Ethnicity research of the Northern China early nomads

Purpose : The region of north-west China is a blank spot for Russian archaeologists. Materials for this part of the PRC have not been published in Russia till now. In this paper the author will try to discuss some aspects of ethnic identity of early nomads. We will see, that connection between archaeological cultures and ethnic names from ancient Chinese chronicles is very complicated. Results : The territory of Gansu and Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region directly borders on Inner Mongolia and on Northern China, that is why it has been drawing the attention of Russian and foreign researchers for a long time. One considers Gansu and Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region as a way of large migrations, other - as a place of mixture of various cultures of the West, the North and the East. During the large-scale archaeological researches which begun in the 80-ies of the last century the considerable material was obtained. Nevertheless, it is already possible to make some significant conclusions relying on this material, particularly to reconsider or add some occurring propositions in Chinese and Russian archaeological literature. In Russian archaeology an issue of comparing archaeological cultures and ethnic groups becomes more and more widely discussed. It is indicative that archaeological culture are based on archaeological sources, and ethnic groups - on written and epigraphic ones. The region of Southern Siberia in Early Iron Age was rather far from ancient civilizations, so connecting famous Pazyryk culture and the yuezhi people is of quite hypothetical character. The point of view, according to which Scythian Siberian world could be identified with di people seems also controvercial. Conclusion : The situation with early nomads who lived to the North of ancient Chinese Kingdoms of «Central plain» in the Spring and Autumn (722-481 B.C.) and Warring States (480-221 B.C.) periods is different. «Records of the Grand Historian» Sima Qian and other chronicle Chinese sources provide us with a number of various ethnonyms, names of tribal unions and proto-states. Those names appear to be random in character, besides reached us in Chinese pronunciation. In this case it would be more correct to speak of exo-ethnonyms. It should be noted that chroniclers’ interest was primarily political, not ethnographical. The whole peoples disappeared from chronicles not because they vanished but because in their recession (due to natural disasters, war conflicts) they did not concern the foreign policy of the Central plain states. For example, the number of reports about the Khitan changed according to their strengthening or weakening. When Hunnu grew weak, the number of reports about them decreased, but when they created their state Xia in the V-th century A. D. it was mentioned immediately as it was important for China. Conventional character of exo-ethnonyms used by chroniclers in the VI-th -II-nd centuries B. C. should be taken into consideration. So two common exo-ethnonyms - rong and di were used by Chinese historians since the Zhou period until at least the Sānguó period (III-d century A. D.).