ISSN 2152-7237 (print) ISSN 2153-2060 (online)

The Silk Road Volume 8 2010

Contents

From the Editor’s Desktop ...... 3

Images from Ancient Iran: Selected Treasures from the National Museum in Tehran. A Photographic Essay ...... 4

Ancient Uighur Mausolea Discovered in Mongolia, by Ayudai Ochir, Tserendorj Odbaatar, Batsuuri Ankhbayar and Lhagwasüren Erdenebold ...... 16

The Hydraulic Systems in Turfan (Xinjiang), by Arnaud Bertrand ...... 27

New Evidence about Composite Bows and Their Arrows in Inner Asia, by Michaela R. Reisinger ...... 42

An Experiment in Studying the Felt Carpet from Noyon uul by the Method of Polypolarization, by V. E. Kulikov, E. Iu. Mednikova, Iu. I. Elikhina and Sergei S. Miniaev ...... 63

The Old Curiosity Shop in Khotan, by Daniel C. Waugh and Ursula Sims-Williams ...... 69

Nomads and Settlement: New Perspectives in the Archaeology of Mongolia, by Daniel C. Waugh ...... 97

(continued)

“The Bridge between Eastern and Western Cultures” Book notices (except as noted, by Daniel C. Waugh)

The University of Bonn’s Contributions to Asian Archaeology ...... 125 John E. Hill. Through the Jade Gate to Rome ...... 127 Elfriede Regina Knauer. Coats, Queens, and Cormorants ...... 128 Yuka Kadoi. Islamic Chinoiserie. The Art of Mongol Iran ...... 130 Susan Whitfi eld, ed. La Route de la Soie ...... 132 Johan Elverskog. Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road ...... 133 Khotan is Hot: Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 3 (2008); Bulletin of the Asia Institute 19 (2005 [2009]) ...... 135 John Becker, in collaboration with Donald B. Wagner. Pattern and Loom (reviewed by Sandra Whitman) ...... 137

Cover photo: Vaiśravana, detail of plaque acquired in Khotan by Clarmont Skrine in 1922. British Museum 1925,619.35. Reproduced with permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. Photo copyright © 2010 Daniel C. Waugh. The complete plaque is reproduced in Susan Whitfi eld and Ursula Sims-Williams, eds., The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith. Chicago: Serindia, 2004, p. 160, no. 60, but misnumbered as 1925,619.25.

The Silk Road is an annual publication of the Silkroad Foundation supplied in a limited print run to librar- ies. We cannot accept individual subscriptions. Each issue can be viewed and downloaded free of charge at: . The print version contains black and white illus- trations; the online version uses color. Otherwise the content is identical. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or contributions. Information regarding contributions and how to format them may be found on the website at .

The Silkroad Foundation Editor: Daniel C. Waugh 14510 Big Basin Way # 269 [email protected] Saratoga, CA 95070

© 2010 Silkroad Foundation © 2010 by authors of individual articles and holders of copyright, as specifi ed, to individual images.

2

NOMADS AND SETTLEMENT: NEW PERSPECTIVES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF MONGOLIA Daniel C. Waugh Mongolian Autonomous Region in China.1 University of Washington (Seattle) This inclusiveness refl ects historical realities in which various peoples occupied territories he “archaeology of mobility” in recent other than those defi ned by modern political years has moved quite far from traditional boundaries. My chronological scope is also a T approaches to the study of “nomadic” very broad one, what we might call the longue societies (Archaeology 2008, reviewed in durée, starting at least as early as the Bronze Waugh 2009; Social Complexity 2009; Houle Age and extending down through the Mongol 2 and Erdenebaatar 2009). Instead of the Empire. To encompass this long span of seemingly antithetical poles of the “steppe and several millennia allows one to raise questions the sown,” most work nowadays emphasizes a (though probably at best only begin to suggest continuum where mobility and settlement and answers) regarding long-term historical change the economies of the populations involved in in settlement patterns. That is, we begin in a them may be mixed in varying degrees. We no period when settlments were arguably small, longer think of “pure nomadism” of the type perhaps only seasonal, and we end in a period that most of the earliest written sources, when we fi nd urban centers in the steppe. produced in sedentary societies, describe While some types of settlement presumably with reference to the “barbarian” other. The had a long life, others emerged for which there methodologies underlying some of the new may not have been any precedent within this interpretive approaches are still very much large territory and whose form was very much in the process of development, which may be infl uenced by external models. one reason that the newer perspectives on Whether we now can develop a methodology “nomadism” have not yet had the broad impact to understand processes involved in settlement they deserve on the more general treatments as a framework for future study is a subject of pre-modern Eurasian history. While I cannot of intense current interest. It is clear that encompass all of the methodologies, I hope even very specifi c new research into particular that a selective review of this literature will settlements (the existence of some of which be of some value both to specialists and the has been known for a long time) may leave us general reader. Such a review reveals how much with more questions than answers. An excellent information there is on settlements in the pre- modern steppe regions, at the same time that Fig. 1. “Greater Mongolia.” Base map from < http:// it reminds us how slim the foundations of that www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/ knowledge yet are and how mongolia_rel96.jpg>. rapidly our understanding of it is changing. At very least we might conclude that sweeping generalizations, based on older perceptions about the nature of nomadic societies, should be abandoned, even if it is premature to arrive at a new synthesis. My focus is what I shall term “greater Mongolia” [Fig. 1], that is, not just the territory of the independent country but including as well Southern Siberia (Tuva, Transbaikalia), and the Inner

Copyright © 2010 The Silkroad Foundation. The Silk Road 8 (2010): 97–124. 97 Copyright @ 2010 Daniel C. Waugh. illustration is that of Karakorum, which was for Siberia.3 The surveys have documented major a time the capital of the Mongol Empire in the assemblages of petroglyphs, standing stones, 13th century, and which has tended to serve khirigsuurs (large ritual stone mounds with as a reference point for other considerations surrounding features) and other surface of “urban” entities in Mongolia, even as what monuments which refl ect millennia of human we thought we knew about Karakorum is very activity. The richness of the archaeological much in a process of reassessment. A broader landscapes of Mongolia is truly astonishing comparative perspective on the material from and, until projects such as this one, has been Mongolia is desirable, but for practical reasons insuffi ciently appreciated. cannot be attempted here. While modern ethnographic observations can be of some help in trying to interpret Bronze and Early Iron Ages the archaeological data, as those who invoke such extrapolation from the present generally Some of the most innovative new work in recognize, one must be very cautious not to Inner Asian archaeology relates to the Bronze assume identity between what we now see and early Iron Ages, a time when, it has been and the cultures of the distant past. That said, argued, changes in climate may be correlated in particular the rich visual material in the at least in specifi c regions with the emergence petroglyphs in areas such as the Mongolian of conditions suited to nomadic pastoralism. Altai, to the extent that it can be dated even Analytical approaches are being developed approximately, does allow one to reconstruct which attempt to interpret archaeological some basic aspects of social and economic life evidence with reference to landscape and and their changes over time. We can identify ecology (Frachetti 2008). Even if older studies animals that were hunted, see the hunts in of the early pastoralists detected few traces of progress, see the use of wheeled vehicles, their habitations, there is in fact evidence which the advent of mounted horsemanship, the now is making it possible to identify sites of even processions of loaded caravans, the use of seasonal settlement and begin to connect them settled enclosures or buildings [Fig. 2], possible with paths of likely movement, e.g., between ritual dances, social confl ict and more. It is pretty summer and winter camps which often are not certain that some of the major concentrations very remote from one another. Integrated into of petroglyphs are in the vicinity of what were this analysis are burials and cemeteries and undoubtedly the winter camps of pastoralists; other evidence concerning what reasonably may major ritual sites marked by standing stones be interpreted as ritual sites. To a considerable degree the advances in our understanding of Fig. 2. Horses being led to an enclosure. Bronze the societies in certain regions are due to the Age petroglyph, Baga Oigor III site, Mongolian Al- employment of several different tai. Photo copyright © 2005 Daniel C. Waugh. kinds of methodologies including settlement study, bioarchaeology and regional survey (Nelson et al 2009, p. 577). The results should eventually transform the archaeologically-based un- derstanding of the early history and culture of Mongolia. One of the most ambitious and successful survey projects has been the joint Mongolian- American-Russian one, carried out over a decade and encompassing parts of far western Mongolia and some of the adjoining areas just across the border in southern

98 or khirigsuurs must have been ones which were visited on a regular basis. The pastoralists did not simply move through an area and never return; some part of their annual cycle involved a settled existence; one can certainly speak of central places in their lives (Houle 2009, p. 365). How the peoples who left these surface monuments viewed their surroundings can be conjectured on the basis of the imagery, the positioning of the monuments in the surrounding landscape, and other kinds of data. The rich surface documentation extends at least down through the Turkic and Uighur Fig. 3. The khirigsuur at Urt Bulagyn (KYR 1) from periods of the 6th–9th centuries, at which time the southwest. Photo copyright © 2007 Daniel C. Waugh. image stones with depictions of people become a common feature (and can be found later as monuments can be connected with construction well). at a particular season with reference to yet In the area of this major survey project, unspecifi ed celestial phenomena (Allard and excavation of ritual sites or graves is still at an Erdenebaatar 2005; Allard et al. 2002 [2006]). early stage. Thus our knowledge of the material The age of the sacrifi cied horses in the satellite culture of the peoples and clues about their mounds suggests a probable connection with identities is still limited. However, there is good autumn rituals. Absolute dating is as yet reason to believe that those who inhabited imprecise, but it seems that the khirigsuur the Mongolian Altai are related to those who complexes in the region fall between the late lived in some of the archaeologically better second millennium BCE and about 700 BCE. documented areas across the mountains in, Another controversial issue is whether such say, southern Siberia. Moreover, identifi cation structures were constructed in a relatively short of settlement sites has proved to be diffi cult, period of time or whether satellite features were even if some of the ritual features include what added over a period of centuries, indicating the may be characterized as “dwellings” at least repetition of ritual events at the site. While no in the symbolic sense of space delineated by remains of permanent settlements have yet stones which might be understood to resemble been found in the area, careful survey work an enclosure or house. suggests “a much more ‘settled’ pattern of mobility than hitherto thought,” with clustering In another region where extensive archaeo- around the monumental structures (Houle and logical survey has been undertaken, the Khanuy Erdenebaatar 2009, pp. 127–28). Thus there River valley, there is impressive evidence of is good reason to think that there was some activity that would have required marshalling regular cycle of habitation, even if the society of considerable human resources to construct that produced them was basically mobile. It has ritual centers and their monuments (Houle and been suggested that such structures were built Erdenebaatar 2009; Houle 2009). Of particular by relatively localized groups whose leaders interest here has been the study of khirigsuurs, could marshal signifi cant resources even in mounds of often monumental size, many of a period when there were no larger political 4 them surrounded by very complex structures. entities that controlled the region. The most striking example investigated to date is at Urt Bulagyn, which has over 1700 Work in the Egiin gol on Bronze Age sites is satellite mounds [Fig. 3]. A debatable question also opening up new interpretive possibilities is whether the orientation of it and neighboring for understanding change over time in the

99 societies that constructed them (Honeychurch diet consisted of grains, possibly some of them et al. 2009). The evidence about chronology grown locally. The abundance of iron artifacts is still limited, and the excavations are so and pottery of often impressive dimensions and few as to leave open questions about the solidity in Xiongnu sites surely points to there statistical sample. Yet it does seem possible having been possibilities for signifi cant local to suggest correlations between the nature production, which would of itself suggest that and distribution of the sites and social change at least portions of Xiongnu society were settled and the possible relationship of these changes during part of the year. Thus, the picture in the to the development of interactions over long Chinese annals of a largely nomadic society distances, facilitated by the introduction of cannot be entirely accurate. Yes, as abundant horse riding. archaeological evidence indicates, horse breeding was important in the society, the The Xiongnu Xiongnu were mobile (we even have a sketch of one of their camps with several trellis tents We fi rst encounter walled settlement sites in in it), but we cannot be certain exactly what the our larger Mongolia in the period of the Xiongnu, role of a settlement like Ivolga was (see, e.g., who emerged as a major polity around 200 Kradin 2001, esp. p. 80). BCE and continued to play an important role in Eurasia at least into the middle of the second Another Xiongnu settlement, at Boroo Gol, century CE. Xiongnu archaeology has attracted within 25 km of the Noyon uul cemeteries a great deal of attention. Apart from a range in the mountains of north-central Mongolia, of cemetery excavations encompassing both has strikingly similar features to those at elite and ordinary burials, there have been Ivolga (Ramseyer et al. 2009; Pousaz and excavations at a few settlements. The fi rst of Turbat 2008). Possibly Boroo Gol is to be these to be thoroughly studied are in Buriatia, connected with gold-working in its adjoining south of Lake Baikal. Best known is Ivolga, a region, but yet uncertain is whether it “was a settlement which had a quadruple wall and permanent or a seasonal” village. Another of may have housed as many as 3000 inhabitants the unresolved questions concerns chronology, (Davydova 1988, 1995, 1996).5 At least some since preliminary data for one house dates it of the population lived in semi-dugout houses between 320 and 200 BCE, whereas for another (a kind of construction found in other areas house, the date range is 80–250 CE. One can of Siberia down into modern times), ones only speculate on the possible relationship of which are distinctive in their having heating the site to the cemeteries at Noyon uul. fl ues under benches around the inside of the Other, purportedly Xiongnu, settlement sites building. Such heating systems, known from have been identifi ed, but are as yet poorly the Bohai Culture of northern Korea and known.6 Preliminary excavation at Terelzhiin Manchuria but possibly of Han Dynasty Chinese Dörvölzhin in the Kherlen Valley has focussed inspiration, are also to be found centuries on a single central building where some “Han later in some of the urban sites in Mongolia. type” roof fi nials have been found (Danilov The Ivolga site has yielded many artifacts, 2009). The nearly square walled enclosure including evidence that at least part of the local measuring some 220 m. on a side bears at least Fig. 4. Settlement site at Tamiryn Ulaan Khoshuu, a superfi cial resemblance to the three large view from NE showing Structure A and part of square enclosures at Tamiryn Ulaan Khoshuu, Structure B. Photo copyright © 2005 Daniel C. Waugh [Fig. 4] west of the intersection of the Tamir

100 and Orkhon rivers (Purcell and Spurr 2006, “the importance of a long-term perspective esp. pp. 27–31). Yet to date we cannot even on mobile pastoralism that allows us to see be certain those are from the Xiongnu period. shifts in strategy and in productive scale from To study properly such large sites (and for that local networks to those involving expanded matter, any other sizeable settlements) will be a territories, larger groups, and urban centers.” major undertaking, especially where there may (Honeychurch and Amartüvshin 2007, p. 56; be relatively few structural remains beyond the also idem (2002) 2006; Honeychurch et al. walls themselves. 2009). The methodologies applied here might Where there are cemeteries adjoining the well be applied to other areas where to date the settlements (the one substantially studied focus has been on localized excavation without example is at Ivolga), we might hope to suffi cient study of surrounding landscapes and establish something about the identity of their resource potential for supporting human their populations. Yet to date there seems habitation. The survey work in the Egiin gol in to be little unequivocal evidence. At present, effect worked from two chronological directions. it seems safest to propose that the Xiongnu For assessing the productive potential of polity encompassed a mixed population, the area’s varied ecology for pastoralism with some Mongoloid (northeast Asian) and and agriculture, it was necessary to study some Caucasoid members. Too much of what contemporary practices and recent historic has been written on this subject is based on data. This then provided the basis, granted, on cranial metrics; there is so far little DNA a still rather hypothetical level, for correlating testing. As Christine Lee notes, “both of these productive potential with the location of methodologies have serious issues” (Lee 2009). archaeological sites dating from the Bronze Age (or even earlier) down through the Xiongnu Not the least of the challenges in learning and Uighur periods. Of particular interest here about the Xiongnu is to establish a clear is evidence suggesting a growing emphasis on chronology of sites across the whole area of agriculture in the Xiongnu period, possibly to be what at one or another time was considered to understood as refl ecting resource management be part of the Xiongnu polity.7 As yet we know in the time of the developing centralized little about Xiongnu sites in what is now Inner Xiongnu polity, but then the apparent decline in Mongolia, some of which might be presumed the interest in agriculture in the Egiin gol in the to be “early” given what some posit concerning Uighur period. This decline might be related to Xiongnu origins. Xiongu-period burials at the the emergence of true urban centers amongst Baga Gazaryn Chuluu site in the Mongolian Gobi the Uighurs in the valleys to the west of the may be as early as the 2nd century BCE (the Egiin gol, where towns were surrounded by period of the presumed greatest fl ourishing of extensive agriculture and seem to have served the Xiongnu polity) (Nelson et al. 2009). We as focal points around which the Uighur elite still have no clear sense of the impact of the courts and retinue moved on a regular basis. Han Dynasty’s aggressive moves against the While the focus of the Egiin gol study is not Xiongnu and reestablishment of some control to analyze this urban development, its authors over its northern frontiers, which may have conclude with stimulating suggestions about shifted the center of the Xiongnu polity and the relationship between nomadic pastoralists possibly then changed the nature of its built and urban centers: “The nature of the steppe environment. As Ursula Brosseder has recently city and its relationship to a mobile hinterland suggested, such monumental structures as was an entirely novel form of ‘central place’ the Xiongnu terrace tombs may be a “late” innovated by steppe nomads specifi cally for phenomenon, from a period when the Xiongnu negotiating a mobile sociopolitical and economic polity was under considerable stress (Brosseder context” (Honeychurch and Amartüvshin 2007, 2009). p. 58). If we accept this view, we may in fact Of particular interest if we are to understand arrive at a much better understanding of the better the evidence from various periods functions of the urban centers than we have regarding settlements in pre-modern Mongolia had to date. is the project which has been underway in One of the larger issues here concerns the the Egiin Gol Valley of north-central Mongolia. mechanisms for the emergence of “nomadic As its authors state, the study emphasizes empires” and the degree to which they

101 may or may not have depended on external urban centers, there probably is little that can stimuli for their development. While possibly be established with certainty about the earliest the differences in the interpretive stances layers of settlements along the northern here have been exaggerated, in a somewhat frontiers, now overbuilt by the fortifi cations and simplifi ed form, the confl icting interpretations buildings of later eras. are represented by Thomas Barfi eld, who emphasizes the external factors and persistent The Türks and the Uighurs patterns, and Nicola Di Cosmo, who emphasizes internal ones and evolutionary change. The Of more immediate relevance to developments work on Egiin gol supports the position of Di in Mongolia is the question of whether there Cosmo, as does a recent attempt to survey are “urban” remains for the early Türk empire, and classify the types of urban settlements in which emerged in the second half of the sixth Mongolia from the Uighur through the Mongol century CE, disintegrated about a century later, period.8 and then revived for some decades beginning th 10 One of the major gaps in our knowledge of in the late 7 century. Improbable as it may settlements in greater Mongolia is for the period seem, what follows in the Uighur period, for between the Xiongnu and the Uighurs, that which there is substantial evidence of urban is from about the second to about the eighth development, would seem to have no precedent centuries CE. Of particular signifi cance is the in the Turkic period. There are several very fact that we still have such limited archaeological important Türk ritual sites commemorating 11 knowledge of groups such as the Xianbei, who various kaghans. These involved the building replaced the Xiongnu in certain areas.9 One of platforms and pavilions, the carving of can at best hypothesize regarding their socio- statues and the erection of large stele with economic transformation accompanying their inscriptions. There can be no question but that th presumed movement west and south from a the 8 –century ritual site at Khöshöö–Tsaidam homeland in northeast Asia into the steppe in the Orkhon River Valley was seen to be very region. It would be dangerous to attempt to read signifi cant, placed in the heart of what the Türks back from the better documented history of the considered to be their ancestral homeland. The Northern Wei, their successors who established texts on the stele at this and other sites provide an important state in Northern China in the for the fi rst time what we might consider to late 4th century. Written sources suggest that be the authentic “voice” of pastoralists in the there were large migrations and substantial Mongolian steppes. And what we fi nd in those settlements at, for example, Shengle (in texts is an explicit warning of the dangers of today’s Inner Mongolia just south of Hohhot). adopting sedentary ways and establishing The Northern Wei seem to have had a number urban centers. Yet there is as well evidence of fortifi ed centers (protecting themselves in the Chinese sources that the Türk ruler at against incursions by newly emergent threats one point requested from China resources to on their northern frontiers). Yet even a site as support agricultural development (Kiselev important as Shengle is little known, despite its 1957, p. 93; Perlee 1957, p. 45). It would be an long history of settlement both antedating and oversimplifi cation to conclude from this textual postdating its brief existence as the Northern evidence that a process of “sedentarization” Wei capital. Very quickly the Northern Wei was already underway which should have left moved their capital over the mountains to the us more material evidence. south, where their orientation was no longer in Apart from these dramatic and important the fi rst instance to the steppe world but rather ritual sites for the Turkic kaghans, there are to sedentary China (Dien 2007, esp. pp. 15–32; numerous other Turkic memorial complexes Steinhardt 1990, pp. 91, 78–87). While this is a involving carved statues, and arrays of stone period when we can see the spread northwards fences and lines of standing stones scattered of a Chinese imperial model of city planning, across the Eurasian steppes. Some of the how we might best interpret the processes best known concentrations are found in the of its assimilation remains an open question. Altai, but there is also important evidence of Given the complicated patterns of interactions a Turkic presence on the northern edge of the across “borders” in this frontier zone, and in Gobi (Jacobson-Tepfer et al. 2010 passim; the absence of major excavation of important Wright and Amartüvshin 2009). One can at

102 least surmise that, as with the Bronze Age seen from kilometers away [Fig. 5]. While we ritual sites, these were ones which involved now have a fairly good surface plan of Khar some kind of repeated visitation, perhaps on Balgas, and excavations have been undertaken a regular basis. As Wright and Amartüvshin there off and on for more than a century, we remind us, ceramic assemblages, such as those know precious little about the site beyond the found at Baga Gazaryn Chuluu, “are equivalent fortifi ed “palace complex.”14 The walls of the to settlements” and they tend to cluster in the latter are of tamped earth; however, at least sheltered areas where modern observations in the crumbling “citadel” in the southeast confi rm pastoralists tend to establish their corner, there are very substantial grey fi red winter campsites. So there is in fact a rather bricks. Outside the large walled enclosure broad range of data which can be brought of the “palace,” which can be seen from afar to bear to establish mobility and settlement across the valley, are lower walled enclosures patterns for the early Türks. and the remains of an extensive settlement, which, allegedly, is to be dated to the same The only sizeable walled enclosure of which time as the walled palace complex. We cannot I am aware which might be dated to the be certain whether the Uighurs built atop a Türk period in Mongolia is Khukh Ordung on previous settlement here or what, exactly, the eastern edge of the Khangai mountains, followed on their being driven out by the Kyrgyz which border the Orkhon valley on the west. in the middle of the 9th century. There seems to That is, this site is located to the southwest be good reason to think that the Kyrgyz did not but across the valley and at some remove themselves occupy the Orkhon but rather went from the Khöshöö–Tsaidam site of the major back to their homelands in the upper Enisei Türk memorial complex. On the slimmest of River basin (Drompp 1999). When the Mongol grounds, Khukh Ordung, has been dated to the successors of Chingis Khan built Karakorum, mid–7th century CE (at a time when the fi rst Turk empire had been destroyed), even though they studied the Khar Balgas site, even if they that date might well be merely a terminus post were apparently mystifi ed as to what it had quem (cf. Kolbas 2005).12 There are structural been. features of Khukh Ordung which seem similar to Khar Balgas is the rare case of a “city in those of the citadel at the later Uighur capital, the steppe” for which in the period prior to Khar Balgas, but even if the site seems to be the Mongol Empire we have a contemporary a Uighur one, to date it a century earlier than description by a foreign visitor. Tamim ibn- other Uighur sites seems premature, absent Bahr, the representative of the Abbassid Caliph any serious excavation. That said, neither is in 821, described a huge city surrounded by there any reason to associate it with the revival extensive settlements and agriculture, all of of the Türk Empire in the area in the 8th century. which seems to correspond to what we so far The roughly century-long period of Uighur know based on archaeology (Minorsky 1948, power in Mongolia starting in the mid-8th esp. 283). However, his description really is quite limited and problematic, given the fact century witnessed signifi cant construction of walled structures, some of which are only now that his written account compresses so much of being detected using sophisticated techniques the journey. One cannot be entirely confi dent of aerial photography and remote sensing that his descriptions of productive agriculture, (Bemmann and Ankhbayar 2010; Oczipka whose existence is entirely probable, really et al. 2009).13 At least one of these, a major relate to the Orkhon valley or to some place city, has long been known, the Uighur capital much further to the west. Khar Balgas, whose ruins north of Karakorum Fig. 5. Khar Balgas, view of citadel from south. on the fl ood plain of the Orkhon Valley can be Photo copyright © 2007 Daniel C. Waugh.

103 The Orkhon Valley is also the location of the Uighur period is based so far mainly on its a number of Uighur burial and ritual sites architectural analogies to Khar Balgas and from (durvuljin) employing some of the same remains including roof tiles which are analogous techniques of construction found at Khar to ones known from Tang China. It contains a Balgas, which may have served as a source of number of structures, including what seems to building materials. Several of these durvuljin have been a central ritual hall. As with a number have been excavated (see Ochir et al. 2010, of the other sites starting in the Uighur period, published above, pp. 16–26). Their builders there is good reason to posit substantial Chinese used fi red brick to create vaulted entrance “infl uence” on the architecture of the buildings passages and domed burial chambers, and in at Por Bazhin — they included columned timber one instance so far uncovered, painted murals halls on platforms with ceramic tile roofs — but on plaster to decorate the tomb. One important whether we should go so far as to agree they fi nding of these excavations is that such sites were the work of Chinese architects is a moot may contain layers extending back as far as the point. While it seems as though the construction Xiongnu period and then going down into the materials were drawn from local sources, so period of the Mongol Empire. When the Uighurs far no evidence has been found of workshops, built one of their tombs, they must have known kilns, etc. which might be related to the work. that the site previously had been used, even if Not the least of the as yet unresolved puzzles they could not have been aware that the earlier about this site is what its function was. burial was a Xiongnu one. Apparently it was occupied for only a relatively There are also Uighur sites farther north. short period of time, may have been used only Baibalyk is located on the Selenga River into in summer (there is no evidence suggesting which the Orkhon fl ows. There is written there was a heating system), and may have evidence that Chinese and Sogdians participated served some religious or ritual purpose. There in its building.15 Whether the walled enclosures is, however, no direct evidence to suggest it there served functions other than purely was, say, a Buddhist temple or monastery. Its military and defensive is not clear, although abandonment may have been connected with stone lion sculptures have been excavated. collapse of the short-lived fi rst Uighur empire, Some of the most extensive evidence about although at some perhaps later stage there is Uighur settlements has been found across the reason to think the site was severely damaged borders from Mongolia in neighboring Tuva, in an earthquake. where there are as many as a dozen fortifi ed As with so much of the evidence about enclosures, one as large as 230 m on a side settlements and cities in Mongolia, we are left and one a double-walled structure with an with more questions than answers about many inner citadel.16 Both the architectural features of the Uighur sites, where not the least of the and ceramic fi nds connect these sites with the interpretive challenges involves the matter of Uighurs, whose effort to consolidate control in agency. That is, what might we reasonably the upper Enisei valley beginning in the middle attribute to local initiative, or to what degree of the 8th century (soon after the time when should we emphasize infl uence, simply because Khar-Balgas was being built) is documented in there is evidence of “cultural borrowing?” written sources. In the fi rst instance, the Tuvan Annemarie von Gabain suggested that, given sites are forts, where probably the Uighur the close relationship between the Uighurs garrisons lived in their yurts; only one of the and the Tang Dynasty (which they saved from sites has remains of some structures in addition the An Lushan rebellion in the 8th century), to the walls. Chinese wives of the Uighur rulers may have One of the most striking of the Tuvan sites is infl uenced the decision to build cities. This, in that at Por Bazhin, fi rst noticed by scholars in apparent contrast to the policies of the Turk the late 19th century, excavated in 1957–63, and kaghans, who were perhaps trying to hold then beginning in 2007 the subject of renewed Chinese infl uence at arm’s length. At the same serious study in conjunction with efforts to time though, this is not to say that the Uighurs preserve the site (Por Bazhin [2007]). It is a had made a full transition to settled urban life, fortifi ed enclosure measuring 215 x 162 m. something von Gabain posits occurred only located on an island. The dating of the site to later when the center of their state had moved

104 west to the Turfan region and they took over have been one of a much more systematic and the major oasis cities that already existed there impressive commitment to urban centers and (Gabain 1950, p. 48). If we assume that the serious architectural undertakings.19 As many Uighur rulers followed the pattern of other as 200 cities established by the Khitan have nomadic leaders in establishing regular routes been documented in today’s Inner Mongolia. of movement to seasonal camps, we still need Having established their imperial claims as to learn more about what those routes may the Liao Dynasty (907–1125), the Khitans have been and whether the locations of sites ruled from several capitals, whose planning, identifi ed as being from the Uighur period in while incorporating many features of Chinese fact may be the remains of such seasonally imperial cities, also embodied what may be occupied camps. seen as distinctive Khitan traditions.20 The size of these major cities is truly impressive, The Khitans as are surviving Khitan buildings (primarily temples and pagodas) and numerous Khitan A further complication in studying the Uighur elite tombs. We are not in a position to quantify sites is that some of them seem to have been the evidence, but it is plausible to suggest that taken over subsequently by the Khitans. Given under the Khitan/Liao for the fi rst time the the complexity of the stratigraphy and the population of steppe area of Inner Mongolia sometimes ambivalent nature of the evidence, came to have a signifi cant urban component. there may be considerable dispute as to what Since the Khitans’ pretensions included should be dated to which period. A case in point extending their territory to the north, and, is Chintolgoi, located in the Tuul River basin, when their dynasty fell to the Jürchen in the where there are the remains of an impressive 12th century the Khitan leaders fl ed fi rst into wall with towers, whose long dimension is some outer Mongolia before eventually migrating to 1.2 km (Kradin et al. 2005; Ochir and Erdenebold Central Asia, there is considerable evidence 17 2009). There was considerable disagreement of Khitan urban settlement north of the Gobi by earlier scholars about the identifi cation of (Perlee 1962; Kiselev 1957, pp. 95–7; idem the site with one mentioned in historical texts, 1958; Kyzlasov 1959, pp. 75–80; Scott 1975, although now there seems to be consensus that which includes a map on p. 28; Danilov 2004, it is the same as what in the Uighur period was pp. 67–72). As early as the beginning of the known as Khedun. While excavations there have 11th century the Khitan undertook to fortify a concentrated on relatively small areas, they northern frontier on a line from east on the have turned up an array of ceramics ranging Kherlen River to the Orkhon River basin in from Uighur period ones to some of the Song the west. There are three so-called “walls of wares of a type also found in the excavations at Chingis Khan,” one in southwestern Mongolia Karakorum. There is evidence of various local (apparently connected with the Tanguts), one in crafts. The youngest coins found are Northern southeastern Mongolia along the border with th Song ones from the 11 century. The site has China (apparently built by the Jürchen in the late the tortoise-shaped bases for erecting stele 11th or 12th centuries), and the third stretching such as we fi nd later at Karakorum. While there some 746 km. from the Khangai Mountains is much here to reinforce what we know from across northern Mongolia, part of Transbaikalia other Khitan sites about Chinese infl uences in and into the northern tip of the Inner Mongolian city construction, there also is evidence in the Autonomous region.21 A recent study of this ceramics of connections with the Bohai culture northern wall, which dates to the Khitan period, of Manchuria, something which we might expect estimates that it would have taken nearly in Khitan culture. It appears that Chintolgoi is a million man-days to construct — in other where the Khitan ruler Yelü Dahsi briefl y located words, it was an undertaking that required the his capital when he fl ed the Jürchen in 1124, marshalling of substantial labor forces over a before he moved further west to establish the long period. It is the more impressive for the Kara-Khitai state in Central Asia (Biran 2005, fact that along it is a network of paired forts, 18 pp. 26–33). some round and some square. Russian scholars While the built environment of the Uighurs in who have worked on the wall and these forts the eastern Inner Asian steppes was extensive, posit that the constructions may have been the Khitan period in the north of China seems to undertaken not necessarily for their defensive

105 value so much as for their symbolic value as Karakorum but with others, located outside the markers of Khitan pretensions in the far north. Orkhon Valley “circuit.”24 Apart from the smaller forts built by the Possibly the earliest of these sites, Avraga, Khitans along the northern wall, there were known for some time but only recently more signifi cant settlements. Kharbukhyn excavated, is in the east-central part of (Kharukhain) Balgas was one of three centers Mongolia, on a tributary of the Kherlen River founded (or revived) by the Khitans [Fig. 6]; (Shiraishi 2006, 2009; esp. Shiraishi and Chintolgoi, discussed above, was another. Tsogtbaatar 2009). The site features a good Archaeological evidence attests to the Khitan many structures, including a very substantial towns having a range of functions that we building interpreted as a palace. The Japanese- would associate with urban society. There were Mongolian team excavating there has found various local crafts and locally based agriculture. some evidence suggesting occupation as early There are still unanswered questions regarding as the late 12th century, which then supports religious affi liations — at Bars Khot I there the interesting hypothesis that the site could is evidence apparently of an early Buddhist be associated with the early stages of the rise temple (Scott 1975, pp. 20-21), and the site of Chingis Khan, since the region is considered of Kharbukhyn Balgas was much later (in the to have been his “homeland.” As Shiraishi 17th century) home to a substantial Buddhist Noriyuki puts it, “At the Avraga ruins we fi nd monastery with impressive stone architecture.22 one of the fi rst and earliest indications of the organizational investment made by the Mongols The Mongol Empire in subjugating the peoples of the vast eastern steppe” (Shiraishi 2009, p. 135), and in fact While the still rather slim evidence regarding it may have been Chingis’ initial capital. Even at least some of the Khitan towns in Mongolia after Karakorum became the capital in the points to their being located on earlier settlement 1230s, Avraga continued to be used, possibly sites, we still are a long way from being able to serving under the later Yuan as a ritual site say much of anything about a possible genetic commemorating the Chingisid founders of relationship between existing town sites and the dynasty. As is the case for Karakorum, the towns that began to appear in the early workshops have been uncovered (here, in decades of the Mongol Empire.23 Identifying particular, smitheries), and there is evidence the remains of Mongol Empire settlements has about the consumption of cereals in the local been a slow process, accompanied by a good diet. many misunderstandings, not the least of which involve the Mongol capital, Karakorum. A good many Mongol Empire settlement sites Karakorum will occupy a major part of the are located in Transbaikalia. One of the earliest, discussion which follows here, but we need to Khirkhira (on a tributary of the River Argun), beware of letting a focus on it unduly infl uence was excavated by Kiselev’s Russian expedition in our perceptions about other sites, as I think 1957–59 and again in recent years by the Amur has been the case in studies of Mongol cities expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences to date. That is, there has been a tendency to from Ulan-Ude.25 This walled town (what the draw comparisons with “what we know” about Russian archaeologists term a Chingisid royal Karakorum, even if, as it turns out, some of “estate”) extends some 1.5 km and contains “what we know” may be erroneous. With over 100 structures, including buildings these considerations in mind, let us begin our considered to be the “palaces” of the Mongol examination of Mongol Empire “cities” not with elite. The tile remnants from the buildings are

106 similar to those found at other Mongol Empire Fig. 6. Kharbukhyn Balgas, approximately 270° sites but in particular most closely resemble panorama looking south taken from north wall of those produced at sites in the Russian Far East. 17th-century monastic complex. Photo copyright © It is possible that there was an earlier (Uighur 2007 Daniel C. Waugh period) settlement at Khirkhira, although the agricultural products. structures which remain today suggest a date Kyzlasov’s proposed dating of the site to of the early 13th century (this is supported by a the Mongol Empire period in part is made few radiocarbon dates), and then a short-lived with reference to the material the Russian period of occupation. Since the famous “Chingis expeditions unearthed at Karakorum (where Khan stone,” dated to around 1325 and with the dating might well now be questioned). He an inscription honoring Isunke, a nephew of relies rather heavily on conclusions about the Chingis Khan’s, was found near the Khirkhira style of the sculpted dragon heads, which he site, the settlement has been associated with feels was typical for the late 12th and early Isunke or his father Jöchi-Kosar and has been 13th century, but differs from those found in assigned the same date. the Yuan Dynasty period. There are no Yuan- If Khirkhira and Avraga document Mongol period glazed ceramics at Dën-Terek. If these control to the east, Dën-Terek documents conclusions about the date of Dën-Terek are Mongol power to the west in Tuva. The accurate, then the city either slightly antedates archaeologist and historian of Tuva, Leonid the founding of Karakorum or is roughly R. Kyzlasov (1965, esp. p. 60) emphasized contemporaneous with it. that at the very beginning of the 13th century, extensive efforts at colonization followed the Karakorum Mongol conquests there. As a result, at least fi ve major urban settlements were established, Naturally the goal of identifying the ruins of the earliest of which was Dën-Terek on the the Mongol capital, known from 13th-century Elegest River, the administrative center for written sources, guided the thinking of many Tuva under the Mongols at the beginning of the early scholars who took an interest in Mongolian 13th century. The site is a large one, some 1.2 history.26 Even though for Karakorum we are km in length and occupying about 30 hectares, far better served with written primary sources with over 120 structures. Like many of the than we are for any previous city in Mongolia, Mongol Empire cities, it is unfortifi ed. The relating the textual evidence to specifi c construction of the buildings so far excavated archaeological evidence is by no means easy. is substantial, with massive granite bases As Eva Becker has exhaustively demonstrated, for wooden columns, and in the case of the the evidence in those written sources is largely “administrative” building, probably brick walls. quite equivocal, and too often unwarranted There are many fragments of glazed roof tiles assumptions have been made on the basis of and pieces of sculpted dragons and phoenixes a misreading of them. Moreover, evidence from which probably decorated the roofs. At least one of the most signifi cant early excavations some of the stuctures have underground at the site, by Dmitrii D. Bukinich in the heating ducts; it is probable that coal from a 1930s, remained unpublished and tended to nearby mine served as the fuel. The occupants be ignored for political reasons. The result was of the city engaged in a full range of economic that Sergei V. Kiselev’s excavations there in undertakings, including the manufacture of 1948–49 dominated much of what came to be ceramics and the processing of locally grown known about the site for the remainder of the

107 20th century. The largest part of what has been its east, not to the north in the area which was arguably one of the most infl uential books on the subject of Kiselev’s excavations (Pohl 2009, medieval Mongolian history, his co-authored pp. 527–30). Ancient Mongolian Cities (1965), concerns Karakorum is situated on a grassy plain a Karakorum. The book contains essays on the short distance from the Orkhon River where city’s history, the “palace,” mural fragments, the it emerges from the gorges of the Khantai commercial and craft section of the city, coins, Mountains and fl ows northward to meet the iron objects, ceramics, beads, leather objects, Tuul (on whose upper reaches the current construction materials and miscellaneous capital of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, is located). crafts. Yet, even though much of this material A favorable micro-climate makes the location retains its value, the archaeology on which all ideal for pasturage, and a Chinese traveler in this was based was fundamentally fl awed. 1247 remarked on the cultivation of grain and 29 While Kiselev deserves considerable praise vegetables. Ata-Malik Juvayni, an important precisely for emphasizing the importance of historian and offi cial under the Mongols, who cities in pre-modern Mongolia, two important spent time in Karakorum in the early 1250s, aspects of the presentation in the book are relates how hail destroyed the grain crop in particularly troubling. For one, the interpretive one year, but the following one saw a bumper framework is guided by a belief (which happens harvest (Juvayni 1958, I, pp. 226-227). to be Marxist) in stages of historical development Karakorum also is strategically located on the through which the Mongols inevitably must have intersection of the important east-west and passed. There is a concept here of “feudalism” north-south routes across Mongolia. As we have which then requires that certain social and seen above, this central part of the Orkhon economic developments be found in the River valley was considered a sacred homeland archaeological evidence, even if in a number by steppe peoples such as the Turks and of cases, Kiselev and his collaborators probably Uighurs who earlier had laid claim to universal should have stopped short of generalizing dominion and had placed their capitals there. conclusions.27 One can, of course, easily read So the choice of the location for Karakorum was through the interpretive verbiage, but then, if no accident: ecology, political considerations, one does that, the second problem is much less steppe tradition and and local beliefs all came easy to solve short of doing the kind of analysis together there (Allsen 1996; Honeychurch and Becker and the other German archaeologists Amartüvshin 2006). We can be certain that have recently done. The fact is that Kiselev’s the Mongols, having received the submission excavation methods were extremely sloppy of the heirs to the earlier Uighurs, were highly and he seems deliberately to have ignored the conscious of the earlier history of the region, import of some of the evidence. Thus we cannot even if in some mythologized form, and, as rely on his observations about stratigraphy, Juvayni relates, must have been impressed which led him to conclude that the Karakorum by the still substantial remains of the Uighur he excavated was built on a previously existing capital of Khar Balgas. site. This is as true for the commercial center Ironically, the physical remains of Karakorum of the city (at the “crossroads”) as it is for the itself would fare less well than those of Uighur so-called “palace” site. In general, observations Khar Balgas. There are few surface traces of the about chronology in the Kiselev book need to Mongol capital. One sees today a stone tortoise, be taken with caution, although this should cut in a local quarry, which served as the base for hardly surprise us given the period in which his a plinth with an inscription on it. It stands near work was done and the signifi cant advances a mound, which, it turns out, is the foundation which have been made in dating techniques for a building whose identifi cation has attracted since then. While Kiselev insisted he had found a great deal of attention (more on that shortly). evidence of an early layer of settlement at Careful ground survey (even as early as the Karakorum, the careful stratigraphic analysis of fi rst Russian expeditions of the 1890s) and the recent Mongolian–German expedition has now aerial photography and remote sensing shown that such was not the case.28 Assuming have made possible mapping the outlines of an that there was an earlier Uighur fort on the approximately rectangular city wall measuring site, it most likely encompassed the area of the about 1.5 x 2.5 km extending to the north of the current Erdene Zuu monastery and extended to current walls of the Erdene Zuu monastery, and

108 within it the shapes of a good many buildings which produced such objects as roof tiles and (see Pohl 2009, esp. pp. 516–26). The walls fi nials for the Chinese-style buildings, ceramic were suffi cient for controlling access to the sculptures, and a variety of table ware.31 The town but would not have protected it against evidence suggests that the kiln technology came a major attack. It was in the center of this from China. At the same time, the demand of area (the “crossroads”) that Kiselev focussed the elite for high quality ceramic wares was met some of his attention and where, as it turned by imports, including good Chinese porcelain. out, there is indeed evidence that this might When the famous blue-and-white porcelains have been the heart of a craftsman section began to be produced in large quantities in of the town. The recent Mongolian–German the fi rst half of the 14th century, they almost excavations have determined that the oldest immediately found a market in Karakorum. stratum here is from the early 13th century; the evidence in general seems to support a Evidence concerning commerce includes conclusion based on written sources that the coinage. For all the fact that the written serious development of the town really began sources emphasize the signifi cant role of under Khan Ögedei in the 1230s and 1240s, Muslim merchants connecting Karakorum with even if, perhaps, Chingis Khan was interested Central Asia, most of the coins which have been in the site somewhat earlier. discovered are of Chinese origin and range in date from a few Tang Dynasty examples up While it is diffi cult to match specifi cs with through the Yuan (Mongol) coinage we would details in the written sources, the archaeological expect. However, the earliest “documentary” evidence fl eshes out their picture of the evidence which has survived from Karakorum is town’s economic life, with particularly rich a coin with an islamic inscription minted there material continuing to be found in the Chinese in 1237–38.32 Excavations have also yielded a commercial section of the city, which has been great many metal weights. the focus of both the Russian and the Mongolian– German excavations. Karakorum was a center For all of this abundant detail which has emerged of metallurgy where water power from a canal from the excavations at the “crossroads” of connecting the town with the Orkhon River the city, as Ernst Pohl pointedly reminds us, ran the bellows for the forges. There are iron “So far, the opened window into the history cauldrons (used, among other things, as heating of the city is quite small. Just a few metres braziers), abundant quantities of arrowheads, off of our trenches the sequence of building and various decorative metal objects. One layers can differ from our results. Moreover, workshop seems to have specialized in bronze questions about founding activities, duration casting; in another the excavations turned up a of settlement and the end of occupation of the mould that was used to make a gold bracelet. entire town are far from being answered only Of particular interest are a substantial number by our excavations in the city centre” (Pohl of iron axle rings for carts, some of which must 2009, p. 513). He goes on to discuss what we have been quite sizeable and presumably were learn from the written sources, which include, used both for the transport of goods and at times the oft-quoted descriptions by the Franciscan to move gers without their being dismantled.30 William of Rubruck and Ata-Malik Juvayni, both Analogous carts are still used today in Mongolia. of which can be fl eshed out with material from Local industry produced glass beads for jewelry the Rashid al-Din’s anecdotes illustrating the and other decorative purposes; their forms are wise policies of the Mongol rulers as evidenced of a type that was widespread across all of the in their interaction with the city population. Mongol Empire. Spindle weights tell us that Apart from issues of bias and questions we yarn was being produced — presumably in the might raise about the accuracy of these 13th- fi rst instance from the wool of the Mongols’ own century authors though, the fact is they do fl ocks. We know that rich silk fabrics were highly not always answer for us important questions. valued by the Mongol elite; some fragments of Rubruck, for example, compares the city imported Chinese silk have been found. unfavorably with Saint Denis and its monastery, Of particular interest is the production and a suburb of Paris but an important ones, the importation of ceramics. One of the most striking burial place of the fi rst bishop of Paris. If St. discoveries of the recent Mongolian–German Denis had in the century after Rubruck some excavations was well preserved ceramic kilns, 10,000 inhabitants (Paris at that time may have

109 Fig. 7. The center of Karakorum in the 13th century, with Mongol gers in the upper right. Model in the National Museum of Mongolia. Pho- to copyright © 2007 Daniel C. Waugh. remains of a platform on which were very substantial granite bases for rows of columns, fl oor tiles, and glazed ceramic roof tiles suggesting that the building was a “Chinese style” one. The site is littered with evidence suggesting at some point it was a Buddhist temple. Among other fi nds are thousands of small votive clay stupas and images, to which Kiselev paid little attention, even though they had been noted in 1933 when the site was studied by Bukinich, whose numbered some 200,000), what does this tell unpublished results were available to Kiselev. As us about Karakorum’s population? We might the re-examination of the site by the Mongolian- assume that it rose and ebbed with the seasons German expedition has now demonstrated and to some extent depended on whether beyond any doubt, Bukinich was correct in the Mongol court was actually in residence. concluding the building was a Buddhist temple Indeed, so far, the excavations have yielded from its beginnings in the second quarter of the practically nothing we might associate fi rmly 13th century (Hüttel 2005, 2009a, 2009b). Very with Karakorum’s Mongol population, which likely the building is the one whose later history likely lived in gers (trellis tents) [Fig. 7]. of patronage and renovation was recorded in an inscription dated 1346. Rubruck’s description of buildings in the Mongol capital leaves us with many puzzles, since most, If this was not the palace, then where did the if not all of them, have yet to be documented khans receive important visitors? Both Rubruck archaeologically. He writes about “large palaces and Juvayni provide detailed descriptions of the belonging to the court secretaries,” “twelve idol khan’s various residences; it is clear from the [i.e., Buddhist] temples,” “two mosques” and latter that the court moved with the seasons. “one Christian church.” Perhaps best known of Assuming that there was indeed a palace in Rubruck’s observations is what he tells us about Karakorum, it is almost certain that it was the khan’s palace, with its wondrous fountain in the courtyard built for the Khan by the captive Parisian goldsmith Guillaume Boucher (ibid., pp. 209–11). An imaginative 18th–century European image of this palace, which originally illustrated a published version of Rubruck’s account (Dschingis 2005, p. 154), graces some of today’s Mongol currency.

Kiselev was convinced he had identifi ed the remains of the palace in the mound northwest of the walls of Erdene Zuu [Fig. 8], and the results of his excavation there have, Fig. 8. Looking across the remains of the temple unfortunately, had a signifi cant infl uence on a which Kiselev had determined was the palace at great many subsequent discussions of Mongol Karakorum. The Erdene Zuu Monastery is in the architecture.33 What he uncovered was the background. Photo copyright © 2005 Daniel C. Waugh.

110 located on the site now occupied by the Erdene should accept Shiraishi’s identifi cation of the Zuu monastery, where the recent excavations site with the archaeologically documented one have begun to uncover very substantial masonry of Doityn Balgas. While the construction and foundations of an important structure. There decoration of the main building seems not to be is as yet though no archaeological evidence “Chinese,” its layout and dimensions resemble to correlate with Rubruck’s description of the those of the Buddhist temple in Karakorum wondrous fountain in the palace courtyard. formerly considered to have been the khan’s Even if we may never identify for certain that palace. There is still much to be done in studying building, there is considerable evidence about Doityn Balgas and the other outlying “palace” what seem to have been royal residences in sites surrounding Karakorum. what Moses and Greer (1998) have termed We might conclude this overview of Mongol the “peri-urban environment” of Karakorum.34 Empire settlements in Mongolia with a brief That is, we can document from written sources review of the evidence concerning Kondui, one and are now in a position to confi rm this from of the most impressive “urban” sites, assumed archaeological evidence (if correlating the to have been built by the Mongol elite, probably two is still somewhat problematic) that there members of the Chingisid clan.36 It is located to was a network of elite sites, with substantial the north of Khirkhira in Transbaikalia (southeast buildings, which constituted the seasonal orbit of the city of Chita). While there are several of the khan when he was not off on more distant buildings, the one which underestandably campaigns. This pattern of seasonal movement has attracted the most attention is the large is similar to what we are fairly certain was cruciform “palace,” which embodies many observed by the earlier nomadic courts in the features of Chinese architecture. The lower Xiongnu and Uighur periods. terrace of this impressive structure extends For all the fact that substantial Chinese-style some 250 m. There are abundant remains buildings may have been common enough in of the tiled roof (whose yellow and red glaze Karakorum, our knowledge of its architecture suggests that the structure was for a member is still surprisingly limited. Apart from the of the royal family), a lacquered railing, dozens “palace” site, the detailed excavations have of carved stone dragon heads which decorated focussed on what most agree was the Chinese the perimeter of the terrace, and much more. quarter in the town. While a Muslim cemetery The Russian excavations also studied what has been excavated, we still have no evidence Kiselev terms a pavilion near the palace and of the mosque or mosques which the city is the remains of an entrance gate. The date of supposed to have contained or the residences Kondui is uncertain, though Kiselev asserts the arguably substantial Muslim merchant (for reasons that are not entirely clear) that it population may have occupied.35 The model must post-date the “palace” at Karakorum. He of Karakorum now in the National Museum of also suggests that Kondui was destroyed in the Mongolia depicts, inter alia, a caravan-sarai, but period of unrest following the collapse of the there is no physical evidence concerning such Yuan Dynasty in the late 14th century which also a structure. Nor has anything been discovered witnessed the destruction of Karakorum by a of the Eastern Christian church reported by Ming army in 1388. Rubruck. Most scholars would agree that the A good many major sites in China or Inner relatively small permanent core of the city was Mongolia date from the period after Khubilai surrounded by a large area where the Mongols Khan moved his capital to the present-day would pitch their tents or gers, a pattern which location of Beijing in the 1260s and began to persists even today, where ger suburbs are conquer the rest of the country (see Steinhardt part of the urban landscape even in the Mongol 1988). We are talking here of very large walled capital Ulaanbaatar. Understandably, as yet we areas whose layout refl ects the by then standard have no concrete evidence to document such model of Chinese Imperial city planning, usually structures, given their temporary nature and with a palace and temple complex centered the fl ooding which occurred over the centuries. in the northern sector and facing south along Juvayni’s description of a palace complex north the main axis of the city. For my purposes of Karakorum in the Orkhon valley, one built here, perhaps the most interesting of these by Muslim architects, may well be accurate, sites is Shangdu, built as the summer palace although it is not entirely clear whether we for Khubilai way out in the sparsely populated

111 Fig. 9. 180° panorama of Shangdu, looking south from the mound of the “palace” on the north side Conclusion of the inner city. Excavation is underway on the building, whose remains are on the right. In the What might we conclude from this review about distance left of center is a newly constructed wind tasks for the ongoing study of “cities on the farm; right of center, a newly constructed coal fi red steppe” beyond the obvious recommendation power plant. Photo copyright © 2009 Daniel C. Waugh. that we need more and increasingly careful grasslands of Inner Mongolia [Fig. 9]. If we are and sophisticated excavation and more 38 As far to believe Marco Polo, the large territory within precise maps of all the known sites? as excavation itself is concerned, of course the outermost walls was a hunting park. There a major challenge is the size of many of the was an inner, palace city, with buildings of some sites, where work might need to extend over substance that still are being excavated.37 Their foundations are of carefully fi tted granite decades before we could begin to think they blocks. What we think was the palace indeed is had been “thoroughly” investigated. Since to in the northern sector of the inner city and faces consider “settlement” means to consider, inter directly south toward the axial gate. In front of alia, mortuary evidence, much more needs to it was a pavilion that possibly is the one used for be done with excavation of graves. Some of the the conduct of imperial business when the khan most suggestive new interpretive work, which was in residence. A chain of palace settlements combines survey archaeology with the results of were along the road between Shangdu and the excavation, is admittedly based on a very small winter capital of Dadu (Beijing). statistical sampling of burials. Furthermore, excavations to date have provided all too little While on the one hand Shangdu may be seen data to develop reliable chronologies, without as a clear expression of imperial ideology and which, of course, we are seriously hampered in the assumption of the visual and monumental assessing historical change. aspects of Chinese rulership, on the other hand, I incline to the view that for many settlement the location of the palace and what we think sites, there may be a lengthy “vertical” history we know about the court culture of the Khan — that is, sites suitable for settlement in one suggest that even at this period of the peak of period very likely were the ones that retained Mongol power, the degree of sinicization was their value in another period. But so far the limited. We probably still need to be thinking evidence of continuous or at least continual here of an imperial regime that was not fi xed in habitation of sites is at best very uneven, and one location. The khan and his entourage and there seem to be many cases which would administrators traveled on a regular schedule; contradict the idea of long-term site usage. the capital in fact was in one location only for As Honeychurch and Armatüvshin will suggest a certain part of the year. If this is true for in a forthcoming article, where we can talk of Khubilai, it was even more certainly the case “re-use” it may not be site-specifi c but rather under his predecessors when the ostensible region-specifi c. capital was at Karakorum. And they, in turn, may well have been following steppe traditions Another desideratum is to undertake a which can be documented for the earlier rulers thorough critical re-evaluation of the results of in the same region, not necessarily because earlier archaeological work, so that we run less of any conscious imitation but simply because danger of falling into the pattern of supporting that was the pattern for certain types of socio- conclusions based on methodologically fl awed economic and political formations in these work (the obvious example here being that particular landscapes. of Kiselev on Karakorum). Granted, for many

112 fi elds it is true that what at one time may have important here (see Miller et al. 2009a, 2009b). been a major contribution casts far too long a shadow because of its perceived authority, even We need to think carefully about where the if a fi eld methodologically has made substantial concentrations of settlements are for different advances since that work was done. periods. I am struck, for example, by what seems to be a concentration of important Part of this reassessment of the impact of Xiongnu sites relatively far to the north and earlier work has to involve re-thinking how we by the fact that some of the most dramatic may best determine the possible relationship evidence of Mongol Empire settlements is from between material of one period or region and southern Siberia. Of course this impression another — that is, among other things, concepts may simply refl ect which areas have received of what constitutes “infl uence” and “borrowing” to date the most extensive investigation, not need to be re-examined. Assertions have the actual focal points of human activity in been made about Central Asian, East Asian or earlier periods. In this connection, among the Chinese infl uences in Mongolia; furthermore, most promising of the new ideas regarding efforts have been made to delineate what Mongolia’s early history and its archaeology are might be considered distinctive Mongolian those which are attempting to relate particular features of, say, architecture. But too much of archaeological assemblages to surrounding and the literature bases such views (at least tacitly) even more distant landscapes and to develop on outdated concepts of “ethnicity” or “identity” analytical methods that may permit diachronic and may refl ect the long-ingrained biases of the comparisons over possibly extended periods. “sedentary civilizations” about the “nomads.” It seems as though one can in fact provide We fi nd plenty of evidence about cultural and convincing hypotheses regarding changes economic interactions, where the archaeology in resource exploitation and the possible reinforces what the written sources sometimes relationship of those not only to changes in relate through their biased lenses. Yet much of climate but to evolution of political and social the newer archaeological work in various parts forms. of the world emphasizes how we need to be very cautious about interpreting the signifi cance It should not surprise us that the evidence of fi nding similar objects of material culture in about settlements in Mongolia shows what are otherwise presumed to be culturally considerable change over time. Not only did or ethnically distinct areas (see, e.g., Curta they change substantially in size (which is not 2001). to say that there was a steady progression from small seasonal camps to genuine cities), Moreover, we need to keep in mind that within but there were also were many variants in their any larger cultural sphere, there can be a functions and the length of time for which they considerable degree of regional variation. While were occupied. So far we have stimulating, if on the one hand we would be well served to yet tentative explanations of some of these see a better integration and comparison of changes. We know too little though about specifi c site analysis from, say, Inner Mongolia, whether certain resources were exploited with that of, say, Buriatia, on the other hand by those living in close proximity or perhaps we need to be sensitive to the fact that even if only from more distant locations. And insofar sites in areas as far removed as those are ones as nomadic polities and their leaders moved that may be attributed to the same polity or around, we likewise know too little about ethnic grouping, they may have quite distinct the different locations of, say, summer and features. Learning about “peripheries” and winter camps, and how settlements of some not just important locations at “the center” is consequence may have been linked to some

113 kind of “central authority.” In all this, of course, Acknowledgements we must anticipate that analytical models with may work well for one period may not I am deeply indebted to Prof. Jan Bemmann be applicable to another one, even if at their and Dr. Ursula Brosseder of the University base are quite generalized theories of social of Bonn, Prof. Johan Elverskog of Southern interaction. Methodist University, and especially Prof. While the terminologies employed in some of William Honeychurch of Yale University, the most interesting recent interpretive studies all of whom read a draft of this article and of the archaeological material from “greater provided me with valuable suggestions and Mongolia” may be different, I think the concept materials for its improvement. Naturally they of “non-uniform complexity” recently enunciated bear no responsibility for its shortcomings. by Michael Frachetti (2009) provides a promising Prof. Bemmann kindly provided me with pre- analytical approach. His re-assessment of the publication copies of a number of the essays evidence from various studies of the western cited here from the forthcoming large volume Eurasian Bronze Age steppe cultures fi nds that of the excavation reports of the Mongolian– older “progressive models of social and political German Karakorum expedition. evolution” simply are inadequate to explain the archaeolgical data. Those same “progressive About the author models” have been used in much of the older literature on settlements in Mongolia. Given Daniel Waugh, a retired historian at the the diversity of settlement in Mongolia and University of Washington and editor of The Silk the unevenness of its development over time Road, participated in archaeological excavation and space, we might well agree with Frachetti of Xiongnu sites in Mongolia in 2005 and that “complexity among steppe communities 2007. He translated the important monograph is better evaluated in terms of institutional by Prokopii B. Konovalov on his excavation integration or fragmentation at the interstices of a Xiongnu terrace tomb in Transbaikalia, of diverse populations whose economic and published as Vol. 3 in the Bonn Contributions to political interests co-exist geographically but Asian Archaeology. are not necessarily bound by a shared sense of society.” Moreover, there is an important issue of scale of human institutional development, References where we must be looking at “regional ecological settings” which may then explain the Allard et al. 2002 (2006) distinctiveness of many of the archaeological Francis Allard, Diimaajav Erdenebaatar and Jean- assemblages. Whether Frachetti’s ideas can be Luc Houle. “Recent Archaeological Research in the applied to periods and societies more recent Khanuy River Valley, Central Mongolia.” In: Beyond than those of the Bronze Age (that is, when 2006: 202–224. we can document, for example, a strikingly Allard and Erdenebaatar 2005 different confi guration of political institutions Francis Allard and Diimaajav Erdenebaatar. encompassing much larger territories) remains “Khirigsuurs, ritual and mobility in the Bronze Age of to be tested. Maybe, in fact, “settlements” and Mongolia.” Antiquity 79 (2005): 1–18. “cities” should not be discussed in the same Allsen 1996 breath as I have tried to do here. Thomas T. Allsen. “Spiritual Geography and Political Learning more about the complexities of pre- Legitimacy in the Eastern Steppe.” In: Ideology modern societies in “greater Mongolia” can and the Formation of Early States, ed. Henri J. M. contribute signifi cantly to reassessments of Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten. Leiden: Brill, 1996, developments in other parts of Eurasia. After pp. 116-135. all, this region, remote as it may seem from a Archaeology 2008 modern perspective, was hardly a “periphery” The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and New historically. Not the least of the results of such World Nomadism. Ed. Hans Barnard and Willeke research may be to lay to rest once and for all Wendrich. Cotsen Advanced Seminars 4. Cotsen the stereotypes about “nomads” which have too Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles: University of long dominated the thinking about Inner Asia.39 California, 2008.

114 Artem’ev 2001 Choido 2005 A. R. Artem’ev. “Novye issledovaniia goroda Elisabetta Chiodo. “Die mongolischen Manuskripte mongol’skogo khana Esungu v Zabaikal’e (XIII–XIV auf Birkenrinde aus Charbuchyn Balgas.” In: vv.)” [New studies of the city of the Mongolian Khan Dschingis 2005: 112–113. Esunge in Transbaikalia (13th-14th centuries)]. In: Current Research 2009 Drevniaia 2001: 253–265. Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia: Artem’ev 2004 Papers from the First International Conference A. R. Artem’ev. “Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia” held epokh Iuan’ i Min’ v Zabaikal’e i Priamur’e (XIII–XV in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th-23rd, 2007, ed. Jan vv.)” [Archaeological monuments of the Yuan and Bemmann et al. Bonn: Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Ming eras in Transbaikalia and Priamuria (13th-14th Archäologie, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universi- centuries)]. Rossiiskaia arkheologiia 2004/4: 83–94. tät, 2009. Baasan 2006 Curta 2001 Tudeviin Baasan. Chingisiin Dalan gezh iuu ve?/What Florin Curta. The Making of the Slavs: History and is the Chinggis Wall?. Ulaanbaatar: “Admon,” 2006. Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500– (in Mongolian and English). 700. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Becker 2007 Danilov 2002 Eva Becker. Die altmongolische Hauptstadt Kara- korum: Forschungsgeschichte nach historischen Sergei V. Danilov. “Temnikovskoe poselenie i Aussagen und archäologischen Quellen. Inter- nekotorye voprosy etnogeneza Buriat” [A temnik’s nationale Archäologie, 39. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf, settlement and some questions of the ethnogenesis 2007. of the Buriats]. In: Mir Tsentral’noi Azii: Arkheologiia, etnologiia, Vol. 1,. Ulan-Ude: Izd-vo. BNTs SO RAN, Beckwith 2009 2002: 21–25. Christopher Beckwith. Empires of the Silk Road: A Danilov 2004 History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton Univ. Sergei V. Danilov. Goroda v kochevykh obshchestvakh Pr. 2009. Tsentral’noi Azii [Cities in nomadic societies of Inner Asia]. Ulan-Ude: Izd-vo. Buriatskogo nauchnogo Bemmann and Munkhbayar 2010 tsentra SO RAN, 2004. Jan Bemmann and Lkhagvadorj Munkhbayar. “Im Zentrum der Steppenreiche.” Archäologie in Dashibalov 2005 Deutschland 2010/3: 14-18. Bair B. Dashibalov. Na mongolo-tiurkskom pogranich’e (Etnokul’turnye protsessy v Iugo-Vostochnoi Sibiri v Bemmann et al. 2010 srednie veka) [On the Mongolian-Turkic borderlands Jan Bemmann, Henny Piezonka, Birte Ahrens. (Ethno-cultural processes in southeastern Siberia in “Geoarchäologie in der Steppe – Zur Rekonstruktion the Middle Ages]. Ulan-Ude: Izd-vo. BNTs SO RAN, von Kulturlandschaften im Orchon-Tal, Zentrale 2005. Mongolei.” , accessed June 5, 2010. A. V. Davydova. “The Ivolga Gorodishche (A Monu- ment of the Hsiung-nu Culture in the Trans-Baikal Beyond 2006 Region).” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Beyond the Steppe and the Sown: Proceedings of the Hungaricae 20 (1988): 209–245. 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology, ed. DL Peterson et al. Leiden; Boston: Davydova 1995 Brill, 2006 A. V. Davydova. Ivolginskii arkheologicheskii kompleks. T. 1. Ivolginskoe gorodishche/The Ivolga Biran 2005 Archaeological Complex. Vol. 1: The Ivolga Fortress. Michal Biran. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki siunnu, Vyp. 1. St. Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic Petersburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 1995. World. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, Davydova 1996 2005. A. V. Davydova. Ivolginskii arkheologicheskii Brosseder 2009 kompleks. T. 2. Ivolginskii mogil’nik/The Ivolga Ursula Brosseder. “Xiongnu Terrace Tombs and Their Archaeological Complex. Vol. 2. The Ivolga Cemetery. Interpretation as Elite Burials.” In: Current Research Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki siunnu, Vyp. 2. St. 2009: 246-280. Petersburg: Fond “AziatIKA,” 1996.

115 Davydova and Miniaev 2003 Frohlich et al. 2005 A. V. Davydova and Sergei S. Miniaev 2003, Kompleks Bruno Frohlich et al. “Burial Mounds in Hovsgol arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov u sela Dureny [The Aimag, Northern Mongolia: Preliminary Results complex of archaeological monuments at the village from 2003 and 2004.” In: The Deer Stone Project: of Dureny]. Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki siunnu, Anthropological Studies in Mongolia 2002–2004, ed. Vyp. 5. St. Petersburg: Fond “AziatIKA,” 2003. William Fitzhugh.Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution; Ulaanbaatar: National Museum of Dien 2007 Mongolian History, 2005: 57–88. Albert E. Dien. Six Dynasties Civilization. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2007. Frohlich et al. 2009 Drevniaia 2001 Bruno Frohlich et al. “Bronze Age Burial Mounds in the Khövsgöl aimag, Mongolia.” In: Current Research Drevniaia i srednevekovaia istoriia Vostochnoi Azii. 2009: 99–115. K 1300–letiiu obrazovaniia gosudarstva Bokhai [Ancient and medieval history of Eastern Asia. On Gabain 1950 the 1300th anniversary of the founding of the Bohai Annemarie von Gabain. “Steppe und Stadt im Leben state]. Vladivostok: Institut istorii, arkheologii i der ältesten Türken.” Der Islam 29 (1950): 30–62. etnografi i narodov Dal’nego Vostoka DVO RAN, 2001. Genghis 2009 Drompp 1999 Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire, ed. William W. Michael R.Drompp. “Breaking the Orkhon Tradition. Fitzhugh, Morris Rossabi, and William Honeychurch. Kirghiz Adherence to the Yenisei Region after A.D. Santa Barbara, CA : Perpetua Press, 2009. 840.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 119/3 (1999): 390–403. Gilded 2006 Dschingis 2005 Gilded Splendor: Treasures of China’s Liao Empire (907–1125), ed. Hsueh-man Shen, New York: Asia Dschingis Khan und seine Erben: Das Weltreich der Society, 2006. Mongolen. München: Hirmer Verlag, 2005. Han 2001 Erdenebat and Pohl 2009 Han Giu-cheol. “Kidani i chzhurchzheni kak Ulambayar Erdenebat and Ernst Pohl. “The Crossroads ostavshiesia Bokhaitsy / Qidan and Jurchen as Palhai in Khara Khorum: Excavations at the Center of the Remainders” [in Russian and English]. In: Drevniaia Mongol Empire.” In Genghis 2009: 137–149. 2001: 66–71. Fitzhugh 2009 Heidemann 2005 William W. Fitzhugh. “Pre-Scythian Ceremonialism, Deer Stone Art, and Cultural Intensifi cation in Stefan Heidemann. “Münzen — Dokumente zur Northern Mongolia.” In: Social Complexity 2009: Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur des Mongolenreichs.” 378-411. In Dschingis 2005: 203–08. Frachetti 2008 Heidemann et al. 2006 Michael D. Frachetti. Pastoral Landscapes and Social Stefan Heidemann et al. “The First Documentary Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia. Berkeley etc.: Evidence for Qara Qorum from the year 635/1237– Univ. of California Pr., 2008. 38.” Zeitschrift für Archäologie Aussereuropäischer Kulturen 1 (2006): 93–102. Frachetti 2009 Honeychurch and Amartüvshin (2002) 2006 Michael D. Frachetti. “Differentiated Landscapes and Non-uniform Complexity among Bronze Age Societies William Honeychurch and Chunag Amartüvshin. of the Eurasian Steppe.” In: Social Complexity 2009: “Survey and Settlement in Northern Mongolia: The 19–46. Structure of Intra-Regional Nomadic Organization.” In: Beyond 2006: 183–201. Franken 2005 Christina Franken. “Die Brennöfen im Palastbezirk Honeychurch and Amartüvshin 2006 von Karakorum.” In Dschingis 2005: 147–149. William Honeychurch and Chunag Amartüvshin. “States on Horseback: The Rise of Inner Asian Frohlich et al. 2004 Confederations and Empires.” In: Archaeology of Bruno Frohlich et al. “The Khirigsuur Tombs in the Asia, ed. Miriam Stark. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006: Hovsgol aimag, Northern Mongolia: Mapping, and 255-278. Analysis.” In: The Hovsgol Deer Stone Project 2003 Field Report, ed. William Fitzhugh.Washington, D. Honeychurch and Amartüvshin 2007 C.: Smithsonian Institution; Ulaanbaatar: National William Honeychurch and Chunag Amartüvshin. Museum of Mongolian History, 2004: 42–61. “Hinterlands, Urban Centers, and Mobile Settings:

116 The ‘New’ Old World Archaeology from the Eurasian Jacobson-Tepfer 2008 Steppe.” Asian Perspectives 46/1 (2007): 36–64. Esther Jacobson-Tepfer. “The Emergence of Cultures Honeychurch and Amartüvshin forthcoming of Mobility in the Altai Mountains of Mongolia: Evidence from the Intersection of Rock Art and William Honeychurch and Chunag Amartüvshin. Paleoenvironment.” In: Archaeology 2008: 200–229. “Timescapes from the Past: An Archaeogeography of Mongolia.” In: Mapping Mongolia, ed. Paula Jacobson-Tepfer et al. 2006 Sabloff and Fredrik Hiebert. Philadelphia: Univ. of Esther Jacobson-Tepfer, Vladimir Kubarev and Pennsylvania Press. Damdensurenjin Tseveendorj. Répertoire des Honeychurch et al. 2009 Pétroglyphes d’Asie Centrale. Fasc. No. 7: Mongolie du nord-ouest Haut Tsagaan Gol, 2 v. Paris: De William Honeychurch, Joshua Wright, and Chunag Boccard, 2006. Amartüvshin. “Re-writing Monumental Landscapes as Inner Asian Political Process.” In: Social Complexity Jacobson-Tepfer et al. 2010 2009: 330–57. Esther Jacobson-Tepfer, James E. Meacham and Gary Houle 2009 Tepfer. Archaeology and Landscape in the Mongolian Altai: An Atlas. Redlands, California: ESRI Press, Jean-Luc Houle. “Socially Integrative Facilities and the 2010. Emergence of Societal Complexity on the Mongolian Steppe.” In: Social Complexity 2009: 358–77. Jagchid 1981 Houle and Erdenebaatar 2009 Sechin Jagchid. “The Kitans and Their Cities.” Central Asiatic Journal 25/1-2 (1981): 70–88. Jean-Luc Houle and Diimaazhav Erdenebaatar. “Investigating Mobility, Territoriality and Complexity Juvayni 1958 in the Late Bronze Age: An Initial Perspective from Ata-Malik Juvayni. The History of the World Monuments and Settlements.” In: Current Research Conqueror, tr. John Andrew Boyle, 2 v. Manchester: 2009: 117–34. Manchester University Press, 1958. Hüttel 2005 Kessler et al. 1994 Hans-Georg Hüttel. “Der Palast des Ögedei Khan — Adam T. Kessler et al. Empires Beyond the Great Die Ausgrabungen des Deutsches Archäologischen Wall: The Heritage of Genghis Khan. Los Angeles: Instituts im Palastbezirk von Karakorum.” In: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Dschingis 2005: 140–46. 1994. Hüttel 2009a Khudiakov and Tseveendorzh 1982 Hans-Georg Hüttel. “The Search for Khara Khorum Iurii S. Khudiakov and Damdinsüren Tseveendorzh. and the Palace of the Great Khan.” In: Genghis 2009: “Keramika Ordu-Balyka” [Ceramics of Ordu-Balyk]. 146–49. In: Arkheologiia Severnoi Azii. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo. Hüttel 2009b “Nauka,” Sibirskoe otd., 1982: 85–94. Hans-Georg Hüttel. “Royal Palace or Buddhist Kirillov et al. 2001 Temple? On Search for the Karakorum Palace.” In: I. I. Kirillov, E. V. Kovychev and A. Iu. Litvintsev. Current Research 2009: 535–48. “Sian’biiskie graffi ti na bereste iz mogil’nika Zorgol-1” Hyer 1982 [Xianbei graffi ti on birchbark from the Zorgol-1 cemetery]. In: Drevniaia 2001: 266-272. Paul Hyer. “An Historical Sketch of Köke-Khota City Capital of Inner Mongolia.” Central Asiatic Journal Kiselev 1957 26/1–2 (1982): 56–77. Sergei V. Kiselev. “Drevnie goroda Mongolii” [Ancient Jacobson et al. 2001 cities of Mongolia]. Sovetskaia arkheologiia 1957/2: 97–101. Esther Jacobson, Vladimir Kubarev and Damden- surenjin Tseveendorj. Répertoire des Pétroglyphes Kiselev 1958 d’Asie Centrale. Fasc. No. 6: Mongolie du nord-ouest Sergei V. Kiselev. “Drevnie goroda Zabaikal’ia” Tsagaan Salaa/Baga Oigor, 2 v. Paris: De Boccard, [Ancient cities of Transbaikalia]. Sovetskaia 2001. arkheologiia 1958/4: 107–19. Jacobson et al. 2005 Kiselev 1965 Esther Jacobson [Iakobson], Vladimir D. Kubarev Sergei V. Kiselev. “Konduiskii gorodok” [The town of and Damdinsüren Tseveendorzh. Petroglify Tsagaan- Kondui]. In Kiselev et al. 1965: 325–368. Salaa i Baga-Oigura (Mongol’skii Altai). Novosibirsk Kiselev et al. 1965 etc.: Izd-vo. Instituta arkheologii i etnografi i SO RAN, 2005. Sergei V. Kiselev et al. Drevnemongol’skie goroda

117 [Ancient Mongolian cities]. Moscow: Izd-vo. “Nauka, Bryan K. Miller et al. “Elite Xiongnu Burials at the ” 1965. Periphery: Tomb Complexes at Takhiltyn Khotgor, Mongolian Altai.” In: Current Research 2009: 301– Kolbas 2005 14. Judith G. Kolbas. “Khukh Ordung: A Uighur Palace Complex of the Seventh Century.” Journal of the Minert 1985 Royal Asiatic Society, Ser. 3, 15/3 (2005): 303–327. L. K. Minert. “Drevneishie pamiatniki mongol’skogo monumental’nogo zodchestva” [The oldest Kradin 2001 monuments of Mongolian monumental architecture]. Nikolai N. Kradin. Imperiia Khunnu [The Xiongnu In: Drevnie kul’tury Mongolii. Novosibirsk: “Nauka,” Empire], 2nd ed. Moscow: “Logos,” 2001. 1985: 184–209. Kradin et al. 2005 Miniaev 2001 Nikolai N. Kradin. “Preliminary Results of the Sergei S. Miniaev. “Siunnuskii kul’turnyi kompleks: Investigation of Kitan Ancient Town Chintolgoi Balgas vremia i prostranstvo” [The Xiongnu cultural in 2004.” Nomadic Studies Bulletin (International complex: its time and extent]. In: Drevniaia 2001: Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations) 10 295–304. (2005): 72–80. Miniaev and Elikhina 2009 Kradin 2008 Sergei S. Miniaev and Julia I. Elikhina. “On the Nikolai N. Kradin. “Urbanizatsionnye protsessy Chronology of the Noyon uul Barrows.” The Silk Road v kochevykh imperiiakh mongol’skoi stepi” 7 (2009): 21–35. [Urbanization processes in the nomadic empires of the Mongolian steppe]. In Mongol’skaia imperiia i Miniaev and Sakharovskaia 2007 kochevoi mir, bk. 3, ed. B. V. Bazarov et al. Ulan- Sergei S. Miniaev and Lidiia M. Sakharovskaia. Ude: Izd-vo. BNTs SO RAN, 2008: 330-346. “Investigation of a Xiongnu Royal Complex in the Kyzlasov 1959 Tsaraam Valley. Part 2: The Inventory of Barrow No. 7 and the Chronology of the Site.” The Silk Road 5/1 Leonid R. Kyzlasov. “Srednevekovye goroda Tuvy” (2007): 44–56. [Medieval cities of Tuva]. Sovetskaia arkheologiia 1959/3: 66–75. Minorsky 1948 Kyzlasov 1965 Vladimir Minorsky. “Tamim ibn Bahr’s Journey to the Uighurs.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Leonid R. Kyzlasov. “Gorodishche Dën-Terek” [The African Studies, University of London 12/2 (1948): settlement site of Dën-Terek]. In Kiselev et. al. 275–305. 1965: 59–119. Mongol nutag 1999 Lee 2009 Mongol nutag dakh’ tuukh soelyn dursgal [His- Christine Lee. “Who were the Mongols (1100-1400 torical and Cultural Monuments of Mongolia], ed. CE)? An Examination of Their Population History.” In: Damdinsüren Tseveendorj et al. Ulaanbaatar: Current Research 2009: 579–91. Mongolyn Khutuunlegiin ukhaany akademi, 1999. Lun’kov et al. 2009 Mongolian–German forthcoming A. V. Lun’kov et al. “Pogranichnye sooruzheniia kidanei Mongolian–German Karakorum Expedition. Vol. 1. v Zabaikal’e” [Border constructions of the Khitans Excavations in the Craftsman Quarter at the Main in Transbaikalia]. Izvestiia Laboratorii drevnikh Road, ed. Jan Bemmann, Ulambayar Erdenebat tekhnologii [Irkutskogo gos. tekhnicheskogo un-ta.], and Ernst Pohl. Forschüngen zur Archäologie vyp. 7 (2009): 155–72. Aussereuropäischer Kulturen, 8. Wiesbaden: Reichert Maidar 1971 Verlag. D. Maidar. Arkhitektura i gradostroitel’stvo Mongolii. Moriyasu and Ochir 1999 Ocherki po istorii [Architecture and city construction Moriyasu Takao and Ayudai Ochir. Provisional Report in Mongolia: Essays on their history]. Moscow: of Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions Stroiizdat, 1971. in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998. Osaka: Society of Miller et al. 2009a Central Eurasian Studies, 1999. Bryan K. Miller et al. “Xiongnu Constituents of the Moses and Greer 1998 High Mountains: Results of the Mongol-American Larry Moses and Charles Greer. “Kara Korum and Khovd Archaeology Project, 2008.” The Silk Road 7 its Peri-Urban Environment: The Imperial District of (2009): 8–20. the Mongol Empire.” Eurasian Studies Yearbook 70 Miller et al. 2009b (1998): 105–22.

118 Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk 1978 and Japanese Mission 2003, Preliminary Report on Teresa Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk. Geneza miast u Archaeological Investigations in Mongolia 2003, davnych ludów tureckich (VII–XII w.) [The origin Newsletter on Steppe Archaeology, No. 14; online: of cities among the ancient Turkic peoples (7th–12th . Ossolińskich; Wyd. Polskiej Akademii nauk, 1978. Permanent Mission 2004 Nelson et al. 2009 The Permanent Archaeological Joint Mongolian and Albert Russell Nelson, Chunag Amartüvshin and Japanese Mission 2004, Preliminary report of the William Honeychurch. “A Gobi Mortuary Site Through Archaeological Investigations in Mongolia 2004. Time: Bioarchaeology at Baga Mongol, Gaga Gazaryn Newsletter on Steppe Archaeology, No. 15; online: Chuluu.” In: Current Research 2009: 565–78. . Obrusanszky 2009 Pohl 2009 Borbala Obrusanszky. “Tongwancheng, the city of Southern Huns.” Transoxiana 14 (August 2009), online Ernst Pohl. “Interpretation without Excavation — at . Mongolian Capital Karakorum.” In: Current Research 2007: 505-33. Ochir and Erdenebold 2009 Por-Bazhin [2007] Ayudai Ochir and Lkhagvasüren Erdenebold. “About the Uighur City of Khedun, Mongolia.” In: Current Proekt “Krepost’ Por-Bazhin”. Nauchnyi al’manakh. Research 2009: 437–42. N.p., ca. 2007. Ochir et al. 2010 Pousaz and Törbat 2008 Ayudai Ochir et al. “Ancient Uighur Mausolea Nicole Pousaz and Tsagaan Törbat. “Boroo Gol: Discovered in Mongolia.” The Silk Road 8 (2010): chronological and functional approach of a Xiongnu XX–YY. settlement in central Mongolia,” unpublished paper presented at the International Conference on Oczipka et al. 2009 Xiongnu Archaeology, Ulaanbaatar, October 2008. M. Oczipka et al. “Small Drones for Geo-Archaeology Purcell and Spurr 2006 in the Steppe: Locating and Documenting the Archaeological Heritage of the Orkhon Valley in David E. Purcell and Kimberly C. Spurr. “Archaeological Mongolia.” In: Remote Sensing for Environmental Investigations of Xiongnu Sites in the Tamir River Monitoring, GIS Applications, and Geology IX. Ed. U. Valley: Results of the 2005 Joint American-Mongolian Michel and D. L. Civco. Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. Expedition to Tamiryn Ulaan Khoshuu, Ogii nuur, 7478 (Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 2009), 7478-06. Arkhangai aimag, Mongolia.” The Silk Road 4/1 (2006): 20–32. Perlee 1957 Ramseyer et al. 2009 Kh. [Khuduugiin] Perlee. “K istorii drevnikh gorodov i poselenii v Mongolii” [On the history of ancient Denis Ramseyer, Nicole Pousaz, and Tsagaan Törbat. cities and settlements in Mongolia]. Sovetskaia “The Xiongnu Settlement of Boroo Gol, Selenge arkheologiia 1957/3: 43–53. aimag, Mongolia.” In: Current Research 2009: 231– 40. Perlee 1961 Rogers et al. 2005 Kh. Perlee. Mongol ard ulsyn ert, dundad ueiin khot suuriny tovchoon [A short history of ancient and J. Daniel Rogers, Ulambayar Erdenebat and Matthew medieval cities and settlements on the territory Gallon. “Urban centres and the emergence of empires of the Mongolian People’s Republic]. Ulaanbaatar: in Eastern Inner Asia.” Antiquity 79 (2005): 801–18. Ulsyn khevleliin khereg erkhlekh khoroo, 1961. Rogers 2009 Perlee 1962 J. Daniel Rogers. “Ancient Cities in the Steppe.” In: Kh. Perlee. “Kidan’skie goroda i poseleniia na territorii Genghis 2009: 126–31. Mongol’skoi Narodnoi Respubliki (X–nachalo XII v.)” Rubruck 1990 [Khitan cities and settlements on the territory of the William of Rubruck. The Mission of Friar William of Mongolian People’s Republic (10th–12th centuries)]. Rubruck. His journey to the court of thre Great Khan In: Mongol’skii arkheologicheskii sbornik. Moscow: Möngke 1253-1255, tr. Peter Jackson; Introd., notes Izd-vo. Akademii nauk SSSR, 1962: 55–62. and appendices Peter Jackson and David Morgan. Permanent Mission 2003 London: The Hakluyt Society, 1990. The Permanent Archaeological Joint Mongolian Scott 1975

119 Keith Scott. “Khitan settlements in northern von Charchorin (Karakorum).” In: Dschingis 2005: Mongolia: new light on the social and cultural history 128–32. of the pre-Chingisid era.” Canada Mongolia Review Waugh 2009 1/1 (1975): 5–28. Daniel C. Waugh. “Paths Less Trodden.” The Silk Shiraishi 2004 Road 7 (2009): 3–8. Shiraishi Noriyuki. “Seasonal Migrations of the Mongol Wei 2008 Emperors and the Peri-Urban Area of Kharkhorum.” International Journal of Asian Studies 1/1 (2004): Wei Jian 魏坚, Yuan Shangdu 元上都, 2 v. Beijing: 105–19. Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 2008. Shiraishi 2006 Wright 2007 Shiraishi Noriyuki. “Avraga Site: the ‘Great Ordu’ of Joshua Wright. “Organizational principles of Genghis Khan.” In: Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khirigsuur monuments in the lower Egiin Gol valley, Khan, ed. Linda Komaroff. Boston; Leiden: Brill, Mongolia.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2006: 83–93. 26 (2007): 350–65. Shiraishi 2009 Wright and Amartüvshin 2009 Shiraishi Noriyuki. “Searching for Genghis: Excavation Joshua Wright and Chunag Amartüvshin. “‘Unseen of the Ruins at Avraga.” In: Genghis 2009: 132–35. by Eye, Unheard by Ear’: The Archaeology of the Early Türks at Baga Gazaryn Chuluu, Mongolia.” In: Shiraishi and Tsogtbaatar 2009 Current Research 2007: 349–63. Shiraishi Noriyuki and Batmunkh Tsogtbaatar. “A Preliminary Report on the Japanese-Mongolian Joint Notes Archaeological Excavation at Avraga Site: The Great Ordu of Chinggis Khan.” In: Current Research 2009: 1. Since I do not read Japanese, Mongolian, Chinese 549–62. or Korean, and space here in any event is limited, I can Social Complexity 2009 use that literature at best only indirectly. In particular my discussion of sites in Inner Mongolia will therefore Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia: Monuments, be limited. While one might date the recognition by Metals, and Mobility, ed. Bryan K. Hanks and scholars of the importance of settlement sites in Katherine Linduff. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge Univ. Mongolia to the Russian expeditions of the end of Pr., 2009. the 19th century, the emphasis on sedentary centers Standen 2007 as a signifi cant component of pre-modern societies Naomi Standen. Unbounded Loyalty: Frontier there came to be fully articulated with the Russian- Crossings in Liao China, Honolulu: University of Mongolian expeditions of the late 1940s and 1950s Hawai’i Press, 2007. as summarized in, e.g., Kiselev 1957 and Perlee 1957. Perlee (p. 43, n. 2) indicates that as of 1956, Stark 2008 some 220 settlement sites of various kinds had Sören Stark. Die Alttürkenzeit in Mittel- und been registered by Mongol scholars for the territory Zentralasien: Archäologische und historische of what is now the Mongolian republic, but he does Studien. Nomaden und Sesshafte, Bd. 6. Wiesbaden: not indicate clearly to what historical periods they Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2005. date. As of 1981 the documented number of “ancient towns, settlements and fortresses” had risen to more Steinhardt 1988 than 300. See Minert 1985, p. 185, citing D. Maidar. Nancy Schatzman Steinhardt. “Imperial Architecture For the a recent illustrated overview (a kind of Along the Mongolian Road to Dadu.” Ars Orientalis 18 encyclopedic dictionary) published in Mongolia, see (1988): 59–93. Mongol nutag 1999, esp. pp. 173-200. Danilov 2004 Steinhardt 1990 is also useful, since it covers what in effect is my “greater Mongolia,” with the virtue of summarizing Nancy Schatzman Steinhardt. Chinese Imperial City some of the recent Russian excavations in Tuva Planning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, and Transbaikalia. In many respects, however, it is 1990. heavily dependent on now very dated earlier surveys Steinhardt 1997 (Perlee 1961 and Mongol nutag 1999) and what are increasingly obsolete interpretive approaches. Nancy Schatzman Steinhardt. Liao Architecture. An even more recent quick survey (Kradin 2008), Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997. excellent for what it covers, is, however, also Walther 2005 set within a traditional interpretive framework of inexorable progress toward modern urban forms. Michael Walther. “Ein idealer Ort für ein festes Lager. Zur Geographie des Orchontals und der Umbegung 2. One might extend this survey into the Manchu

120 period, as the current Mongolian–German survey of them), see Perlee 1957, pp. 43–5. Perlee cites project in the Orkhon Valley is doing, where ceramic evidence for the identifi cation of these sites signifi cant sites such as Chantz-Choto have been as Xiongnu. A recent overview of some 15 Xiongnu documented from aerial photos and in recent settlements, but one heavily dependent on Perlee geomagnetic survey. Given the fact that this was 1961, is Danilov 2004, pp. 34–56. a period of foreign domination in Mongolia, it has Certainly one needs to spread the net widely perhaps understandably attracted little attention in trying to identify urban sites that might be to date in archaeological work. See Bemmann and connected with the Xiongnu and their descendants. Munkhbayar 2010. There is, for example, some enthusiasm for the idea 3. For a summary of some of the results of the that Tongwan, in the Ordos region (the Yellow River th project, see Jacobson-Tepfer 2008. For an overview bend), founded apparently in the early 5 century of the sites with an introduction to the analytical by one of the “Southern Huns,” can tell us about approaches for situating specifi c monuments in Xiongnu settlements (Obrusanszky 2009), but in their surrounding landscapes, see the magnifi cent the absence of serious excavation there, nothing volume by Jacobson-Tepfer et al. 2010. The most much can be said about the relationship between important publications of petroglyphs from two this site and earlier and later fortifi ed centers that of the major sites are Jacobson et al. 2001, 2006. had been established by the various dynasties The fi rst of these has also appeared in a somewhat ruling northern China. Efforts to associate Tongwan revised Russian edition (Jacobson et al. 2005). The with some broader pattern of “Hun” culture across project also now has a very sophisticated website Eurasia are pure speculation; it is very likely that “Archaeology and Landscape in the Altai Mountains the extensive remains of buildings and walls found of Mongolia” (http://img.uoregon.edu/mongolian/ there today have absolutely nothing to do with the index.php). Xiongnu. For a brief and sensible description of the site, with a plan, see Dien 2007, pp. 17-19. One 4. There is a considerable literature on khirigsuurs. might reasonably suppose that Xiongnu settlements Many have been documented by the Altai project would be found in the vicinity of the modern Hohhot, mentioned above and by the Smithsonian capital of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region Institution–National Museum of Mongolia survey in China, which has been termed a “staging area for in northwestern Mongolia. For the latter, see the Hsiung-nu incursions into China” (Hyer 1982, pp. various reports which may be downloaded in pdf 58–9). The region has a long and complex history format from , especially Bruno Frohlich et Chinese. In the 12th century, the capital of the last al. 2004, 2005. For an overview of investigation of Khitan/Liao emperor Tianzuo was at Hohhot. khirigsuurs in Khövsgöl aimag, see Frohlich et al. 7. Even for a site as “well known” as the cemetery 2009, which emphasizes that they are burials. Cf. complex at Noyon uul, we are only beginning to get the classifi cation scheme proposed by Wright 2007, an accurate estimate of its date, which turns out to who argues few khirigsuurs are burials. Excavations be later than what had commonly been assumed. of a khirigsuur by a Mongolian–Japanese team are See Miniaev and Elikhina 2009. reported in Permanent Mission 2003, 2004. It may well be that there is a regional differentiation where 8. For the fi rst, see Honeychurch and Amartüvshin only in certain areas were the khirigsuurs burials 2006; for the second, see Rogers et al. 2005. The (Honeychurch et al. 2009, p. 332). Houle 2009, esp. latter article may exaggerate the degree to which pp. 359–63, and Fitzhugh 2009, esp. pp. 381–85, some kind of central planning of urban sites was summarize effectively some of evidence and key involved, although as Honeychurch has reminded me interpretive issues about khirigsuurs. Fitzhugh in private communication, “If a walled site appears focuses on “deer stones,” standing stones with with no underlying precedent — the presumption carved images, often found at khirigsuur sites and is that it was built by command and therefore not a key part of the monumental complexes. His article a long term organic growth process as many cities is of considerable interest for its discussion of new were.” Rogers 2009 is a summary overview of early evidence concerning chronology and ideas regarding urban centers in Mongolia. the cosmology of those who were responsible for the constructions. 9. There is a nicely illustrated overview in Kessler et al. 1994, Ch. 3, but it should be used with caution. 5. For another excavation of a Xiongnu settlement While I am not in a postion to critique the arguments (Dureny) in Buriatia, see Davydova and Miniaev regarding ethnogenesis, there is a lot of interesting 2003. material in Dashibalov 2005 on settlements in southeastern Siberia which may be relevant here 6. There is a Xiongnu walled site (EGS 131) in the and worth close examination. Egiin gol (see Honeychurch and Amartuvshin (2002) 2006, p. 194). For information about as many as ten 10. There is one sweeping (and rather thin) additional Xiongnu sites (including plans of three monograph-length overview of “Turkic cities,”

121 Nagrodzka-Majchrzyk 1978, where Chapter II been limited. The Russian-Mongolian expedition of covers the Eastern Turks and Uighurs but adduces the late 1940s under Sergei Kiselev determined that no archaeological evidence for settlement sites prior the “settlement” site (the larger urban area) to the to the Uighur period and does little to help in any west of the fortifi ed “palace” and the palace site itself understanding of the processes by which urban date to the same, Uighur period, but the Russians entities emerged. See the review by Peter Golden in confi ned themselves to excavating one structure in American Historical Review 84/4 (1979): 1133–34. I the city, which appears to have been a blacksmith’s have found no indication of Türk Empire settlement residence and shop. See Kiselev 1957, esp. pp. 94-95. sites in more recent works (e.g., see Danilov 2004, Another Russian-Mongolian expedition a few years p. 147), but then the study of Turkic monuments in later did little more, it seems, than pick up ceramic Mongolia (beyond the sites of the famous inscriptions) sherds, which litter the surface even today. See is still at a very early stage. Khudiakov and Tseveendorzh 1982. Proper analysis and classifi cation of Uighur ceramics is essential for 11. For an good, illustrated summary of what dating and identifi cation of the numerous Uighur we know about these complexes, see Stark 2008, sites in Mongolia and elsewhere. esp. pp. 109–41. For additional information on Just as Karakorum serves as the reference point for archaeology of Turkic sites in Mongolia, including an discussing other Mongol Empire sites, Khar Balgas interesting article on the Czech archaeologist Lumír is the point d’appui for conclusions about Uighur Jisl’s excavations at Khöshöö-Tsaidam, see Current sites. On the basis of similarities of the architecture Research 2007, pp. 325ff. The important Kazakh to that of Khar-Balgas, Kiselev attributes other sites website (in Kazakh, English and Russian) Türik (Taidzhin-Chulo and Toiten-Tologoi) to the Uighur Bitig , accessed period and mentions that several other Uighur 12 February, 2010, has good descriptions of all the sites were studied along the Selenga and Orkhon major memorial sites with inscriptions and pdf fi les of by Dmitrii D. Bukinich (Kiselev 1957, p. 95). All of many of the relevant publications. See also Moriyasu these, according to Kiselev, show that agriculture and Ochir 1999, based on fi eld work at the sites, was practiced around the settlements and there were where the focus is on the inscriptions. developed crafts producing, among other things 12. Two additional 14C dates from the site (which ceramics similar to those found at Khar-Balgas. is also known as Tsagaan Sümiin Balgas) have been I have not seen Hans–Georg Hüttel and Ulambayar obtained, indicating a range from the late 7th through Erdenebat. Karabalgasun und Karakorum – Zwei the 8th centuries. See Pohl 2009, p. 527. spätnomadische Stadtsiedlungen im Orchon-tal. 13. One of the fi rst attempts to explain the Ulaanbaatar, 2009 [in Mongolian and German]. “urbanization” of the Uighurs was by Gabain 1950, 15. See Gabain 1950: 44–5. There are three walled who explores the antecedents in the Türk empire sites at Baibalyk, where recent excavation and period when there seem to have been well-defi ned measurement were undertaken by the Mongolian- locations of winter and summer camps in the Orkhon Japanese expeditions of the 1990s. For a map and River region. The ongoing survey project led by a detailed site plan of Fortress No. 1 there, see Prof. Jan Bemmann is providing data that reinforces Moriyasu and Ochir 1999, plates 12a, 12b. There is our perception of the central Orkhon region as an an article in Mongolian by one of the participants in important center of human activity over the longue this recent study, D. Baiar, “Uiguryn Baibalyk khotyn durée, since some of the sites which are being tukhai temdeglel,” Archeologiin Sudlal I (XXI), Fasc. documented apparently date from pre-historic times, 10 (2003): 93–109. and the most recent ones are from the Manchu period. Of course dating of some of the walled 16. See Kyzlasov 1959, where there are several enclosures must await their proper excavation. For site plans and one reconstruction drawing (of the an overview of the project, see Bemmann et al. double-walled III Shagonarskoe gorodishche). The 2010. I have not seen an earlier article discussing Tuvan sites were fi rst documented by Dmitrii A. it: Birte Ahrens et al., “Geoarchaeology in the Steppe Klements, during the Orkhon expeditions of the late th — A new multidisciplinary project investigating the 19 century. interaction of man and environment in the Orkhon 17. I have not seen the monographic publication valley,” Archeologiin Sudlal VI (XXVI), Fasc. 16 of the results of the recent Mongolian-Russian (2008): 311–27. excavations at Chintolgoi: Ayudai Ochir et al., Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia na gorodishche 14. The fi rst serious effort to map the site and Chintolgoi (Ulaanbaatar, 2008). undertake excavation there was by the Russian expedition led by Wilhelm Radloff in the 1890s. 18. As Biran (2005: 46) points out, the eastern While some additional survey and more accurate borders of the Kara-Khitai are diffi cult to determine. mapping has been done since (notably by Japanese Leonid Kyzlasov had initially attributed two urban archaeologists and by members of the German- sites in the upper Enisei basin in Tuva to the Kara- Mongolian Karakorum expedition), excavations have Khitai, but subsequently revised that assertion and

122 decided they are among the earliest urban sites to repeat the details she provides for the sites outside be associated with the Mongol Empire. Cf. Kyzlasov of northern Mongolia. 1959: 75–80; idem 1965, esp. pp. 113–17. 24. As of 2004, A. R. Artem’ev (2004, p. 93) 19. Even though the Khitan/Liao tend to be slighted provided the following statistics for Mongol imperial in the larger accounts of Chinese history, there has cities in the north: three for the 13th century, 17 been considerable attention given their cities. For for the 14th century in Mongolia proper; fi ve in an introduction to the Khitan/Liao, see Kessler et Transbaikalia. It is not clear to me whether we need al.1994, Ch. 4 and the recent, lavishly illustrated add to these numbers the site on the Temnik River exhibition catalogue, Gilded 2006. The basic book in Buriatia, where Sergei Danilov (2002) thinks on Liao architecture is Steinhardt 1997. Her Chinese there is evidence of possible settlement by Central Imperial Cities (1990) also contains valuable sections Asian craftsmen conscripted by the Mongols. See on Liao city planning and its likely sources. A useful also Danilov’s descriptive cataloguing of 25 Mongol overview, based mainly on written sources, is Jagchid Empire sites (2004, pp. 72–117), much dated for 1981. I have not seen what is undoubtedly a very some such as Karakorum, but useful to introduce useful recent survey for Mongolia: Ayudai Ochir et others that are less widely known. I have not al., “Iz issledovaniia kidanskikh gorodov, gorodishch consulted the important study by Shiraishi Noriyuki i drugikh sooruzhenii v Mongolii” [From the study on the archaeology of Chingis Khan (Chingisu kan no of Khitan towns, forts and other constructions in kôkogaku [Tokyo: Doseisha: 2001]). Mongolia], in Movement in Medieval North-East Asia: People, Material Goods, Technology, Vol. 1 25. See Kiselev et al. 1965, 23–59. Details of the (Vladivostok, 2005), pp. 101–10. excavations in 1997 and 1999–2002, with a new plan of the main part of the site, may be found in 20. The cultural mixing which was a feature of Liao Artem’ev 2004, esp. 88–92. Artem’ev’s map (p. 84) administration has been documented primarily from is useful for showing the locations of sites all the written sources by Standen 2007. way from the northwest of Lake Baikal to the mouth of the Amur River which have been investigated 21. Lun’kov et al. 2009 provides an excellent by the Amur Archaeological Expedition. One near overview of the studies of the northern wall and its the mouth of the Amur is associated with Yuan network of forts. Their article has maps, descriptions efforts to consolidate control there. Several other of each of the forts, and plans of many of them. The Chingisid sites with remains analogous to those at other sections of the “Wall of Chingis Khan” merit Khirkhira have been found to the north of it (for brief attention which I cannot provide here. Baasan 2006 descriptions, ibid., p. 93). summarizes rather indiscriminately what is known or imagined about those walls. 26. See Becker 2007. Not the least of Becker’s contributions here is her publication for the fi rst 22. Kharbukhyn Balgas was fi rst studied by the time of Dmitrii D. Bukinich’s notes from his 1933 Russians’ Orkhon expeditions in the late 19th excavations. Since Bukinich fell victim to Stalin’s century. Kiselev’s expedition there in the late 1940s repressions, his contributions had remained largely determined that the stone buildings and stupa bear unacknowledged. See her discussion pp. 85–96 no relationship to the earliest construction preserved and his notes in Appendix 2, pp. 359–78. The best in the walls and on other parts of the site (see Kiselev overview of some of the problems which have 1957: 95–6). In 1970, another Mongolian-Russian affected the archaeological study of Karakorum is expedition discovered there a number of Buddhist now Pohl 2009. birchbark manuscripts (probably from the late 16th and early 17th centuries), but as Elisabetta Chiodo 27. An additional matter, according to Nancy puts it, the site is still “little known” (Chiodo 2005, Steinhardt (1988), is that the Russians have tended p.112). to search a bit too hard for possible Central Asian sources of the architecture in Mongolia rather than 23. In this regard, note the valuable, if now suffi ciently emphasize the Chinese infl uences. That somewhat dated, article by Steinhardt 1988, which said, one should, of course, be careful not to over- argues forcefully and probably rather too one- emphasize Chinese infl uence. sidedly for direct Chinese models having infl uenced all Mongolian imperial architecture regardless of 28. For a summary of the recent excavations what may have been the local sources on which the in the city center, see Erdenebat and Pohl 2009 architects and city planners in the larger Mongolia and Pohl 2009. The lavishly illustrated exhibition could have drawn. That said, her article is still the catalogue Dschingis 2005, devotes pp. 126–95 best overview of Mongol imperial cities and palaces to various aspects of the city and its environs and and is especially valuable for its citation of Chinese contains additional material about the Mongolian- archaeological research which otherwise might be German excavations. It is important to stress that inaccessible to the linguistically challenged (the Pohl affi rms the existence of an earlier (probably present author included). There is no need for me to Uighur) settlement somewhere in the vicinity of what

123 became the Mongol Empire Karakorum, even if its conclusions about the impact of Chinese models. remains are not below the “city center” the Germans 34. For some very specifi c updating and correction excavated. of their comments about the sites in the Orkhon 29. On the favorable geography of the Orkhon, see valley, see Shiraishi 2004. Shiraishi provides plans Walther 2005. An essay by W. Schwanghart et al. and discusses the sites of the several seasonal (in Mongolian–German forthcoming), will discuss camps and maps the route connecting them. Note, environmental characteristics of the Upper and however, that he still relies on Kiselev’s arguments Middle Orkhon Valley; also in that volume, the brief about the “palace” site in Karakorum. According concluding essay by Jan Bemmann et al. places some to Shiraishi (p. 108), the concept of Karakorum’s of the other archaeolgical sites in the region in their “peri-urban” environment was fi rst enunciated by geographical setting. For the fi rst time we will have Sugiyama Maasaki in the 1980s. The ongoing project detailed analysis of plant remains from Karakorum by reported in Bemmann et al. 2010 will surely advance M. Rösch et al., whose essay is in the same volume. our understanding of these patterns of movement They provide a statistical breakdown of the various and settlement in the Orkhon Valley. species documented from the excavations and show 35. The evidence from the Muslim cemetery, ex- how the mix of cultivated grains changed over time. cavated in 1978–80, is discussed in Dovdoin Bayar 30. An essay by Gonchigsüren Nomguunsüren (in and Vladimir E. Voitov, “Excavation of the Islamic Mongolian–German forthcoming), provides a very Cemetery in Karakorum” (Mongolian–German forth- interesting detailed analysis and classifi cation of coming). The authors are vague about the cemetery’s the axle rings and raises broader issues about the date. “technologies of communication” in the Mongol 36. For details, see S. V. Kiselev, “Konduiskii Empire. gorodok,” in Kiselev et al. 1965, pp. 325–68, 31. On the kilns, see Franken 2005, where the summarized in Steinhardt 1988, 70–71, where she accompanying images in the catalogue illustrate well mistakenly places the site within the borders of the the range of ceramics which have been excavated. Mongolian republic. Further study of the site has A detailed study of two major ceramics deposits, by been done recently by the Russian Amur Expedition. Ulambayar Erdenebat et al. will appear in Mongolian– For a reconstruction of what the Kondui palace may German forthcoming. have looked like and a discussion of its relationship to Mongol Imperial architecture elsewhere, see 32. On coinage in the Mongol Empire, see Heidemann Minert 1985, esp. pp. 199–203. Minert leans toward 2005, where the illustrations are from collections interpretations of the Chingisid imperial architecture other than the Karakorum excavations. Heidemann is which emphasize aspects of its distinctiveness from in the process of cataloguing the Karakorum material purely Chinese architectural models. though. The coin of 1237–38 is depicted in Ghengis 2009, p. 145, and Current Research 2009, p. 511; 37. A major work based on the recent archaeology concerning it see Heidemann et al. 2006. at Shangdu is Wei 2008 (I owe this reference to Nancy Steinhardt). As I witnessed in the summer of 33. As an example of the dangers of accepting 2009, archaeological work was proceeding apace, Kiselev’s views about the “palace,” see Steinhardt with testing being done to determine the location 1988, where at several points she refers to of remains of the temples east of the “palace” and Kiselev’s plan of Karakorum and its palace as yet excavation of the foundations of the latter. Given the another example of the standard Chinese model huge size of the site as a whole, to date only the for an imperial city. Reconstructions of what that surface has been scratched in its study. building may have looked like have been based on Kiselev’s work. See, for example, the two drawings 38. In what follows here, I am most infl uenced by reproduced in Dschingis 2005, pp. 152-153 and the Rogers et al. 2005; Rogers 2009; Honeychurch and discussion there. L. K. Minert’s attempt (1985) to Amartüvshin (2002) 2006, 2007; Honeychurch et al. reconstruct and trace the architectural genealogy 2009. of the Chingisid palaces starts with the structure 39. Note here the polemical, ambitious but seriously Kiselev determined was the palace. Minert sees it fl awed recent book by Christopher Beckwith (2009), as the prototype for what Khubilai later would build which I review at length in the forthcoming volume of in Beijing. It is possible, of course, that if the real Mongolian Studies. He lays out in no uncertain terms palace at Karakorum is eventually unearthed, its a case for the key contribution of Inner Asians to architecture will not be vastly different from that of the development of “civilization,” even as he displays the Kiselev “palace”; furthermore, the position of limited awareness of the now substantial literature the real palace in the larger scheme of the layout on early Eurasian pastoralists. of Karakorum might well reinforce Steinhardt’s

124