The title says it all. The works of Ibn-Khaldun and al-Kashgari amount to a good amount of information about the relatively cyclical series of events that occurred in Central Asia and the Middle East during the Medieval Era in pertinance to Turkic dynasties. Enjoy my take on al-Kashgari's famous 'Divan Lugat at-Turk' and Ibn-Khaldun's even more-renown 'Al-Muqadimmah'.
---
The work of Mahmud al-Kashgari in the ‘Divan Lugat at-Turk’ – the Compendium of Turkic Dialects – is a fascinating display of Medieval Islamic linguistics as conducted by a native speaker of Turkic languages as well as an important example of a commissioned Abbasid court document constructed in order to better understand the Caliphate’s powerful new neighbors. Al-Kashgari’s writing also shows what the ‘favor of Allah’ was to medieval Muslims as well as the utter importance of the concept. When studied in combination with Ibn-Khaldun’s seminal ‘Al-Muqaddimah’ – The Introduction – a certain sort of appreciation (well past fear) for the Turkic people and nomadic riders of the East can be seen in their educated, cosmopolitan contemporaries. ‘Al-Muqadimmah’ and ‘Divan Lugat at-Turk’ work well hand-in-hand due to their mutual respect of the Turkic nomads: through Allah’s favor and their possession the ‘asabiyyah’ (social solidarity, group spirit), they are a supremely powerful force.
Al-Kashgari’s reasons for writing the ‘adab’ (or instructional) document ‘Divan Lugat at-Turk’ lie mostly on the shoulders of the inquisitive and opportunistic Abbasid courts. Al-Kashgari speaks repeatedly on the importance of dealing with the Turks in accordance to their own customs and languages in order to avoid their ire and possibly gain their favor and protection, as they were a people like none other. The author states repeatedly the many honors bestowed upon the Turks – the favor of Allah, for instance, is pronounced in a way that is not mildly epic.
“The slave Mahmud ibn al-Husayn ibn Muhammad says: I saw that Allah the Most High made the sun of power to rise in the constellation of the Turks and let the orbiting of the stars be directed by means of their authority. He called them Turks and entrusted to them dominion…”
The Turks were mighty in battle and in leadership as a result of Allah’s favor – a concept that the Abbasids must have realized in their encounters with them. According to Al-Kashgari, descendants of Turkic peoples would be emboldened with religious power and would be destined to lord over the world. The blows struck against them by any foe would be turned aside due to their invincibility through Allah and any who hoped to survive and thrive under their rule would submit as quickly as possible or be pierced through by the projectiles of nomadic bowmen. Al-Kashgari goes on to state that in is dealings, he discussed the importance of subservience to the Turks with several Islamic clergymen; the concluding discussion of the subject was that learning the languages of the Turks seemed almost to be a required duty of the Muslims because their favored position and even if the Turks have not received a holy decree, it could be decided logically that learning their tongues would still be extremely beneficial.
In summation, the purpose of al-Kashgari’s work on the Divan Lugat at-Turk is one of necessity on the part of the Abbasids. As professed in the Divan, the Turks are becoming a major power in the Middle East and Central Asia at the time of the writing. At this time, the Abbasid Caliphate’s authority was waning; not to be undone through the abandonment of their rule by new Persian and Syrian dynasties, the Abbasids were most likely hoping to bring the Turks into their fold in order to regain not only territory but also prestige. For a well-situated native speaker of Turkic languages like al-Kashgari to compose a book of dialects and tongues would be a major boon for the Caliphate: the chance to ally with the nomadic Turks may prove to the Islamic world that the Abbasids not only retained their authority but would reassert it upon their rebellious former vassal. Al-Kashgari’s emphasis on religion only pushed this further: a new force rising from the East and having Allah’s divine invincibility meant very much to the Caliphate, who throughout history had been Islam’s closest earthly link to Allah’s authority. If the two forces came to blows, the Abbasids would all but surrender their divine authority by attacking their rivals instead of proving their position. Thus, the Caliphate took the logical route: ally with those who shared a common role of religious importance and reap the benefits.
In comparison to al-Kashgari’s linguistic and commentarial work in Divan Lugat at-Turk, Ibn-Khaldun’s Al-Muqaddimah is more of a sociological piece that investigates the success and collapse of dynasties and empires throughout time with a central focus on ‘asabiyyah’ – a group feeling or solidarity among Muslims. Ibn-Khaldun’s opinion on the subject of the all-important asabiyyah, which allows for a group to spread, conquer and flourish, is that the folk of the cities forgets what unites them after years of easy living, disunity and little faith. Ibn-Khaldun states plainly that those who live within the confounds of dynastical power cannot comprehend asabiyyah because they have not put it to use or lived under it since their lives have lacked the difficulty dealt with by nomads or less-sedentary people.
“The situation is not at all understood by the great mass. They forget it, because they have forgotten the time when the[ir] dynasty first became established… Thus, they know nothing about what took place with God’s help at the beginning of the dynasty. They merely notice...that group feeling is no longer needed to establish power.”
To Ibn-Khaldun, ‘asabiyyah’ is the very foundation for power in the Muslim world – without it, the disconnected, faithless masses cannot hope to succeed. ‘Asabiyyah’ is essential to nomadic life because it stresses a tribal unity that allows the individual to simply survive under the protection of their family. The people of the city lack this sort of familial unity because they are protected by the ruling dynasty and no longer need to relate to one another like the nomads. Religion too, is important under asabiyyah, because it acts as a uniting factor that brings followers together for very basic reasons: worship and support. Settled people begin to factionalize in terms of power and have no use for unity or respect for faith as they fight amongst themselves, or in the name of their political leaders ; a very poignant example of this would be the split of the Muslim world between Sunni and Shiite as a result of a succession crisis over the position of Caliph. Without ‘asabiyyah’, sedentary folk find themselves enraptured with earthly luxuries and political intrigue; the Turks as nomads, however, live only for the survival and supremacy of their people– they are united in this aspect . Among the nomadic Turks there is little corruption caused by luxury as their austere lifestyles disallow much opportunity for it; the nomads do not lose their toughness or focus over time as city folk do.
Faith and religious favor are aspects heavily investigated by Ibn-Khaldun – his conclusion is heavy in its support for nomads and their use of ‘asabiyyah’. Without group feeling, Ib-Khaldun states, a group cannot achieve societal superiority: the use of religion as a central tenant of ‘asabiyyah’ is an extremely important aspect of this superiority . Ibn-Khaldun also professes that the positions of rulers and dynasties can be usurped and destroyed by family groups that possess a strong enough backing, be it religious or otherwise . This is most certainly the case in the Muslim world, as the very founding of its faith occurred and was allowed to thrive as a result of social unity among early Muslims under Muhammad himself.
A group hoping for change or supremacy must back up their strong, truthful message with both cohesive, honest meaning and capable offensive and defensive ability. The Turks, as spoken of by al-Kashgari, are a militarily strong and mobile group who are united not only by a similar nomadic culture but also in their religion – an honest, uncorrupted form of Islam that is free of political influence. Without strength and capable unity, a group hoping to bring about change would undoubtedly fail, and rightfully so – their message would be found lacking. Ibn-Khaldun provides the examples of the Sufi at-Tuwayziri and the Ghumarahan al’-Abbas, both of whom attempted to prompt revolt against those in power and failed due to dishonesty and a lack of strength .
The nomadic peoples of Central Asia and the Middle East are described by al-Kashgari and Ibn-Khaldun as a superior, overpowering force against the tranquil, weakening city dwellers of Mesopotamia and the Levant. Their effective use of religion and culture as a uniting factor – ‘asabiyyah’ – as well as their superior military ability threaten the very existence of cosmopolitan dynasties, which have become weak and indulgent due to a lack of difficulty or challenge. Once united, the Turkic nomads had a major effect upon the Middle East – through the various stages of nomadic migration, the Middle East either thrived or waned drastically. In the case of al-Kashgari’s Divan Lugat at-Turk, the Abbasids would honor its political and linguistic importance by allying with the powerful Seljuq Turks – a move that would allow the Abbasids to bolster their forces significantly with powerful mobile regiments as well as regain an amount of authority among former vassals such as the Qarakhanids and Ghaznavids of Central Asia. In an interesting twist of fate, the Abbasid Caliphate would eventually fall under the political control of Turkic peoples and come to be ruled by them; soon afterward, another Turkic group – the Mongol Hordes – would demolish the Caliphate’s center at Baghdad with little hope for resistance. This cycle of invasion by toughened nomads upon complacent settled conquerors would continue in the area and across the world for a fairly long amount of time – truly a testament to the efforts of al-Kashgari and Ibn-Khaldun as well as the messages promoted in their works.
---
The end. I hope you didn't find it too dry - really, I hope you found it.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Summer Is Done; With It, My Inability To Post
Expect a flood of new posts in the next few days, now that I am able to actually have things to put up. Thank goodness for school - I would atrophy without it.
Here's some article comparisons for Russian history. I was on a kick for the Khazars, a Jewish(!)-led Medieval nomadic group based just to the northeast of the Black Sea. I strayed from that and showed my love for colonialism and adventure, etc etc etc in the second article but it all turned out well. My professor's comments on the work included his admiration for my position as an 'archival junkie'.
The articles are George V. Lantzeff's "Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion" (The American Slavic and East Europe Review, Vol. 6, pp1-10) and Richard Foltz's "Judaism and the Silk Route" (The History Teacher, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp9-16). Enjoy.
---
Lantzeff’s work focuses on the colonial policies of competing Russian principalities from the tenth century to the fourteenth century. The wealthy Novgorodian Republic and the Principality of Rostov-Suzdal – an entity that would become the Grand Duchy of Muscovy – were two major participants in the conflict. Initially a discussion of the Novgorodian tribute collected from tribal groups up to and including the Ural Mountains, Lantzeff expounds upon the rough competition between the Republic and Rostov-Suzdal on a martial and political level. Rostov-Suzdal’s founding of Nizhny Novgorod, a major part of Rus’ colonialism, spelled the end of that era as the Tatars invaded.
Lantzeff does a fine job of explaining the fairly unexplored area of Rus’ colonialism in his “Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion”. It is a surprise on an academic level that such little emphasis is put on early Russian colonialism, considering the founding of Novgorod as an essentially Varangian possession as well as Russia’s future as an empire known for its frontier expansionism. Considering the generally unaddressed nature of the issue, Lantzeff’s work is a suitable introduction to pre-Mongol Russian expansion to the east: it shows the amateur Russian historian that even outside of the traditional territory of rival principalities, the struggles between the territories of European Russia were long-reaching.
The reasons for and background surrounding Rus’ colonialism provided by Lantzeff are clear enough to the casual reader. The Novgorodians sought new resources to continue the building of their mercantile empire, and Rostov-Suzdal finally acted on the greedy eye it had cast on the colonial possessions of the rival trade republic. Lantzeff mentions repeatedly, and rightfully so, the originality and importance of the Novgorodians’ frontiersmen-esque methods in establishing colonies and charging tribute from the indigenous people and settlers: it would be a technique put to use by not only the Russians in time to come but by almost all other colonial powers as an introductory method of gaining regional control. Lantzeff’s use of Russian chronicles in describing the lands being colonized by the Rus’ inspires thoughts of a semi-mythical far-off land. Admittedly, the distance to be crossed between say, Novgorod and the Ural Mountains, is fairly impressive; the descriptions given by Lantzeff only enhance this quality. His use of statistics and official records, too, add to the scope of the conflict: the participation of almost a hundred princes in an alliance aiming to grab up Novgorod’s riches, the large amounts of captives as a result of martial actions between Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal as well as the surprisingly consistent dates between attacks put the situation into perspective.
The lack of much detail outside of statistics and basic reasoning in Lantzeff’s work did prevent the article from shining in a particular fashion. The author could have gone much more in-depth with his work and seemed to toe the line between basic historical information and further description that would have helped his work significantly. True, Lantzeff covered the necessary facts of the situation: he addressed the “who and where” as well as whatever else background was needed for his work but did not go into detail. An example of this would be his addressing of the actual battles between the Novgorodians and the Rostov-Suzdalians, as well as the Rostov-Suzdalians and the Volga Bulgars: there was no discussion of battle tactics or superior arms, nor was there a record of the obvious value of raiding gained by the future Muscovites (although Lantzeff does mention the garnering of the spoils). The author seems to ignore the grand amount of comparisons that could be made between the Rostov-Suzdalians and their later Muscovite counterparts who instituted a fairly similar system of colonialism. Lantzeff spoke of Kiev’s preference toward Novgorod as opposed to Rostov-Suzdal as well as the general ire directed at Novgorod from the other princely states but did not discuss any background – namely, that Novgorod regularly paid heed as well as tribute to Kiev due to its powerful position in regional economics and politics (a trend that would end very soon as the Mongols made their way westward) and that the two powers relied on each other for economic and military means. A final overarching fact that Lantzeff seemed to ignore was the political clout of Novgorod throughout the ages. Its economic power, geographic position, relationship with Kiev and general importance as a Rus’ principality allowed Novgorod much leeway in terms of its actions (political or martial) and monetary ventures, which Lantzeff could have addressed as it is a factor of importance in the colonial competition between Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal. After all, Novgorod participated heartily in Mongol politics after the Horde had effectively collapsed the other Russian principalities – a fact that Lantzeff only brushes on at the end of the article.
“Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion” is an interesting and informative article that does a decent job of explaining the very early colonial ventures of the Russian people. While Lantzeff accomplishes the task of providing a suitable background to the conflict between the Rostov-Suzdalians and the Novgorodians, he does not delve deep enough into the situation to sate a reader expecting more than an overview of the events. On the whole, however, the article is most certainly an acceptable piece of work and has no problem gaining the attention of a reader who is new to the information.
Works Cited
Lantzeff, George V. "Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion." The American Slavic and East European Review 6.3 (1947): 1-10.
---
Here is the other - this is the one that pertained (vaguely) to the Khazars, but more to medieval Jews in general.
---
“Judaism and the Silk Route” is an article pertaining to the impact made upon the Silk Route by followers of Judaism throughout history. Richard Foltz examines Judaism’s cohabitation with local beliefs including Iranian ideology, a factor that allowed Judaism to spread along the route and not only give birth to small pockets of Jewish traders along the Eurasian beltline but also influenced indigenous peoples’ beliefs and actions. Foltz also speaks about the adaptive ability of the Jews in the face of Islamization in Central Asia, leaving them to be the only non-Muslim religious minority in the area.
A positive aspect of Richard Foltz’s work on this subject is that it is immersive in its scope. Foltz’s work on “Judaism and the Silk Route” is one of the few examples of academic work that I have seem that is not neck-deep in discussion pertaining to the limitation and oppression of Judaic merchants and operatives on the Eurasian landmass. Rather, to someone who is new to the subject of continent-spanning Jewry, it is a welcome matter: throughout history, followers of Judaism have fostered transcontinental trade on a scale as massive as the almost fantastical Silk Route (or Road). Foltz starts with a historical background of the Levant and the Middle East pertaining to the Jews, specifically their time in Mesopotamia under the heel of the Babylonians and the flowering of Jewish activity under Persian influence. The foundations of several major cities in Iran can be sourced to Jewish ex-slaves and even the ideology of Persia has influenced and been influenced by Judaism: the systems of belief share similar holidays and legends pertaining to the region, a fine example of the influence and prospering of Jews in the region. Foltz’s detailed explanation of the Radanites and their power base in the Mediterranean shows that, despite the seemingly negative reputation given to European Jews, they were still a force to be reckoned with from an economic standpoint.
As Foltz mentions, the various converts to Judaism along the Silk Route are a very interesting (and sometimes peculiar) aspect of the Jews’ widespread nature. The actions of Mediterranean Jews led them to communication with the “Khazars” – a nomadic Turkic group centered on the northeast shore of the Black Sea who hoped to trade slaves with the Jews. Foltz’s use of the Turkish proverb, “There is no Iranian merchant without a Turkish associate, just as there is no cap without a head” strikes home the relationship between the two differently-civilized worlds of sedentary people and nomadic people in terms of a symbiotic relationship. The Khazar elite eventually converted to Judaism in order to gain the further benefit of what they perceived as ‘religious neutrality’ – that is to say, they would be more privileged than their shamanistic steppe kin due to foreign traders’ familiarity with the Jewish people. This is a very interesting factor: a nomadic group, normally suited to raiding and on-the-move living, wished to gain partial immunity against oppressors by converting to a religion that most viewed as a trader’s ideology. As a student of nomadic history, that concept is a very exciting one and is definitely something I will have to investigate in other regions such as Eastern Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The influence of the Jews on indigenous peoples (and vice versa) as well as the founding of Jewish communities along the Silk Route fosters a uniquely interesting chain of settlements and communication across Eurasia – from Marseille in France to Kaifeng in China.
The positive nature of Foltz’s work here is overshadowed by the fact that little to no mention is made of anti-Jewish sentiment in the regions that they begin to influence. Throughout the early tenure of the Jewish people in Persian lands, a great amount of good was done for the Jews by the Persian royalty; a case for this would be Cyrus the Great’s order to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. However, they were also placed under heavy scrutiny: early Zoroastrian texts list Judaism among the many beliefs that its follower had oppressed. Later dynasties in Persia did not necessarily oppress the Jews but actively sought to limit any Jewish gains toward positions of authority. The large Jewish minority in Central Asia, while influential and long-lasting, did attract negative attention – the Arab conquests resulted in Bukharan Jews having to pay exorbitant taxes, the Mongol Invasions decreased the number of Central Asian followers of Judaism greatly and eventually the hardline Islamic nomadic tribes of the region would turn against the Jews through forced conversion and violence. Foltz fails to mention these events entirely, and thus is not even able to remark upon the fact that one of the only reasons that the Jews were targeted by their oppressors in Central-to-Eastern Eurasia was their perceived higher wealth due to trade along the Silk Route.
“Judaism and the Silk Route” is definitely written in a fashion to ignore the negatives while focusing more on the positive impacts and receptions of the Jewish people operating on and as a result of the Silk Route. While he completely glosses over negative events, Foltz’s work is informative and interesting to someone who may have not been aware of the far-reaching nature of Judaism or the impact of Classical-to-Pre-Modern Jews upon trade and ideology. Foltz’s talk of a continent-spanning Jewish community not suspicion or oppression is sorely wishful thinking across the wide expanse of history; however, that is not to say that for a time it did not exist and prosper.
Works Cited
Foltz, Richard. "Judaism and the Silk Route." The History Teacher 32 (1998): 9-16.
---
I don't know why the formatting comes out so weirdly on these, but I'm not particularly troubled by it. If anyone's bothering to read, I hope they won't mind.
Here's some article comparisons for Russian history. I was on a kick for the Khazars, a Jewish(!)-led Medieval nomadic group based just to the northeast of the Black Sea. I strayed from that and showed my love for colonialism and adventure, etc etc etc in the second article but it all turned out well. My professor's comments on the work included his admiration for my position as an 'archival junkie'.
The articles are George V. Lantzeff's "Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion" (The American Slavic and East Europe Review, Vol. 6, pp1-10) and Richard Foltz's "Judaism and the Silk Route" (The History Teacher, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp9-16). Enjoy.
---
Lantzeff’s work focuses on the colonial policies of competing Russian principalities from the tenth century to the fourteenth century. The wealthy Novgorodian Republic and the Principality of Rostov-Suzdal – an entity that would become the Grand Duchy of Muscovy – were two major participants in the conflict. Initially a discussion of the Novgorodian tribute collected from tribal groups up to and including the Ural Mountains, Lantzeff expounds upon the rough competition between the Republic and Rostov-Suzdal on a martial and political level. Rostov-Suzdal’s founding of Nizhny Novgorod, a major part of Rus’ colonialism, spelled the end of that era as the Tatars invaded.
Lantzeff does a fine job of explaining the fairly unexplored area of Rus’ colonialism in his “Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion”. It is a surprise on an academic level that such little emphasis is put on early Russian colonialism, considering the founding of Novgorod as an essentially Varangian possession as well as Russia’s future as an empire known for its frontier expansionism. Considering the generally unaddressed nature of the issue, Lantzeff’s work is a suitable introduction to pre-Mongol Russian expansion to the east: it shows the amateur Russian historian that even outside of the traditional territory of rival principalities, the struggles between the territories of European Russia were long-reaching.
The reasons for and background surrounding Rus’ colonialism provided by Lantzeff are clear enough to the casual reader. The Novgorodians sought new resources to continue the building of their mercantile empire, and Rostov-Suzdal finally acted on the greedy eye it had cast on the colonial possessions of the rival trade republic. Lantzeff mentions repeatedly, and rightfully so, the originality and importance of the Novgorodians’ frontiersmen-esque methods in establishing colonies and charging tribute from the indigenous people and settlers: it would be a technique put to use by not only the Russians in time to come but by almost all other colonial powers as an introductory method of gaining regional control. Lantzeff’s use of Russian chronicles in describing the lands being colonized by the Rus’ inspires thoughts of a semi-mythical far-off land. Admittedly, the distance to be crossed between say, Novgorod and the Ural Mountains, is fairly impressive; the descriptions given by Lantzeff only enhance this quality. His use of statistics and official records, too, add to the scope of the conflict: the participation of almost a hundred princes in an alliance aiming to grab up Novgorod’s riches, the large amounts of captives as a result of martial actions between Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal as well as the surprisingly consistent dates between attacks put the situation into perspective.
The lack of much detail outside of statistics and basic reasoning in Lantzeff’s work did prevent the article from shining in a particular fashion. The author could have gone much more in-depth with his work and seemed to toe the line between basic historical information and further description that would have helped his work significantly. True, Lantzeff covered the necessary facts of the situation: he addressed the “who and where” as well as whatever else background was needed for his work but did not go into detail. An example of this would be his addressing of the actual battles between the Novgorodians and the Rostov-Suzdalians, as well as the Rostov-Suzdalians and the Volga Bulgars: there was no discussion of battle tactics or superior arms, nor was there a record of the obvious value of raiding gained by the future Muscovites (although Lantzeff does mention the garnering of the spoils). The author seems to ignore the grand amount of comparisons that could be made between the Rostov-Suzdalians and their later Muscovite counterparts who instituted a fairly similar system of colonialism. Lantzeff spoke of Kiev’s preference toward Novgorod as opposed to Rostov-Suzdal as well as the general ire directed at Novgorod from the other princely states but did not discuss any background – namely, that Novgorod regularly paid heed as well as tribute to Kiev due to its powerful position in regional economics and politics (a trend that would end very soon as the Mongols made their way westward) and that the two powers relied on each other for economic and military means. A final overarching fact that Lantzeff seemed to ignore was the political clout of Novgorod throughout the ages. Its economic power, geographic position, relationship with Kiev and general importance as a Rus’ principality allowed Novgorod much leeway in terms of its actions (political or martial) and monetary ventures, which Lantzeff could have addressed as it is a factor of importance in the colonial competition between Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal. After all, Novgorod participated heartily in Mongol politics after the Horde had effectively collapsed the other Russian principalities – a fact that Lantzeff only brushes on at the end of the article.
“Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion” is an interesting and informative article that does a decent job of explaining the very early colonial ventures of the Russian people. While Lantzeff accomplishes the task of providing a suitable background to the conflict between the Rostov-Suzdalians and the Novgorodians, he does not delve deep enough into the situation to sate a reader expecting more than an overview of the events. On the whole, however, the article is most certainly an acceptable piece of work and has no problem gaining the attention of a reader who is new to the information.
Works Cited
Lantzeff, George V. "Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion." The American Slavic and East European Review 6.3 (1947): 1-10.
---
Here is the other - this is the one that pertained (vaguely) to the Khazars, but more to medieval Jews in general.
---
“Judaism and the Silk Route” is an article pertaining to the impact made upon the Silk Route by followers of Judaism throughout history. Richard Foltz examines Judaism’s cohabitation with local beliefs including Iranian ideology, a factor that allowed Judaism to spread along the route and not only give birth to small pockets of Jewish traders along the Eurasian beltline but also influenced indigenous peoples’ beliefs and actions. Foltz also speaks about the adaptive ability of the Jews in the face of Islamization in Central Asia, leaving them to be the only non-Muslim religious minority in the area.
A positive aspect of Richard Foltz’s work on this subject is that it is immersive in its scope. Foltz’s work on “Judaism and the Silk Route” is one of the few examples of academic work that I have seem that is not neck-deep in discussion pertaining to the limitation and oppression of Judaic merchants and operatives on the Eurasian landmass. Rather, to someone who is new to the subject of continent-spanning Jewry, it is a welcome matter: throughout history, followers of Judaism have fostered transcontinental trade on a scale as massive as the almost fantastical Silk Route (or Road). Foltz starts with a historical background of the Levant and the Middle East pertaining to the Jews, specifically their time in Mesopotamia under the heel of the Babylonians and the flowering of Jewish activity under Persian influence. The foundations of several major cities in Iran can be sourced to Jewish ex-slaves and even the ideology of Persia has influenced and been influenced by Judaism: the systems of belief share similar holidays and legends pertaining to the region, a fine example of the influence and prospering of Jews in the region. Foltz’s detailed explanation of the Radanites and their power base in the Mediterranean shows that, despite the seemingly negative reputation given to European Jews, they were still a force to be reckoned with from an economic standpoint.
As Foltz mentions, the various converts to Judaism along the Silk Route are a very interesting (and sometimes peculiar) aspect of the Jews’ widespread nature. The actions of Mediterranean Jews led them to communication with the “Khazars” – a nomadic Turkic group centered on the northeast shore of the Black Sea who hoped to trade slaves with the Jews. Foltz’s use of the Turkish proverb, “There is no Iranian merchant without a Turkish associate, just as there is no cap without a head” strikes home the relationship between the two differently-civilized worlds of sedentary people and nomadic people in terms of a symbiotic relationship. The Khazar elite eventually converted to Judaism in order to gain the further benefit of what they perceived as ‘religious neutrality’ – that is to say, they would be more privileged than their shamanistic steppe kin due to foreign traders’ familiarity with the Jewish people. This is a very interesting factor: a nomadic group, normally suited to raiding and on-the-move living, wished to gain partial immunity against oppressors by converting to a religion that most viewed as a trader’s ideology. As a student of nomadic history, that concept is a very exciting one and is definitely something I will have to investigate in other regions such as Eastern Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The influence of the Jews on indigenous peoples (and vice versa) as well as the founding of Jewish communities along the Silk Route fosters a uniquely interesting chain of settlements and communication across Eurasia – from Marseille in France to Kaifeng in China.
The positive nature of Foltz’s work here is overshadowed by the fact that little to no mention is made of anti-Jewish sentiment in the regions that they begin to influence. Throughout the early tenure of the Jewish people in Persian lands, a great amount of good was done for the Jews by the Persian royalty; a case for this would be Cyrus the Great’s order to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. However, they were also placed under heavy scrutiny: early Zoroastrian texts list Judaism among the many beliefs that its follower had oppressed. Later dynasties in Persia did not necessarily oppress the Jews but actively sought to limit any Jewish gains toward positions of authority. The large Jewish minority in Central Asia, while influential and long-lasting, did attract negative attention – the Arab conquests resulted in Bukharan Jews having to pay exorbitant taxes, the Mongol Invasions decreased the number of Central Asian followers of Judaism greatly and eventually the hardline Islamic nomadic tribes of the region would turn against the Jews through forced conversion and violence. Foltz fails to mention these events entirely, and thus is not even able to remark upon the fact that one of the only reasons that the Jews were targeted by their oppressors in Central-to-Eastern Eurasia was their perceived higher wealth due to trade along the Silk Route.
“Judaism and the Silk Route” is definitely written in a fashion to ignore the negatives while focusing more on the positive impacts and receptions of the Jewish people operating on and as a result of the Silk Route. While he completely glosses over negative events, Foltz’s work is informative and interesting to someone who may have not been aware of the far-reaching nature of Judaism or the impact of Classical-to-Pre-Modern Jews upon trade and ideology. Foltz’s talk of a continent-spanning Jewish community not suspicion or oppression is sorely wishful thinking across the wide expanse of history; however, that is not to say that for a time it did not exist and prosper.
Works Cited
Foltz, Richard. "Judaism and the Silk Route." The History Teacher 32 (1998): 9-16.
---
I don't know why the formatting comes out so weirdly on these, but I'm not particularly troubled by it. If anyone's bothering to read, I hope they won't mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
