国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

quite impossible that a people limited in time and space should alone have influen-
ced China. Their successors were no farther away from her, often even nearer.
Therefore we must give up a designation that takes the name of only one people
of the Steppes. Different geographic appelations have been suggested at various
times for this art, as for example, after the Mongol country of the Ordos (2),
or after a locality where discoveries were accidently made, situated in the province
of Shan-si, named Sui yuan (3). Occasionally the adjective "Eurasiatic" has
been adopted, which to my mind is more suitable, as it permits these artistic
manifestations to be connected with various regions in the circle of the Steppes.
In order to emphasize the creation under Chinese influence, as well as the confu-
sion of influences from lands to the north of China, we have chosen the term
"Sino-Siberian", which is easy to remember.

Light cannot be thrown on the obscurity surrounding this art without com-
paring it with that of the Steppes. If in countries bordering China all basis for
scientific work is lacking, we have at our disposal at the other side of the Great
Wall, at least now and then, reports on excavations and tomb inventories, but
unfortunately very rarely what is most important : inscriptions. And above
all in south Russia, the Caucasus, the Ural and Siberia, there is a certain relative
chronology based on actual facts that should help us to group the vast number
of pieces coming from the north of China. The first to point out the possibility
of grouping monuments brought out by dealers without too great an archeolo-
gical burden was Pelliot (4). He enumerates the intercrossing of influences
to be encountered in the quest for the creators of these works of art :

1) "Siberian, influenced by western Sarmatian art and even by Greek art."
This possibility arises for articles that have been imported and that are found,
therefore, only separately. But nearly all articles are part of a series that may
be typified by one specimen alone.

2) "Siberian, properly so called." What we have just stated must be repeated
for this case.

3) "Siberian, made by Turco-Mongolian tribes." Certainly the most fre-
quent case.

4) "Siberian, reproduced by Turco-Mongols settled on Chinese soil". This
possibility seems to me to be closely connected with the preceding case.

5) "Chinese, which still shows a Siberian origin more or less remote."
This case also is not rare, it may easily be explained by assimilation.

It might be added : "Chinese, but imitated at a later date in the country of
assimilated neighbours", since peculiarities in material and in patina are encoun-
tered which are not found among the majority of similar Chinese objects, but
which are usual at the northern frontier.

If, finally, we decide to examine these objects from the point of view of their
connection with the north and northwest, we continually run into the question :