Р.Ф. Итс
Этническая история юга Восточной Азии.
// Л.: 1972. 308 с.
Содержание
Предисловие. — 3
Введение. — 9
Лингвистические и антропологические данные. — 12
Основные гипотезы и концепции. — 24
Историко-географические области. — 47
Некоторые проблемы этнической антропологии. — 53
Глава 1. Этнический состав юга Восточной Азии к III в. до н.э. — 56
Неолитические и энеолитические культуры. — 56
Область Нанкин — Тайху. — 59
Приморская область. — 71
Область Дунтин — Поянху. — 98
Центрально-южная область. — 116
Сычуань-Юньнаньская область. — 119
Древние письменные и фольклорные сведения о населении юга Восточной Азии. — 136
Царства У, Юэ, Чу, Ба и Шу. — 152
Глава 2. Ранние формы социальной и этнической консолидации к югу от Янцзы (III в. до н.э. — VI в. н.э.). — 178
Боюэ, их государство и соседи. — 181
Дяньцы, их государство, соседи и потомки. — 190
Великий род Цуань. — 213
Мань в этногенезе мяо-яо. — 217
О концепциях относительно происхождения бай, ляо (гэлао) и металлургии железа в Юньнани. — 228
Глава 3. Чжуан, мяо и ицзу в VI-XVI вв. н.э. — 239
Государства Наньчжао и Дали. — 245
Чжуанские средневековые политические объединения. — 260
Гуйчжоу — страна мяо. — 266
Заключение. — 281
Указатель этно-географических названий. — 297
(291/292)
Summary. ^
The ethnic historical research of Chuang, Miao and Yi beginning with the ancient times up to the XVI century has been carried out to study the major problems of the origin of peoples in the South of East Asia. All accessible data in archeology, history, folklore, linguistics, ethnography and anthropology were taken into account. As for anthropology the ideas and concepts of Soviet antropologists, those of N.N. Cheboksarov first of all, were taken as basis ones.
Archeological excavations which were started in Southern China (sea-side regions) in the first quarter of the XX century, had given sufficient and various information on Neolithic, Aeneolithic and Bronze Ages by 1967. In the five regions more than 3000 settlements and burial grounds were excavated. On the basis of these data the following conclusions have been drawn.
All neolithic cultures in the South of East Asia (in Southern China) with a possible exclusion of the Late Neolith of Chekiang-Fukien area in the Sea-side region are of autochtonic origin and are independent of the central plain Neolithic Age. It is highly probable that they are genetically related to earlier upperpaleolithic and mesolithic cultures both of the given area and the northern continental part of South-East Asia.
1. The earliest neolithic cultures which accounted for ethnic and cultural variety of Southern China ancient population were Ch’inglianggang (in Late Neolithic Age it gave place to the “classic” Lungshan in the North and Liangchu and Hushu), Ch’ütsialing, Matsiajao — Ch’itsia and Hsich’iaoshan — Ch’itan — Wuming. The first three, which were located in the northern boundary of Southern China (mostly to the North of Yangtzu) might have had contacts with different variants of Yangshao and Lungshan.
2. Middle neolithic cultures of Ssuch’uan — Yunnan and Sea-side regions are genetically related to the furher late neolithic cultures of the same territories and have different directions of their spreading: the first one — from the North to the South and South-East;the second one — from the South to the North, the North-East and North-West; while spreading they wedged into the late neolithic cultures of Tungt’ing — P’ojanghu and Central-Southern areas.
3. Insufficiency in data on the Central-Southern region prevents us from coming to any definite conclusions. The analysis of the information on Tungt’ing-P’ojanghu archeology (the contacts with the Tahsi culture and the area of stamped pottery being taken into account), makes it possible to consider this territory to be an independent center of the development of original neolithic and aeneolithic cultures which had genetic relations with Ch’utsialing in Hupei and contact relation with Hushu near Nanking.
4. Cultural and consequently ethnic development in all the regions (excluding the Central-Southern region on the reasons mentioned above) ran uninterrupted from the Neolithic Age up to the beginning of 1000 В.С.
The records of the Bronze Age testify to the fact that five kingdoms in Southern China that sprang into being in the first centuries of 1000 В.С. in the areas of the former spreading of specifically archeological cultures (neo- and aeneolithic): Tungt’ing — P’ojanghu — the Ch’u kingdom; Ssuch’uan-Yunnan —
(292/293)
the Pa and Shu kingdoms; Nangking-T’aihu and the northern Sea-side region of the Wu and Yüeh kingdoms.
Non-chinese origin of the Yüeh and Wu kingdoms arouse no doubts either among old China’s historians or among contemporary ones, the latter kingdom having been absorbed by the former. There is no doubt that the Minyüeh and Tungyüeh that are first mentioned in historical records dated back to III cent. В.С. stand in genetic relations with the former Yüeh population. Different view points exist on the ethnic origin of these people. The one which states that the Yüeh from the Sout-East sea-side (succeeded by the Minyüeh and the Tungyüeh) can be defined as ancient Malayans (Indonesians), is of particular interest. They will be referred to as the Northern ones in contrast to the Southern Yüeh, the inhabitants of the Kwanglung-Kwanghsi region of the Sea-side area. On the bases of toponymic researches we can consider the Southern Yüeh to be an aboriginal population in Kwangtung-Kwanghsi zone in Aeneolithic and Bronze Ages. The final answer as to wether they emerged from the ancient austroasiatic peoples or just coexhisted and had contacts with them has not yet been found.
Historical and archeological materials under study make it possible to establish the relations which can be considered as ethnogenetic ones: for the Nanking-T’aihu region the creators of Ch’inglianggang culture → the creators of Hushu and Liangchu cultures → the Northern Yüeh → the population of the Wu and Yüeh kingdoms (Tungyüeh and Minyüeh); for the Sea-side region the creators of Hsich’iaoshan culture → the creators of stamped pottery culture → the Northern Yüeh (their further relations follow the first scheme) and Southern Yüeh → Poyüeh → the population of the Nanyüeh; for the Tungt’ing-P’ojanhu the creators of Ch’ütsialing culture (=Sanmiao) → the creators of late neolithic cultures of Ch’ingtsiang — Süshui — Ch’angsha (= Chinman) → the population of the Chu (=Manyi); for the Central-Southern region there are no identifications, excluding some evidence of the contact character of its archeological materials with the surrounding cultures; for the Such’uan-Yunnan region the creators of the Ch’ichia-Ssuwa (Ch’ian people) → the Chengtu and Tahsi peoples → the population of the Shu and Pa kingdoms → the Shichaishan, Chaot’ung and Chianch’uan peoples (that are jointly referred to as “Hsinanyi”).
Genetic relations of the creators of the Menglian-Chinghung cultures (extreme south of Yunnan) go back to the Middle Neolithic Age of the southern part of the Sea-side, on the one hand, and to the late neolithic and aeneolithic cultures of stamped pottery in the northern continental part of South-East Asia on the other.
IV-III cent. В.С. are a landmark whence a new stage in the development of ethnic processes started in the South of China and the ethnic territory of ancestors of Chuang, Miao and Yi changed.
Within a few years the regions to the South of the Yangtzu (the Lingnan territory) were a stumbling point in Ch’in Shihuang-ti invasions. And though, as Ssu-ma Ch’ien asserted “the Ch’in united the T’ienhsia and conquered the Yan-gyüeh” (one of the names of the Lingnan population originated from the name of the Yangchou, which was founded a legendary Yüi within the boundaries of Kwangtung and Kwanghsi), in fact, were independent within the whole period of Ch’ins existence. When Ch’in collapsed, Chao T’o proclaimed the Lingnan an independent kingdom of Nanyüeh.
The boundary between the Nanyüeh and the areas inhabited by the Hsinanyi was rather definitely delineated. It ran somewhere in the north of Kweichou province (from the North to the South), its western part entered the territory of the Hsinanyi’s habitation and the eastern part belonged to Nanyüeh.
By 1967 new archeological monuments of the Bronze Age had been excavated in the area of the ancient settling of Hsinanyi and their subgrouping Mimo (a collective term too); particular importance should be ascribed to the excavation in Shichaishan. Chinning district of Yunnan province. The Shichaishan is of an outstanding value since the find in king’s grave №6 of a golden seal with the Chinese inscription (“the seal of Tien king”). We might establish the fact that Schichaishan finds belong to the Tien culture and prove direct
(293/294)
relations between archeology with synchronous or nearly synchronous written records.
Written as well as archeological monuments with a high degree of probability show that up to the VI cent. A. D. ethnic processes in central and northern Yunnan as well as in southern Ssuch’uan were connected with the formation of ethnic groups of Ch’uan who were the decendants not only of the Tien people, but also of the K’unmin, Sei, Jehlang and Ch’üngtu peoples.
After the Ch’u collapse up to the Eastern Han Chinese records hardly mention the Man peoples, Miao-yao ancestors. Neither can one find sufficient information in Ch’ang Chüi’s works though geographical names characteristic of Man’s territories under the Ch’in and the Early Han are often referred to.
The hill regions with the Man population, as ancient chronologers pointed out many a time, were hardly habitable, at least from the view point of one who lived in the Central Plain. There were no claimants on the territory which belonged to the Man and the first detailed record in “Houhanshu” registers them as the inhabitants of the Wuling hill-side. Later on, the mythical name of their forefather was used by the chronologers in regard to the people themselves, that is why an ethnoname “p’anhu” appeared instead of the Man.
Chingman of the рге-ch’u period → man-yi of the Ch’u kingdom → Man of Ch’in-Han epoch → P’anhu and Wulingman-Wuhsiman up to VI cent. A.D. — these are, according to Chinese records, the ethnoname changes of the ethnic group which goes back to the ancient Sanmiao and with which the origin of five-coloured P’anhu dog is associated. The group was both the ancestors of the Miao and the Yao.
The toponymies of Kwangtung and Kwanghsi provinces correctly identifies the Poyüeh with ancient Chuang. Li Hsien’s most interesting comments on “Hou-hanhu”, which escaped the eyes of our predecessors, contains a chinese hieroglyphic record of a certain Hsinanyi epic song. The comment makes it possible to compare the words in the song with Burmese words and to establich their iden-fity, which proves that the ancient Yi belonged to the Hsinanyi.
By VI cent. A.D. the ethnic territory of Chuang’s ancestors had been considerably reduced. The major part of Kwangtung Sea-side region and the Hsichiang Plain occupied by Chinese settlers had fallen off. By that time Yi’s ancestors had been ousted from the Red Basin in Ssuch’uan and they possessed only the northern and the central parts of Yunnan, the north-west of Kweichou and the south of Ssuch’uan (the right bank of the Yangtzu).
The contacts of Yi, Chuang and Miao with the Chinese grew stronger from the end of VI up to the beginning of XVI cent. A.D. and together with this they continued to withstand the chinese penetration.
At the time of dissention wars in Central China the peoples who lived to the South of Yangtzu suffered great social upheavals which pushed them to further enthnic consolidation. As a result of social shifts in Ch’uan — ancestors of Yi society the Nanchao kingdom (“south Chao”) came into being, which coincides in time with the period of a new Chinese consolidation under the aegis of the T’ang dynasty.
Nachao — Tali which had been founded by Yi’s ancestors united ancient Yi, Pai and Nahsi for six centures. And if nowadays the peoples that make one language group with the Yi (such as Lisu, Lahu, Hani, Ach’ang, not to speak about the Yi’s subgroups Ahsi an Hsani) preserve language and ethnic propinquity irrespetive of the fact of their spreading on a vast territory of rather a mountinous relief, it shows that in a relatively close past they were united and lived in a flatter country. The Nanchao were the embodiment of this political and territorial uniformity. After the Tali state sprang into being, differentiation in the Yi group could not but start, as by the end of X cent. A.D. the unified Pai centre had opposed 37 different ethnic groups. Having started their independent existence at that time the Yi came to settle mostly in the mountinous region of Liangshan keeping only small settlements in the Yunnan plains.
The Mongols with the help of Yunnan’s Tai defeated the Tali. The existance of independent states, the heirs to cultural tradition of the ancient kingdoms of the region came to the end in this southern part of East Asia.
(294/295)
The Ming Empire which had set the dominantion of the China to the South of the Yangtzu facilitated the penitration of the Chinese to Yunnan. A new political situation arose when the ethnic history of the Yi takes the shape of people’s political struggle for their independence, for their ethnos.
The stages of the Yi ethnic history run as follows: the creators of neolithic cultures of Tahsi → the people of Pa → the people of Tien → the eastern Ch’uan → Wuman → Hne people of Nanchao → Hhe Yi.
To a certain degree the ancient Chuang also formed their medieval states under the influence of Nanchao (under the aegis of the northern Chuang of the Huang state, southern Chuang-Nantien). Just like the Tali, the Nantien aggravated the differences existing between the northern and southern Chuang. The disintigration of one ethnos was fatal for the Nantien. They were defeated by Chinese generals who united their efforts with those Chuang from the north whose decendants are called the Puyi in modern China.
The stages in the ethnic development of modern Chuang were as follows: ancient creators of neolylhic culture in the south of the Sea-side region → the Southern Yüeh → the Poyüeh → the people of Nanyüeh → the Huang and Nung as historical representatives of the Chuang → the Chuang.
The Chuang had an alliance with the Nanchao — Tali while the ancient Miao whose modern name appeared in Chinese records from Sung period were under the direct influence of the state founded by the Yi. It is under the influence of the Nanchao that a part of the Miao people was forced to move to Ssuchuan and Yunnan in VII-X cent. A.D., which resulted in further disintegration of the Miao community.
The Kweichou — “the Miao country” — joined the Chinese state only at the begining of XV century under the Ming dynasty. The Ming dynasty made use of the Miao original system of local selfgoverments and spread it all over national regions of the country.
Main stages in the ethnic history of the modern Miao were as follows: ancient Chingman related to the creators of preceeding neolithic and aeneolithic cultures in Tungt’ing-P’ojanghy lake district → native population of Chu (the Man-yi) → the Man → the Wulingman and Wuhsiman → the Man-Miao → Miao, represented by three main groups (Western Hunan, Eastern Kweichou, Western Kweichou — Ssuchuan — Yunnan).
Beginning with the XV century the territories inhabited by Chuang, Miao and Yi were included into the Chinese Empire. The rule of the Ming dynastry in China (XIV-XVII cent. A.D.) is a landmark where the ethnic history of Chuang, Miao and Yi ends in constituting these nationalities in XV-XVIie and starts again in the middle of XVII century with a national-liberation movement against Manchurian conquerors and European colonizers.
Список сокращений. ^
ВА — Вопросы антропологии.
ВУ — Вэньу (Вэньуцанькао цзыляо) — китайский журнал.
КГ — Каогу (Каогу тунсюнь) — китайский журнал.
КС — Каогу сюэбао — китайский журнал.
КСИЭ — Краткие сообщения Института этнографии им. H.H. Миклухо-Маклая АН СССР.
ЛГЧХ — Свод сведений о народах по различным эпохам. Т. 1, 2. Шанхай, 1958, 1959 (на кит. яз.).
ЛЯ — Лиши яньцзю — китайский журнал.
МАЭ — Музей антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого АН СССР.
МКАЭН — Международный конгресс антропологических и этнографических наук.
МКВ — Международный конгресс востоковедов.
МЯ — Миньцзу яньцзю — китайский журнал.
СКШ —Успехи археологии Нового Китая. Пекин, 1961 (на кит. яз.).
СМАЭ — Сборник Музея антропологии и этнографии им. Петра Великого АН СССР.
СТШ — Синьтаншу («Новая история Тан»). Изд. «Соиньбонабэнь эршисыши», цз. 222 (на кит. яз.).
Сунши — «История династии Сун». Изд. «Соиньбонабэнь эршисыши», цз. 493, 495 (на кит. яз.).
СЭ — Советская этнография.
ТИЭ — Труды Института этнографии им. H.H. Миклухо-Маклая АН СССР.
ХГЧ — Чан Цюй. Хуаянгочжи. Шанхай, 1958 (на кит. яз.).
ЦТШ — Цзютаншу («Старая история Тан»). Изд. «Соиньбонабэнь эршисыши», цз. 197 (на кит. яз.).
ЧГЦ — Чжаньгоцэ. Ч. I, II. Шанхай, 1958 (на кит. яз.).
ШЧШ — Отчёт о раскопках могильника Шичжайшань уезда Цзиньнин пров. Юньнань. Пекин, 1959 (на кит. яз.).
ЮБГ — Юньнаньский музей. Краткий доклад о четвёртом сезоне раскопок могильника Шичжайшань уезда Цзиньнин пров. Юньнань. КГ, 1963, №9 (на кит. яз.).
BMFEA — Bull. Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities.
JWChBRS — Journ. of the West China Border Research Society.
PSC — Pacific Sciense Congress.
|