historicaldevelopment in the Eastern Steppes is far from clear. The circumstances and processes
leading to the development of this large east-to-west movement, not only in the Eurasian
Steppes but throughout Eurasia, is one of the major themes of this research.
During the period addressed—the second millennium to the beginning of the firstmillennium BC—most regions of Eurasia were in the Bronze Age, while some regions
were transitioning from the Bronze to the Iron Age. When explaining this transition,
1 Graduate School of Humanities, Faculty of Humanities, Kyushu University, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka City 819–

0395, Japan (kibayuboku@lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp)
Category: Original Article Received: 27 September 2020; Accepted: 8 February 2021
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 (2021): 287–328

MATSUMOTO Keita

Figure 1. Important sites in and around the Eurasian Steppes mentioned in this paper
1: Seima, 2: Reshnoe, 3: Turbino, 4: Sintashta, 5: Rostovka, 6: Serzhen-Yurtovski, 7: Tash-Tyube,
8: Agaersheng, 9: Arzhan, 10: Ulaan-Gom, 11: Ulaan-Uushig, 12: Dzhid, 13: Tianshanbeilu, 14:
Huoshaogou, 15: Ganguya, 16: Donghuishan, 17: Shenna, 18: Zhukaigou, 19: Linzheyu, 20:
Xiawangang, 21: Baifu, 22: Xibozi, 23: Nanshuangmiao, 24: the sites of Chifeng city (Dadianzi,
Nanshangen, Xiaoheishigou), 25: Wanggangtai

occurring within a speciﬁc time period across the whole of Eurasia, attention has turnedto the Eurasian Steppes, which connects all areas of the continent by virtue of its location.
Looking at research history, we find that schema explaining cultural change can bebroadly divided into those that give greatest weight to more general explanations andthose which emphasize speciﬁc historical characteristics. Diﬀusion phenomena and massmigration across large areas like those spanning Eurasia have frequently been explainedin terms of the latter, and particularly in the first half of the twentieth century, haveoften been framed in terms of diﬀusion theory. From the 1960s onwards, with the rise ofprocessual archaeology, the former option took precedence in explanatory schema, andeven discussion of diﬀusion phenomena over large areas temporarily declined. Nowadays,
however, having reviewed both these approaches, scholars are looking at various ways
to combine both explanations (Kohl 2007; Frachetti 2008). In the light of these issues,
the current paper focuses on the nature of, and changes in, interaction involving bronze
artifacts. The connections between people, which are assumed to provide the backdrop tothese interactions, changed enormously during the speciﬁc period deﬁned as the Bronze
Age. Moreover, despite distinct individual phenomena, there is an underlying potential for© Japanese Archaeological Association

288

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

general conclusions with regard to these interactions.

I. Previous Research and Present Research Objectives andMethodology
The primary topics addressed in earlier research can be categorized under three themes.

1) The controversy around Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon and
Early Chinese Bronzes before the mid-second millennium BC

In the second millennium BC there were, broadly speaking, two Bronze Age lineages
on the Eurasian Steppes: the Bronze Age culture known as the EAMP (the Eurasian
metallurgical province) and the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon. The EAMP
spread from the western to the eastern region of the Eurasian Steppes, whereas the
Seima-Turbino phenomenon is thought to have begun in Altai and spread both east
and west from there (Chernykh and Kuz’minykh 1989; Chernykh 1992) (Figure 2).
Spearheads, bone shields, and other items were found in Seima-Turbino transcultural sites,
and according to E. N. Chernykh and colleagues, these had martial characteristics and were
thought to have been spread from Altai by small groups with metal craftsmen and ﬁghtingmen (Chernykh 1992; Chernykh, Kuz’minykh, and Orlovskata 2004). Chernykh’s theory
lays great emphasis on the chemical composition of the bronzeware, and considers that tin
bronze from the eastern steppes encroached on the area of arsenical copper in the west. On
the other hand, the relationship of this chemical composition to the shapes and distribution

Figure 2. Bronze Age Cultures in the Eurasian Steppes in the ﬁrst half of the second millennium
BC, based on previous studies© Japanese Archaeological Association

289

MATSUMOTO Keitaof the bronzeware is not necessarily addressed. Further classiﬁcation by form is considerednecessary to ascertain whether or not the Seima-Turbino phenomenon originated in Altai. It
is also worth pointing out that the theory of Chernykh and his colleagues does not explain
how this phenomenon ﬁrst developed in Altai.
The fact that there was a degree of inﬂuence from the Eurasian Steppes in Xinjiang, theGreat Wall Region, and in the Central Plain in China before the mid-second millennium
BC is generally acknowledged by scholars in Japan and in other countries (Masuda 1970;
Takahama 2000; Mei 2003; Lin 2016); bronze artifacts of this period excavated in China
are known as “Early Bronzes in China.” Although discussion continues regarding thetiming and transmission route of the various elements of this bronzeware, the similarity
between the artifacts in all regions mean that most studies go no further than suggestinga route, or routes, and conﬁrming there was a relationship between the locations. In otherwords, although cultural elements from west have been found in Xinjiang and throughout
the Great Wall Region, indicating some kind of mutual relationship, it has proved diﬃcult
to establish the speciﬁc details. One factor in this may be explained as follows. Chinesearchaeology is usually based on the theory of regional types and temporal types, where aparticular concept or “culture” is established within a deﬁned regional and temporal zone
(Su and Yin 1981). Although this should be determined using an entire cultural description
including burial places and bronzeware, most often it depended primarily on earthenware.
A particular culture defined in this way will often have elements of other culturesintermingled with it, and these are often used to indicate relationships and interaction (Shui2001; Han 2005). In this case, because the distribution area of bronzeware is generally
larger than that of earthenware culture, bronzeware has been studied as an indicator ofinteraction between cultures. However, as discussion about the derivation and spreadof bronzeware shapes themselves tends to be insufficient, studies do not go beyond
mentioning relationships between several earthenware cultures.

2) Theories about the so-called Karasuk Period, latter half of the second
millennium BC
In comparison with the previous era, a much larger quantity of bronzeware dating from thelatter half of the second millennium BC has been found across the entire eastern part of theEurasian Steppes including the Great Wall Region. A large number of bronze artifacts fromthis period have been discovered in southern Siberia, around the Minusinsk Basin; these
are thought to be products of the Karasuk Culture, and very similar bronzeware is foundacross the whole of Mongolia. Most important when discussing the origin and subsequentdevelopment of bronzes in the Karasuk Period is the debate around the relationshipbetween Mongolia and the Minusinsk Basin. The relations between these two regions,revealed by similarities in the bronzeware, also has a bearing on the origins of the Karasuk© Japanese Archaeological Association

290

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 3.

Theories on Karasuk-period bronzeware in the latter half of the second millennium BC

Culture, as well as an earlier debate between Karlgren (B. Karlgren 1945) and Loehr (M.
Loehr 1949) about the origin of animal motifs in the Central Plain and Siberia. Two main
theories have previously been propounded about the emergence of bronze artifacts in the
Karasuk Period (Figure 3).
Theory X: Bronze artifacts of the Karasuk Period originated in southern Siberia,
particularly in the Minusinsk Basin area, or alternatively originated from a culture further
west (such as the Iranian Luristan bronzes) and then developed in the Minusinsk Basin andspread from there (Chlenova 1972, 1976; Maksimenkov 1975).
Theory Y: Karasuk-period bronze artifacts in the Minusinsk Basin emerged under thestrong inﬂuence of Mongolian and Great Wall Region cultures (Novgorodova 1970; Volkov
1995; Tian and Guo 1988; Wuenyuesitu 2007).
In recent years an explanation combining the two theories was postulated (Yang, Shao,and Pan 2016), but when the research history was examined in detail it was clear that thediﬀerences between the two theories were due to the methodology used for the lineage andtype classiﬁcation of the bronzeware, and that the methods and basis for classiﬁcation werepoorly deﬁned. What is more, although many studies have remarked on the similarities
between all kinds of bronze artifacts from southern Siberia to Mongolia as far as the Great
Wall Region, the artifacts as a whole have not been analyzed using consistent criteria, soeven though studies could point to the presence or absence of similarity, they were unable
to compare the degrees of similarity occurring in each era.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

291

MATSUMOTO Keita

3) The debate around the formation of the Scytho-Siberian cultures at the
beginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC

It is thought that various fully-ﬂedged horse-riding nomadic cultures (like the Scythianculture of the northern Black Sea coast, the Central Asian Saka culture, and the Tagar
culture in the Minusinsk Basin) generally known as the Scytho-Siberian cultures (orearly nomadic cultures) ﬁrst emerged across a wide area of the Eurasian Steppes at the
beginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC. These similar horse-riding nomadic lifestyles andthe extensive interaction they enabled, led to the formation of similar material cultures
across the Eurasian Steppes. The development of nomadic horse-riding peoples had an
extremely powerful impact on the history of Eurasia, not only on the future direction of
the Steppes, but also on the contrasting structure of the agrarian society to the south. This
is why the era of the Scytho-Siberian cultures has come to be widely acknowledged as anepoch-making fault-line in the history of the Steppes (Egami and Mizuno 1935; Fujikawa
ed. 1999; Bokovenko 2011). It was also pointed out some time ago that the eastern
steppes of Mongolia and southern Siberia, for example the Arzhan Tomb 1 and the Upper
Xiajiadian culture, played an extremely important role in the development and spread of
Scytho-Siberian cultures (Hayashi 2007).
Scytho-Siberian cultures, however, are not the first examples of similar material
cultures identiﬁed across a broad area of the Eurasian Steppes. Studies have pointed outthat daggers, knives, metal cauldrons, helmets and other items were widely distributed
across the Steppes even in the Karasuk Period, immediately prior to the Scytho-Siberiancultures (Terenozhkin 1976; Chlenova 1981; Takahama 1995). If we make a special pointof emphasizing the similarities between Scytho-Siberian cultures, then these must becompared with the immediately preceding Karasuk Period using exactly the same criteria,
and any increase or changes in similarity should be highlighted (Figure 4). One factor

Figure 4.

Problems around the temporal divisions at the beginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC© Japanese Archaeological Association

292

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

behind the absence of such analysis is the fact that because the Scytho-Siberian cultures
were seen as a definitively chronological division, there has been a dearth of research
spanning the entire Steppes, linking and comparing the phases before and after thesecultures.
As illustrated by (1)–(3) above, research to date has pointed to various influences
originating in the eastern region of the Eurasian Steppes. Nevertheless, regardless of that,most of the studies attempted to explain each individual phenomenon separately, givinga great deal of weight to explanations of the place of origin and direction of each type ofinﬂuence emerging from material cultures. The principal objective of the current paper
is to shed light on the context in which inﬂuences, particularly those originating from theeastern part of the Steppes, emerged at each stage of the period in question, and how theseinﬂuences impacted change and development in the Bronze and Early Iron ages. The best
way to achieve this is to get a picture of the various interactions occurring in the target
region and the area as a whole, applying the same set of consistent criteria. Resources
appropriate for this task are those bronze artifacts that display diachronic and spatial
continuity.
Moreover, until now, similarities between individual objects have been used asindicators of intercultural interaction, but these provide an inadequate basis forobjective classiﬁcation. It is also essential to look not only at the presence or absence ofcommonality, but at its degree and nature. That is why the analysis in this study endeavors,
as far as possible, to present clear reasoning for classiﬁcation based on types as sets of
attributes, and styles as sets of types. What is more, the set of types making up one style
can be divided according to function, for example knives, daggers, battle axes, and thelike, and also diﬀerentiated based on their social and cultural aspects, for example objects
used for special ceremonial purposes, those put to daily use, and so on. The current study
focuses on how the distinction between these two aspects differs for each style, anduses this as a basis to try and discern the pattern of interaction. The principal procedures
undertaken in this paper are as follows:
i: Using bronzeware as a basis to understand the essence of diﬀerent cultural spheres(and their boundaries) as well as the relationships within and between them (mainly
section II to V).
ii: Clarifying the nature of the cultural spheres and boundaries deﬁned in (i) and thebackground to their internal and external interaction and changes therein (mainly insection VI).
iii: Typiﬁcation of the nature (systems) of Bronze Age interactions (primarily section
VII)© Japanese Archaeological Association

293

MATSUMOTO Keita

II. The Seima-Turbino Transcultural Phenomenon
In the ﬁrst half of the second millennium BC there were, broadly speaking, two Bronze
Age cultural lineages on the Eurasian steppes: the EAMP, and the Seima-Turbinotranscultural phenomenon. The EAMP spread from west to east in the Eurasian Steppes,
while the Seima-Turbino phenomenon is thought to have originated in Altai (Chernykh andKuz’minykh 1989). This section addresses this “Altai Origin Model” of the Seima-Turbinotranscultural phenomenon by re-examining the type classiﬁcation, chemical composition,and distribution of spearheads and axes with sockets. The results show that the type andchemical composition of artifacts of the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon do notindicate a geographic cline centered in Altai, and reveal a slightly diﬀerent distribution oftypes to the east and west of the Ural Mountains.
The oldest spearhead to be regarded as Seima-Turbino is a forged item of Type A (Figure5-1). From this developed Type B spearheads, cast with three ridges down the back, andType C, similarly cast with a thick single spine. The shape of Type B changd over time,
gradually leading to the larger and slimmer Type Ba (Figure 5-4), Type Bb (Figure 5-5) andType Bc (Figure 5-6), found from the Volga Basin as far as the Ob’ Basin. Various types
of Type C (Ca Figure 5-2; Cb Figure 5-3) spearheads developed through a separate line ofdescent from Type B, but also became larger and slimmer.
As a result of comparing the chemical composition of the different types we findthat there was a change in use from arsenical copper to tin bronze, and also an east–west difference in chemical composition on either side of the Ural Mountains exactlyas Chernykh stated. On the other hand, we did not detect a geographical cline in the
distribution of tin bronze westwards from Altai (the upper river basins of the Irtysh andOb’ rivers). Tin content in Types C and B gradually increased relative to Type A, and all
three of these types were consistently found in the vicinity of the Urals (the Volga, Oka andKama river basins, and eastern part of the Urals). Consequently, there is a high probability
that the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon originated in this region.
Rostovka (Figure 1-5) is one of the few burial sites that sheds light on the context of
Seima-Turbino excavations (Matiushchenko and Sinitsyna 1988). Located on the leftbank of the Om’ River, a tributary of the Irtysh, the Rostovka Burial Site was excavatedbetween 1966 and 1969. The site consists of 38 burial pits, and relics were found dispersed
around each of them. A feature of this burial site is the distinct treatment accorded to eachdiﬀerent kind of bronze artifact. Bronze artifacts with relatively complex forms requiring
an inner casting mould (β group bronzeware), including the spearheads and axes withsockets discussed earlier, were often found a short distance from the pits. In some cases,
β group bronzewares were arranged in unusual positions, for example thrust into the pit
interior, a little removed from the deceased. The arrangement of this Group β bronzeware© Japanese Archaeological Association

294

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 5. Changes in spearheads of the Seima-Turbino type; Type II Early bronze spearheads (inChina)
1: Chernykh, Kuzminykh 1989-ﬁg. 25-4, 2: Chernykh, Kuzminykh 1989-ﬁg. 40-1, 3: Chernykh,
Kuzminykh 1989-fig. 42-2, 4: Chernykh, Kuzminykh 1989-fig. 37-1, 5: Chernykh, Kuzminykh
1989-ﬁg. 33-1, 6: Chernykh, Kuzminykh 1989-ﬁg. 30-1 7: Miyamoto et al. 2008-ﬁg. 13

makes a striking contrast with simple-form bronze knives and decorative items (Group α
bronzeware) that are found placed close to the deceased. It is also clear that the presenceor absence, and number, of bronze artifacts of groups “α” and “β” does not correlatesigniﬁcantly with the size of the burial pit.

III. Early Bronze Ware in the Xinjiang and Great Wall Regions,and Bronze-Age Culture in the Eurasian Steppes
Study of bronze artifacts from the Early Bronze Age in Xinjiang and the Great Wall
Region in the ﬁrst half of the second millennium BC reveals evidence of the EAMP and
Seima-Turbino transcultural influences. In order to evaluate the distribution of early
Chinese bronzes in relation to the distribution of these two cultures, it was necessary to© Japanese Archaeological Association

295

MATSUMOTO Keita

focus on bronzeware alone, leaving aside the “cultures” of ancient Chinese archaeology.
The results revealed three spatial boundaries between Xinjiang and the Great Wall Region
showing inﬂuences from west to east (Figure 12). Within boundary 1 (the vicinity of the
Tian Shan Mountains to north-west Xinjiang), most of these consisted of large and small
bladed tools like battle axes with sockets, and sickles. Moreover, the bulk of these werebronze artifacts directly comparable with those of the EAMP, and were characterized bytheir discovery in burial sites or individually. The cache of ﬁnds at Agaersheng in Xinjiang(Figure 1-6) is a good example (Figure 6).
There are a striking number of decorative items east of boundary 1 and west of boundary
2 (eastern Xinjiang–eastern Gansu and Qinghai). While the number of bronze items directlycomparable with the EAMP declines, the number of simple shapes and bronze artifacts
distinctive to the Great Wall Region increases. Much of the bronzeware excavated in theseregions was buried in graves/tombs. The Tianshanbeilu site at Hami, Xinjiang (Figure1-13) and various Siba-culture sites in the west of Gansu (including the Huoshaogou site
[Figure 1-14, Figure 7-3], Donghuishan site [Figure 1-16], and Ganguya site [Figure 1-15,
Figure 7-1]) are all good examples of this.
To the east of boundary 2 (Ordos to Liaoxi) the proportion of decorative objects waseven higher. Most of the bronzeware directly comparable with EAMP consisted ofornaments; virtually no bladed tools were found. For instance, the earrings with trumpetshaped tip (Figures 7-4) were the easternmost finds of all EAMP-comparable ware.

Figure 6. A cache of artifacts found at Agaersheng
Wang 1987-ﬁg. 1© Japanese Archaeological Association

296

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 7. Early (Chinese) bronze arrowheads and earring (1 to 3); an EAMP earring (4)1: Miyamoto et al. 2008-ﬁg. 2-27, 2: Nei-menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 2000-ﬁg. 191-2, 3:
Miyamoto et al. 2008-ﬁg. 5-51, 4: Kuzmina 1966-tab. XIV-4

Moreover, the context of these excavations was diverse, notably including bronzeware withshapes typical of the Central Plain (arrowheads with a round stem cross-section, Figure7-2). We know of sites such as the south-central Inner Mongolian site of Zhukaigou (Figure1-18) and Dadianzi site (Figure 1-24) which belonged to the Lower Xiajiadian culture ofeastern Inner Mongolia.
The area south of boundary 3 (the Great Wall Region) is notable for the presence of
items resembling Seima-Turbino Type Bc spearheads (Type II spearheads) (Figure 5-7).
Type II spearheads have been excavated from Nanshuangmiao site in Liaoning (Figure1-23), Xiawanggang site in Henan (Figure 1-20), and the Shenna remains in Qinghai (Figure1-17). Although Type II spearheads developed from Type Bc spearheads, the two areclearly diﬀerent, both in dimensions and form. The most striking change is the increased
size of Type II spearheads; they are considerably bigger than Type Bc (Figure 5).
These three boundaries can apply to distinct chemical compositions, with nocommonality detected across boundaries.

IV. The Development of Bronzeware Styles in the Karasuk Period
This section considers bronze artifacts from the Karasuk Period (latter half of the second
millennium BC), paying particular attention to the historically contentious relationshipbetween southern Siberia (the Minusinsk Basin) and Mongolia. When it comes to the originof Karasuk-period bronzeware, there are two prevalent theories: one contends that it spread© Japanese Archaeological Association

297

MATSUMOTO Keita

from southern Siberia to Mongolia; the other points to inﬂuence moving in the opposite
direction. This section aims to resolve the contradiction between these two theories byanalyzing the production techniques and stylistic features of daggers, knives, battle axes
with sockets, and other items. The analysis conﬁrms the following changes in bronzeware
styles.
Firstly, two distinct independent styles of bronzeware developed in Mongolia andthe Minusinsk Basin in the middle of the second millennium BC: the Mongolia Bronze
Complex, and the Early Karasuk Bronze Complex (Figure 16).
The Mongolia Bronze Complex is characterized by Dagger Types A1 and A2 (thedaggers with a curved hilt; Figures 8-1, -10), Knife Type A (Figure 9-1) and Knife TypeC (Figure 9-5). Knife Type A was found in greatest number; the hilt is ‘I’ shaped in crosssection, and looking down along the spine of the knife reveals a slightly curved proﬁle(Figure 9-1 left). In most cases the hilt terminates in a ring shape. Some items have adesign on the hilt; these have been cast with a raised design on the surface of the piece. In
many cases the joint of the casting mold is clearly visible on the back. These distinctive
features, as well as the actual molds excavated from the sites, indicate a strong possibility
that Type A knives were made by using a mold carved from a flat stone to cast twosymmetrical pieces that were then joined together. Type A1 and A2 daggers and Type C
knives on the other hand, have relatively complex forms like an animal head or bell at theend of the hilt. They also have patterns such as sequences of dots a few millimeters long, or
narrow zig-zag lines indented into the surface. Forms like these require additional technicalinput, certainly an inner mold inside the outer casting mold, as rendering tiny indented
patterns in a stone mold is extremely challenging. Furthermore, some Type A1 and A2
daggers and Type C knives have patterns applied on the sides of the hilt, hiding the locationof the mold joint. These factors suggest that Type A1 and A2 daggers and Type C knives
may not have been cast by joining two ﬂat pieces like Type A knives, but may instead havebeen cast with a method similar to the lost-wax technique. However, it must be added thatin this case, unlike the lost-wax technique that began in Han Dynasty China, the items
are thought to have been shaped in an original model using animal fat or similar materials(Grishin 1960). These types of daggers and knives can be divided into two broad categories
according to production technique: Type A knives; and Type A1 and A2 daggers and TypeC knives. In addition to daggers and knives, the Mongolia Bronze Complex also included
Types I, II, and IIIA battle axes with sockets, as well as axes with sockets and spearheads.
The Mongolia Bronze Complex, consisting of this set of bronze artifacts, is known to haveextended from the Great Wall Region to south-eastern Baikal, but does not appear as a set
in Xinjiang or southern or western Siberia. The distribution of this complex corresponds
precisely with an area centered in Mongolia (the Mongolian Plateau). Of the artifact types
associated with the Mongolia Bronze Complex, Type I battle axes with sockets (Figure© Japanese Archaeological Association

298

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 8. Changes in daggers from the latter half of the second millennium BC to the beginningof the ﬁrst millennium BC
1: Takahama 2000a-no. 276, 2: Grishin1971-tab. 8-1, 3: Tokyo National Museum 1997- no. 41(Tokyo National Museum collection), 4: Loehr1949-pl.III-10, 5: Andersson1932-pl.VII-2, 6:
Zhongguo neimenggu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2007-p.162-24, 7: Zhongguo neimenggu
wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo et al. 2007-p.156-17, 8: Tokyo National Museum 1997-no. 38 (Collectionof the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm), 9: Andersson1932-pl.IX-3, 10: Karlgren1945pl.37-227, 11: Miyamoto 2008-fig. 8-1, 12: Takahama 2000a -no. 279(left), 13: Grishin 1971tab. 7-8, 14: Chlenova 1976-tab. 2-4: Chlenova 1967-tab. 3-3, 16: Chlenova 1967-tab. 3-23, 17:
Ternozhkin1976-ﬁg. 68-7, 18: Ternozhkin 1976-ﬁg. 68-6
© Japanese Archaeological Association

299

MATSUMOTO Keita

Figure 9. Various knife forms from the latter half of the second millennium BC to the beginning of
the ﬁrst millennium BC
1~4: Matsumoto 2012-ﬁg. 10-1~4 (1, 4: Collection of Tokyo University, 2: Abakan City Museum
Collection, 3: Minusinsk Museum Collection), 5: Matsumoto et al. 2019-ﬁg. 10-4 (Middle Gobi
Museum Collection), 6: Chlenova 1972-tab. 8-21

10-2) are descended from EAMP (Eurasian Metallurgical Province) battle axes withsockets (Figure 10-1), so there must have been EAMP inﬂuences in the development ofMongolia Bronze Complex wares. Nevertheless, the Mongolia Bronze Complex forms
essentially developed independently in Mongolia.
The Early Karasuk Bronze Complex is characterized by Knife Type Ba (Figure 9-2).
This type has a distinctive shape with blade and hilt intersecting almost at a right angle.
In most cases, the hilt is ﬂat in cross section. Looking down along the spine of the knife
shows that it does not curve but is often straight (Figure 9-2, left). Some items have adesign on the hilt; these were cast with the design indented into the surface of the piece. As
is the case for Knife Type A, in many cases the joint of the casting mold is visible on thespine, but not so clearly visible as Type A. These features of Type Ba are shared by Types
Bb and Bc, suggesting the possibility that a diﬀerent casting method from that for Type A
was used for Type Ba. Most likely, a model of the knife was ﬁrst made and then pressed
into clay or other high plasticity material to obtain a set of two molds. The use of a model
made it easy to add designs carved into the surface. The molds ﬁt together better than in
the case of Type A—for which two symmetrical molds were separately carved—and thatwas presumably why the joint of the mold was not clearly visible. Moreover, some TypeBa knives have a slight depression on the hilt near its intersection with the blade (see arrow© Japanese Archaeological Association

300

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 10. Changes in battle axes with sockets from the latter half of the second millennium BC tothe beginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC
1: Grishin 1971-tab. 12-2, 2: Guo 1993-ﬁg. 3-8, 3: Andersson 1932-pl.X-6, 4: Cao et al. 2009-p.552,
5: Beijing-shi Wenwu Guanli-chu 1976-ﬁg. 7-4

on Figure 9-2). This depression was probably a vestige of a knife (copper-blade and bonehilt knife) consisting of a blade inserted into a hilt made of organic material like bone (Figure9-6). The likelihood was high that such a knife was the model for Type Ba. The distributionof Knife Type Ba is almost exclusively conﬁned to the Minusinsk Basin, indicating that
this type of knife appeared in that area based on the prior existence of copper-blade, bonehilt knives.
In this way the Mongolia Bronze Complex (Monglia) and the Early Karasuk Bronze
Complex (Minusinsk) coexisted in the latter half of the second millennium BC, and thelatter gradually incorporated the elements of the former. Knife Type Bb (Figure 9-3), like
Knife Type Ba, has vaguely visible joint of the casting mold and a straight-line proﬁlewhen viewed from the spine of the knife (Figure 9-3, left), indicating that a model was usedin the production process. The blade transitions gradually to the hilt, and the overall shapeof the knife is closer to Knife Type A. In addition, in the Minusinsk Basin, Type B1a andB2a daggers (Figure 8-11, -2), assumed to date from the same period as Type Bb knives,
developed from Type A2 daggers of the Mongolia Bronze Complex, but Type A2 daggers
themselves have not been excavated from the Minusinsk Basin. Based on the production
technique of the Early Karasuk Bronze Complex and incorporating shapes and otherfeatures of Mongolia Bronze Complex styles, new types came into being in the Minusinsk© Japanese Archaeological Association

301

MATSUMOTO Keita

Basin. This group of new types is “the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex.”
Around the eleventh century BC, in the Late Karasuk complex centered in the Minusinsk
Basin, Knife Type Bc (Figure 9-3) developed from Knife Type Bb, and Dagger Types
B1b and B2b (Figure 8-12, -3) developed from Dagger Types B1a and B2a. They quickly
spread to Mongolia (Figure 17), the home to the Mongolia Bronze Complex. Furthermore,
the types of the Late Karasuk complex blades spread as far as Western Siberia and Ukraine,and their influence was pronounced at various Cimmerian sites (Terenozhkin 1976).
Even in the tenth century BC and onward Knife Type Bc (Figure 9-3) existed and Dagger
Types B1c, B1q, and B2c (Figures 8-13, -8, -4) developed from Dagger Types B1b andB2b. Among these, Dagger B1c spread from the Minusinsk westward while B1q andB2c daggers were found mainly in the Great Wall Region. These regional features would
become even more conspicuous in the following phase. Among battle axes with sockets,
Type IIIA originating in the Mongolia Bronze Complex continued to be used in the Late
Karasuk Bronze Complex, too. But a notable diﬀerence is that the new Type IIIB battle axe
with socket that has a pointed blade tip (Figure 10-5) appeared in the Late Karasuk Bronze
Complex.

V.

Emergence of the Scytho-Siberian Cultures and Animal Motifs

New light can be shed on the state of Scytho-Siberian cultures at the time of theiremergence by comparison with the conditions of the immediately preceding Karasuk
period. Especially, based on the incorporation of bronze complexes discussed in IV above,
this section organizes the trends in daggers conﬁguration during the formative period of
Scytho-Siberian cultures. These daggers basically developed from Type B1c, B1q, and B2cdaggers of the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex. Types B1e (Figure 8-15, -16) and B1f (Figure
8-17, -18) derived from Type B1c via Type B1d (Figure 8-14); Type B1r (Figure 8-9) from
B1q; and Type B2e (Figure 8-6, -7) from B2c via B2d (Figure 8-5).
The latter half (c. tenth century BC) of the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex alreadysaw the appearance of regionally characteristic types, and by sometime around the ninth
century BC, regional diﬀerences were clear among the four types of daggers mentioned
above: Type B1e appeared in western and southern Siberia, Type B1f in the area centeringon the northern Caucasus, and Types B2e and B1r in the Great Wall Region. All dagger
types from the Late Karasuk complex onwards share lineages starting with B1a and B2a.
As for bronze knives, Knife Type Bc, from the Late Karasuk complex, continued to be
used. In other words, the types of both daggers and knives used at the beginning stageof Scytho-Siberian cultures around the ninth century BC, came directly from the Late
Karasuk complex, and there was not a signiﬁcant change in the style itself. This stage,
characterized by the three distinctive regions of the Eurasian Steppes, can be distinguished© Japanese Archaeological Association

302

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 11. Animal motifs from the latter half of the second millennium BC to the beginning of theﬁrst millennium BC

as the Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex. By comparison, using the same criterion of dagger
types, the Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex in the Steppes at the time of the emergence of the
Scytho-Siberian cultures shows a low degree of similarity to the preceding Late Karasukcomplex.
The study examines Scythian animal motifs—which have drawn attention as notableelements of Scytho-Siberian cultures—along with animal motifs of preceding times. As aresult, it has been conﬁrmed that incidences of the animal head motif with protruding eyes
and muzzle (Figure 11-1, -2), which was predominant in the Monglian Bronze Complex,
began to decrease in the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex, and that so-called Scythian animal
motifs such as the boar (Figure 11-3) and feline (Figure 11-4) became dominant in the
Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex. It was also found that, compared with Scythian animal
motifs, the animal head motif with protruding eyes and muzzle was a very strong norm
among techniques of expression and motif arrangement on the vessel.

VI.

Consideration

Seima-Turbino Transcultural Phenomenon

The analysis of Seima-Turbino style bronze spears in section II showed that the changes
from Types Ba to Bb to Bc spears were shared in the area from the vicinity of the Urals
to the Ob’ Basin (Western Siberia). This cannot be explained simply by a one-time massmigration in a speciﬁc period. It shows that even if there were original sources of goods
and information it was possible to update the information in the area during a certain
period of time. The change from Types Ca to Cb spears (in the west of the Urals) wasthat of a lineage diﬀerent from Ba-Bb-Bc spears (in the east of the Urals), but the natureof the change is similar between the two groups of spears. It is shown, therefore, that the
Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon, while its east and west parts overlapped at the
Ural mountains, diﬀers in the way information was shared between the east and west (Figure
12).
© Japanese Archaeological Association

303

MATSUMOTO Keita

Figure 12.

The Bronze Age I in the Eurasian Steppes (the ﬁrst half of the second millennium BC)

Next, let us consider the nature of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon by focusing onchanges in bronzeware. We now know that as spearheads grow bigger from Types Ba to
Bb to Bc and from Types Ca to Cb, mainly their shafts become slimmer. That the shaft,which is supposed to support the blade, narrows as the blade becomes larger seems toconﬂict with the interests of functionality. Such a change cannot be practical. In addition,some spearheads of the Seima-Turbino type are made of silver, a factor that adds weightto the possibility that those types of spearheads were not for practical use. This seems
incongruous with Chernykh’s association of them with groups of warriors (1992). That
bladed tools grew bigger and less practical is a phenomenon also found among bronzewarein Japan’s Yayoi period (ninth century BC to third century AD) although there is a vastdiﬀerence in time and place between them.
The analysis of the Rostovka cemetery in western Siberia, where Seima-Turbino bronze
objects were unearthed, has produced two major ﬁndings:(1) Group- α bronzes (relatively simple in shape) and Group- β bronzes (relatively complex
in shape) correspond to diﬀerences in the circumstances surrounding their unearthingfrom graves.
(2) Neither Group- α nor Group- β bronzes are social-status related.
Group- α bronzes are relatively simple implements and ornaments found near the© Japanese Archaeological Association

304

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

deceased. They are not linked to the social status of graves. They are presumed to havebeen used as implements of daily life and decorative items before they were buried withthe deceased. Relatively complex-shaped bronzes, Group- β were found thrust into aburial pit or elsewhere, indicating the presence of some norms regarding burial. The
attributes of the buried individual and the burial pit are more likely to be ambiguous thanin the case of Group- α. In other words, Group- β bronze objects were not monopolizedby specific graves, but rather tended to have some common role in the cemetery as awhole. Among Group- β bronzes are spearheads that were found thrust into the ground,a wall, or elsewhere, suggesting that behind Group- β bronzes was a battle-oriented
consciousness such as martial distinction. However, the spearheads found grew bigger andtended to gradually lose their function as weapons. Given that they were excavated alongwith socketed axes, which were practical tools, there is a possibility that they were more
important as symbols of some kind than for actual use in battle.
The distribution of Seima-Turbino style bronze objects, given the broad commonalityof type changes, non-utilitarian uses, and burial site-wide use, shows that burial practices
and accompanying bronze objects were used as indicators of social unity, rather thanshowing migration of groups of warriors or hierarchy-based interaction of elites. Sharing of
information across a broad geographical area through bronze objects appears itself to havebeen an important objective of the said society. Conversely, that the mediation of material
things that required labor and norms was necessary suggests a weakness of social solidarity.
That had something to do with why the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon, which
had existed for several centuries, suddenly came to an end and its bronzemaking techniques
were not passed down. The termination of the technology presumably indicates thatthe advanced bronze technology served less practical purposes than the purposes (suchas burial practices and uses for social solidarity) typical of groups in possession of thebronzes.

Early Chinese bronzes

The early Chinese bronzes found in eastern Xinjiang and the Great Wall Region (the east ofboundary 1), from the period coinciding with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and EAMP,
adopted elements of the latter two cultures in a selective way. In Xinjiang and the Great
Wall Region, bronze complexes common across the three boundaries were not found; thebronzes there were peripheral to the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and EAMP. This situation
was highly likely an extension of the interactions of the said regions in the Neolithic era(Miyamoto 2000). In the southern Great Wall Region (south of boundary 3) a considerable
influence of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon is detected, indicating the possibility thatinteraction similar to that found within the Seima-Turbino phenomenon already existed
through the medium of goods. A possible main factor behind that was the inﬂuence of© Japanese Archaeological Association

305

MATSUMOTO Keita

China’s Central Plain, where society had reached a more developed, complex stage. In
this way, regions with early stage bronzes selectively adopted part of the main lineages ofbronze culture.
Above we have examined the situation of the Eurasian Steppes in the first half ofthe second millennium BC. (Figure 12). Next we will consider the circumstances andbackground of the steppes from the latter half of the second millennium BC to thebeginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC.

Mongolia Bronze Complex

The distinctive Mongolia Bronze Complex arose in Mongolia in the latter half of thesecond millennium BC while under the fluence of EAMP (Figure 16). Two production
techniques are assumed to have been used for the Mongolia Bronze Complex: one using apair of stone molds (Knife Type A) and the other using the ‘lost-wax’ technique (Dagger
Types A1 and A2, Knife Type C). The diﬀerence between the two techniques is reﬂectedin the complexity or not of the shape and design of the product. Type A knives createdby the former technique are “crude” products and Types A1 and A2 daggers and Type C
knives produced by the latter technique were “ﬁne-caliber” products. Meanwhile, there
is not much diﬀerence between daggers and knives in terms of the production techniques
as well as considering the curved hilts of Dagger Types A1 and A2, which are a doubleedged version of Knife Type C. In other words, Mongolia-type daggers and knives show
a stronger diﬀerence in the degree of crudeness or ﬁneness due to technical diﬀerences
than in terms of function. Types A1 and A2 daggers and Type C knives were frequently
sharpened, an indication that they were put to practical use. Type A knives, many ofwhich are found sharpened so often that the blade has become much smaller in size, may
be assumed to have been more or less daily-use implements. Some of Types I, II, and
IIIA battle axes with sockets were created using the two production techniques. Socketed
battle axes are fewer in number than daggers, some have ﬁne designs similar to Type A2
daggers, but some are relatively simple in form. Their degree of ﬁneness may be somewhat
lower compared with Type A1 and A2 daggers and Type C knives. In functional terms, thesocketed battle axe, with a hilt attached to the socket, was presumably used for striking.
Figure 13 schematizes the structure of the Mongolia Bronze Complex.
The Mongolia Bronze Complex has items of same types widely distributed, as with thecase of the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex (to be discussed below), and is characterizedby finely finished products sharing a high commonality. The hilts of Dagger Type A
and Knife Type C are often tipped with an animal-head motif with protruding eyes andmuzzle, making them ﬁne-caliber products of the Mongolia Bronze Complex, but suchanimals were imaginary, not real. The fact that such unrealistic elements were commonly
incorporated into mainly fine-caliber products is thought to indicate that depiction of© Japanese Archaeological Association

306

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 13.

The Structure of the Mongolia Bronze Complex

animal heads was made not at the whim of individual artisan but under strict and widely
shared rules. It can be understood that these ﬁne-caliber bronze objects were made for the
purpose of displaying to members of bronze possession groups that there was commonality
across a wide area and a social bonds behind that commonality. Production of such ﬁne
objects representing social bonds is labor-consuming and requires special techniques suchas ‘lost-wax’ casting, suggesting that the society placed greater value on bronzes that
represented social bonds than on bronze weapons and bladed tools for practical use. To put
it the other way around, the fact that a physical indicator requiring such complexity andlabor was needed could be thought to suggest that the social bonds upon which the Mongol
Bronze Complex was based were weak.
This nature of bronzes is comparable to khereksurs (stone cairn graves; Figure 15) foundin Mongolia in the said period. Khereksurs often have a number of small stone mounds(‘satellites’) with animal sacriﬁces (Figure 15 right).The distribution of khereksurs covers
the entire area from the western to central parts of the Mongolia Bronze Complex area.
The khereksurs may be considered to have been of a communal nature, used as an indicatorof unity or conﬁrmation of membership in the social group, rather than as an indicator of
power (Honeychurch et al. 2009; Houle 2009). This coincides very much with the way ﬁne
products of the Mongolia Bronze Complex were treated.
That such bronze products and khereksurs are not found before the mid-second
millennium BC, indicates that social bonds covering a wide area and mediated throughphysical indicators was formed in various parts of Mongolia in the latter half of the second
millennium BC and onward. A. D. Cybiktarov (2003) argues that pastoral economies
gradually formed due to a shift to a more arid climate that took place prior to the midsecond millennium BC, and that people’s lives became more stable because of a short© Japanese Archaeological Association

307

MATSUMOTO Keita

Figure 14.

The Structure of the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex

Figure 15. Ulaan-Uushig I, Khereksur No. 1
Takahama et al. 2006-pl.3-2

period wet climate in the mid-second millennium BC, and that from that stage onward
cultural conditions underwent a dramatic change in Mongolia. As the climate changed,
livestock farming emerged as the principal means of subsistence widely in Mongolia
for the first time. The stabilization of pastoral farming presumably allowed increased
productivity and storage of excess, leading to established ranges and cycles of seasonal
migration. Stabilized migration cycles and expansion of pastoral land most likely
contributed to a broad social unity across generations and geographical spaces. Under these© Japanese Archaeological Association

308

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

conditions, bronze objects, ﬁne ones included, began to be produced as emblems of social
unity. However, the social unity achieved must have been fragile and material-oriented andalways in danger of disruption or collapse. In that regard, the situation of the Mongolia
Bronze Complex closely resembled that of the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon.

Early Karasuk Bronze Complex

Knife Type Ba is the only type distinctive to the Early Karasuk Bronze Complex, whicharose in the Minusinsk Basin in the same period as the Mongolia Bronze Complex. Withfew decorative elements, Type Ba knives are oriented to practical use. In that sense it iscomparable to Knife Type A of the Mongolia complex. Much remains unknown about
the Early Karasuk complex and the background of how it came into being requires future
research. In the ﬁrst half of the second millennium BC, immediately prior to the Early
Karasuk complex, the distinctive Okunev culture is known to have existed in the Minusinsk
Basin, mainly in its southern part. The Okunev culture is known for stone pillars carved
with characteristic designs. If such stone pillars functioned as indicators of aﬃliation to agroup, it is likely that the southern Minusinsk Basin saw the rise and development of its
own social unity earlier than that in Mongolia. Or, concerning the development of livestock
farming in the Minusinsk Basin, some researchers point to the peculiarity of geographicalconditions in the basin. With suﬃcient rainfall in summer and little snow in winter, theMinusinsk Basin is blessed with abundant grass throughout the year, making the area moresuitable for pastoral farming than semi-desert steppe areas such as Kazakhstan. Under these
conditions, population density increased in this limited area, leading to conﬂicts of interest
and war (Zyabilin 1977). These circumstances may have provided the background to theearlier appearance in the Minusinsk Basin than elsewhere of the Late Karasuk Bronze
Complex, which consisted of bronze items not as group indicators but for practical use.

Late Karasuk Bronze Complex

In the Minusinsk Basin at the end of the second millennium BC, a new bronze complex
emerged that was based on the production techniques of the Early Karasuk Bronze
Complex and incorporated elements of the Mongolia Bronze Complex. This new complex
is the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex. The production techniques used for Knife Types Bb
and Bc of this complex are the same as those of the Early Karasuk complex. Knife TypeBb and Dagger Type B1a share several common features and they were likely made using
the same technique. Designs and hilt ends attached to Types B1 and B2 daggers are mostly
simple, as in the case of Type B (Ba, Bb, Bc) knives, and there is no clear distinction
between ﬁne and crude products in the new complex. Unlike Types A1 and A2 daggers of
the Mongolia complex, which have a curved hilt and a rounded tip of the blade, Types B1
and B2 daggers of the Late Karasuk complex have a straight hilt and the blade tip is more
© Japanese Archaeological Association

309

MATSUMOTO Keita

likely to be pointed. While Mongolia complex daggers somewhat resemble knives in termsof function, Late Karasuk daggers have the specialized function of stabbing, indicating an
increased functional distinction between daggers and knives. As for socketed battle axes,
Type IIIA from the Mongolia complex continued to be used, but no ﬁne items from the Late
Karasuk complex have been found. Type IIIB axes, which developed from Type IIIA, havea pointed blade tip, indicating that they have the function of stabbing in addition to IIIA’s function of striking. The disappearance of ﬁne items and the functional diﬀerentiation in
the case of socketed battle axes can be considered as going hand in hand with the changesof daggers and knives. Similar to Figure 13, this can be schematized in Figure 14. As theﬁgure shows, the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex is the result of the Early Karasuk complex
incorporating elements of the Mongolia complex to expand the functions of bronze objects
as tools and weapons. Dagger Types A1 and A2, which appeared in the Mongolia complex,
are the oldest bronze daggers with blade and hilt made from a single casting in East Asia.
Daggers in Mongolia initially appeared as part of ﬁne items rather than practical tools andweapons, and it was not until the Late Karasuk complex in the Minusinsk Basin that theycame to have the specialized function of stabbing. In other words, the daggers graduallyassumed the function of weapons in the course of interaction with other cultures.
Not long after its appearance in the Minusinsk Basin (circa eleventh century BC), theLate Karasuk complex began to penetrate Mongolia, driving out the Mongolia Bronze
Complex (Figure 17). While the Early Karasuk complex incorporated elements of theMongolia complex on the basis of its own production techniques, and hence the birth of

Figure 16.

Bronze Age II in the Eurasian Steppes (latter half of the second millennium BC)© Japanese Archaeological Association

310

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Figure 17.

The Bronze Age III in the Eurasian Steppes (approx. eleventh to tenth centuries BC)

the Late Karasuk complex, in the case of the Late Karasuk complex, however, the complex
itself, including bronze types and production methods, penetrated Mongolia. The eﬀects
of the Late Karasuk complex on Mongolia, therefore, were far greater than those of theMongolia complex on the Early Karasuk complex. It is further notable that, in contrast to
the Mongolia complex, the Late Karasuk complex that entered Mongolia lacks ﬁne bronzes
and is characterized by practicality and considerable functional diﬀerentiation based on it.
This suggests that, by the time of the beginning of the Late Karasuk complex, the social
bonds symbolized by the medium of physical indicator (ﬁne bronzes) at least tended to beon the decline in Mongolia. That is to say, social conditions toward the end of the Mongolia
Bronze Complex were likely similar to those in the Minusinsk Basin, where the Late
Karasuk complex arose.
According to Cybiktarov (2003), in the latter half of the second millennium BC andonward, as the climate became more arid in Mongolia mass migrations occurred insearch of grassland suitable for pastoral farming, which led to a clash of the cultures ofthe eastern and the western parts of Mongolia from the eleventh century BC to the ninth
century BC. A. M. Khazanov (1994) points out the arid climate in the latter half of thesecond millennium BC and the resultant rise of horse-riding nomadic culture. Anotherstudy indicates a possibility that mounted nomadism appeared in Mongolia earliest in
the Eurasian steppes (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007). With the start of horse-riding
nomadic lifestyles, herders’ range of activity increased, and this has been considered
responsible for the similarities in material culture over a wide area and for the formationof large groups. Prior to wide-area migrations and integration of groups, however, it can© Japanese Archaeological Association

311

MATSUMOTO Keita

be assumed that there were small group migrations and that the living spheres graduallywidened, leading to increased contact among these groups. The increase in contacts among
them did not necessarily lead to integration. There is the possibility that conﬂict among
them over grasslands, water, and metal resources grew frequent. When contact amonggroups prompted by the advent of equestrian nomadism expanded to the point that conﬂicts
could no longer be handled through the social bonds signaled by the material indicators of
the Mongolia Bronze Complex, new social strategies such as organization of large groups
by a leader were likely adopted in Mongolia. With these as the backdrop, the Mongoliacomplex centering on ﬁne bronzes declined and the Late Karasuk complex characterizedby highly practical and functional weapons and tools became pervasive. Elements of theLate Karasuk Bronze Complex spread from southern Siberia to Mongolia and across theUrals as far as Ukraine. It is possible that the above-mentioned social changes occurred not
only in Mongolia but widely over the entire Eurasian steppes in the said period. The Late
Karasuk complex was not involved in interactions in a speciﬁc region but was acceptablein any region that underwent social change. That was why the Late Karasuk complex andits elements spread so widely.

Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex

Following its diffusion, the Late Karasuk Bronze Complex gradually assumed regional
characteristics, and around the ninth century BC there were three regions where distinctive
characteristics of the Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex rose: western and southern Siberia;
the area centering on the northern Caucasus, and the Great Wall Region (Mongolia). The
placement of types in the Post-Karasuk complex is almost the same as in the case of theLate Karasuk complex.
The Post-Karasuk complex has been considered to coincide with the beginning of
Scytho-Siberian cultures. The advent of equestrian nomadism at the beginning of the ﬁrst
millennium BC and resultant homogeneous cultural zone have been noted from early on
in research history. A comparison throughout the entire steppes using the same criterion ofbronze daggers, however, shows that the regional diﬀerences in the Post-Karasuk complex
were more pronounced than in the Late Karasuk complex. Since the highly practical andfunctional bronzes of the Late Karasuk complex spread due to social changes in various
parts of the area, it is only natural that the local characteristics of each part of the area
gradually became distinctive in the Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex, which is directly linked
to the Late Karasuk complex.
It has been made clear that so-called Scythian animal motifs in the Post-Karasukcomplex, such as the boar motif (Figure 11-3) and the feline motif (Figure 11-4), show arelaxation of norms about production techniques as compared with the Mongolia complex’s animal head motif with protruding eyes and muzzle (Figure 11-1, 2). The Mongolia© Japanese Archaeological Association

312THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

complex is where various groups of people were loosely united through the medium of ﬁne
bronzes created using special techniques. The strong norm featuring the “animal head motif
with protruding eyes and muzzle” can be understood to indicate that such animal motifs
functioned as an indicator of group unity. On the other hand, the Scythian animal motifs,
the norms about which were relaxed, emerged after the Late Karasuk complex and cameto be frequently observed. The Late Karasuk and Post-Karasuk complexes did not show
the loose unity of speciﬁc groups as did the Mongolia complex, but they widely permeatedsocial groups that had attained a certain social complexity. That permeation, it can be said,
went hand in hand with the relaxation of norms about animal motifs. Scythian animal
motifs are ones that were acceptable even outside some speciﬁc social groups.
In terms of social complexity, too, differences have been stressed between the
Post-Karasuk complex phase and the preceding phase. In Tuva, Central Asia, during the
Post-Karasuk complex phase there appeared the Arzhan-1 Scythian monument with its
massive burial mound and numerous grave items (Figure 18). Studies suggest the formationof a new union [federation] of groups surrounding the Arzhan burial mound (Cybiktarov2003) or the formation of a tribal union [federation] across a wide area (Savinov 2002).
The Upper Xiajiadian culture in the eastern Great Wall Region of the said period saw theappearance of elaborate burials with a large number of Chinese ritual vessels, as found in
the Xiaoheishiogu site in Inner Mongolia and the Nanshangen site (Figure 1-24). Thesephenomena did not suddenly appear for the ﬁrst time at the phase of the Post-Karasuk
Bronze Complex, however. Examples of elaborate burials such as found in the Upper
Xiajiadian culture had already existed at the Baifu site in Beijing and other sites fromthe Late Karasuk complex. The Arzhan-1 monument in Tuva, while showing the further
development of social hierarchies, has many accompanying small stone mounds similarto ‘satellites’ in the khereksur (Figure 18 right). One can assume that a mass sacrificeof horses was performed outside the burial (central) mound. Even if there was a groupof socially high-status people including its leader, their status could not be guaranteed
without the ritual sacriﬁce of livestock. A stable class system, in which the social status of
speciﬁc individuals or groups was passed down from one generation to the next had yet tobe achieved. Social stratiﬁcation and the practical use of bronzes, which began in the Late
Karasuk Bronze Complex, gradually diﬀused and further developed in various parts of thearea in the Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex. In other words, the Scytho-Siberian cultures did
not make their appearance all of a sudden but can be understood to be the consequence of
gradual changes over 200 to 300 years after the major transformation of social conditions
that had been going on since the second millennium BC.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

313

MATSUMOTO Keita

Figure 18. Arzhan I burial complex in Tuva (Upper: massive burial mound, Lower: wooden
burial chamber, Right: stone mounds
Gryaznov 1980-ﬁg. 1 and 3

VII. The Bronze Age in the Eurasian Steppes
The Figure 1 map, with contour lines representing 1,000-meter elevations shows the vast
plains stretching eastward from the Urals to the Altai Mountains, which create a major
topographical change. The Altais follow the national borders of the four present-day
countries of Russia, Kazakhstan, China, and Mongolia. From the northern flank of the
Altais the Sayan Mountains extend eastward as far as Lake Baikal. The area surroundedon the northern and southern sides by the Altai and Sayan mountains is Mongolia, which
consists of highlands and mountains in contrast to the ﬂatlands outside those mountains
which make up Siberia. The highlands stretch to the Greater Khingan Range in the eastand to the Huangtu (Loess) Plateau in the south. This means that the topography andnatural environment on the western and eastern sides of the Altai and Sayan mountains are
immensely diﬀerent, and the diﬀerences set the basic conditions for development of the© Japanese Archaeological Association

314

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Bronze Age in the Eurasian Steppes. From the discussion in the foregoing sections we candivide the Bronze Age into four stages as follows:

Bronze Age I (Figure 12)First half of the second millennium BC. The EAMP and Seima-Turbino transcultural
phenomenon spread to the west of the Altai and Sayan mountains. By contrast, the early(Chinese) bronzes, which were inﬂuenced by both cultures, spread in the Xinjiang and theGreat Wall Region in the area southeast of the mountains. The EAMP and Seima-Turbino
phenomenon were partially transmitted to the area from eastern Xinjing and eastward, andso this area, especially, lacked its own unique bronze complex. We may describe these
relationships prior to the formation of a unique bronze complex “ﬁrst-type interaction.”
The Seima-Turbino phenomenon was roughly divided east and west by the Urals, andthe east and west areas had non-practical bronze artifacts in common for a certain periodof time. This state in which a wide area was loosely united through distinctive ﬁne-caliber
artifacts and graves is called “second-type interaction.” Group unity of this type was fragile
as it depended on material goods.
There were major regional differences between the areas separated by the Altai and
Sayan mountains during this period—Mongolia (eastern Xinjiang, the Great Wall Region)
representing first-type interaction, and Siberia and northern Xinjiang and westward
representing second-type interaction. The inter-regional relationship straddling themountains played an important part throughout the Bronze Age.

Bronze Age II (Figure 16)

Middle of the second millennium BC to the twelfth century BC. In this period, the Early
Karasuk Bronze Complex emerged in the Minusinsk Basin and the Mongolia Bronze
Complex developed in Mongolia. In the area to the west of these areas, the EAMP lingered
from the previous period. In the Mongolia complex second-type interaction through themedium of ﬁne-caliber artifacts began. The epicenter of this type of interaction was theover-1,000-meters-above-sea-level area of the Mongolian Plateau on the eastern side of the
Altai and Sayan mountains. It is diﬃcult to reconstruct the state of interaction regarding
the Early Karasuk complex in the Minusinsk Basin, which lies outside these mountains, butthere is a possibility that a third type of interaction, to be explained below, appeared in theBasin earlier than anywhere else.

Bronze Age III (Figure 17)

The eleventh to tenth century BC. This is the stage in which the Late Karasuk Bronze
Complex arose and expanded. At the end of the second millennium BC the Late Karasukcomplex emerged in the Minusinsk Basin as the result of the Early Karasuk complex in© Japanese Archaeological Association

315

MATSUMOTO Keita

the Basin incorporating elements of the Mongolia Bronze Complex to meet increased
utilization of bronze for practical purposes. The interaction facilitating the wider use ofpractical bronze artifacts is called third-type. This third-type interaction spread in theEurasian Steppes, Mongolia included, as the Late Karasuk complex. We may speculate thatthe emergence of horse-rider nomadism is the background to the shift from second to thirdtype interaction. During Bronze Age III, the natural topography of the Altai and Sayan
mountains ceased to impose barriers and the culture of the whole of the Eurasian Steppes
became more uniform.

Bronze Age IV

Circa ninth century BC and the Post-Karasuk Bronze Complex stage. The Post-Karasukcomplex can be understood as the regionalization of the Late Karasuk complex, which
expanded and assumed distinct regional characteristics in various places. While third-type
interaction remained, each part of the [Eurasian steppes] has its own characteristics andthe emergence of leadership became apparent as indicated by the appearance of elaborate
burial sites.
Looked at in terms of the social position of bronzes, the ﬁrst, second, and third typesof interaction between the two areas separated by the Altai and Sayan mountain ranges
discussed above can be summed up as follows:First-type interaction

During this phase of interaction, simple bronze items replaced stones for use as tools
and ornaments. Their role in society was necessarily low due to technical and resource
limitations. This applies to the cultures with early bronzes in the area from eastern Xinjiang
to the Great Wall Region in Bronze Age I.

Second-type interaction

During this phase of interaction, fine-caliber bronzes appeared. There were also many
practical bronze artifacts such as weapons, tools, and ornaments. Bronzeware played afairly large role in society, but advanced and reﬁned bronze production techniques were
employed only for making non-practical, ﬁne-caliber bronze artifacts. The use of thesetechniques and of ﬁne-caliber bronzes themselves were constrained by social conventions,and there were presumably strict norms and rules regarding them. Distinct fine-caliber
bronze artifacts, together with burial practices, were utilized as confirming indicatorsof loose social ties. This applies to both the Bronze Age I Seima-Turbino transcultural
phenomenon and the Bronze Age II Mongolia Bronze Complex.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

316

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Third-type interaction

During this phase of interaction during Bronze Age III and onward (Late Karasuk andPost-Karasuk complexes), ﬁne-caliber bronzes used as indicators of ties were no longer
conspicuous. While the loose social ties in second-type interaction broke down, newsocial strategies for visibly manifesting leadership were adopted. Bronze was functionallydiﬀerentiated to become tools, weapons, and other practical implements. In other words,
the techniques that had been constrained by social convention in the stage of the secondtype interaction were now liberated and bronze was freely utilized for practical purposes.
Given the foregoing, the Bronze Age in the Eurasian Steppes can be deﬁned as a longprocess during which bronze was released from technical and social constraints anddeveloped as tools and weapons throughout the region on both sides of the mountains.
The conclusions reached in the present book, Yūrashia sōgen chitai no Seidōki jidai (TheBronze Age in the Eurasian Steppes), may be summed up as follows. The Bronze Age inthe period from the second millennium BC to the beginning of the ﬁrst millennium BC
unfolds in two main areas separated by the Altai and Sayan mountains and in the interaction
between them that can be observed throughout the period. Such interaction was part of thehistorical structure of the Eurasian Steppes region. Bronze Age culture developed throughthe mutual interaction between the two regions straddling the mountains and there were
diﬀerences in types of interaction, means of subsistence, and degree of social complexity.
The predominant view has been that, as opposed to west-to-east inﬂuences across theEurasian Steppes, distinct bronze cultures in the form of the Seima-Turbino transcultural
phenomenon, the diffusion of “Karasuk artifacts,” and the Scytho-Siberian cultures,suddenly appeared in the eastern part of the Eurasian Steppes and spread westward. This
work argues, however, that the east-to-west inﬂuences across the Steppes did not suddenly
appear. In a more complicated process—with the Altai and Sayan mountain ranges in
between—a distinct historical structure emerged to the east of them under inﬂuences fromthe west, and east-to-west movement occurred in stages. In addition, interaction of various
kinds including migration could not possibly be accidental. The book reveals the way(types) of interaction changed in stages in the context of the whole regional structure. The
conclusion reached is that interaction, as in the case of society and means of subsistence,
became gradually complex in the long process of the Bronze Age. Further research isneeded to understand human history anew with cultural interaction at its base.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by KAKENHI (Grant Number 10J1904, 13J05408, 17K13564,
17HP5110, 17H01646, 19H05593) and The Takanashi Foundation for Historical Science.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

317

MATSUMOTO Keita

References
Japanese
Egami Namio 江上波夫 and Mizuno Seiichi 水野清一 1935 Naimōko, Chōjō-chitai『 内蒙古・長城地帯 』[Inner Mongolia and the region of the Great Wall]. Tōhō kōkogaku
sōkan, Otsushu, Dai-1-satsu (東方考古学叢刊乙種第一冊) [Archaeological Orientals,
B Series, Vol. 1]. Tokyo: Tōa Kōkogaku Kai 東 亜 考 古 学 会 [The Far-Eastern
Archeological Society].
Fujikawa Shigehiko 藤川繁彦 ed. 1999 Chūō Yūrasia no kōkogaku『中央ユーラシアの考古学』[Archaeology of the Central Eurasia]. Tokyo: Dōsei-sha 同成社.
Hayashi Toshio 林俊雄 2007 Sukitai to Kyōdo yūboku no bunmei『スキタイと匈奴 遊牧の文明』[Scythians and Xiongnu]. Tokyo: Kōdan-sha 講談社.
Masuda Seiichi 増田精一 1970 Seidōki-jidai no tōzai bunka kōryū「青銅器時代の東西文化交流」[Cultural exchanges between East–West in the Bronze Age]. Kan to Roma『漢とローマ』[Han China and Rome] (Vol. 1 of Tōzai bunmei no kōryū 東西文明の交流[Exchange between Eastern and Western civilizations]) , edited by Mori Masao 護雅夫,
pp. 84–118, Heibon-sha 平凡社, Tokyo.
Matsumoto Keita 松 本 圭 太 2012 Mongoria niokeru seidouki-yōshiki no tenkai「 モ ン ゴ
リアにおける青銅器様式の展開」[The Spread and Development of Bronze Styles in
Mongolia], Chūgoku kōkogaku『中国考古学』[Chinese Archaeology]12: 111–134.
Matsumoto Keita ・ Amgalantugs Tsend ・ Ishtseren Lochin, 2019 Mongoru-koku
Umunu-Gobi-ken, Dondo-Gobi-ken hakubutsukan shozō seidouriki to sono ichiduke「モンゴル国ウムヌゴビ県、ドンドゴビ県博物館所蔵青銅利器とその位置づけ」[TheBronze Daggers and Knives in the Collection of the South Gobi Museum and the
Middle Gobi Museum, and Their Historical Meanings], Yokohama Yūrashia bunkakan kiyou『 横 浜 ユ ー ラ シ ア 文 化 館 紀 要 』[Bulletin of the Yokohama Museum of
EurAsia Cultures]7: 23–36.
Miyamoto Kazuo 宮本一夫 2000 Chūgoku kodai hokkyō-shi no kōkogaku teki kenkyū『中国 古 代 北 疆 史 の 考 古 学 的 研 究 』[Archaeological Research on the Northern Border
Region of Ancient China]. Chūgoku-shoten 中国書店, Fukuoka.
Miyamoto Kazuo 2008 Erumitāju bijutsukan shozō Minushinsuku chihō no seidouki「エルミタージュ美術館所蔵ミヌシンスク地方の青銅器」[Bronzes of Minusinsk District
owned by The State Hermitage Museum], in Miyamoto Kazuo (ed.) Chōjō-chitai
seidōki bunka no kenkyū『 長 城 地 帯 青 銅 器 文 化 の 研 究 』[Research on the Bronze
Culture of the Great Wall Region]: 141–156. Nara: Research Center for the Studies ofSilk Road.
Miyamoto Kazuo, Sano Kazumi 佐 野 和 美, and Matsumoto Keita 2008 Chōjō-chitai no
shoki-seidoki shūsei「 長城地帯の初期青銅器集成 」[Corpus of Bronzes of the Great
Wall Region], in Miyamoto Kazuo (ed.) Chōjō-chitai seidōki bunka no kenkyū『長城地帯青銅器文化の研究』[Research on the Bronze Culture of the Great Wall Region],
79–140. Nara: Research Center for the Studies of Silk Road.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

318

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

Takahama Shū 髙濱秀 1995 Seishū, Tōshū-jidai niokeru Chūgoku hokuhen no bunka「西周・東周時代における中国北辺の文化」[The Culture of the Northern China in the Western
Zhou and Eastern Zhou periods], in Bunmeigaku genron: Egami Namio Sensei Beiju
Kinen Ronshū.『 文 明 学 原 論 江 上 波 夫 先 生 米 寿 記 念 論 集 』[Fundamental issuesof civilizations: Papers in celebration of Professor Egami Namio’s eighty-eighth
birthday], edited by staﬀ of the Ancient Orient Museum, 339–357. Tokyo: Yamakawa
shuppan-sha 山川出版社.
Takahama Shū 1999 Daikō-Anrei kara Arutai made「大興安嶺からアルタイまで」[FromDaxinganling to Altai]. Chūō Yūrasia no kōkogaku『中央ユーラシアの考古学』[TheArchaeology of the Central Eurasia]: Fujikawa Shigehiko (ed.) 53–136, Tokyo: Dōseisha.
Takahama Shū 2000a Hoppou sougen chitai no bijutsu「 北 方 草 原 地 帯 の 美 術 」[Art of
the Eurasian Steppe], in Takahama Shu and Okamura Hidenori (eds.) Sekai bijutsu
daizenshū Touyou hen 1 Senshi, Yin, Shu『 世 界 美 術 大 全 集 東 洋 編 1 先 史・ 殷・周 』[New history of world art, Orient 1, Prehistory, Yin, Zhou]: 333–348. Tokyo:
Shōgaku-kan 小学館.
Takahama Shū 2000 Zen 2 sennenki zenhan no Chūō-Yūrasia no dōki jakkan ni tsuite「前 2 千年紀前半の中央ユーラシアの銅器若干について」[Discussions on some copper
artifacts of the Central Eurasia in the ﬁrst half of the 2nd millennium B.C.]. Shirukurōdo gaku kenkyū sōsho, No. 3 (Metal and civilization)『シルクロード学研究叢書』3(金属と文明): 111–127. Nara: Research Center for the Studies of Silk Road シルクロー
ド学研究センター .
Tokyo National Museum 東 京 国 立 博 物 館 1997 Dai-Sōgen no kiba-minzoku: Chūgoku
hoppou no seidouki『 大草原の騎馬民族 : 中国北方の青銅器 』[Mounted nomads ofAsian steppe: Chinese northern bronzes] (Exhibition catalogue), Tokyo.
ChineseBeijing-shi Wenwu Guanli-chu 北京市文物管理処 [CPAM, City of Peking] 1976 Beijingdiqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo Chengping Baifu xizhou muguomu
de xinqishi「 北 京 地 区 的 又 一 重 要 考 古 収 穫 昌 平 白 浮 西 周 木 椁 墓 的 新 啓 示 」[TheWestern Chou Wooden Chambered Tombs at Pai-fu in Ch’ang-p’ing]. Kaogu『考古』[Archaeology] 1976-4: 246–258.
Cao Wei 曹瑋, Shaani-sheng kaogu yanjiu-yuan 陝西省考古研究院 [Shaanxi Academy ofArchaeology] 2009 Shaanbei chutu qingtongqi 3『陝北出土青銅器 3』[Bronzes from
Northern Shaanxi 3]. Chengdu: Bashu Shushe 巴蜀書社.
Guo Dashun 郭大順 1993 Liao-he liuyu “beifang-shi qingtongqi” de faxian yu yanjiu「遼河流域“ 北方式青銅器” 的発現興研究 」[Discoveries and researches of ‘the Northern
Bronzes’ in the The Western Chou Wooden Chambered Tombs at Pai-fu in Ch’ang-p’
ing]. Neimenggu wenwu kaogu『内蒙古文物考古』[Inner Mongolia cultural relic andarchaeology] 1993-1.2: 23–28.
Han Jianye 韓 建 業 2005 Xinjinag qingtong shidai zaoqi tieqi shidai wenhua de fenqi he© Japanese Archaeological Association

319

MATSUMOTO Keita

puxi「 新 疆 青 銅 時 代 早 期 鉄 器 時 代 文 化 的 分 期 和 譜 系 」[Cultural Division andPedigree of the Bronze Age & Early Iron Age in Xinjiang]. Xinjiang wenwu『新疆文物』[Cultural Relics of Xinjiang] 2005-3: 57–99.
Lin Meicun 林梅村 2016 Saiyima-Tu’erbin’nuo wenhua zai Zhong’guo「塞伊瑪—図爾賓諾
文化在中国」[The spread of the Seima-Turbino Culture in China]. Kaogu yu wenwu『考古与文物』[Archaeology and Cultural Relics] 2016-2: 94–101.
Nei-menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 内蒙古文物考古研究所 [Archaeological Institute ofInner Mongolia Autonomous Region] and Eerduosi Bowuguan 鄂尓多斯博物館 [Ordos
Museum] 2000 Zhukaigou Qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue baogao『朱開溝 青銅時
代早期遺址発掘報告』[Zhukaigou Excavation Report on the Early Bronze Age Site].
Beijing [Peking]: Wenwu-chubanzhe 文物出版社.
Shui Tao 水涛 2001 Zhongguo xibei diqu qingtong shidai『中国西北地区青銅時代』[Papers
on the Bronze Age Archaeology of Northwest China]. Beijing [Peking]: Kexuechubanzhe 科学出版社.
Su Bingqi 蘇秉琦 and Yin Weizhang 殷瑋璋 1981 Guanyu kaoguxue wenhua de quxileixing
wenti「関於考古学文化的区系類型問題」[Diﬀerentiation of archaeological cultures].
Wenwu『文物』[Cultural Relics], 1981-5, pp. 10–17.
Tian Guangjin 田広金 and Guo Suxin 郭素新 1988 Ererduosi shi qingtongqi de yuanyuan「鄂尓多斯式青銅器的淵源」[Origin of the Ordos Bronzes]. Kaogu xuebao『考古学報』[Acta Archaeologica Sinica], 1988-3, pp. 257–275.
Wang Bo 王博 1987 Xinjiang jinshinian faxian de yixie tongqi「新疆近十年発現的一些銅
器」[Some bronzes found in Xinjiang in the last decade]. Xinjiangwenwu『新疆文物』[Cultural Relics of Xinjiang] 1987-1: 45–51.
Wuen Yuesitu 烏恩岳斯図 2007 Beifang caoyuan kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu『北方草原考古
学文化研究 青銅時代至早期鉄器時代』[Research on the Archaeological Culture of
the Northern Steppe from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age]. Kexue chubanshe 科
学出版社, Beijing [Peking].
Yang Jianhua 楊建華, Shao Huiqiu 邵会秋, and Pan Lin 潘玲 2016 Ouya caoyuan dongbu
de jinshu zhi lu『欧亜草原東部的金属之路』[The Metal Road of the Eastern Eurasian
Steppe]. Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, Shnaghai.
Zhongguo neimenggu wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo, Hanguo dongbeiya lishi caituan
2007 中國内蒙古文物考古研究所・韓國東北亞歴史財團 2007 Xiajiadian shangceng
wenhua de qingtongqi (Zhonghan gongtong xueshu diaocha baogaoshu)『夏家店上層
文化的青銅器』[Bronzes of the Upper Xiajiadian culture (Sino-Korean Joint Academic
Survey Report 2)]. Seoul: Northeast Asian History Foundation 韓国東北亜歴史財団.
EnglishAndersson, J. G. 1932 Hunting Magic in the Animal Style, Bulletin of museum of Far
Eastern Antiquities 4: 221–317.
Bokovenko, N. 1995 History of studies and the main problems in the archaeology ofSouthern Siberia during the Scythian period. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the© Japanese Archaeological Association

320THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

early iron age, edited by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Vladimir A. Bashilov, and Leonid T.
Yablonsky, pp. 255–263, Zinat Press, Berkeley, CA.
Chernykh, E. N. (translated by Sarah Wright) 1992 Ancient metallurgy in the USSR.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chernykh, E. N., E. V. Kuz’minykh, L. B. Orlovskata. 2004 Ancient Metallurgy ofNortheast Asia: From the Urals to the Saiano-Altai. Metallurgy in ancient Eastern
Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River, edited by Katheryn M. Linduff. pp. 15–36,
The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York.
Cybiktarov, A. D. 2003 Central Asia in the Bronze and early Iron ages. Archaeology,
Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 2003-1, pp. 80–97.
Frachetti, M. D. 2008 Pastoralist landscapes and social interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Honeychurch, W., J. Wright, C. Amartuvshin. 2009 Re-writing Monumental Landscapes
as Inner Asian Political Process. Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia, edited by
Bryan Hanks and Katheryn M. Linduﬀ, pp. 330–357. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Houle, J. 2009 Socially Integrative Facilities and the Emergence of Social Complexity on
the Mongolian Steppe. Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia, edited by Bryan
Hanks and Katheryn M. Linduff, pp. 358–377. Cambridge University Press, NewYork.
Karlgren, B. 1945 Some weapons and tools of the Yin dynasty. Bulletin of Museum of Far
Eastern Antiquities 17, pp. 101–144.
Khazanov, A. M. 1994 Nomads and the Outside World. University of Wisconsin Press, 2ndedition, Madison.
Kohl, P. L. 2007 The making of Bronze age Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Koryakova, L., A. Epimakhov. 2007 The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Ironages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Legrand, S. 2006 The emergence of the Karasuk culture. Antiquity 80: 843–879.
Loehr, M. 1949 Ordos Daggers and Knives New Material, Classiﬁcation and Chronology.
First Part: Daggers. Artibus Asiae, 12, pp. 23–83.
Mei, J. 2003 Cultural Interaction between China and Central Asia during the Bronze Age.
Proceedings of the British Academy, 121, pp. 1–40.
Takahama, S., Hayashi, T., Kawamata, M., Matsubara, R., Erdenebattar, D. 2006
Preliminary report of the archaeological investigations in Ulaan Uushig Ⅰ in
Mongolia, Bulletin of archaeology, the University of Kanazawa 28: 61–102.
Volkov, V. V. 1995 Early nomads of Mongolia. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in theearly iron age, edited by Jeannine Davis-Kimball, Vladimir A. Bashilov, and Leonid T.
Yablonsky. pp. 319–332, Zinat Press, Berkeley, CA.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

321

MATSUMOTO Keita

Russian
Bokovenko, N. A. [Боковенко, Н. А.] 2011 Epokhi Bronzy i rannego zheleza yuzhnoi
Sibiri: kriterii vydeleniya. Эпохи бронзы и раннего железа южной Сибири:критерии выделения [The Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Southern Siberia: thedivision of criteria]. Perekhod ot epokhn bronzy k epokhe zheleza v severnoi Evrazii,Переход от эпохи бронзы к энохе железа в северной Евразии [the Transition fromthe Bronze Age to the Iron Age in Northern Eurasia], рp.16–18, Gosudarstvennyy
Ermitazh Государственный Эрмитаж, Sankt-Peterburg Санкт-Петербург SaintPetersburg.
Chernykh, E. N. [Черных, Е. Н.] and Kuzminykh, S. V. [Кузьминых, С. В.] 1989
Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoi Evrazii. Древняя металлургия Северной Евразии
[The Ancient metallurgy of the northern Eurasia]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва
Moscow.
Chlenova, H. L. [Членова, Н. Л.] 1967 Proiskhozhdenie i rannyaya istoriya plemen
tagarskoj kultury. Происхождение и ранняя история племен тагарской культур
ы, [The origin and early history of tribes of the Tagar culture]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva
Москва Moscow.
Chlenova, H. L. [Членова, Н. Л.] 1972 Khronologiya pamyatnikov karasukskoi epokhi,(Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR, No.182) Хронология памятников
карасукской эпохи, (Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР, Nº 182)
[The Chronology of the artifacts of the Karasuk period, (Materials and researchs onarcheology of the USSR, No. 182)]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Chlenova, H. L. [Членова, Н. Л.] 1976 Karasukskie kinzhaly. Карасукские кинжалы [TheKarasuk Daggers]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Chlenova, H. L. [Членова, Н. Л.] 1981 Svyazi kultur Zapadnoi Sibiri s kulturami Priuralya
i Srednego Povolzhya v kontse epokhi bronzy i b nachale zheleznogo veka. Связи
культур Западной Сибири с культурами Приуралья и Среднего Поволжья вконце эпохи бронзы и в начале железного века. [Relations of the cultures of theWestern Siberia with the Urals and the Middle Volga region at the end of the Bronze
Age and the beginning of the Iron Age]. Problemy zapadnosibirskoi arkheologii:
epokha zheleza. Проблемы западносибирской археологии: эпоха железа [Problemsof the West Siberian Archeology: the Iron Age], с. 4-35, Nauka, Наука, NovosibirskНовосибирск.
Grishin, Yu. S. [Гришин, Ю. С.] 1960 Proizvodstvo v tagarskuyu epokhu. Производствов тагарскую эпоху. [Production in the Tagar period]. Ocherki po istorii proizvodstva
v Priurale i Yuzhnoi Sibiri v epokhu bronzy i rannego zheleza, (Materialy iissledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR, 90) Очерки по истории производства вПриуралье и Южной Сибири в эпоху бронзы и раннего железа (Материалы иисследования по археологии СССР, 90) [Papers on the history of production in the
Urals and Southern Siberia in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Materials andresearches on archeology of the USSR, 90)]. Akademiya nauk SSSR, Академия наук© Japanese Archaeological Association

322

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

СССР. pp. 116–206, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Grishin, Yu. S. Гришин, Ю. С. 1971 Metallicheskie izdeliya Sibiri epokhi eneolita
I bronzy. (Arkheologiya SSSR: svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov V3-12)Металлические изделия Сибири эпохи энеолита и бронзы. (Археология СССР:свод археологических источников В3-12), [Metalworks in Siberia of the Eneolithic
and Bronze ages. (Archaeology of the USSR: a collection of archaeological sources
V3-12)] Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Gryaznov, M. P. [Грязнов, М. П.] 1980 Arzhan: Tsarskii kurgan ranneskifskogo vremeni,Аржан: царский курган раннескифского времени [Arzhan: the royal mound of theearly Scythian period]. Nauka, Наука, Leningrad Ленинград.
Kuzmina, E. E. [Кузьмина, Е. Е.] 1966 Metallicheskie izdeliya eneolita i bronzovogo veka
v Sredney Asii (Arkheologiya SSSR: svod arkheologicheskikh ictochnikov; vyp. V4-9.)Металлические изделия энеолита и бронзового века в средней Азии (Археология
СССР: свод археологических источников; вып. В4-9) [The metal products of the
Eneolithic and Bronze Age in Central Asia (Archeology of the USSR: Collection ofarchaeological sources; issue B4-9)]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Maksimenkov, G. A. [Максименков, Г. А.] 1975 Sovremennoe sostoyanie voprosa operiodizatsii epokhi bronzy Minysinskoi kotloviny. Современное состояние вопросао периодизации эпохи бронзы Минусинской котловины [The current situationof the problems of the periodization of the Bronze Age of the Minusinsk Basin].
Pervodytnaya arkheologiya Sibiri, Первобытная археология Сибири, [Primitive
archeology of Siberia], pp. 48–58, Nayka, Наука, Leningrad Ленинград.
Matyushchenko, V. I. [Матющенко, В. И.] and Sinitsyna, G.V. [Синицына, Г. В.] 1988
Mogilnik u d. Rostovka vblizi Omska, Могильник у д. Ростовка вблизи Омска [Thecemetery in the Rostovka village near Omsk]. Tomskskiy Universitet, Томскский
университет, Tomsk Томск.
Novgorodova, E. A. [Новгородова, Э. А.] 1970 Централъная АЗИЯ и карасукская
проблема [The Central ASIA and the Karasuk problem]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva
Москва Moscow.
Savinov, D. G. [Савинов, Д. Г.] 2002 Rannie kochevniki Verkhnego Eniseya, Ранние
кочевники Верхнего Енисея [Early nomads of the Upper Yenisei]. Peterburgskogo
universiteta, Петербургского университета, Sankt-Peterburg Санкт-Петербург SaintPetersburg.
Terenozhkin, A. I. [Тереножкин, А. И.] 1976 Kimmeriitsy, Киммерийцы [TheCimmerians]. Naukova dumka, Hаукова думка, Kiev Киев.
Zyablin, L. P. [Зяблин, Л. П.] 1977 Karasukskii mogilnik Malye Kopyony 3, Карасукский
могильник Малые Копёны 3 [The Karasuk cemetery Malye Kopyony 3]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Site Reports Cited (The numbers match those in Figure 1)
1. Seуma [Сейма]© Japanese Archaeological Association

323

MATSUMOTO Keita

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

Bader, O. N. [Бадер, О. Н.] 1970 Basseyn Oki v epokhu bronzy, Бассейн Оки в эпоху
бронзы. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow. Chernykh, E. N. [Черных,Е. Н.] and Kuzminykh, S. V. [Кузьминых,С. В] 1989 Drevnyaya metallurgiya
Severnoy Evrazii. Древняя металлургия Северной Евразии [The Ancient
metallurgy of the northern eurasia]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Reshnoe [Решное]Chernykh, E. N. [Черных, Е. Н.] and Kuzminykh, S. V. [Кузьминых,С. В.] 1989
Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoy Evrazii. Древняя металлургия Северной
Евразии [The Ancient metallurgy of the northern eurasia]. Nauka, Наука,Moskva Москва Moscow.
Turbino [Турбино]Chernykh, E. N.[Черных, Е. Н.] and Kuzminykh, S. V. [Кузьминых,С. В.] 1989
Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoy Evrazii. Древняя металлургия Северной
Евразии [The Ancient metallurgy of the northern eurasia]. Nauka, Наука,Moskva Москва Moscow.
Sintashta [Синташта]Gening, V. F. [Генинг, В.Ф.], Zdanovich, G. B. [Зданович, Г.Б.], and Gening, V. V.
[Генинг, В.В.] 1992 Sintashta. Arkheologicheckiy pamyatnik ariyskikh plemen
Uralo-Kazakhstanckikh stepey. Синташта. Археологический памятник
арийских племен Урало-Казахстанских степей [Sintashta: The archaeologicalsite of the Aryan tribes of the Ural-Kazakhstani steppes]. Yuzhno-Uralskoe
knizhnoe izdatelstvo Южно-Уральское книжное издательство, ChelyabinskЧелябинск.
Chernykh, E. N. [Черных, Е. Н.] and Kuzminykh, S. V. [Кузьминых,С. В.] 1989
Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoy Evrazii. Древняя металлургия Северной
Евразии [The Ancient metallurgy of the northern Eurasia]. Nauka, Наука,Moskva Москва Moscow.
Rostovka [Ростовка]Matyushchenko, V. I. [Матющенко, В. И.] and Sinitsyna, G.V. [Синицына, Г.
В.] 1988 Mogilnik u d. Rostovka vblizi Omska, Могильник у д. Ростовка
вблизи Омска [The cemetery in the Rostovka village near Omsk]. Tomskskiy
Universitet, Томскский университет, Tomsk Томск.
Chernykh, E. N. [Черных, Е. Н.] and Kuzminykh, S. V. [Кузьминых,С. В.] 1989
Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoy Evrazii. Древняя металлургия Северной
Евразии [The Ancient metallurgy of the northern Eurasia]. Nauka, Наука,Moskva Москва Moscow.
Serzhen-Yurtovskii [Сержен-Бртовский]Terenozhkin, A. I. [Тереножкин, А. И.] 1976 Kimmeriytsy, Киммерийцы [TheCimmerians]. Naukova dumka, Hаукова думка, Kiev Киев.
Tash-Tyube [Таш-Тюбе]Kuzmina, E. E. [Кузьмина, Е. Е.] 1966 Metallicheskie izdeliya eneolita i bronzovogo© Japanese Archaeological Association

324

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

veka v Sredney Asii (Arkheologiya SSSR: svod arkheologicheskikh ictochnikov;
vyp. V4-9.) Металлические изделия энеолита и бронзового века в средней
Азии (Археология СССР : свод археологических источников ; вып. В4-9)[The metal products of the Eneolithic and Bronze Age in Central Asia
(Archeology of the USSR: Collection of archaeological sources; issue B4-9)].
Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Agaersheng 阿尕爾生Wang Bo 王博 1987 Xinjiang jinshinian faxian de yixie tongqi「新疆近十年発現的一些銅器」[Some bronzes found in Xinjiang in the last decade]. Xinjiangwenwu『新疆文物』[Cultural Relics of Xinjiang], 1987-1, pp. 45–51.
Arzhan 1 [Аржан 1]
Gryaznov, M. P. [Грязнов, М. П.] 1980 Arzhan: Tsarskiy kurgan ranneskifskogovremeni, Аржан: царский курган раннескифского времени [Arzhan: the royalmound of the early Scythian period]. Nauka, Наука, Leningrad Ленинград.
Ulaan-Gom [Улаан-Гом]Novgorodva, E A. [Новгородова, Э. А.] 1989 Drevnyaya Mongoliya, Древняя
Монголия [Ancinet Mongolia]. Nauka, Наука, Moskva Москва Moscow.
Miyamoto Kazuo 宮 本 一 夫 2008 Soto-Mongoru no seidoki「 外 モ ン ゴ ル の 青銅器」[Bronzes of Outer Mongolia]. Chōjō-chitai seidōki bunka no kenkyū『長城地帯青銅器文化の研究 』[Research on the Bronze Culture of the Great Wall
Region], Miyamoto Kazuo ed. pp. 157–168. Research Center for the Studies ofSilk Road, Nara.
Ulaan-Uushig [Уушгийн өврийн]Takahama, S., Hayashi, T., Kawamata, M., Matsubara, R., Erdenebattar, D. 2006
Preliminary report of the archaeological investigations in Ulaan Uushig I in
Mongolia, Bulletin of archaeology, the University of Kanazawa 28, pp. 61–102.
Volkov, V. V. [Волков, В. В.] and Novgorodova, E. A. [Новгородова, Э. А.] 1975
Olennye kamni Yshkiyn-Yvera (Mongoliya) Оленные камни Ушкийн-Увэра
(Монголия) [Deer stones of the Yshkiyn-Yver site (Mongolia)]. Pervobytnayaarkheologiya Sibiri. Первобытная археология Сибири [Primitive archeologyof Siberia], с.78-84, Nauka, Наука, Leningrad Ленинград.
Dzhid [Джид]Grishin, Yu. S. [Гришин, Ю. С.] 1981 Zakamenskiy klad medno-bronzovykh izdeliyiz Zabaykalya, Закаменский клад медно-бронзовых изделий из Забайкалья
[The Zakamensk deposit of copper-bronze items from Transbaikalia]. Sovetskayaarkhologiya, Советская археология [Soviet archeology], 1981-1, с.282–285.
Tianshanbeilu 天山北路
Beijing Keji daxue Yejin yu Cailiaoshi Yanjiusuo 北京科技大学冶金与材料史研究
所 [Institute of Historical Metallurgy and Materials, USTB], Xinjiang Wenwu
Kaogu Yanjiusuo 新 疆 文 物 考 古 研 究 所 [Institute of Archaeology of Xinjiang],and Hamidiqu Wenwu Guanlisuo 哈密地区文物管理所 [CPAM of Hami] 2001
© Japanese Archaeological Association

325

MATSUMOTO Keita

Xinjiang Hami Tianshanbeilu mudi chutu tongqi de chubu yanjiu「 新 疆 哈 密
天山北路墓地出土銅器的初歩研究 」[Studies on the Bronzes Unearthed from

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

a Graveyard in the Northern Branch of the Tianshan Mountains in Hami,
Xinjiang]. Wenwu『文物』[Cultural Relics], 2001-6, pp. 79–89.
Huoshaogou 火焼溝Miyamoto Kazuo 宮 本 一 夫, Sano Kazumi 佐 野 和 美, and Matsumoto Keita 松 本 圭 太
2008 Chōjō-chitai no shoki-seidoki shūsei「長城地帯の初期青銅器集成」[Corpus
of Bronzes of the Great Wall Region]. Chōjō-chitai seidōki bunka no kenkyū『長城 地 帯 青 銅 器 文 化 の 研 究 』[Research on the Bronze Culture of the Great Wall
Region], Miyamoto Kazuo ed., pp. 79–140, Research Center for the Studies of Silk
Road, Nara.
Ganguya 干骨崖
Gansusheng Wenwukaogu Yanjiusuo 甘 粛 省 文 物 考 古 研 究 所 [Gansu Provincial
Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology] and Beijing Daxue Kaogu Wenbo
Xueyuan 北京大学考古文博学院 [School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking
University] 2016 Jiuquan Ganguya『酒泉干骨崖』[Report on the Archaeological
Excavation of Ganguya Cemetery]. Wenwu-Chubanzhe 文 物 出 版 社, Beijing[Peking].
Miyamoto Kazuo 宮本一夫, Sano Kazumi 佐野和美, and Matsumoto Keita 松本圭太 2008
Chōjō-chitai no shoki-seidoki shūsei「 長 城 地 帯 の 初 期 青 銅 器 集 成 」[Corpus ofBronzes of the Great Wall Region]. Chōjō-chitai seidōki bunka no kenkyū『長城地帯青銅器文化の研究』[Research on the Bronze Culture of the Great Wall Region],
Miyamoto Kazuo ed., pp. 79–140, Research Center for the Studies of Silk Road,
Nara.
Donghuishan 東灰山
Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 甘 粛 省 文 物 考 古 研 究 所 [Gansu Provincial
Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology] and Jilin Daxue Beifang Kaogu
Yanjiushi 吉 林 大 学 北 方 考 古 研 究 室 [Research Oﬃce of Archaeology of theNorth at Jilin University] 1998 Minle Donghuishan kaogu『 民楽東灰山考古 』[Excavation Report of the Donghuishan Site in Minle]. Kexue-chubanzhe 科学
出版社, Beijing [Peking].
Shanna 沈那
Miyamoto Kazuo 宮本一夫, Sano Kazumi 佐野和美, and Matsumoto Keita 松本圭太 2008
Chōjō-chitai no shoki-seidoki shūsei「 長 城 地 帯 の 初 期 青 銅 器 集 成 」[Corpus ofBronzes of the Great Wall Region]. Chōjō-chitai seidōki bunka no kenkyū『長城地帯青銅器文化の研究』[Research on the Bronze Culture of the Great Wall Region],
Miyamoto Kazuo ed., pp. 79–140, Research Center for the Studies of Silk Road,
Nara.
Zhukaigou 朱開溝
Nei-menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 内 蒙 古 文 物 考 古 研 究 所 [Archaeological
Institute of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region] and Eerduosi Bowuguan 鄂尓© Japanese Archaeological Association

326

THE BRONZE AGE IN THE EURASIAN STEPPES

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

多斯博物館 [Ordos Museum] 2000 Zhukaigou Qingtong shidai zaoqi yizhi fajue
baogao『朱開溝 青銅時代早期遺址発掘報告』[Zhukaigou Excavation Report on
the Early Bronze Age Site]. Wenwu-chubanzhe 文物出版社, Beijing [Peking].
Miyamoto Kazuo 宮 本 一 夫, Sano Kazumi 佐 野 和 美, and Matsumoto
Keita 松本圭太 2008 Chōjō-chitai no shoki-seidoki shūsei「 長城地帯の初期青銅器集成」[Corpus of Bronzes of the Great Wall Region]. Chōjō-chitai seidōkibunka no kenkyū『長城地帯青銅器文化の研究』[Research on the Bronze Cultureof the Great Wall Region], Miyamoto Kazuo ed., pp. 79–140, Research Centerfor the Studies of Silk Road, Nara.
Linzheyu 林遮峪Wu Zhenlu 呉振禄 1972 Baodexian xinfaxian de yindai qingtongqi「保徳県新発現的殷代青銅器」[Bronzes of the Yin period found in Baode xian]. Wenwu『文物』[Cultural Relics], 1972-4, pp. 62–66.
Xiawangang 下王崗
Gao Jangtao 高江涛 2009 Henan Xichuan Xiawanggang yizhi chutu tongmao guanmo
zuotanhui jiyao「 河 南 淅 川 下 王 崗 遺 址 出 土 銅 矛 観 摩 座 談 会 紀 要 」[Record of
Symposium on the Bronze spear-heads unearthed from Xiawanggang yizhi in
Xichuan, Henan]. Zhongguo Wenwu Bao『中国文物報』2009-03-06.
Zhongguo Shehuikexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo 中 国 社 会 科 学 院 考 古 研 究 所[Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences] 2020 Xichuan
Xiawanggang: 2008–2010 Kaogu fajue baogao『 淅 川 下 王 崗 : 2008 〜
2010 考古発掘報告 』[Xiawanggang Site in Xichuan Report on Archaeological
Excavations in 2008–2010]. Kexue-chubanzhe 科学出版社, Beijing [Peking].
Baifu 白浮
Beijing-shi Wenwu Guanli-chu 北 京 市 文 物 管 理 処 [CPAM, City of Peking] 1976
Beijing diqu de you yi zhongyao kaogu shouhuo Chengping Baifu xizhou
muguomu de xinqishi「北京地区的又一重要考古収穫 昌平白浮西周木椁墓的新啓 示 」[The Western Chou Wooden Chambered Tombs at Pai-fu in Ch’ang-p’
ing]. Kaogu『考古』[Archaeology], 1976-4, pp. 246–258.
Xibozi 西撥子
Beijing-shi Wenwu Guanli-chu 北 京 市 文 物 管 理 処 [CPAM, City of Peking] 1979
Beijingshi Yanqing xian Xifazi cun jiaozang tongqi「北京市延慶県西撥子村窖
蔵銅器」[The Bronzes from the pit of Xifazi village in Yanqing country, Beijingcity]. Kaogu『考古』[Archaeology], 1979-3, pp. 227–230.
Nanshuangmiao 南双廟
Hu Baohua 胡 保 華 2015 Shilun Zhongguo jingnei sanjian xieye kuoye tongmao deniandai, xingzhi yu xiangguan wenti「 試論中国境内散見挟葉闊葉銅矛的年代、性質与相関問題」[A Study on the Time, Characteristics, and Related Issues of
Broad-leaf Bronze Spears Discovered in Northern China]. Jianghan kaogu『江漢考古』[Jianghan archaeology], 2015-6, pp. 55–68.
Dadianzi 大甸子© Japanese Archaeological Association

327

MATSUMOTO Keita

Zhongguo Shehuikexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo 中国社会科学院考古研究所 Instituteof Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science 1998 Dadianzi『 大甸子 』[Dadianzi]. Kexue-chubanzhe 科学出版社, Beijing [Peking].
25. Nanshangen 南山根
Liaoning-sheng Zhaowuda-meng Wenwu Gongzuozhan 遼寧省昭烏達盟文物工作站[CPAM, Jouda League] and Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Dongbei
Gongzuodui 中 国 科 学 院 考 古 研 究 所 東 北 工 作 隊 [Liaoning Province and theNortheast Archaeological team, IAAS] 1973 Ningchengxian Nanshangen deshiguomu「 寧城県南山根的石椁墓 」[Excavation of a Stone-Chambered Tomb
at Nan-shan-keng in Ningch’eng]. Kaogu-xuebao『 考 古 学 報 』[The Chinese
Journal of Archaeology], 1973-2, pp. 27–40.
Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaoguyanjiusuo Neimenggu Gongzuodui 中 国 科 学 院 考 古
研究所内蒙古工作隊 [The Inner Mongolia Archaeological Team, IAAS] 1975
Ningcheng Nanshangen yizhi fajue baogao「 寧城南山根遺址発掘報告 」[Trial
Diggings at Nan-shan-keng in Ning-ch'eng Country, Liaoning Province]. Kaoguxuebao『考古学報』[Acta Archaeologia Sinica], 1975-1, pp. 117–140.
26. Xiaoheishigou 小黒石溝
Neimenggu-zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 内 蒙 古 自 治 区 文 物 考 古 研 究
所 [Archaeological Institute of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region] andNingcheng-xian Liaozhongjing Bowuguan 寧 城 県 遼 中 京 博 物 館 [LiaoZhongjing Museum of Ningcheng Prefecture] 2009 Xiaoheishigou XiajiadianShangcengwenhua yizhi fajue baogao『 小 黒 石 溝 』[Xiaoheishigou]. Kexuechubanzhe 科学出版社, Beijing [Peking].
27. Dongwanggangtai 東王崗台Cheng Jingtang 成 璟 瑭, Sun Jianjin 孫 建 軍, and Meng Ling 孟 玲 2016 Liaoning
Suizheng Dongwanggangtai faxian shangzhou jiaozang tongqi「 遼 寧 綏 中 東
王 崗 台 発 現 商 周 窖 蔵 銅 器 」[The Bronzes from the pit of Shang-Zhou period
at Dongwanggangtai, Suizhong, Liaoning]. Wenwu『 文 物 』[Cultural Relics],
2016-3, pp. 67–75.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

328