Sunday, March 27, 2011

A Silk Road Tale: From Ancient Constantinople to China

Nestorian Stele in Xi'an - 781 A.D
At the height of its allure, the famous Silk Road had managed to break down many geographical boundaries and linked the people of the West and East by way of commerce. Even though the it was primarily utilized for commerce, the Silk Road also developed into a vessel for the exchange, development, propagation of various ideas and traditions beyond their native borders. Some examples of the aforementioned claim can be found within the propagation of the traditions of the Buddha, Mani, Muhammad, Zoroaster, and Jesus throughout the silk Road. However, to better appreciate the importance of the Silk Road in world history, I will attempt to map out the movement of a specific branch of Christianity, Nestorianism, which spanned the borders the empires of Byzantium, Persia, and China. 
Nestorian Christianity, contemporarily known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, was founded in ancient Byzantium by the See of Constantinople, Nestorius, in the middle of the fifth century as a consequence of a dispute with the Bishop Cyril of Alexandria  over the nature of Christ. In short, the dispute was over the status of the Virgin Mary and the degree of unity of the Godhead and manhood in Jesus Christ. Cyril and the Catholic church asserted that God was indeed in Christ and, as an effect, the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God, Theotokos.[1] In contrast, Nestorius claimed that Jesus Christ could not be both man and God because, in referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, “suffering on the part of the Divine Logos who, as divine, is by nature impassible.”[2] Nestorius also rejected the concept of Theotokos because that would entail that the Virgin Mary was a God- bearer. Consequently, Nestorius and his orthodoxy were branded heretical in the Council of Ephesus A.D. 431 and was forced into exile.[3]
Nestorius
The tradition then moved toward Persia. Fortunately for Nestorius and his followers, King Firuz of Persia, whom was at war with the Roman Byzantium empire, was convinced by the Bishop of Nisibis, Bar-Suma, that Nestorian Christianity was hostile to the Roman Empire and to provide them with protection.[4] As a result, Persia became the first state to recognize Nestorian Christianity, which enabled it to establish a Persian church and to spread to the east ward.[5]
Saint Jacob Church in Nisbis, Persia
After establishing itself in Persia, Nestorian Christianity starts to move again. Two centuries after being branded heretical and forced from the borders Byzantium, Nestorian Christianity spread from Persia to Chang’an by way of the Silk Road in 635 A.D and established a Christian metropolitan. The exact mode of transmission, however, is somewhat unclear, but if the limited extant sources are to be trusted it seems that the propagation of Nestorianism to China was aided by the works of both missionaries and influential Silk Road traders from Mesopotamia and Transoxiana. The most important of these two agents worthy of highlighting are a Persian priest, Alopen, and the Soghdians, an ancient Iranian people heavily invested in the Silk trade.  Alopen is credited with the formal delivery of Nestorian scriptures to China, while the Soghdians and their language are credited with being the vassal for the spread of the faith throughout the Silk Road and into Central Asia. It is recorded that by 635 A.D Alopen had traveled to China by foot where his scripture and faith were examined and officially recognized by the Tang Emperor, T’ai-tsung, who granted him permission to establish a state-sanctioned Church, and ordered the translation of his scriptures into Chinese.[6]  While the Soghdian and their language are claimed to have been the primary spoken language in which Nestorian Christianity was disseminated in Asia; the liturgical language of Nestorian Christianity remained Syrian.[7]
Sogdian in Sassanid style dresses donors to the Buddha - China, 8th century
Nestorian Christianity was primarily propagated within the borders of ancient Persia, Byzantium, and Central Asia, but it was within the borders of Central Asia, particularly medieval China, that it bared witness to unprecedented cultural challenges and developments. Nestorianism existed in Central Asia for centuries, albeit for a brief intermittence, between the seventh and fourteenth century under the primary patronage of the Tang dynasty and Mongolians. However, it appears that it was under the patronage of the Tang Dynasty Nestorian Christianity experienced its greatest change and cultural achievements in Central Asia.  
Tang Emperor, Tai Tsung


        The extant scholarly works and primary sources reveal that from the beginning Nestorian Christianity failed to take the appropriate steps it needed to survive. The missionary workers failed to maintain the unique formulating characteristics of the faith as a religion that was far removed from the indigenous Chinese religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, but instead they were highly influenced by them. The Nestorians established numerous monasteries, produced distinct Chinese Christian and treatises, and translated their canons into Chinese, but they were shrouded with Buddhist and Taoist themes and practices. For example: Alopen, the first formally recognized missionary to China, after establishing a diocese, was given a Chinese title, “Great Spiritual Lord, Protector of the Empire,”[8] a title far removed from bishop of or see of; Monasteries, instead of churches, were erected in every province on a large scale.[9]
Nestorian priests in a procession on Palm Sunday, in a 7th- or 8th-century wall painting from a Nestorian church in China
Doctrinally, Nestorians inadvertently aided the erosion of their distinctness by accommodating  the Chinese culture in their theology.[10]  Nestorians, challenged with the transliteration of their theology into Chinese, changed their symbols and borrowed from Buddhism and Manichaeism to propagate their fate; the cross was changed into a tree, mu;[11] excluded the image of the crucifixion[12] and changed Jesus into a bodhisattva;[13] Jesus was translated into Yishu; literal translation: Moving Rat.[14] Ultimately, their texts ended up being a mixture of Buddhist and Christian. The most prominent Nestorian Chinese text, “Sutra of Jesus-Messiah,” failed to  properly explain a fundamental Christian concept, the soul; in its place they used the Buddhist concept Wind to refer to the soul;[15] in explaining the concept of original sin and the first man, they borrowed Chinese concepts of “original ancestor” and “sin of disobedience.”[16] Nestorian Christians took the step of specifically referring to the Buddha directly, “Human beings, therefore, in extremity, will always do honor to the Buddha,”[17]a figure foreign to Christian literature in the West.  To further exemplify the obstacles they faced in elucidation their faith to the Chinese, Nestorians used the Buddhist concept of cosmology, Si se, wind, earth, fire and water to explain the Christian concept of creation, rather than the Adam and Eve.[18] In essence, they were creating a synthesis between Christianity and Buddhism, but rarely introduced anything distinctly new to stand against Buddhist concepts.

The legitimacy of the Chinese Church was wholly dependent upon the ruling powers and their state sanctioned support, which had begun in the seventh century. In the ninth century state support for Nestorian Christianity and most other religions ceased when Emperor Wu Tsung issued a decree for all monks to return to civil life; the decree explicitly ceased supporting and banned all religious activities.[19] Although it failed to establish itself as a distinct religion and to influence other traditions, Nestorian Christianity did manage to expand its canons and find its place in the Han Chinese society. The Nestorian Stele in ancient Chang’an, modern day Xi’an, which outlines the history of Nestorian Christianity in China, mentions they recognized five more books than the twenty two New Testament books of the Syrian church.[20] Additionally, the Nestorian Clergy had integrated itself into the Chinese society by providing many essential services, such as the purification and preparation, and burial of the dead, and caring for the sick.[21] However, their attempts to integrate into Chinese society did not safeguard their decline; the decree of Emperor Wu Tsung led to the disappearance of Christianity in China until the thirteenth century.[22] The decree led to the destruction of both Buddhist and Christian monasteries; records show that 4,600 monasteries were destroyed;[23] materials from the demolished monasteries were to be used for repairing yamens, the offices of bureaucrats, and post stages; Bronze images, mirrors, and clappers were melted down for coinage.[24]
Hongwu, Founder of the Ming Dynasty (1369-1398 A.D.).
 Four centuries later Nestorian Christianity would again rise in China, but this time with the aid of an unlikely vessel, the Mongolian Empire. The Christianization of the Central Asian tribes, who would later form the Mongolian Empire, had begun as early as the sixth century.[25] As a result, the Mongolian Emperors had becoming generally moderate toward the Nestorian Christians during their campaigns, which was compounded by the fact they were enemies of their enemies, the Islamic Caliphate. The favor of the Mongolians toward the Nestorians was realized by 1289 when Emperor Kublai Khan established a ministry of special church affairs and enabled them to create a Christian metropolitan in Ancient Cambaluc, modern day Beijing.[26] Furthermore, the Mongolian Empire greatly utilized Nestorian Christians as administrators and scribes to manage their conquered territories.[27]
Kubali Khan
 The fortunes of the Nestorian Christians in China were once again to come to an end, but permanently this time. The Church would exist in China until the rise of the Chinese Ming Dynasty, who expelled the Mongolian rulers from their country in the mid-fourteenth century. The Ming Dynasty bared witness to the destruction of the Christian community; they destroyed their churches, expelled them from all government offices, and persecuted them in all their territories.[28] The persecution of Nestorian Christians was extended to the Mongolian Empire as well with the conversion of Tamerlane, the leader of the Mongolians, to Islam; he savagely persecuted Christians in his domains under the pretense of Holy War.[29] Thus with the ascension of the Ming Dynasty and Tamerlane, the adventures of the Nestorian Christians would come to an end. 
Tamerlane
 In conclusion, compared to most other religions of the world, Nestorian Christianity would travel the farthest and fully utilize the Silk Road experience. It began in ancient Byzantium, traveled to ancient Persia, entered the Silk Road and was propagated throughout Central Asia, and finally ending up in China. It had an illustrious Silk Road experience, but its faith was intertwined with that of the Silk Road. The ascension of Tamerlane to the Khanate bore witness to an end to the Pax Mongolica, which had yielded 7,000 miles of peaceful interchange of commerce and ushered a Muslim rule and an iron curtain between the East and the West.[30] This also ended the propagate of Christianity in Central Asia for centuries. Throughout its illustrious career in Asia, Nestorianism had intermingled with Buddhism, and attained the patronage of both Mongolians and Chinese Dynasties, but also made numerous vehement enemies.  It was an experience that no one would have imagined had it remained in Byzantium.



[1] G. R. Driver, Leonard Hodgson. “Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides.”  (London: Oxford University Press, 1925) http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_bazaar_0_intro.htm
[2] Ibid., 1925
[3] Ibid., 1925

[4] De Lacy O'Leary. “The Syriac Church and Fathers.” (Georgia Press, 2002) 100-102.

[5] Ibid., 2002. 100-102
[6] John M. L. Young. “By foot to China: The mission of the Church of the East, to 1400.” (Assyrian International News Agency, 1984). 14-15
[7] Mark Dickens. “The Church of the East.” (1999). 11-12. http://www.oxuscom.com/Church_of_the_East.pdf
[8] David D. Bundy. “Missiological Reflections on Nestorian Christianity in China During the Tang Dynasty” in Religion in the Pacific Era, ed. Frank K. Flinn and Tyler Hendricks. (Paragon House Publishers), 16.
[9]Ibid., 17.
[10] Ibid., 22.
[11] Ibid., 22.
[12] Ibid., 22.
[13] Seung Chul Kim. “Jesus the Bodhisattva: Jesus as Predicate,” vol. 16 of Buddhist-Christian studies. (University of Hawai’i Press, 1996), 193.
[14] Jigy Ji. “Encounters between Chinese Culture and Christianity: A Hermeneutical Perspective.” (Lit Verlag, 2008), 39.
[15] Ibid., 2008, 42.
[16] Ibid., 2008, 43.
[17] Ibid., 2008, 43.
[18] Ibid., 2008, 43.
[19] Ernst Benz. “The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its thought and Life.” (New York: Anchor Books, 1963). 132.
[20] Edgar J. Goodspeed. “The Nestorian Tablet,” Vol. 33, No 4. of The Biblical World. (Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1909) 279.
[21] Alexander Wylie. “On the Nestorian Tablet of Se-gan Foo,” Vol. 5 of Journal of American oriental Society. (American Oriental Society, 1855-86) 285.
[22] Ernst Benz. “The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its thought and Life.” (New York: Anchor Books, 1963), 132.
[23] Mark Dickens. “Nestorian Christianity in Central Asia.” (2001) http://www.oxuscom.com/Nestorian_Christianity_in_CA.pdf
[24] Ibid, 2001.
[25] Ibid, 2001.
[26] Ernst Benz. “The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its thought and Life.” (New York: Anchor Books, 1963), 136.
[27] Mark Dickens. “Nestorian Christianity in Central Asia.” (2001), 23. http://www.oxuscom.com/Nestorian_Christianity_in_CA.pdf
[28] Ibid., 2001, 23.
[29] Ibid., 2001, 23.
[30] Ibid., 2001, 23.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

The ethics of collecting and preserving cultural property


I honestly had a very hard time beginning what is to be my last official blog post for my Religions of the Silk Road course. The difficulty, in short, arose out of the greater scope of the content I had to analyze for this week’s post which greatly challenged and made me reevaluate preceding content I had to analyze up to this point. The course in question, even though it is titled Religion’s of the Silk Road,  is greatly concerned with the ever complicated idea of culture and ethnicity and exactly how religions and our ideas of religion fits into them. The articles by Ellis Cashmore, Christian Manhart, and Francesco Francioni and Federico Lenzerini, really rocked my outlook on the very concept of culture, especially culture on the world stage.

            However, before I get to exactly how they rocked my outlook on the very concept of culture, I will summarize and comment on the articles in hand. Ellis Cashmore’s article in the Encylcopedia of race and ethnic studies in regards to UNESCO and UNITED NATIONS simply provides historical background on each of the aforementioned institutions, and their purpose and mission. Briefly, UNESCO and UN were created as a result of the devastating effects of WW2 and the realizations that arose out of it; “to study and collect scientific materials concerning questions of race” in promoting the oneness of humanity and inherent rights and freedoms of those targeted by racism, gender, language, and religion. Since their inception, UNESCO AND UN, albeit for the idea of equality between all, have not been static and ever evolving in their idea of providing support and the promotion of rights of those, such as indigenous people, that fall within their jurisdiction.

            Christian Manhart’s, “UNESCO’s rehibilitation of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage: mendate and recent activities,” and Francesco Francioni and Federico Lenzerini’s, Afghan cultural heritage and international law: the case of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, respective articles are an examination of UNESCO’s mission in Afghanistan and current accomplishments in respect to their mission statement and the definition of the actions of Taliban in the court of international law.

The former article reveals that there is a massive undertaking by UNESCO in preserving and rebuilding all areas that they deem to be cultural heritages in Afghanistan post-2001. With funding and support trickling in from all corners of our planet; USA, Japan, Sweden, Greece, France, etc. In short there is a great international interest in the preservation of many cultural heritage sites in Afghanistan.

The latter article tries to answer a very complicated question; are the actions of the Taliban in destroying the two Buddha’s of the Bamiyan valley, in addition to various other areas that bore witness to their iconoclasm, violations of international law? The author’s in the end answer the question for themselves, that the destruction of the Bamiyan buddha’s were indeed violations of international law even though they were located within the geographical jurisdiction of the Taliban. They were a violation because their destruction contributed to something which has “plagued humanity,” the Buddha statues were of great importance, not just for the country that they were located in but, for humanity as a whole, and a “crime against culture.”

            Now this brings me to the ideas which complicated the writing of this blog post. After examining each article and reflecting on each preceding article that I had to examine in this course, I came to a conclusion that an article is best examined when measured against questions that it fails to pose, question that any apt reader should pick up on before being influenced by the agenda or bias of the writer. In my position there is only one, two part, question that I have to pose is in respect to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha’s, the presence of UNESCO in Afghanistan; why is no one challenging UNESCO’s idea of culture? What deems it correct and prominent? I couldn’t really answer the aforementioned questions but in my attempt to answer them, I was posed with further enlightening dynamics. Firstly, there is a problem with the presence of UNESCO in Afghanistan and their mission. It seems that outside influence is prominent in the reconstruction and maintenance of Afghanistan’s heritage sites. Secondly, the afghans were less concerned with the maintenance of their past, regardless of its plurality, than just surviving. In fact the Taliban destroyed  the Buddha images as a consequence of the actions of the international body. This brings me to another question that was just triggered. Why are the international body not being held accountable for their implicitly in the actions of the Taliban? They are as responsible for the destruction of the Buddha’s as the Taliban are; if it were not for the demands and requirements of the sanctions posed by the international body, the Taliban might not have ever committed to iconoclasm. Ironically, those who triggered the aforementioned events are now the ones dictating to the afghans what is important to the heritage pool of the human race and what isn’t; America, Japan, Sweden, and every other nation who agreed to the sanctions imposed on Afghanistan.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Islam and the Other Islam

            The readings prescribed for this upcoming week, “the clash of ignorance” by Edward Said, “Shaping an Islamic Identity” by T. Jeremy Gunn, and “Feminism, the Taliban, and Politics of Counter-insurgency” by Charles Hirschkind and Saba Mahmood, are a critical analysis of the past, presence, and the future of what Said criticizes as the clash of ignorance between the West and Islam. 

            Edward Said’s article is a criticism of Samuel Huntington's article, "The Clash of Civilizations?", written in 1993 to make sure that “the West gets stronger and fends off all the others, which has been used by many to formulate post 9/11 foreign policy against what is deemed to be militant and primitive Islam and the Middle East.” Said’s criticism on the developments to have arisen from 9/11 have come to encompass  and include a world, Islam and the Middle East, largely misunderstood or mislabeled by the West. In addition to criticisn the West, Said extends his criticism to the Islamic right by reflecting on the commentary of Eqbal Ahmad who criticizes what we deem to be “Islamic terrorists” who are essentially a few “fanatical tyrants” obsessed with “regulating the lives” of the many. Those tyrants, according to Ahman, are attempting to reduce Islam to a “a penal code, stripped of its humanism, aesthetics, intellectual quests, and spiritual devotion.” To an extent, as Said demonstrates, they are succeeding with the inadvertent aid of the West who are bundling the beliefs and views of two billion Muslims with the beliefs of a handful of a few extremists. How? The West, by assuming that Islam and all Muslims as a whole are counter-progress, primitive, and an their natural enemies in the field of human rights and secularist ideals, are putting the ideals, beliefs, and the dynamics of a few in the forefront, and in doing so dividing the world up into different forces. But most importantly the West’s decision to focus on the actions and beliefs of a vocal few, they are essentially empowering the few and disenfranchising the majority. When in reality, this is far from the truth. But this is to be expected as Orientalist thought has forever lumped reality of the Near East and Islam under the Imagination, perceptions, and voices of a vocal few. I remember watching a Youtube video of a Reuter journalist in Afghanistan who reported that most Afghans had never even heard of 9/11, yet their people are being sucked into a war that should have never included them.
        
    The ideas proposed by Edward Said are brought into focus by T. Jeremy Gunn’s essay, “Shaping an Islamic Identity,” who rightly demonstrates that the tyrants vocal few who appear to represent “Islam” are far removed from the reality and truth hidden from the West. In it Gunn demonstrates that there are two types of Islam in reality, the Islam as understood by the West and Islam in practice in Central Asia. In the latter, Islam has come to be part of the lives of people that transcend cultural boundaries and to include almost every ethnic group imaginable, “settled  and  overrun  by  wave  after  wave of armies,  nomads, missionaries,  and merchants,  including  the pre-Islamic Sogdians,  the Kok Turks,  Arabs, Persians,  Karakhanids,  Uzbeks, Mongol Chinese,  Tatars,  Russians, and  other.” And in addition to being compromised of various ethnic groups, it is also heavily representative of a type of Islam that is rarely discussed in the West, Hanafi Islam, a type of Islam that is “characterused as  traditional,  open  to mysticism,  and  philosophical  in nature.  In practice,  it has  been  conventionally deferential  to political  authorities,  and has shown little sympathy  for radical Islamist  movements.” This is a type of Islam that is representative of every muslim that I have ever met; they are not radicals and rarely, if ever, fit the description of Islam that I am told to believe through news mediums. 

Why is it that we never speak of the humanistic side of Islam? Why are we never exposed to the “humanism, aesthetics, intellectual quests, and spiritual devotion of Islam?” Why are we so scared of the Burqa? Why are we so scared of bearded religious men? We are scared and made foreign to a people that are no different than the Aboriginal dancer, drummer, and singer, or Christian choir group, Sunday mass because we are made to fear that which we do not understand. And we are made to not understand because it is a threat to the superiority claims of the West and the idea that the “other” are far removed from our cultures, and like the views of some early Canadian policy makers toward the “Indians”, we are to view Islam and Muslims as heirs to a dying culture.

I am pretty sure I am rambling now.

Gahh