Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Murowchick, Robert E.
2013.
A Companion to Chinese Archaeology.
p.
13.
Article contents
Archaeology in China: The First Decades
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Extract
Two years ago our revered elder statesman Kenneth Scott Latourette gave us a comprehensive review of the development during the last few decades of studies in the United States of the Sinic world. In a sense I wish to follow in his footsteps, on the one hand broadening the base to include studies by people of all nationalities, and on the other narrowing it or restricting it to cover only one branch of the many fields of learning represented by our membership. For good reasons too I limit the discussion to China alone. Not that important discoveries have not been made elsewhere, from the Indus River to the island of Hokkaido and from Siberia to the Maldive Islands, many of them bearing importantly on the growth of civilization amongst the Chinese people; a Han crossbow lock in Taxila, T'ang cash at Anuradhapura, a rock-cut representation of a Sung junk at Angkor, a late Han bronze at Oc-Eo, pre-Han silk in the frozen graves of the Altai, Ch'i state coins of the third century B.C. in northern Korea, and tenth-century block printing in the bosom of the lovely Buddhist statue which Chōnen brought back to Japan from Pien-liang in the year 985. All these and many more were discoveries of recent years in the regions now included in the Association for Asian Studies. One might, if desired, construct a much wider horizon, and so take in the Han dynasty hu or vase found in Dane John at Canterbury and now a prized possession of the British Museum, or Sung to Ming porcelain turned up at Fostat and the Kilwa Islands off the coast of Tanganyika, and the items of presumed Chinese inspiration discovered on the west coast of Central America and in Peru. But this would take us far afield, interesting though the subject may be. They show us how mobile the early Chinese were, or, if not the people themselves, certainly the work of their fingers, and how valued it was, giving tongue to the comment of Abū Zayd Ḥasan (ca. 916): “Amongst all the creatures of Allah, the Chinese have the cleverest hands at designing and creating things: for the execution of all manner of works there is no people in the world who can do better than they.”
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1957
References
1 See Ekholm, Gordon F., “Is American Indian Culture Asiatic?”, Natural History, LIX (1950), 344 ff.Google Scholar; and Shun-sheng, Ling, “Formosan Sea-going Raft and Its Origin in Ancient China,” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica (Taipei), I (03 1956), 1–55.Google Scholar
2 Ferrand, Gabriel, Voyage du marchand arabe Sulaymân en Inde et en Chine rédigé en 851 suivi de remarques par Abû, Zayd Ḥasan (vers 916), p. 84.Google Scholar
3 Chinese Traditional Historiography, p. 44.Google Scholar
4 Ch'eng Tzu Yai, tr. Kenneth Starr (1956), p. 16.Google Scholar
5 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1955), II, 232–233.Google Scholar
6 Bishop, C. W., “The Bronzes of Hsin-cheng hsien,” Chinese Social and Political Science Review, VIII (04 1924), 81–99.Google Scholar
7 Foreword to Tombs of Old Loyang (1934)Google Scholar. Bishop White himself enters a caveat in his Introduction, p. 3.
8 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1955), II, 236Google Scholar. In a later passage dealing with activities in Central Asia and China, the author and editor allowed a printer's error to remain. It reads: “And the Swedes have now found the poetry of Pre-historic China.…”
9 Pelliot, Paul, TP, XXII (1923), 377–382Google Scholar; Hopei Provincial Museum Bi-monthly Publication No. 5 (Nov. 25, 1931), p. 1 (in Chinese).
10 In a letter written to the author by Gustav Ecke, dated Peking, May 6, 1937, one sentence reads: “(It) seems to me not only interesting; it is a powerful work of art, a magnificent composition betraying all the freshness of an original.”
11 Wu, G. D., Prehistoric Pottery in China (1938), p. 5.Google Scholar
12 BMFEA, No. 19 (1947), pp. 3–124.Google Scholar
13 No. 1, p. 44.
14 MS, II (1936–1937), 448–474.Google Scholar
15 Han-yi, Feng, Quarterly Bulletin of Chinese Bibliography, N. S., IV (03–12 1944), 1–11.Google Scholar
16 Yün-kang, the Buddhist Cave-temples of the Fifth Century A.D. in North China, Jimbunkagaku Kenkyusho, Kyoto (1951).Google Scholar
17 No. 3, pp. 4–6.
18 I owe the translation to the Survey of the China Mainland Press, No. 1286, 05 10. 1956Google Scholar (U. S. Consulate General, Hong Kong); it was drawn to my attention by Mr. John O'Neill. It is not without interest that Hsia Nai, one of China's leading students of her prehistory, concludes a generous survey of “Archaeology in New China” (published in People's China, 04 1956, No. 8, pp. 29–34Google Scholar) on an enthusiastic note, asserting that it has now become “the concern of the people,”—a far cry from this editorial.
19 Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (1956), No. 6, p. 9Google Scholar. Several Soviet experts gave talks on how museums operated in the USSR.
20 III, 6, 52.
21 China Reconstructs (1955), No. 4Google Scholar; see plates 16 and 18, and pp. 30–31.
22 Chao Wan-li reports in Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (1956), No. 2, pp. 22–24Google Scholar, that in June 1951 the Lenin Library sent to Peking eleven volumes formerly owned by the South Manchurian Railway Library in Dairen. Later one additional volume was received.
23 In K'ao-ku t'ung-hsün (1955), No. 3, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
24 For example, Professor S. V. Kisselev, according to Vadime Elisséeff, La Table Ronde, No. 96 (12 1955), pp. 66–72Google Scholar. Another Russian scholar has reported on the figures incised—probably by people of the Chin empire (1115–1234)—on the face of a cliff called Stone Man Mountain (Shih-jen-shan), some 56 km. southeast of Harbin. Chin tombs are close by. See Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (1956)Google Scholar, No. 6, back cover.
25 Vadime Elisséeff in La Table Ronde, No. 96 (12 1955), pp. 66–72Google Scholar; Eduard Erkes in Artibus Asiae, XVIII (1955), 288–293Google Scholar; Hsia Nai in People's China (01 1956), No. 8, pp. 29–34Google Scholar; Chen-to, Cheng in Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (03 1956), No. 3, pp. 4–6Google Scholar; also in books such as the two-volume illustrated work, Ch'üan-kuo chi-pen chien-she kung-ch'eng chung ch'u-t'u wen-wu chan-lan t'u-lu, published 1955, with a preface by Cheng Chen-to, and separate monographs on the discoveries at Mai-chi-shan and Hui-hsien (Mai-chishan shih-k'u, Peking, 1954Google Scholar; and Hui-hsien fa-chüeh pao-kao, Peking, 1956Google Scholar). (Since this paper was read another contribution has appeared: Haskins, John, “Recent Excavations in China,” Archives of the Chinese Art Society, X (1956), 42–63Google Scholar) The monograph on Huihsien discoveries is especially interesting in a negative way, as none of the early figurines reported as coming from that site has been scientifically excavated there. See the review by Alfred Salmony of some of the literature in Artibus Asiae, XVIII (1955), 189–191.Google Scholar
26 P'ei Wen-chung in China Reconstructs, V (1956), 8, 9–10Google Scholar. See also Illustrated London News, No. 6149 (04 13, 1957), pp. 582–583.Google Scholar
27 K'ao-ku hsüeh-pao (1956), No. 2, pp. 33–68Google Scholar; Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (1956), No. 1, p. 60Google Scholar. Differences too have been noted between the stone tools and pottery found (1955) in the valley of the Kan River at the foot of Fen-chi-k'eng Mountain (in Kwangtung) and like things in southern Fukien and the region of Hangchow Bay. See K'ao-ku t'ung-hsün (1956), No. 4, pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
28 Swann, Peter, The Manchester Guardian Weekly, 12 13, 1956, p. 14Google Scholar; Chih-ehiang, Tan, China Pictorial (1957), No. 3, p. 23.Google Scholar
29 No. 3, pp. 4–6.
30 Chih-min, An, K'ao-ku hsüeh-pao (1954), ts'e 8, pp. 65–108Google Scholar, reports that in the 1952 season 375 divination bones and 9 divination tortoise shells were found at Erh-li-kang, but his illustrations (Pls. 14–16), which show the typical pits in the above, reveal no script. Inscribed oracle bones have been found at Fang-tui-ts'un, in Hung-chao-hsien, Shansi, but they are thought to date from the fourth or third centuries B.C. (Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao, 1956, No. 7, p. 27).Google Scholar
31 I have followed three in particular: K'ao-ku hsüeh-pao, K'ao-ku t'ung-hsün, and Wenwu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao.
32 In K'ao-ku t'ung-hsün (1956), No. 2, pp. 60–61.Google Scholar
33 Ibid, No. 4.
34 V, 5, 24–28.
35 K'ao-ku t'ung-hsün (1956), No. 2, pp. 23–30Google Scholar, has a report on the second dig at Pan-p'o.
36 See Shu-ch'ing, Shih, Ch'ang-sha Yang-t'ien-hu ch'u-t'u Ch'u-chien yen-chiu (1955).Google Scholar
37 Wang Yü-ch'üan in China Reconstructs (02 1957), pp. 10–11Google Scholar, and Hsüeh-ch'in, Li, Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (1956), No. 1, pp. 48–49Google Scholar. 87 iron molds were found, many bearing script of the period of Warring States.
38 A member of the Tu-ku family was the consort of Yang Chien, founder of the Sui. On the discovery see Chang T'ieh-hsüan, Wen-wu ts'an-k'ao tzu-liao (1954), No. 10, pp. 51–54.Google Scholar
39 Bushell, S. W., Journal of the Peking Oriental Society, I (1886), 17Google Scholar; Annales de l'Extrême-Orient, VIII (1885–1886), 190.Google Scholar
40 In K'ao-ku t'ung-hsün (1956), No. 3, pp. 43–48.Google Scholar
41 Ecke, and Demiéville, , The Twin Pagodas of Zayton (1935)Google Scholar; Ecke alone in Bulletin of the Catholic University of Peking, No. 7 (1930), pp. 63–102Google Scholar; Farley in Asia, XXXIX (1939), 640–646Google Scholar; Cheng in HJAS, IV (1939), 1–11Google Scholar; for Chang and others, see bibliography in HJAS, IV (1939), 8Google Scholar, nn. 10–11.
42 JRAS, 04 1954, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
43 Sung shih (Ch'ien-lung edition), 186.18a–26b.
44 This circuit reached from the estuary of the Yangtze in the north to the bay of Fout'ou (in southern Fukien) in the south.
45 Hua-piao Hill is the subject of a very interesting entry in Ho Ch'iao-yüan (ca. 1558–1631), Min shu: “Hua-piao Hill … in the prefecture of Ch'üan-chou is connected with Ling-yüan Hill. Its two peaks are upreared like hua piao (ornamental stone pillars). Situated on a northern slope of this hill is a rustic chapel, which was built during the Yüan dynasty and in which the Buddha Mani is worshipped…” See Yüan, Ch'en, Kuo-hsūeh chi-k'an, I (04 1923)Google Scholar; translated into English in Bulletin of the Catholic University of Peking, No. 4 (1928), p. 66.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by