|
MAIASP. 2022. No. S1 Mikhail Treister ( Whether the “ (THE REFLECTIONS ON THE
BASIS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL MATERIALS) DOI: 10.53737/2713-2021.2022.30.80.003 Access
this article (PDF File) Pages: 50—109 |
|
The lack of specificity and systematic approach to the treatment of archaeological material forces me,
within the framework of one publication,
to consider in dynamics and
to identify the correlation of the distribution of Chinese imports in the West,
i.e.
in the burials of
the nomads of Asian Sarmatia and in the Northern Black Sea region,
on the one hand, and
of Western and Central Asian imports in China and in the Xiongnu necropoleis of the Han period.
Despite the multi-vector connections that demonstrate
some of the elite burials of the nomads of Asian Sarmatia in the 1st
century BCE — 3rd
century CE, it is difficult to talk about the existence of a stable movement
of goods from Even if we take into account the fact that goods that
are difficult to be fixed archaeologically, for example, furs, were
transported to the east, as was the case in the Early Middle Ages, a
significantly larger number of finds of Chinese and Central Asian objects in
the territory of Asian Sarmatia and the Northern Black Sea region, rather
than objects that could be identified as North Pontic
(or transiting through the Northern Black Sea region), in the burials of the Xiongnu in Mongolia and in the necropoleis
of the Han period in China, attracts attention.
The picture reflects the movement of certain categories
of goods from east to west as a result of
intertribal exchange and (or) migrations in the Middle Sarmatian
period. In the Late Sarmatian period, objects of
Chinese origin were not distributed to the west of the
Southern Urals, and Roman imports did not penetrate to the east of the |
|
Key words: |
|
Received
November 25, 2022 Accepted
for publication December 12, 2022 |
|
About the author: Treister Mikhail ( E-mail: mikhailtreister@yahoo.de
|