LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

found in both male and female burials, whereas beads and gold earrings are only in female tombs. None are as richly endowed as Xigoupan, and Linduff concludes that these were intercultural families, less powerful than those represented at Xigoupan, but where men and women were treated equally in death. She concludes that “no essentialized view of the Xiongnu is, therefore, adequate, to explain the complex nature of their identity as expressed in burial customs found even at the one site of Daodunzi. Although the Chinese records give us a single view, archaeological research gives us a rich and more nuanced view of the Xiongnu, or whoever these peoples were, including a window on how one’s age and sex affected the solemn ritual of burial.”⁹⁰

      In fact, richly endowed tombs for women are found elsewhere from the second millennium. The tomb of Fu Hao, mentioned above, is an obvious example. The fact that she is buried with many steppe accouterments has led some to argue that she was from the steppe herself: marriage is always part of the exchange that goes on between neighboring peoples, whether formally for diplomatic purposes, as in the Xiongnu-Chinese heqin treaties; as part of the plunder of war, with captured women becoming sexual partners, free or otherwise (see chapter 10); or just as a result of the intermixing of neighboring populations.⁹¹

      Another female burial that has led to discussion about the role of women on the steppe is at Tillya Tepe, on the borders of present-day Afghanistan and Turkmenistan and dating to the middle of the first century AD. Scholars have argued that these are burials of Yuezhi peoples. A battle-ax and Siberian daggers were found in this woman’s grave, and she has been described as a “woman warrior.” Karen Rubinson offers an interesting discussion of this attribution in her article on gender and cultural identity. She briefly traces the discussion on the status of women on the steppe and points out that military equipment is found in many female tombs. However, she follows others in making an important point, quoting Feldore McHugh’s study of mortuary practices—namely that a “danger lies in attempting to make a direct connection between particular objects placed in the grave and a function that they might have performed during life as used by the deceased.”⁹² McHugh gives an example of a culture where a spear and a battle-ax in the grave represent the status of an unmarried male rather than a warrior. Rubinson follows this to argue that some of the objects in the Tillya Tepe burials were intended to indicate cultural identity rather than the role of the tomb occupant—an identity that displayed the transition by the Yuezhi in their pastoralist role to a more settled lifestyle.⁹³

      Tomb objects, apart from indicating the actual wealth and status of the occupant in his or her lifetime, might also reflect aspirations, just like the possessions of a living person. Of course, there is the question of whether the deceased had any choice in the objects or whether this was decided by others on the occupant’s death. Then there is the inclusion of what might be considered “exotic” or “foreign” objects in tombs, such as the Hellenistic glass bowl discussed in chapter 2 or the Bactrian ewer discussed in chapter 5.

      Many unanswered questions remain about these earrings. Was their original recipient the woman buried in tomb M4 at Xigoupan, or had they been passed from one owner to another and finally put in her tomb as a sign of her status? When were they worn, if at all? Where were they made and by whom? We can say that they were almost certainly made for possession by an elite woman living on the northern steppe borders of what is now China. And we can also say that, whether made by Chinese or steppe craftsmen—or both— they represent elements of both of these cultures and their rich interaction during this period.

      So where does this leave us? What we can assume, given the earrings’ materials and their complexity, is that they were an indication of wealth and status. But apart from this, as with many archaeological artifacts, we are in a state of uncertainty. We cannot be certain where they were made or who made them, and whether they were made as a whole or in parts. We do not know whether they were made for trade, gift, or ritual and whether they were acquired by purchase, plunder, or some other means. Nor do we know whether the peoples of the Xigoupan burials saw these artifacts as part of their own culture or considered them somehow foreign.

      RECENT HISTORY

      The earrings remained buried until their discovery in 1979 and were then discussed in the 1980 excavation report. The burial site is in modern-day China: they were excavated by a Chinese archaeological team and became part of the cultural collections of China. There are no peoples claiming descent from the Xigoupan, or even the Xiongnu, who might argue that these objects belong to their cultural patrimony. Across the border, Russian archaeologists similarly excavate and take ownership of steppe objects that are found in modern-day Russia.

      The earrings became part of the collections of the Ordos Museum, although on display in the Inner Mongolian Provincial Museum, established in Hohhot in 1957. They became part of the growing number of objects sent by China to exhibitions abroad from the 1980s. As Chinese museums were reopened following the Cultural Revolution, foreign curators were able to gain access to many objects excavated since the 1950s but previously not very accessible. They took full advantage. The earrings were first loaned abroad to an exhibition on objects from Inner Mongolia that opened in Los Angeles in March 1994.⁹⁴ They traveled with the exhibition to New York, Nashville, and Victoria until September 1995 and then to Alberta in 1997.⁹⁵ The exhibition was headlined as “Genghis Khan,” presumably as a means of attracting visitors by a familiar name. Although the authors were clear about the very varied provenance and dating of the objects included, it is inevitable that the complexities of the many cultures represented by these objects and their tenuous links to Genghis Khan would not be noticed by many visitors. But the exhibition provided an opportunity for scholars to see a range of objects, previously unexhibited in North America, that reflected this complexity and, most especially, the influence of steppe cultures on China.

      The art of the steppe, which had been richly represented in museums and in scholarship under the USSR, started to receive more attention in North America around this time.⁹⁶ New York’s Asia Society Gallery 1970 exhibition displayed material that came from Siberia but was held in US collections. This was followed by a loan exhibition from USSR museums in 1975 held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.⁹⁷ Two more exhibitions concentrating on these collections were held in 1999–2000. The first, Scythian Gold: Treasures from Ancient Ukraine, toured North America and then went to Paris. The second, The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes, opened at the Metropolitan Museum in 2000.⁹⁸ By this time the USSR had broken up, and many of the museums it had previously represented were no longer under Russian control. The former exhibition concentrated on items from one former Soviet state, Ukraine, independent since 1990. The latter, organized with the Russians, showcased items in Russian museums.⁹⁹

      While these exhibitions concentrated on the western Eurasian steppe, attention also turned to the eastern lands with a major catalog and an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum, both showcasing private collections in North America rather than collections held in China.¹⁰⁰ However, while Scythian culture was the focus of the earlier exhibitions, the cultures of the Xiongnu have yet to be the named focus of a major exhibition in North America.¹⁰¹

      Between 2002 and 2012 all of the provincial museums in China were rebuilt, with vast modern buildings replacing the old sites.¹⁰² The new Inner Mongolian Provincial Museum, opened in 2007, is ten times the size of the original. The earrings are on display. By this time the cultures of the steppe from the late first millennium BC were starting to be incorporated into the “Silk Road” label.¹⁰³ The earrings duly traveled to Brussels in 2008 for an exhibition on the Silk Road, which included this steppe element.¹⁰⁴

      Excavations and scholarship on the Xiongnu continue to reveal new evidence and findings about the complexity of cultures under their empire, but it remains to be seen whether these earrings will be displayed as part of any future exhibitions showcasing this complexity or whether they will continue to occupy a cultural hinterland.

      1. I am greatly indebted to Sergey Miniaev for his detailed comments on this chapter and for so generously sharing his extensive knowledge. Thanks are also owing to Karen Rubinson, whose perceptive suggestions have helped me greatly.

Скачать книгу