I'm reading a section of the History of Civilizations of Central Asia ("The Western Regions under the Hsiung-nu and the Han"), and while there are a bunch of good things to take from it that apply very specifically to a Silk Road journey, there's definitely this really big emphasis on the awesome things that went down in the Walled City-States of the Western Regions (WCSWR) as a result of the conflict between the Hsiung-nu and the Han.
My big questions: When the Hsiung-nu were in charge, how did they affect the culture of the WCSWR? Are these "northern barbarians" somehow connected to Christian's idea of steppe nomads who really began the Silk Road? When did the Silk Road begin to affect the WCSWR? Pre-Buddhism, what did the WCSWR religion(s) look like, and, when Buddhism finally came in, how did it take on the local flavour? It's a ridiculously intriguing section of history.
Ma and Sun, the authors of this section, devote a lot of time to history gleaned from Chinese records (without really mentioning the inherent bias of Chinese sources, which bugged me a little), and then really focus on archaeology - and their interpretations actually look scholarly. After having watched the Riddle of the Desert Mummies documentary, I was a little sketched out about using archaeological data, but Ma and Sun have restored my faith in the method.
They make a few convincing arguments about what society looked like, main exports, and that sort of thing, and draw some interesting conclusions about coins especially, but the pervading theme seems to be this implicit statement that the Han Chinese wouldn't have innovated as much in the WCSWR without the constant pressure of the Hsiung-nu. Which makes me wonder if looking at discrete units of history is really all that helpful?
We've already talked about cultural exchange on the Silk Road and the difficulties of dealing with that, but for me this article raised an even bigger issue. An existential crisis, possibly, about history itself. My question really is, after reflecting on the evolution of WCSWR society, can we talk about a history of a particular area or group? Because as I see it, if all of these cultures are influencing each other, then in order to understand A, we have to understand how C and B affected it, and in order to understand that in the fullest sense, we have to understand where C and B were influenced and D and E and F and G and...and...
Can you even rightly write about a complete picture of history? In order to look at one specific people in one specific place at one specific time, we have to understand not only their history, but the history of their interactions - direct or indirect - with other cultures, which means you have to know the history of those other cultures so that you know who indirectly affected your first guys. That's like...a lifetime of work to pull together all of that data, and then you have to set about interpreting it and understanding it.
And then if you apply Ma and Sun's idea of innovation as a result of specifically the clash of cultures, the issue gets even more complicated. They do a really good job of chronicling the issues between the Hsiung-nu and the Han to describe how the Han affected the culture and society of the WCSWR, but what happens if you look at the people interacting with the Hsiung-nu to understand the things that they brought to the table? What happens if you look at the direct interaction between the people of the WCSWR and their sometimes conquerors? What happens if another player gets added to the mix - trading partners along the Silk Road, for instance?
I feel like understanding this one section of the world in this one specific time period suddenly got a lot more complex than the potential hazards of interpreting archaeological evidence. And I wish I had answers to my questions - even the basic ones. I think the only concrete thing I can glean from these mental calisthenics is the idea that Step Eleven should be cultivate consistent mortal enemies to provoke progress and innovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment