When，at the end of my first years work in Kansu， I wrote a brief report on the results so far obtained， which was later published in the Swedish geographical jour-nal Ymer， I was so impressed by the predominance of painted pottery among the Kansu finds that I joined in the opinion expressed earlier by Richthofen that the Chi-nese have migrated from an ancient home in Chinese Turkestan， where they were supposed to have developed their earliest culture and received influences from west-ern peoples.
This idea of a migration in Yang Shao time of the Chinese from Hsinkiang into the Huang Ho valley where they carried with them an AEneolithic culture of western type， has been reviewed and criticised by Karlgren in the new journal Litteris. As my paper was published in Swedish and as the opinions admirably expressed by Karlgren in English have camed the discussion much nearer a final solution， I take the liberty of quoting the following passages from the distinguished sinolog：
“In drawing his historical conclusions Dr. Andersson first suggests that the Kan-su and Honan （Yang-shao） sites have so many implement types in common， and such an accordance in regard to the painted pottery that they must be considered as essentially contemporaneous and belonging to the same culture. And yet， according to Dr. Andersson， we must distinguish between a Kansu province and a Honan prov-ince within this culture， for on the one hand the painted ceramics are much more fully developed in the former， with richer pattems and more complete similarity to the Western types， and on the other hand the Kansu sites lack almost entirely cer-tain elements which were most typical in Honan， e. g. the Li and Ting tripods： one
single fragruent of a Li was found in the very extensive Kansu excavations. Whether Dr. Andersson‘s view holds good or not， depends upon which general historical theo-ry we adopt.
……
展开
