Final Project

So I wrote some stuff about Iran and Islam and Zoroastrianism and the 7th century CE.

http://iranianislam.blogspot.com/

[Note: due to technical problems, the videos, while scheduled to be posted at certain times, were only all finally uploaded by 11:45 PM on Tuesday the 5th. The actual content under the page "The Paper" was posted at 3:00 PM on the 5th, but, for some reason, pages aren't timestamped]

Sidestep

So I’ve been doing this whole steps-along-the-Silk-Road(s) thing, and it’s been getting more and more difficult, but it’s a fun challenge. This week, however, it’s just been...beyond trying. And I finally decided that, if this were a step along this Silk Road(s), it would be stop and rant about things every so often. I realize a lot of what I write here probably comes across as pretty rant-like, but this one, I assure you, is definitely the real deal.

Last week, I read an interesting article about the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan by a man with the wonderful name of Finbarr Barry Flood. And I must admit that I have very probably slandered him, because, while I still feel that his style was shoddy and his writing sub-par, my conclusion on his article was that he failed to convince me that the destruction of the Buddhas by the Taliban was entirely political and modern in nature. It is very clear to me now, though, that not only had he convinced me of these things, but he equipped me to be able to argue them.

I read first this week an entry from the Encyclopedia of Race and Culture Studies on UNESCO. It pretty much outlines UNESCO’s mandate to prevent racism and educate people to further the goal of the total elimination of racism. So far, so good. The next entry from the encyclopedia was on the UN, and was pretty much a history of anti-racism campaigns and projects.

With this in mind, I picked up my scanned pages of Art and Archaeology of Afghanistan, and started with an article entitled “UNESCOS’s Rehabilitation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage Mandate and Recent Activities”, which brought me to the following questions1

1.       WHY is an organization mandated for the elimination of racism restoring art?

2.       Why do the ALREADY-DESTROYED Bamiyan Buddhas get all this huge international attention and SO MUCH money when it says at the very beginning of the article that the UNESCO working groups agreed to leave Bamiyan alone and tend to sites with more pressing needs?

For the first: I kind of ended the article being all “Well, cultural heritage, it’s like...you’re destroying someone else’s religion and stuff, so...UNESCO can totally get involved in that...I guess...

For the second: I thought and thought and still came up with 2+2=5, so I was already a little sceptical when I picked up the next article, “Afghan Cultural Heritage and International Law: The Case of the Buddhas of Bamiyan”.

Here beginneth the rant – which is pretty much a transcription of thoughts as they went through my mind as I read.

1.       So WHY do we care about iconoclasm? And where do we draw the line between suppressing one religion in favour of another? Also, if someone like ___ can write an article that’s all “Yeah, you guys are stupid – iconoclasm? This is all political”, then how can you honestly call yourself an educated author and just...stick with what appears to be the status quo opinion of popular media?

2.       HOW IS LOADED AND OFFENSEIVE VOCABULARY IN A SCHOLARLY PAPER ANY BETTER THAN “ICONOCLAMS”?!

3.       How can you commit a “crime against culture”?

4.       So this kind of invective is pretty anti-Islam, which is counter to UNESCO’s ACTUAL mandate to work to the elimination of discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. So that’s not cool, UNESCO-people-publishing-this-thing.

5.       Since when are 2 statues allowed to be referred to as “all Afghan cultural heritage”, and wince when are we allowed in scholarship to draw these giant generalizations?

6.       Okay, so, actually? Stop talking about this “Northern Alliance” as if it’s so great. I wrote a paper on the application of Just War Theory to Afghanistan, and, let me tell you, you only have to dig a little bit to discover that the “Northern Alliance” were fierce, bloodthirsty, ABSOLUTELY BRUTAL warlords. Acknowledge, please, that they were not the legitimate and superior government?

7.       Okay, so, I can see how a bunch of conventions were broken by the breaking of the Bamiyan Buddhas – nobody’s arguing that that wasn’t a “good” action or whatever. But, like, dude. Does that justify this harsh, loaded rhetoric?

8.       So because UNESCO says that the destruction of the Buddhas “affected everyone”, we accept that? Why so we just accept these pronouncements that often have, as the UNESCO encyclopedia article showed, TONS of scholarly disagreement surrounding them, and don’t ever (except that one time in 1964) have anything resembling scholarly consensus at their inception?

9.       This focus on “yay cultural preservation!” is weord, given that

a.       NOBODY CARED ABOUT CULTURAL PRESENTATION IN VIETNAM/Cambodie/etc – that was all about human rights violations

b.      AFGHANI CHILDREN ARE STILL STARVING. Like, I know the money and manpower donated for restoration was in addition to instead of taking away from humanitarian aid, but something about this big iddue we have with preserving some statues who aren’t exactly going anywahere, while the main problems of the region haven’t been solved or anywhere NEAR solved is...irksome. Terrifying. And doesn’t speak well for humanity.

IN CONCLUSION to my rant: I have no answers to these questions. But, knowing what I know about Afghanistan, and, thanks to Finbarr Barry Flood, what I know about Islamic iconoclasm and the interesting political position of Taliban Afghanistan, I can honestly say that I’m in the interesting state of confusion that is not knowing what “side” to be on. On the one hand, I am hugely saddened by the destruction of art, On the other, I’m all “well, they had no other choice!” On the one hand, I’m pretty supportive of actions to restore art and make people aware and proud f their cultural heritage. On the other, I don’t know if I can support UNESCO’s activities in Afghanistan. This sidestep is stop and rant a while because it seems to be the only thing to do, and I feel like ranting some more will probably help me come up with answers to my questions. Until then, I think I’m going to stay pretty confused.

Step Fifteen

The word "cosmopolitan" gets used as an adjective, but if we look to the original Greek, it's actually a combination of "cosmos" and "politas" - "citizen of the world". It's been appropriated as an adjective, like in reference to a city, where it can mean "Having the characteristics which arise from, or are suited to, a range over many different countries; free from national limitations or attachments." or "Composed of people from many different countries." (both OED Online)

Regardless of nitpicky details about parts of speech, I figure, when we're talking about cities anywhere along the Silk Road(s), and especially ones near the ends, we're talking about the latter definition. So when we're talking about Xi'an (Chang'an, on some maps), we're talking about a city that is ridiculously ethnically/culturally/linguistically/religiously/etc  diverse.

This was my thought process (with some help from the internet - I don't carry the Oxford English Dictionary around in my head, unfortunately) when I dug out my course outline in my attempt to write something that actually fit with the week's theme instead of just branching randomly and haphazardly from the readings.

And then I read some articles. Two really stuck out at me: Bundy's essay "Missiological Reflections on Nestorian Christianity during the Tang Dynasty" and the first chapter of a book by Edward Schafer - romantically entitled Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of Tang Exotics. I'm going to go with a tri-layered argument refinement process here, to boil down a concrete strategy for how to deal on the Silk Road once you reach your destination.

I would like to sum up Section One, before I begin it, with the phrase: "like the new Star Trek movie!" Bundy's focus on the Nestorians' awesome survival method reminded me so much of that movie, in an abstract sense, it was ridiculous. Basically, if you haven't seen it, J. J. Abrams, bless his heart, managed to craft this movie that satisfied both the hardcore Trek nerds (tribble in Scotty's office was such a nice touch) and made a whole new fanbase of people who found it a genuinely good movie without needing to know any Trek lore at all. How does this relate to the Nestorians? They were, essentially, J. J. Abrams. They kept, as far as I can tell from Bundy's article, the basics of their religion so that the original adherents stayed cool with it, while changing and revitalizing things to appeal to the whole new fanbase that they found in China.

So, really, the Nestorians and good ol' J.J. make the point that one should adapt to the times/places in which one finds oneself - to make whatever it is that one is both something that one can fully own, and something that can be equally owned by the other people of the time/place.

In the margins of the article, next to "Step 15: IT'S JUST LIKE STAR TREK!" is the scribble "although it kinda failed the Nestorians but wtvs." And I was pretty worried - was the one awesome argument that I'd found in Bundy's article totally called into question by the fact that the Nestorians were kind of subsumed into broader Chinese culture so that we have very little information about them at all - Bundy makes it seem as though he presents the bulk of the extant material in all of 11 pages - and so that they essentially disappeared as a cultural subset?

It turns out that Schafer is very helpful in answering that question with a resounding "No!" Schafer details an elegant, slightly disorganized (so much getting lost. So many delicious little tangents.) history of Tang China with reference to commerce and luxury items and traders and stuff. It's all really wonderful and opulent and happy and "oh, so traders liked to live here..." until he starts getting into expulsion edicts and the idea of making monastics of all religions disrobe and join secular society for tax purposes and then the revolts and killing of foreign traders and it all gets pretty terrifying.

The basic idea of Schafer's chapter, in connection with my lacklustre conclusion from Bundy, is that, in Tang China, particularly during the end of the dynasty, it was less about cultural survival and more about survival. Period. The Nestorians, then, did it right - they adapted as much as they needed to in order to survive, and if that meant not being foreign, and if that meant getting rid of monastics (which Bundy maintains were the backbone of the religion), and if that meant protecting your family from overzealous revolutionaries however you could, then you did it. I think, too often, in academia we forget about the nitty-gritty, the everyday life aspect of things, and we say "Gee, the Nestorians didn't do themselves any favours!" but what we really mean is "Gee, the Nestorians didn't do us any favours!" and we don't see that, on an individual level, they survived. Dying for your faith is all well and good, but if you can preserve your religion in quiet while preserving your life as well, then, you know, I'd vote for that.

Additionally, as the latter part of the Schafer's chapter makes very clear, whatever your culture was pre-Tang-blowup doesn't matter. Even if you had a strong, non-adaptive presence, after you're gone, they'll find their imaginations are more exciting than you ever were.

It's a sobering thought, that, even if you were really radical and strong and didn't adapt at all, you might not make a mark. And I think it makes the middle point a lot more important, because if even your culture won't survive, you might as well start to think about yourself as an individual/member of a family and get on weathering the storm.

Troubling lessons of the Silk Road(s) boiled down into Step Fifteen: Adapt, and you have a chance of survival. Because even cosmopolitan cities can decide that the world is just too big to include inside their walls, and the weeds that stick up beyond the grass are the ones that get pulled out. 

Step Fourteen

Everything that I have ever talked about as important in travelling the Silk Road really seems to boil down into one thing: BE A SOGDIAN.

Who were the Sogdians? Historically, we've got these people who came from the land between the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya rivers, centred around Samarkand although with this really decentralized political system. They were Zoroastrians - that we know - but not as intensely purist as the Sassanians next door. They were traders first and foremost, they settled parts of China and managed to become high up people in Chinese government and bureaucracy, and they translated TONS of texts. The way I see it, we've got four distinct ways we can look at the Sogdian contribution to the history of the Silk Road.

Way the First: Sogdians as religious connoisseurs. I use the term cognizant of how loaded it is, with its implications of "picking the best" - but what I'm really using it to say is that, like connoisseurs of cheesecake pick out what they think is best, the Sogdians picked out what they thought was best about certain religious traditions, and I'm not using the word to make value statements about religions. There. Now that that's out of the way: on to the main point. The Sogdians, whether at home between the rivers or in their colonies in China, somehow managed to incorporate a ton of different religious traditions into Zoroastrianism.

We've got evidence of the usual run of Zoroastrian practices (although Lerner, Marshak, and Feng are all pretty quiet about what exactly those practices ARE), along with some Hindu goddess worship, and some Nestorian Christianity creeping in there, and some Manichean teachings, and I'm guessing we might see a lot of Buddhist influence if we look at later history, maybe some Islamic influence, and definitely some Confucianism or Daoism when we get into China. The Sogdians were able to pick and choose when it came to religion, which, as I've delved into before, results in Good Things. With the exchange of ideas comes the exchange of technology, the exchange of goods, the exchange of alliances, all of which are essential to success on the Silk Road - all of which ARE the Silk Road.

Way the Second: Sogdians as traders. And traders of ideas as well as everything material! But, really, traders.  LOOK AT THEIR LOCATION! It was totally prime for interaction with everyone. Between the Persians and Romans/Byzantines on one side, the Chinese on the other, Bactria and India below them and the riches of the steppes above, the Sogdians had it made. Not only that, but because the bulk of their civilization was between two rivers, they had a great wealth of resources of their own (presumably) with which to start up trade. And trade they did - trumping even the Sassanians, who were pretty powerful and awesome and stuff. Not only were they the chief go-betweens between EVERYONE, they also made a huge contribution to trade relations in general: the Sogdian language was the language of trade all along the Silk Road(s). Not only did they facilitate the actual progress of goods and technologies and ideas along the trade routes, they facilitated the interactions between traders of all cultures, so that we can probably say with a great degree of accuracy that Silk Road trade was a Sogdian enterprise.

Way the Third: Sogdians as cultural puzzle pieces. The Sogdians knew that the best people to trade with are people you know, so they accordingly set up lots of colonies along the Silk Road routes, and, in doing so, created a ton of microcosmic Sogdian worlds in the heart of places like China. In China they were particularly successful, managing to maintain their cultural identities to the extent that we can tell from their last names that they were still identifying with their homeland, even after so many generations that China really WAS their homeland. They also got in really tight with the Chinese government - one particular family managed to produce a bunch of high-ranking officials and military officers and even some imperial bodyguards and horse-breeders.

To me, this is characteristic of the Silk Road itself:  the interactions of different cultures to the point where they weave together to form a distinct tapestry where the warp and weft can still be distinguished. The Sogdians, in their ability to both integrate into Chinese society and keep their own distinct cultural heritage alive, are essentially personifications of the entirety of the Silk Road. I know this is a big claim. I'm not sure if I actually can make it, but I'd like to.

Finally, Way the Fourth: Sogdians as translators. I've already talked about the Sogdian language as the language of trade, but that's not the only awesome thing that they managed to do linguistically. They translated Buddhist texts primarily, according to Feng, but this seems to me to just be indicative of what was probably a larger translation effort: the Sogdians are the reason that a variety of religious and historical and political theoretical traditions made their way along the Silk Road. The Sogdians provided one of the main vehicles for the progress of knowledge along the trade routes, a common language, and then actively ensured that the knowledge was IN that language so that it COULD travel.

The Sogdians were just...essential. Could there have been a Silk Road without them? Somehow, I feel that the things that they did were done to a lesser extent by different peoples, and while there might not have been a giant presence, there probably would've been the same sort of thing, and we'd have a Silk Road. But would it be at all the same? As I see it, the best and only way to success on the Silk Road would be to follow Step Fourteen and be a Sogdian. 

Step Thirteen

So one thing we've seen time and again in history is that religions travel well. Religions seem to travel better than language (Jews stayed Jewish when they moved out to Eastern Europe, but they dropped the Hebrew and Yiddish grew up), or food types, or anything, really, except tangible goods. And even then, I'll bet that Jesuit missionaries were pretty frequently shipwrecked or robbed somehow along the way but still managed to spread their religion.

In my ongoing quest to be the best/most successful Silk Road-er ever, I think this is an important lesson to learn. And I think that the story of Xuanzang, or at least as Sally Hovey Wriggins tells it, is an excellent case study to support this point.

So Xuanzang is this Buddhist monk who decides to contravene a direct order from the emperor and head out on what turns into a sixteen-year walk, all the way to India, with the interest of re-discovering Buddhism. He's a profound Mahayana Buddhist (not surprising), and he's wondering how to reconcile Mahayana beliefs with Theravada texts that he's been reading (to his profound consternation), and what better place to do that than in Theravada Buddhism's home? So off he goes, and it's quite a story.

Amidst all the miracles (which are all pretty cool - Xuanzang's biographer had quite the dramatic flair, even if everything is 100% true and accurate) and all the flattering state visits and all the 'Oh heavens. These people are rather strange. Nice, but straaaaaaaaannnngggge...' moments, Xuanzang discovers more than just an obscure part of his religious roots: he discovers the power of religion.

His monk's garb gets him lots of help along the way, as do his institutional ties, but his personal practice is what really gets things done. In every conflict that he has with a ruler, for instance, the demonstration of his dedication to his principles or his Awesome Buddhist Arguing Skills or his stick-to-his-guns attitude where Mahayana and Theravada clash manage to let him come out on top in some way or another, but I want to look at this on a more fundamental level.

I want to take Xuanzang's journey and say that being religious was the only way he could travel at all, really. Looking back to some readings from last week/the week before/some time that was not very far away but is also not now, there's this story of the first Buddhist missionaries being merchants! Which was framed as this way to show that Buddhism was tied to commerce, but I want to say that it really shows that commerce was tied to Buddhism, which is a pretty minute distinction, but one that I feel is important. It's not that Buddhism went where commerce went, it's that commerce grew where Buddhism was present and BECAUSE of Buddhism.

I don't think it's anything inherent to Buddhism - I'm sure any other religion could have done the same thing - but I think that Xuanzang' story shows just how much Buddhism dragged commerce along with it.
Xuanzang left China with essentially nothing, and ended up with massive amounts of presents and things, given by King A for Kings B through B-prime. This is a form of goods exchange - the kings he visited gave him presents back in exchange for these, and he heads off every time to see someone else and give and get presents. Really awesome presents, too.

Furthermore - and finally, I guess - the information exchange that we see between trade partners is the same information exchange we see here. Xuanzang is learning about Theravada Buddhism (and teaching about Mahayana, something that I think is super important given his route through the Himalayas and the interesting contents and origins of Himalayan Buddhism), but he's also learning about all the petty kingdoms - and the not-so-petty ones, and the nomadic tribes, and India itself. Xuanzang ends up becoming an advisor to the emperor when he gets back, and all because he has this wealth of information about lands previously shrouded in mystical mystery. And the trade relations between India and China really start happening once the emperor has this adequate information about India and once all the various Indian rulers have this adequate information about China. Commerce followed on Xuanzang's heels (sometimes so close it was essentially in his shoes), as commerce follows on the heels of religion in general.

Things Xuanzang has taught me: that Step Thirteen should be Be a religious pilgrim - you get to explore the world, get presents, get political clout, and get credit for starting commerce. 

Step Twelve

Imagine, Matrix-style, that you've got a rid pill and a blue pill between which you have to choose. One of them is BE WARLIKE AND CONQUER EVERYBODY and the other is BE TRADERS AND GET CONQUERED BY EVERYBODY. Weighing the pros and cons, I would have totally picked the former - and then I read Liu's article on interaction between nomadic and sedentary socities.

Liu uses the Yuezhi-Kushan (whose identities are shrouded in layers of fog, which she does a pretty fair job of unraveling) as a model for other nomadic societies, talking about their widespread influence in East and Central Asia and through to the Hellenistic Afghanistan area. My first thought: "AHA! These are those awesome steppe traders that Christian was talking about!" because Liu gives them credit for being the first real users of the Silk Road.

The most interesting thing, though, is the contrast between the survival of cultures - I'm going to broad-brush-strokes it as a continuum from the Xiongnu through the Yuezhi-Kushan through the Bactrians.

How much do we know about the Xiongnu? I read an interesting article last week about their depictions in Chinese histories, and, frankly, we have very little either than those Chinese records on which to base our reconstruction of Xiongnu society. The Xiongnu were a crazy society that Han China (and all the other dynasties, it looks like Liu is suggesting) really hated, largely because the nomadic warrior-types were always trying to conquer China proper. Really aggressive, not much trading potential, angry-angry-angry people.

What about the Yuezhi-Kushan? Liu does a great job of explaining how they spread out through nomadic migratory practices to vaguely invade lots of places from China to India, and to keep really strong trade relations, especially with China, for whom they provided horses and jade and other stuff for the war against the Xiongnu. The Y-Z had terrible problems with the X as well, it seems, although after the majority of them (which may have just been people who spoke the same language rather than sharing a culture) migrated to India's side of the continent they stopped extensive trade with the Chinese. What we know about the Y-Z is fragmentary, and highly mixed up with all the other cultures around them, but it's definitely more than just entries in Chinese historical catalogues.

And, finally, the Bactrians, along with all the other people in India's side that the Y-Z happened to "conquer". Liu doesn't go into depth on their identities, but there seems to be very little controversy and very much really diverse information - from archaeological to written sources. We seem to know a lot more about them than about the vaguely conquering-types or about the really-seriously-we-want-your-kingdom-conquering-types.

So, my hypothesis! Liu talks about how sedentary societies tend to exert an extremely powerful influence on the nomadic societies which invade them, to the point where we really have no idea what, say, Mongol culture really looked like. Or Xiongnu. So it seems to me that, when deciding between red and blue pill, we should be looking at cultural survival.

The Yuezhi-Kushan spread out through EVERYONE, and in doing so a lot of their customs and religions became those of the people they conquered-ish. One particularly striking example is the introduction of Buddhism to China, which was done by KUSHAN missionaries. This is about as close to an explicit statement of assimilation as you're likely to get - the Buddhist practitioners in India/Afghanistan/that area converted large enough segments of the conquering population to send them back home with the good news.

Why DO conquering nomads end up getting subsumed into the lifestyle/practices/belief systems of their sedentary conquerees? Liu doesn't give much of an answer, but the question is one that I think is really important to our study of history. Furthermore, she implicitly sets up a pattern but does not derive from it a rule to hold next to other societies, and nothing I've yet read suggests any reason for cultural assimilation nor any rule that we can broadly apply and see how it fits.

So, for now, I'm going to have to be content to say that Step Twelve is to be traders and get conquered by everyone - you make tons of money and, really, you end up being the only one who people accurately remember.

Step Eleven

If there's one lesson that we can learn from the western regions of China during the two Han dynasties, it's that consistent mortal enemies provoke progress and innovation.

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.