The "Beauty of Loulan"
In Xinjiang, the mummies of the Taklamakan Basin have long fascinated archaeologists and museum-goers alike. The startlingly preserved remains, with facial features and DNA more commonly found in Central Asia and Eastern Europe than in China, are inspiring researchers to dig deeper into their history, even as that research proves to be a delicate subject for Chinese officials who have little tolerance for any suggestion that Xinjiang might historically have been less than fully “Chinese.”
When faced with an exhibit or artifact that may be problematic for officially (and popularly) accepted narratives, curators in China’s museums generally follow two approaches:
1) Act as if there is absolutely no problem whatsoever and blithely ignore the controversy, no matter how central that controversy may be to understanding the exhibit. It’s the same strategy the producers of “Two and a Half Men” have used for the better part of a year as Charlie Sheen, meal ticket extraordinaire to a host of talentless hack sitcom writers, spiraled out of control in a year-long bacchanal which finally ended in a coke-fueled Vegas sex romp over the Christmas break. Basically the plan goes: if you ignore the problem, maybe everybody else will too…at least until it’s blowing lines off a stripper named “Candi.”
2) When you can’t ignore the problem, you try to bullshit your way out of it and hope that nobody cares enough to challenge you. When I was at the Urumqi Museum last September, this seemed to be the go-to strategy. You surround your mummy with dozens of other exhibits all demonstrating with the pungent clarity of a fart let loose in a bathysphere that “Xinjiang is, was, and always will be part of China.” To continue my analogy above, this would be like when Sheen entered rehab last week and CBS nervously started playing the, “Well, that’s just Charlie. He’s a wild, fun guy…just like his character on our #1 show!”
Given the sensitivities involved, it was kind of miraculous that China last year allowed the mummies to travel to the United States as part of a three-museum exhibition tour. For years, foreign researchers were strictly forbidden from taking even tissue samples from the mummies out of China, and the mummies remained closely guarded until Victor Mair smuggled some tissue out of China in the 1990s when an unnamed Chinese researcher slipped him a sample during one of Professor Mair’s visits to Urumqi. That was then, this is now and the mummies were exhibited (more or less) without incident in California and Texas.
Now comes word that Chinese government representatives have requested that many of the artifacts, including the mummies, be pulled from the tour’s last stop at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The exact reasons are unclear, and attempts by the New York Times and AP to get a clarification from a Chinese Embassy in the midst of celebrating the Lunar New Year proved unsuccessful.
(“Hello, this is the New York Times. Care to comment on the request to pull the mummies from the “Silk Road” exhibition?”
Silence
Silence
GAN BEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!
Click.)
Victor Mair is, of course, a longtime professor at Penn, and no doubt worked hard to bring the mummies to the university museum. One wonders though whether this sudden change of heart on the part of Chinese officials has less to do with the University of Pennsylvania than it does with Professor Mair and his research. I am, very much however, speculating.
I can understand why the Chinese government can be squirrelly about anything Xinjiang, but, for what it’s worth, Xinjiang is a part of China. I’m not sure there are too many people who dispute that. The real battle, however, is not over the current status of Xinjiang, but rather a testy and sometimes nasty struggle over who controls the history of a region with a complicated and tangled past. First of all, while the mummies are certainly not Han, neither are they “Caucasian” in the sense of “Western European,” nor are they necessarily the direct descendants of the group who identifies today as “Uighur.” As one might imagine in a land where the cultures of Eurasia met, pushed, traded, mated, and fought, ethnicity in Xinjiang is far from being a historically fixed signifier. Who is a “Uighur” has less to do with who was a “Uighur” than many people — and most Uighurs — might be comfortable exploring in detail.
That said, the process by which Xinjiang became “provincialized” (to borrow a phrase) is a story fraught with historical traps for the Chinese government and its narrative strategy of “Unity Über Alles.” The Chinese government utterly rejects the idea that Xinjiang was ‘settled’ (never mind ‘conquered’ or ‘colonized’). The preferred story is one of spontaneous unity spread out over several thousand years. It’s a ridiculously (and unnecessarily) convoluted tale, and it’s also one that does little to promote the type of multicultural unity the Chinese government supposedly espouses. Denying a group of people their history, and forcing them to accept the history of the victors, only leads to the sort of misunderstanding, mistrust, and misrule which characterize Beijing’s relationship with the people of China’s Western Regions.
By way of example, teaching schoolchildren in the United States that white settlers and the US Army perpetrated one of the bloodiest land grabs in global history is not the same as saying we should grant Arizona unconditional independence. (Though, at times, if wishing only made it so…) What it does do is remind those groups in our society which over the long term benefited from the unequal, exploitative, and, yes, even violent relationship with other peoples in our country’s history, that we have an obligation to respect those alternative pasts and other perspectives and to remember that the wrongs of the past are still with us, wrongs which we may never be able to fully redress.
Now, it is entirely possible that last night as millions of Chinese watched the Spring Festival Gala complete with happy, singing, dancing, colorfully-dressed minorities consciously and deliberately presented as backwards and non-threatening simpletons, that a few people sat around and wondered, “Why is that?” or “That’s pretty f—–d up.” Hopefully that number grows, but until children start to learn about the other history of China, the many possible pasts that went into the building of the nation today, then minstrel pageantry and bad history will never give way to true understanding.
Usual superlatives apply … first rabbit out of the hat a classic.
Great write-up, Jeremiah. I was very much disappointed that it has been pulled from the museum and I’ll be interested to see if there’s every any good explanation given as to why.
Speaking of Chinese history…
I’m guessing that Why the West Rules–For Now won’t be translated into Chinese, at least not officially. Ian Morris convincingly demonstrates that China was only at the pinnacle of global civilization from about 500-1750A.D.
This was news to me as I had always believed China was at the pinnacle from the dawn of human history until the start of the Opium Wars. I am obviously not a professional historian, but I like to think I am at least curious enough to ensure what I know is correct. Why, then, did I get my ancient history so wrong? Perhaps it is because I absorbed most of what I knew while I lived in China.
While China’s leaders may insist that Morris gets his history wrong, they’ll still love his prognostication. Morris expects China to reclaim the title somewhere around 2100. For some reason, I find that strangely comforting.
Ooops! I left out the most important part of my post!
Since you are a professional historian, you have no doubt read Morris’ book–or at least you are familiar with his arguments and methods. What’s your opinion on his definitions of the Eastern and Western cores? And do you buy his social development index?
So whats so “wrong’ about Victor Mair’s research?
Don’t know even how to begin to address your post…
Many of the Han court noblemen took up Xiongnu tribeswomen concubines. Some of the Han noblemen according to historical records looked quite probably like the “Loulan beauty”. Sun Quan, a Wu king of the Three Kingdom period (right after Han) was supposed to have red beard and blue eyes, at least according to the famous Ming-era novel. My personal take is that Sun had red beard alright but unlikely blue eyes. Mongols brought in a lot Central/West Asians into China. If you have a time machine going back to early Ming, you would see some Chinese with Caucasian features (or residents in China if you must). The novelist likely recreated the image of Sun Quan based on his own surrounding. As time goes on, the distinctive features have been diluted.
If you use that time machine again, and put the dial this time to about 320 AD and go to a kingdom named 后赵, with its capital in modern-day Hebei, you would notice the emperors and many of the people looked more like modern-day Iranians/Central Asians than modern-day Han Chinese. After the collapse of 晋, the central China plain saw numerous wars and the population had severely reduced. Some tribes from north and west moved into what was former the heartland of “Han” people. Quite a few of those tribes, god forbids if some mummies of them left, would really shake the core of your imaginary Chinese nationstate narrative. But again over time, those features had been diluted. You will never turn into a minority if to you, 四海之内皆兄弟, instead if anyone with less than 7/8 of the genes of your type, it’s not one of you… But I digress.
Since the first homo sapiens stood up, we pretty much have moved in all directions. There is actually, absolutely nothing special about those mummies, other than to those with no sense of human history. You will also be able to find trace of modern-day East Asian looking people west of modern-day Xinjiang in ancient time, but again it really tells you not a whole lot.
jxie,
“Don’t know even how to begin to address your post…”
Might I suggest a useful first step would be to read it?
I think I was pretty clear that ethnicity in Xinjiang/Central Asia/Western China is a highly unstable signifier, in fact…that was rather the point of the post. While some of your evidence is a bit shaky, the basic storyline you present is fairly indicative of the complex exchange of culture and DNA in the region.
As for your suggestion that the nationalist/unity narrative toward Xinjiang is “imaginary,” I would suggest you turn your attention to the links above or to recent works by Peter Perdue, James Millward, Dru Gladney, Ge Jianxiong, et. al.
In any case, you and I are arguing essentially the same point. I don’t understand why these mummies are so sensitive, or why, as has been demonstrated from time to time, certain academics and officials in China find them so problematic. To answer Matt’s question at the same time, you can rather easily access any number of writings by Professor Mair on the subject and and I think it should be pretty clear which of his suppositions and arguments might be upsetting to those who favor the Unity First storyline.
That said, I don’t think these mummies “change” Xinjiang history a bit, but rather can tell us something of a fascinating and nuanced past in the region, nuances that often seem to annoy and distress those, both Han and Uighur, who would seek to use history in the service of a contemporary political argument.
G.E. Anderson,
Full disclosure, I looked at the book in a bookstore and didn’t buy it. I have it on order for our center’s library and when it comes in maybe I’ll do a more substantive review but a couple of quick hits from my brief perusal:
1) I’ve argued before that culture is vastly overstated in making arguments about historical events and trends, but neither do I discount it entirely as Morris seems to do. When you do that, you’re left with rather bleak forms of determinism (in this case principally geographic).
2) I also agree that the “Europe was special” arguments put forth in the 19th and 20th century to account for the Industrial Revolution and other aspects of “development” in the North Atlantic states needed a serious revision to say the least. It’s hard to argue that Europeans were somehow innately superior (more rational, more scientific, more whatever) than the rest of the world, at the very least it’s hard to prove. I tend to follow the research of people such as Ken Pomeranz, Robert Marks, and R. Bin Wong who argue that institutions may have played a role (Wong) but that a great deal of circumstance went into it as well, what Marks and Pomeranz attribute to “coal and colonies.” I also think its important to dismiss this notion that an Industrial Revolution is an absolute stage of development through which all societies were destined to pass, that is — China didn’t fail to have an industrial revolution so much as Europe had circumstances that made it happen. But once again, there’s more to it than coincidence. I guess I lean more to the side of Wong and suggest that there were institutional advantages for the sustaining of an industrial revolution, but I am aware that even that is a highly debated and contestable position.
I look forward to reading the book in greater detail. Your thoughts?
Josh,
A colleague of mine has been in touch with Professor Mair and there is apparently a specific reason for the decision, but Professor Mair would rather not publicize what that is. This suggests that there may be hope yet for the exhibit to go forward as originally planned and he is trying to avoid unnecessarily ruffling feathers. We’ll have to see.
Jeremiah, FWIW, I actually read your post and your links quite slowly and thoroughly. Why I didn’t know how to begin to respond? For example, you called those mummies (presumably Tarim ones) not Han. Those mummies lived some 1500 years prior to the founding of the Han Dynasty itself. That specific tribe could easily be one of the sub-tribes later grouped with others by Chinese as Xiongnu, and merged later into this historically all-inclusive ethnicity called Han. 1500 years are a long time. As some believe, Hungarians and the Sami people originated from Asia, not much longer than 1500 years ago. Other than a few outliners now, most of them look European.
At a level that is easier to understand, look at the modern-day Hong Kong. In the past 150 years or so, there has been an influx of European settlers. Nowadays some Hong Kongers with anywhere between 1/16 to 1/4 European blood look very much Chinese. Now imagine the door is close and the influx ends, in a few generations with assimilation they won’t look much un-Chinese at all. In your example, if your children settle in China, and a few generations later your progenies will look unlike you but like your wife.
Historically in China, there have been many cycles of such influx and assimilation.
Which part of my evidence is shaky? Sun Quan has 紫髯, but not 碧目, which was (IMO) 罗贯中’s own creation based on his early-Ming surrounding? Or 后赵 was founded by 羯族, with its capital at modern-day Hebei, and 羯族 looked very much unlike modern-day Han?
i have some inside info on this if you care to know more contact me :
– Danny Bloom
also, Jeremiah, i the real reasons for what has happened, but I won’t be
able to reveal them until the exhibition is over (June 5).
RE: The incident “has now reached the highest levels of both the
United States and Chinese governments.”
AND: “The artifacts have been in the Penn storeroom for a long time,
but the Chinese communist government suddenly told UPenn — without
giving any explanation why — that UPenn is not permitted to open the
crates and install the artifacts in the cases they have prepared so
exactingly.”
And: “UPENN will at least still have an educational display utilizing
the resources, interactive displays, and so forth that they have put
together.”
Even though the opening has already been delayed, UPENN has not given
up. This story has legs. It’s communist china vs free America,
disinformation vs information, thuggery vs democracy.
I admit that I approached Morris’ book skeptically, but it came highly recommended on the Economist’s year-end list, and it sounded intriguing, so I picked it up.
The parts I thought I wouldn’t buy are his definitions of the Eastern and Western cores, and his index of social development, but I have to admit that he convinced me of their validity. As these are the foundations on which his argument is built, that’s pretty important.
Again, not being a historian — certainly not a student of ancient history — I could not find anything to disagree with in his interpretations. I do know Chinese history pretty well, and I had no major issues with his reading of it. (I was also quite pleased to see two of my favorite reformers, Wang Anshi and Zhang Juzheng get a mention.)
In the end, however, it seems he builds this grandiose historical case and then imagines possible futures with either the West or the East on top. He sort of comes down to a guess that China will become the new global core by around 2100, but he doesn’t press his guess too strongly, leaving the reader to make what he will of what was a fascinating retelling of the history of homo sapiens.
I don’t know how unique his view of history is, but as a non-historian, I found the story to be, not only entertaining, but it also provides much food for thought to political scientists who wonder whether there are levers to be pulled that can affect a country’s relative decline. (I think he would say that, in general, there aren’t.)
The last minute removal of key artifacts from the Penn Museum exhibit “Treasures of the Silk Road” is a gross insult to everyone who cooperatively toiled to put this together and to the thousands of Americans who could have a obtained a deeper understanding of the rich and ancient culture of China.
What the PRC has given us instead is a most illuminating example of how an unelected, elite ruling class can make arbitrary, childish decisions with complete disregard for the rule of contract law–or common decency. By this thoughtless decision, China has turned a positive point of contact with the American people into a revealing public relations disaster. I hope the PRC can muster enough integrity from this embarrassment to at least compensate the Penn Museum for their expenses.
You can express your opinion by writing the PRC American embassy at:
chinaembpress_us@mfa.gov.cn
Pleasure as always.
Good insights into the complexity of this issue (and I love your pop culture analogy!). That all this is trying to get dismissed as simply a bureaucratic problem (that was caused by either incompetent American (see the NPR story at http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/02/07/133570520/with-china-treasures-under-wraps-pa-museum-takes-dummy-mummy-rou) or intransigent Chinese misses all the complex and fascinating history/politics you bring up. I have been blogging on this from a different perspective at : http://anthroeye.wordpress.com/ and needless to say any criticism of these events is not taken well by all involved.
excellent post!
i wish you were the person writing the newspaper stories about the exhibit, rather than people with no clue about the context.
honestly, i was surprised the exhibit got as far as it did. my understanding is that the other museums really exhibited the artifacts and mummies like ‘art’, whereas Penn tried to put them all in cultural and historical context. which obviously gets more peoples’ hackles up.
i hope it works out so i get to see the stuff!
“First of all, while the mummies are certainly not Han, neither are they “Caucasian” in the sense of “Western European,” nor are they necessarily the direct descendants of the group who identifies today as “Uighur.””
Why would you state that the mummies aren’t caucasian? Everything I’ve read has suggested they are “Caucasoid”. I’ve even heard Victor Mair say the same. I understand your qualifying of the statement with, “in the sense of “Western European,” but I feel it just muddles the picture. Why not differentiate between the Tocharii and the peoples of Western Europe in your post?
So which do you believe; that the Beijing authorities have general concerns that only just kicked in, or that they had specific problems with the Penn show? Are they trying to “shame” Victor Mair on his home turf? This is comical for me to contemplate: I met Mair a year ago at a Philadelphia tea event, but he was curt and unfriendly when I asked him about his book, “The True History of Tea.” Now he’s ruined the China exhibition too!
[...] Check out Jeremiah Jenne’s discussion of the Penn Museum Silk Road exhibit at his blog, Jottings from the Granite Studio. [...]
tartan= coat of many colours. bagpipes are a mideastern musical instrument need i go on
[...] wrote a few weeks ago about the kerfuffle at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The [...]