Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2014, 319 p., fig.

O. V. Dyakova's monograph is devoted to the study of the first Tungus-Manchu state Bohai (698-926), which played an important role in the history of East Asia. For the first time in scientific practice, a comprehensive approach was applied to study this problem and the entire range of available sources was used. The author of the work studied more than 300 archaeological sites of the state of Bohai discovered in North-Eastern China, the Russian Far East and North Korea, analyzed written sources, and drew on the literary works of Bohai poets who revealed the algorithm of everyday life of Bohai people in their works. The whole set of these materials formed the source base of O. V. Dyakova's research.

Particularly valuable in the monograph is a special theoretical and methodological section devoted to the development of common criteria for identifying archaeological sites of the Bohai culture and distinguishing them from numerous medieval sites. Using the criteria for determining Bohai monuments, O. V. Dyakova developed a classification of archaeological materials by aboriginal (ethnic), state and epoch characteristics, which made it possible not only to create a catalog of Bohai monuments, but also to outline the borders of this state for the first time.

Aboriginal (ethnic) features include stucco ceramics designated as "Mohe type of tableware" with traditional technical and technological characteristics, shapes and decor; openwork belts of the Amur type and combined earrings (a bronze ring with a stone disk or coin). State signs are represented by circular ceramics, fortifications in the form of stone fortresses built using cement-free technology, stone-earth ramparts and square mounds that copy the architecture of Tang China and contain cult artifacts with Buddhist symbols. The epochal features include circular gray-clay dishes of various shapes, copying the ceramics of the Tang period. This series of features is typical for artifacts from the initial Bohai period, which are most often found in the Russian Primorye region and Northeastern China. Thanks to these features, it was possible to establish the ethnic stratification of Bohai, where the main state-forming ethnic group was Sumo mohe (carriers of the Mohe archaeological culture), the Goguryeo layer is represented by artisans-potters and military architects, the Tang layer is represented by urban planning and pottery.

As a result of the research work, a single set of Bohai archaeological sites has been created, documented with maps and materials. The identified Bohai monuments made it possible to determine the borders of the Bohai state, the history of the formation of its ethnic composition, and the role of each ethnic group in state construction (pp. 214-238).

The identified complex of sources and analysis of their content allowed O. V. Dyakova to conclude that the aboriginal population of Bohai was the Tungus-Manchus-the Sumo Mohe tribes that created this state in 698 and were the state-forming ethnic group. Bohai was also home to the Goguryeo people (the ancestors of modern Koreans). In the course of the study, it was possible to confirm the earlier assumption that part of the Goguryeo population became part of Bohai after the defeat of the Goguryeo state by China. According to archaeological and written sources, the Kogurish people were engaged in pottery production (p. 231-238), were fortification specialists who built stone fortresses using cement-free technology along borders and road transport sea and land routes. They were also military personnel and administrative officials.

There were also Chinese residents in Bohai. Their presence was reflected in the architecture and internal structure of settlements characteristic of Tang China, which can be evidenced by square mounds and gray clay dishes of various shapes. Probably, the Chinese were attracted as managers, because they had relevant experience and were literate. For Bohai young men, literacy was also mandatory, since without receiving the necessary education, young people did not have the right to marry.

Larisa ZABROVSKAYA-Doctor of Historical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, larisa51@hotmail.com.

According to O. V. Dyakova, Koguryans and Chinese were the service class and were not included in the Bohai nobility, being engaged in crafts, agriculture, construction and official activities (p. 293). Most likely, this is why the assimilation of the autochthonous population, the Mohesans, with the alien ethnic groups did not occur.

The presence of a Chinese population in Bohai and close trade contacts with China give reason for some foreign researchers to argue that this state was under a Chinese protectorate. However, O. V. Dyakova does not share this opinion, believing that Bohai was an independent state entity (p. 237) and pursued an independent foreign policy, which follows from the diplomatic relations with the Turks, Japan, China, the Korean state of Silla, and the Khitan given in the monograph.

Special attention should be paid to the discovery by O. V. Dyakova of archaeological traces of Indo-European traditions (ornamentation of circular gray-clay vessels and burial paraphernalia in the form of burial mounds), which came to the medieval Tungus-Manchus through the Turks (pp. 239-244). Currently, these facts are actively discussed among Russian archaeologists and contribute to clarifying the ethno-and cultural genesis of the Bohai State population.

The problem of identifying the Bohai road transport system and the logic of its organization in mountainous areas and along the sea coast occupies one of the important places of the monograph. Based on the materials of O. V. Dyakova's own long-term expedition surveys, it was possible to identify archaeological signs of land and sea roads, the length of which was more than 700 km along the coastal line of Primorye. Archaeological sites confirm that in the Middle Ages, a busy trade route operated along the western coast of the Sea of Japan, controlled and guarded by special detachments stationed in stone fortresses.

It is known from written sources that the Bohai people actively visited Japan, where more than 140 embassies were sent, actively traded with China, having inns there, and even, in case of insults and injustices, responded with armed raids on Chinese ports and ships.

Chinese influence was also projected on the state-administrative apparatus, the formation of diplomacy and literary creativity. The chapter "Historical and cultural aspects of Bohai" is devoted to these questions (pp. 257-275). O. V. Dyakova conducted a comparative analysis of a number of works by Chinese and Bohai authors and revealed the facts of mutual influence of the cultures of the two states.

The chapter on the historical fate of the Bohai people deserves special attention. For the first time in Far Eastern archaeology, the author was able to identify monuments dating back to the Post-Bohai period based on his own research and pose the problem: was the territory of Russian Primorye part of the Liao Empire and the state of Dongdan? The identification of Khitan artifacts on Bohai monuments of the late period does not allow us to exclude such a variant of historical events.

In general, O. V. Dyakova's monograph is a valuable historical work, where the scientific systematization of Bohai archaeological sites is presented for the first time, an exhaustive classification of materials is given, types of ancient settlements are determined, state borders are established, a scheme of ethno - and cultural genesis is proposed, and the historical destinies of the Bohai people are traced.

The monograph contains color illustrations and maps of the location of Bohai monuments, which increases visibility and helps to understand the role and place of the Bohai state in the history of East Asia.

Permanent link to this publication: