Access count of this item: 41
|Other Titles:||<Notes>On the Donghu|
|Author's alias:||YOSHIMOTO, Michimasa|
|Journal title:||史林 = THE SHIRIN or the JOURNAL OF HISTORY|
|Abstract:||It goes without saying that the opposition of agriculturalists in China proper to the nomads of Mongolia was one of the dynamics in the history of eastern Eurasia. As shown by the fact that the "Xiongnu Liezhuan" chapter of the Shiji the first detailed written description of nomads, the Xiongnu were the earliest nomads to maintain continual contact with China. Before the establishment of their own empire, the Xiongnu are said to have been situated between the Donghu on the east and Rouzhi on the west, so it can be surmised that the Donghu had probably established the first nomad empire in the eastern Eurasia prior to that of the Xiongnu. But in spite of such historical importance, only fragmentary accounts have been handed down about the Donghu because their empire was destroyed by an Xiongnu attack at the end of the 3rd century B.C. and they had no opportunity for continuous interchange with China. The "Xiongnu Liezhuan" first mentions, "the Donghu and Shanrong were to the north of the Yan state" in the descriptions of the Spring and Autumn period. It then recounts the Yan general Qin Kai's repelling of the Donghu in the descriptions of construction of the great walls by the Qin, Zhao, and Yan states during the Late Warring States period. Then, in describing the First Emperor's achievement, it recounts, "the Donghu were strong and the Rouzhi prosperous." Finally, the destruction of the Donghu is found in the description of Maodun Shanyu's establishment of his empire. This series of descriptions is the only source that deals with the Donghu diachronically. In addition to these, descriptions of the Wuhuan and Xianbei as tribes that were descendants of the Donghu are seen in the "Wuhuan Xianbei Liezhuan" of the Houhanshu and elsewhere. Recently, as a result of the increase in archaeological materials, systematic studies of Xianbei's tombs have been published, and furthermore, there has been an attempt to see the Donghu as the source of Xianbei culture based on a survey of the archaeological evidence. Generally speaking, descriptions in the "Xiongnu Liezhuan" have been quoted uncritically in these studies. However, descriptions in the Shiji are problematic and can never be accepted uncritically. This paper adopts such a point of view in attempting to comprehensively criticize the historical descriptions of the Donghu, and thereby coordinates reliable historical information, which has been filtered though this process, with archaeological studies to ascertain those matters that can be known about the Donghu at present.|
|Appears in Collections:||91巻2号|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.