Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road • Hacker News Board

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#31

Post by ramblenode » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:15 PM UTC

Unlike many commenters here, I actually read the article, and this quote seems to be the basis for the tenuous link between archeaology and geopolitics suggested by the title:

> The extent to which present-day politics hovers over China’s archaeological ambitions became clear during a Wall Street Journal reporter’s encounter with an Uzbek researcher at the ruins of an ancient Kushan city near Chinor. “Tell the Chinese that they will not find any traces of the Chinese here,” he said.

Kind of an interesting story if you can look past the attempt by WSJ to shoehorn in a geopolitcal angle.

> Asked whether Beijing could use the Yuezhi to make territorial claims, Wang said the notion was absurd because the nomads are a historical people and no one serious would put forth that argument.

"We're just asking questions", etc.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#32

Post by mistrial9 » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #22

gumby wrote: post #8

Scouring trade route history is a two-edged sword: which way did influence run? I’m sure ideological archeology can solve that though. That path also has a lot of history.

> which way did influence run? Usually the way of the site of higher riches and more advanced technically, organizationally, etc, to the less one?

imagine a way of the sword and a way of the cloth. The cloth ways prosper while the sword ways train to fight. The sword way group then kills or threatens to kill the cloth way group, demanding payment. So it begins.

Later, roving hordes on horseback arrive without warning from far away, and simply take everything, breaking any balance. The horse masters are the new rulers. Later, the horse masters lose. etc

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#33

Post by SiempreViernes » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:28 PM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #32

coldtea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which way did influence run? Usually the way of the site of higher riches and more advanced technically, organizationally, etc, to the less one?

imagine a way of the sword and a way of the cloth. The cloth ways prosper while the sword ways train to fight. The sword way group then kills or threatens to kill the cloth way group, demanding payment. So it begins. Later, roving hordes on horseback arrive without warning from far away, and simply take everything, breaking any balance. The horse masters are the new rulers. Later, the horse masters lose. etc

You leave out the bit where the sword way freeze to death because they have no technology to deal with the harsh weather (which obviously is present because there's a need for cloth in the first place).

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#34

Post by skybrian » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:29 PM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #28

skybrian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m wondering how often p-values are even used in papers about archeological digs? It seems like historical arguments are often made without doing statistics at all?

I don't think they're talking about literal p-values, but the more general practice of defining your question in terms of the desired result.

Yes, but I’m annoyed with the low-effort use of science-based metaphor, and taking it more seriously leaves an opening for someone who actually knows something to elaborate.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#35

Post by feedforward » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:30 PM UTC

You see this in cross-Atlantic history education too. In US and European history, everything seems to flow out of Europe, or at least the Mediterranean. Menes becomes king of Egypt around 3150 BC. Then we fastforward to Honer and the Olympic games in 7th century Greece. Then there are the Punic wars and Rome wins the Battle of Cornith in 146 BC. Then the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and so on. With some things like the revolts in Judaea against Rome as a kind of dialectic counter-narrative.

If we look at what was happening in India, in Mali, in Japan and China, in Tenochtitlan or Caracol or Cusco, we see a different history happening.

From the failure of the siege of Vienna in 1683, to the end of World War II, Europe and the US did dominate the world. That has been fading, and the narrative is facing too.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#36

Post by Spivak » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:35 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #22

gumby wrote: post #8

Scouring trade route history is a two-edged sword: which way did influence run? I’m sure ideological archeology can solve that though. That path also has a lot of history.

> which way did influence run? Usually the way of the site of higher riches and more advanced technically, organizationally, etc, to the less one?

The West really isn't winning this one if that's your standard. The Mongol empire which amassed all the wealth, technology and military prowess of China during their expansion destroyed the Arabic world (arguably the most advanced civilization at the time), Russia, and the West they encountered like a bulldozer through wet cardboard. And did so with armies 1/3-1/5 the size of their opponents.

We don't really acknowledge in history class just how lucky the west got with Temüjin dying and stopping the expansion that was literally right at our door.

Edit: The sibling comment is grossly misleading, the west barely won against a scouting battalion that we had time to prepare for that was frozen and starving because the greatest wingman in history tricked the army into taking the long dangerous way through the mountains and sent us a heads-up.

The Mongol army wasn't primitive, it's that their purposeful strategy (and what made them so dangerous so far from home) required they plunder food and supplies regularly along the way. It made it so they didn't need huge supply lines and could outmaneuver armies that did.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#37

Post by bugbuddy » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:42 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #36

coldtea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which way did influence run? Usually the way of the site of higher riches and more advanced technically, organizationally, etc, to the less one?

The West really isn't winning this one if that's your standard. The Mongol empire which amassed all the wealth, technology and military prowess of China during their expansion destroyed the Arabic world (arguably the most advanced civilization at the time), Russia, and the West they encountered like a bulldozer through wet cardboard. And did so with armies 1/3-1/5 the size of their opponents. We don't really acknowle…

In an alternate timeline, the whole world population look like some mixture of Chinese.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#38

Post by SubiculumCode » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:56 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #15

The myth of China being China for millenia is such a propagandist rewrite of history in that region; I hate to see NYT headlines fall for it.

It would be akin to Italy claiming that they are Romans...sure Romans lived there, but there is a whole lot of history between then and modern day state that would make this claim at best tenuous.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#39

Post by Leary » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

ramblenode wrote: post #31

Unlike many commenters here, I actually read the article, and this quote seems to be the basis for the tenuous link between archeaology and geopolitics suggested by the title: > The extent to which present-day politics hovers over China’s archaeological ambitions became clear during a Wall Street Journal reporter’s encounter with an Uzbek researcher at the ruins of an ancient Kushan city near Chinor. “Tell the Chines…

Exactly, the Yuezhi is about as Chinese as the Japanese are, both first entering into the historical records in official Chinese dynastic history during the Han Dynasty.

Re: Chinese archaeologists are striking out along the Silk Road

#40

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx » Sun, Aug 04, 2024, 6:04 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #36

coldtea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which way did influence run? Usually the way of the site of higher riches and more advanced technically, organizationally, etc, to the less one?

The West really isn't winning this one if that's your standard. The Mongol empire which amassed all the wealth, technology and military prowess of China during their expansion destroyed the Arabic world (arguably the most advanced civilization at the time), Russia, and the West they encountered like a bulldozer through wet cardboard. And did so with armies 1/3-1/5 the size of their opponents. We don't really acknowle…

There were structural, geographic, and ecological, reasons for why mongol invasions stopped before they reached western Europe (aside from some relatively short-lived attempts at imperiogenesis in eastern Europe). The same reasons were present for Arab "invasions" up from Iberia.

Walter Scheidel has written a fascinating book that takes a very hard historical look at possible historical counterfactuals comparing post-roman Europe to imperial China and finds the chances of Mongol success in Europe to have been very small despite their incredible string successes leading up to that point. Europe's greatest benefit was an incredible political polycentrism; Europe was hard to invade while China wasn't. That pushed China into sustained imperial centralization like many other empires with close steppe proximity.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172187/es...