Now comes happy word from Professor Mair that the exhibit has reopened, with the actual mummies this time, as of this past Friday.

From Friday’s press conference:

On opening day, neither Museum officials nor visiting Chinese dignitaries would explain why the objects were initially blocked in Philadelphia, only saying there was a “miscommunication.”

They are now on display thanks to a desperate trip to the Chinese embassy by Mair, begging to display the mummies, if only for three weeks. The exhibition was planned to run until June, and will be open without the mummies for three ]]> I wrote a few weeks ago about the kerfuffle at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.  The museum was set to be the final stop in a three-city tour of artifacts from the Silk Road, which included priceless mummified remains excavated from the Taklamakan Basin. Just as the show was about to open, Chinese officials abruptly refused to allow the display of the mummies, sending museum and university representatives, including Victor Mair who is closely associated both with the study and the controversies surrounding the mummies, into a Michael Vick-worthy scramble.  Notices were sent, refunds issued, meetings arranged, stunt mummies deployed.

Now comes happy word from Professor Mair that the exhibit has reopened, with the actual mummies this time, as of this past Friday.

From Friday’s press conference:

On opening day, neither Museum officials nor visiting Chinese dignitaries would explain why the objects were initially blocked in Philadelphia, only saying there was a “miscommunication.”

They are now on display thanks to a desperate trip to the Chinese embassy by Mair, begging to display the mummies, if only for three weeks. The exhibition was planned to run until June, and will be open without the mummies for three months..

Mair says he and a mid-level Chinese bureaucrat managed to convince Chinese cultural leaders to relent the objects for three weeks, but Mair says he is not done.

“I didn’t want to have any ruffles today–with the Chinese here and all,” said Mair on opening day. “There are some new Chinese dignitaries here for a few days. I’m already starting to write letters and make contacts.”

Mair says he hopes to be able to keep the mummies until at least March 19, when Penn will host an international symposium about East-West antiquity.

Professor Mair is still keeping the real cause of the dispute under wraps (if you will), but I suspect we may learn more after the show closes.

Author, scholar, and fellow IES faculty member Sheila Melvin has a great piece in last week’s New York Times discussing the history of the Yuanmingyuan.  She writes:

On the low end of the scale was a free performance called “The Legend of Yuanmingyuan,” which was held weekend evenings on the Yuanmingyuan grounds last summer. Staged by the Beijing Dragon in the Sky Shadow Puppet Troupe and considered “patriotic education” for children, the show alternated shadow puppets and costumed dwarfs in a reenactment that saw invading troops bravely staved off by local villagers using kung fu and bayonets. Foreigners — played by dwarfs wearing curly yellow-wool wigs — were depicted as venal and stupid barbarians who could not even speak their own languages. Eager to aid the emperor, the brave Chinese villagers repeatedly shouted, “Kill the foreign ]]> 150 years ago this month, troops from an Anglo-French expedition torched the imperial gardens located in Northwest Beijing.  The multiplicity of meanings associated with the site and the complicated circumstances of its destruction make for fascinating history as well as an opportunity for the CCP’s educational minions to leech that history of any real substance — other than as a crude device to teach ‘patriotism.’

Author, scholar, and fellow IES faculty member Sheila Melvin has a great piece in last week’s New York Times discussing the history of the Yuanmingyuan.  She writes:

On the low end of the scale was a free performance called “The Legend of Yuanmingyuan,” which was held weekend evenings on the Yuanmingyuan grounds last summer. Staged by the Beijing Dragon in the Sky Shadow Puppet Troupe and considered “patriotic education” for children, the show alternated shadow puppets and costumed dwarfs in a reenactment that saw invading troops bravely staved off by local villagers using kung fu and bayonets. Foreigners — played by dwarfs wearing curly yellow-wool wigs — were depicted as venal and stupid barbarians who could not even speak their own languages. Eager to aid the emperor, the brave Chinese villagers repeatedly shouted, “Kill the foreign devils! Kill the foreign devils!”

At the other end of the spectrum is the exhibition “Disturbed Dreams in the Ruins of the Garden,” which showcases a stunning collection of photographs taken by the German photographer Ernst Ohlmer in 1873. The 72 images in “Disturbed Dreams” — which was shown at the Beijing World Art Museum over the summer and will be featured at the Shanghai Art Museum for six months in 2011 — were made from 12 large glass negatives tracked down and purchased by Qin Feng, a Taiwan-born journalist and collector.

Believed to be the earliest Yuanmingyuan photos in existence, the images lovingly depict the “Western-style palaces” designed by the Jesuit missionaries Giuseppe Castiglione (Lang Shining) and Michel Benoit (Jiang Youren).

The problem with choosing symbols for their political potency is that the things and places and people politicians choose already come freighted with baggage, meanings, and symbolic values that may be at odds with the ideology political leaders seek to espouse.

Consider this:

• Yuanmingyuan was burned in a wanton display of power by the Anglo-French expedition of 1860, but most of the palace was torn down over time as the stones and brick were carted away by local farmers seeking a ready supply of cheap building materials.

• The main ruins, those of the “Western Style Palaces” and the ones well known around China as the symbol of the West’s ‘vicious attack’ on China and Chinese culture, were designed by two Jesuit priests as a pleasure garden for the Manchu rulers who had conquered Ming China and made it the centerpiece of their expanding Eurasian empire.

• These two Jesuit priests respected the Qing emperors and appreciated Chinese civilization enough that they spent most of their lives in the service of the court even as the Vatican and other Catholic orders were strongly critical of the cozy nature of this arrangement.

• The European and American forces invaded Beijing to conclude a war declared on the most bogus pretext of any 19th century military adventure — and that includes The Maine in Havana harbor.

• As with other armed conflicts between the Qing and the North Atlantic powers in the 19th century, the inability of key members of court to realize that no matter how detestable the enemy, continuing to engage militarily only compounded the damages of defeat.

• The British and French troops (and Americans, and Russians, and quite a few local Chinese farmers) carted away tons of precious artifacts and a few family pets from the Yuanmingyuan in accordance with internationally accepted ‘law’ regarding the spoils of war before torching the place.  If there was conflict between local Chinese and the foreign invaders it was mostly over who could grab the most loot.

• The French originally wanted to burn the Forbidden City, but the British, fearing that in the midst of the Taiping Rebellion such an act would finish the dynasty and not wanting to face either a) a Taiping-ruled empire or b) a ‘break it, you buy it’ situation which would mean administering yet ANOTHER continent-sized Asian colony only three years removed from the Sepoy Mutiny, decided to focus their wrath on what the emperor loved most — his pleasure gardens in the northwest part of Beijing.

At the end of the day, the decision to wage war against the Qing Empire following the Arrow Incident of 1856 was one of the most savage and blatant examples of the North Atlantic imperialist powers attempting to force concessions from the Qing Empire.  Even as English writers trumpeted the need to bring China into the ‘comity of nations’ based on the rules of equality and national sovereignty, the imperialist powers sought to use military force to compel the Qing court to sign treaties which further eroded Qing sovereignty.

This past June I did a little series on this blog about History, Violence and Memory.  Writing about the Boxer Uprising and the subsequent foreign invasion of 1900, I argued that including nuance and complexity in the the story of Yuanmingyuan doesn’t change one bit the larger theme of the destructive affects of imperialism in China, unless of course your goal isn’t to teach history but to ‘teach patriotism.’

Even if you add all of these messy details to the textbook narrative, it doesn’t fundamentally alter the basic premise that the foreign powers were aggressive, arrogant, and willing to use force to get what they wanted no matter how unreasonable the demand with the inevitable result that this considerable amount of resentment and hostility was bound to erupt into violence (as it did many times throughout the 19th century) culminating in the large-scale bloodshed of 1900.

So what if the Boxers lacked “nationalist” consciousness, or if there were killings and atrocities on both sides, or that most of the provincial officials thought that the Qing decision to “declare war” was so daft they completely ignored several imperial decrees and put their offices (if not possibly more) in peril?

I’ve read that kids who are too protected from germs, who grow up in homes scrubbed and re-scrubbed in antiseptics and disinfectants, are actually more likely to get sick and develop allergies than the kids who play outside in the dirt every day.  Apparently it has something to do with exposure to all kinds of things, messy things, and so developing the bodies ability to handle the presence of mess.

History used to teach patriotism isn’t history, it’s propaganda pure and simple.  Why bother when the story is so powerful on its own as to defy the crude attempts to paint it purely in black and white?  When told with all the colors in the historian’s palette, there is enough to justify outrage and even more to stimulate some actual critical thinking about the past and its relationship to our lives in the present.

Perhaps no Chinese historical figure causes more eye-rolling among historians than the super-naval-bad-ass-7-foot-tall-could-have-discovered-America-but-didn’t-even-if-I’m-a-eunuch-Columbus-still-couldn’t-carry-my-jock admiral Zheng He.*  He’s someone that students often ask about, and I’ve written a few posts over the years on the different Zheng He controversies which bubble to the surface of the popular press from time to time.

Like a lot of other historical figures, Zheng He’s story and image are often appropriated as stand-ins for the controversy du jour, whether it’s China in Africa, or China’s rise as a regional naval power capable of projecting force into the waters of Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean…coincidentally, Zheng He’s old sailing ground.  This past week, a team of Chinese archaeologists have been searching off the coast of Kenya for a shipwreck that some believe was a part of Zheng He’s Ming-era armada.

But what was Zheng He’s mission?

In China, Zheng He is usually depicted as an explorer and diplomat, as in this  People’s Daily editorial from 2005 marking the 600th anniversary of Zheng He’s departure:

Zheng He led the ancient world history and the friendly exchanges among different nations, setting a shining example of the history of the exchanges of ]]>

Map of Zheng He's voyages

Perhaps no Chinese historical figure causes more eye-rolling among historians than the super-naval-bad-ass-7-foot-tall-could-have-discovered-America-but-didn’t-even-if-I’m-a-eunuch-Columbus-still-couldn’t-carry-my-jock admiral Zheng He.*  He’s someone that students often ask about, and I’ve written a few posts over the years on the different Zheng He controversies which bubble to the surface of the popular press from time to time.

Like a lot of other historical figures, Zheng He’s story and image are often appropriated as stand-ins for the controversy du jour, whether it’s China in Africa, or China’s rise as a regional naval power capable of projecting force into the waters of Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean…coincidentally, Zheng He’s old sailing ground.  This past week, a team of Chinese archaeologists have been searching off the coast of Kenya for a shipwreck that some believe was a part of Zheng He’s Ming-era armada.

But what was Zheng He’s mission?

In China, Zheng He is usually depicted as an explorer and diplomat, as in this  People’s Daily editorial from 2005 marking the 600th anniversary of Zheng He’s departure:

Zheng He led the ancient world history and the friendly exchanges among different nations, setting a shining example of the history of the exchanges of human civilization.

More recently, Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo told a meeting of ASEAN leaders that Zheng He was a symbol of China’s openness and benevolent intentions, even as China expands its economic and military reach overseas.

“I want to assure you that China is not to be feared.

“The voyages of Zheng He, he said, had brought “porcelain, silk and tea rather than bloodshed, plundering or colonialism” – a reference to violent coercive measures used by Western colonisers.

“To this day, Zheng He is still remembered as an envoy of friendship and peace,” Mr Dai said.

In the same article, however, Geoff Wade, an Australian historian and one of the leading experts on Zheng He and his voyages, offered a different interpretation of Zheng He’s expeditions.

Prof Geoff Wade, a historian who has translated Ming documents relating to Zheng’s voyages, disputes the portrayal of a benign adventurer.

He says the historical records show the treasure fleets carried sophisticated weaponry and participated in at least three major military actions; in Java, Sumatra and Sri Lanka.

“Because there is virtually no critical analysis of these texts even now – history writing is still in the hands of the state – it’s very difficult for Chinese people to conceive of the state as being dangerous, expansionist, or offensive in any way to its neighbours.

“Chinese nationalism is fed on ignorance of its past relations. The way Zheng He is being represented is part of this.”

To say that Zheng He was an “envoy of friendship and peace” is a bit disingenuous.  To paraphrase a bit from one of my all-time favorite movies, Snatch: You don’t send an armada that large and that well armed unless you’re trying to say something.  The Ming court was trying to prove a very specific point.

On the other hand, these expeditions were of a very different nature than the armed traders/raiders who set sail from Western European ports a few decades later.  Zheng He had no interest in colonizing Africa or Southeast Asia, just as long as the people he met could agree that the Ming emperor was the baddest Mofo in the world, he was happy.  And the tribute they gave was a nice touch too…

I suspect though, given the ongoing brouhaha of China’s rise and its regional intentions, this isn’t the last time that old Zheng He’s legacy will be hotly contested.

UPDATE

I hope everybody gets a chance to check out the links which Geoff Wade has left in the comments section of this post.

The first is an index of Zheng He references in the Ming shilu, translated by Professor Wade.

The second is a paper by Professor Wade entitled “The Zheng He Voyages: A Reassessment.”

———–

*I have no idea where the whole seven feet tall thing started.  Of the many stories I’ve read about Zheng He, the fact that he could have played power forward for the Celtics is not one of them.

Archaeologists believe that the Sanxingcun site was once a large ancient settlement in the Chengdu Plain in China’s ancient Shang and Zhou dynasties. There have always been settlers on this land over the past 4,000-plus years.

Apparently the idea of contemporaneous but independent civilizations existing in the space that is now the PRC is a little too wacky and wild for the journalists at the People’s Daily.  Repeat after me reporters from The People’s Daily and dentists from Texas: History is messy and full of contradictions, it doesn’t need to be a set of neat compartmentalized facts bundled and packaged to justify the present.

No, really…it’s not.

I suspect what may be going on here is akin to an ongoing battle in Shaanxi over the tomb of Qin Shihuang, the first Qin Emperor.  Some government officials, anxious to develop the regional economy, are eager to exploit famous archaeological sites for tourism hoping to add some cash to the local coffers.  Archaeologists, historians, and the like are reluctant to rush excavations for fear of causing irreparable harm to the contents of the tombs.

This sounds like a bit of preemptive strike on the part of Henan Cultural Preservation officials to their more profit-driven brethren to back off and let the researchers work.