Take a photo of a barcode or cover
1 review for:
The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West
Victor H. Mair, J.P. Mallory
3.8 AVERAGE
1 review for:
The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West
Victor H. Mair, J.P. Mallory
3.8 AVERAGE
I cannot... fucking... believe that this book, which was published in 2000, actually uses such outdated and racist terminology as "Mongoloid" with apparently zero scrupules.
BUT FIRST...
Before I get started on complaining about all the shit I hated, here are some things I liked:
(1) The photographs and illustrations (190), even those in greyscale, were very helpful for visualising the artefacts or sites.
(2) There's a chapter titled "The Testimony of the Hoe."
And... that's about it. Sorry, I really have a bone to pick with this book, apparently.
HERE ARE SOME DATA
Times the word "Caucasoid" appears in the book: 77
Times the word "Mongoloid" appears: 57
Times the word "Europoid" appears: 29
Pages the uncritical explanation of phrenology occupies: 8
Times the word "Alpine" is used as some sort of racial group: 6*
Times the "Caucasoids" were credited for East Asian inventions (including but not limited to the cultivation of silkworms): oh god I lost count after the Xiongnu were positioned as white people against whom the Han Chinese had functionally no recourse due to their apparently superior white people technology.
*(Including once to describe Nikita Khrushchev).
HERE ARE SOME QUOTES
"What is this tall, blond man doing here in the middle of Central Asia where almost every person one sees today is much shorter and has black hair?" (pp. 9)
"They are clearly of Caucasoid/Europoid extraction (long noses, deep-set eyes, blondish, light-brown or red hair, and so forth). The men are fully bearded and the women have long, braided hair." (pp. 16)
"If a Greek or any other European wished to trek eastwards and avoid lands teeming with the snub-nosed, bald-headed, one-eyed cannibals and griffins, then there was another route through the great Persian empire." (pp. 45)
"The populations of Kucha were particularly noted for their musical talent where they excelled on flutes and stringed instruments. So impressed were the Chinese by Kuchean music that the celebrated Tang emperor Xuanzong (r. AD 712-756) completely reorganized the instrumentation of China to accommodate Kuchean music (among the stringed instruments were some of the earliest precursors of the violin). Apparently, in a reversal of ethnic stereotyping, in the eyes of the medieval Chinese it was the European barbarians who possessed 'a great sense of rhythm' and Kucha was the Harlem of the Tang dynasty." (pp. 76)
"The Xiongnu (pronounced 'Shyoongnoo') were a pastoral nomadic people..." (pp. 87)**
(**It should go without saying, but that is not the correct pronunciation; in fact, it's a belittlingly juvenile oversimplification. 'X' is only a 'sh' sound in certain Chinese dialects or languages, such as "standard" Mandarin—based on the Beijing dialect—while a majority of speakers of Chinese languages pronounce 'x' as more of a 's' sound. Even saying "shiong-nu" would be better than this ridiculous nonsense.)
"The physical type of the population is unknown as there are so far no human remains from the Neolithic period, but again, when we do uncover evidence for human physical types in the Bronze Age, they are largely Caucasoid rather than Mongoloid. Not quite a smoking gun perhaps, but the circumstantial evidence suggests that it was from the west or northwest that East Central Asia was first settled." (pp. 136)
"And do the different types of grave reflect different periods or something else? This is an important question since Yanbulaq reveals our earliest encounter between East and West in the territory of the mummies. Analysis of the physical type of 29 adult burials reveals that the majority (21) were of Mongoloid stock, similar to the Khams Tibetans (rather than the Han, the primary ethnic group of China), and only eight were Caucasoid (one skull had a blond braid still attached). Anthropological study has revealed that the burials in the type I graves are exclusively Mongoloid while those of type 11 and III show the presence of Caucasoid populations, specifically related to those found at Qäwrighul. If the distinctions are chronological (and only one type II grave is stratigraphically later than a type I burial) then we may be witnessing the movement of Caucasoid populations into a territory in which Mongoloid populations had already established themselves from the east. On the other hand, iron objects have been found in type I tombs and this would suggest that there may not be a great chronological distinction between the various types. In this case the distinctions in burials might be social or ethnic: Mongoloids burying their dead with many grave goods in larger chambers while Caucasoids adopted single-grave burial in less elaborate tombs." (pp. 141-2)
"Cemetery IV [at Qäwrighul], dated to about 500-1 BC, provided 77 skulls for analysis which were of European type. Cemetery III, with a different mortuary tradition and material culture, dated to about AD 200 and revealed mixed Caucasoid traits consonant with its identification (by some) with the Xiongnu." (pp. 158)
"Suspicion that the physical anthropologist was not working with historically meaningful categories coupled with a general avoidance of anything that might smack of 'racism' since the Second World War resulted in a cleavage between archaeologists and those physical anthropologists who sought to identify sub-races of populations. This was considerably exacerbated by the attempts of anthropologists and geographers, the latter undergoing a phase of cartographical mania, to seek correlations between skull shape and just about anything else that might be measured or plotted on a map. For example, dolichocranics were shown to be more likely to divorce or commit suicide (not just in Sweden but even in France!), and various schools argued over the relative intelligence of the different physical subtypes. [...] If it were not for the atrocities perpetrated by 20th-century racists, the history of research concerning the cranial index and the Indo-Europeans would be a subject of pure amusement." (pp. 232-3)
"[...] it is hardly surprising that the cephalic index became an object of ridicule and Colin Renfrew could write: 'Craniometry, the study and measurement of human skulls, has in recent years enjoyed about as much prestige in scientific circles as phrenology [i.e. the determination of a person's character on the basis of his or her skull shape].' Renfrew's statement is probably an accurate description of the attitudes of many archaeologists although it might be emphasized that archaeologists are as much subject to their own 'fashions' as people in any other discipline and many archaeologists are woefully ignorant of the current state of physical anthropology. But the cleavage has also occurred among physical anthropologists themselves who, on studying a cemetery may provide information on the sex, age, stature, demography, nutrition and pathology of the population but have no interest in what they regard as the arcane and suspect attempt to extract historical information out of the 21 separate bones that constitute the human skull." (pp. 233-4)
WHAT IS EUROPE? WE JUST DON'T KNOW
There are a couple of things that are just plain disappointing. Playing up the concept of the "mysterious" origin of the Tarim Basin mummies (we know where they were from—the Tarim goddamn basin!), for example. These mummies are, of course, from multiple different cultures existing in the region for some two millennia, and consequently the variety of culture therein represented is fascinating, although the book almost entirely ignores this in favour of making its case that these people were of "Caucasoid" (white) or "Europoid" (European) descent. Not only is the idea of "Europe" as a cogent region highly contestable, particularly the further back in history you go, the book doesn't even use it consistently! Sometimes Central Asia is considered European, sometimes India, sometimes exclusively Western- and Central Europe. Increasingly obvious is the fact that, when the authors said "European," they really meant "white." The amount of times they reiterated that preserved bodies were "tall and blond" (pp. 7-9), had "light hair" and "light eye colour" (pp. 24), were noted for their "white bodies" (pp. 53), or were just straight-up "fair-haired and blue-eyed people" (pp. 124) was exhausting. Mallory's & Mair's claim was, essentially, that "the Indo-Europeans" possessed "the characteristic long noses, red or blond hair, blue or greenish-hazel eyes [...]. These are our most recent depictions of the physical type that we find across the Tarim Basin from 2000 BC onwards and it is now time to look the mummies in the face" (pp. 175).
Automatically assuming that any group described as having "pale" or "light" skin absolutely must be more-or-less equivalent to the modern idea of "white people" is stupid for so many reasons I barely know where to begin. Although the Tarim Basin is falsely identified as located within the purview of "ancient China" (it's in Xinjiang, which has not always been part of "China"!), it's important to note that fair skin was considered desirable throughout the majority of Chinese history, because it signified less exposure to the sun, i.e., less physical labour. (Nor is this standard exclusive to China, ancient or modern.) I'm not saying it's any more likely than lily-white Indo-Europeans, but I am saying that it's silly to discount the possibility that ancient Chinese sources were merely noting that these mysterious western visitors were smokin' hot. But I digress.
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS XINJIANG?
Further mistakes include but are not limited to trying to "have your cake and eat it too," so to speak, in regards to the location of Xinjiang and the Tarim Basin (is it in "ancient China," or are we speaking of populations from "the West"?), lambast Early Mediaeval Studies for the whole "Aryan" thing while saying shit like "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid," and flip-flop between being angry at actual Chinese experts for daring to want to research the artefacts and proudly positioning themselves as trailblazers for daring to want to research the artefacts:
LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS
Oh, but wait! There's more! How about this wholly unnecessary condescension in the chapter about textiles:
BUT ANYWAY...
TL;DR I found this book to be mostly unhelpful, which is a real shame because the majority of the other academic material regarding the Tarim Basin mummies is limited to research papers which, while enlightening, tend to be either inaccessible or expensive (and thus also ultimately inaccessible), particularly since this isn't technically my actual area of study. Yet this book was riddled with both factual and ideological issues which detracted greatly from any value it might have had. It's unfortunate that I can't think of any viable alternatives, because I certainly will not be recommending this one.
BUT FIRST...
Before I get started on complaining about all the shit I hated, here are some things I liked:
(1) The photographs and illustrations (190), even those in greyscale, were very helpful for visualising the artefacts or sites.
(2) There's a chapter titled "The Testimony of the Hoe."
And... that's about it. Sorry, I really have a bone to pick with this book, apparently.
HERE ARE SOME DATA
Times the word "Caucasoid" appears in the book: 77
Times the word "Mongoloid" appears: 57
Times the word "Europoid" appears: 29
Pages the uncritical explanation of phrenology occupies: 8
Times the word "Alpine" is used as some sort of racial group: 6*
Times the "Caucasoids" were credited for East Asian inventions (including but not limited to the cultivation of silkworms): oh god I lost count after the Xiongnu were positioned as white people against whom the Han Chinese had functionally no recourse due to their apparently superior white people technology.
*(Including once to describe Nikita Khrushchev).
HERE ARE SOME QUOTES
"What is this tall, blond man doing here in the middle of Central Asia where almost every person one sees today is much shorter and has black hair?" (pp. 9)
"They are clearly of Caucasoid/Europoid extraction (long noses, deep-set eyes, blondish, light-brown or red hair, and so forth). The men are fully bearded and the women have long, braided hair." (pp. 16)
"If a Greek or any other European wished to trek eastwards and avoid lands teeming with the snub-nosed, bald-headed, one-eyed cannibals and griffins, then there was another route through the great Persian empire." (pp. 45)
"The populations of Kucha were particularly noted for their musical talent where they excelled on flutes and stringed instruments. So impressed were the Chinese by Kuchean music that the celebrated Tang emperor Xuanzong (r. AD 712-756) completely reorganized the instrumentation of China to accommodate Kuchean music (among the stringed instruments were some of the earliest precursors of the violin). Apparently, in a reversal of ethnic stereotyping, in the eyes of the medieval Chinese it was the European barbarians who possessed 'a great sense of rhythm' and Kucha was the Harlem of the Tang dynasty." (pp. 76)
"The Xiongnu (pronounced 'Shyoongnoo') were a pastoral nomadic people..." (pp. 87)**
(**It should go without saying, but that is not the correct pronunciation; in fact, it's a belittlingly juvenile oversimplification. 'X' is only a 'sh' sound in certain Chinese dialects or languages, such as "standard" Mandarin—based on the Beijing dialect—while a majority of speakers of Chinese languages pronounce 'x' as more of a 's' sound. Even saying "shiong-nu" would be better than this ridiculous nonsense.)
"The physical type of the population is unknown as there are so far no human remains from the Neolithic period, but again, when we do uncover evidence for human physical types in the Bronze Age, they are largely Caucasoid rather than Mongoloid. Not quite a smoking gun perhaps, but the circumstantial evidence suggests that it was from the west or northwest that East Central Asia was first settled." (pp. 136)
"And do the different types of grave reflect different periods or something else? This is an important question since Yanbulaq reveals our earliest encounter between East and West in the territory of the mummies. Analysis of the physical type of 29 adult burials reveals that the majority (21) were of Mongoloid stock, similar to the Khams Tibetans (rather than the Han, the primary ethnic group of China), and only eight were Caucasoid (one skull had a blond braid still attached). Anthropological study has revealed that the burials in the type I graves are exclusively Mongoloid while those of type 11 and III show the presence of Caucasoid populations, specifically related to those found at Qäwrighul. If the distinctions are chronological (and only one type II grave is stratigraphically later than a type I burial) then we may be witnessing the movement of Caucasoid populations into a territory in which Mongoloid populations had already established themselves from the east. On the other hand, iron objects have been found in type I tombs and this would suggest that there may not be a great chronological distinction between the various types. In this case the distinctions in burials might be social or ethnic: Mongoloids burying their dead with many grave goods in larger chambers while Caucasoids adopted single-grave burial in less elaborate tombs." (pp. 141-2)
"Cemetery IV [at Qäwrighul], dated to about 500-1 BC, provided 77 skulls for analysis which were of European type. Cemetery III, with a different mortuary tradition and material culture, dated to about AD 200 and revealed mixed Caucasoid traits consonant with its identification (by some) with the Xiongnu." (pp. 158)
"Suspicion that the physical anthropologist was not working with historically meaningful categories coupled with a general avoidance of anything that might smack of 'racism' since the Second World War resulted in a cleavage between archaeologists and those physical anthropologists who sought to identify sub-races of populations. This was considerably exacerbated by the attempts of anthropologists and geographers, the latter undergoing a phase of cartographical mania, to seek correlations between skull shape and just about anything else that might be measured or plotted on a map. For example, dolichocranics were shown to be more likely to divorce or commit suicide (not just in Sweden but even in France!), and various schools argued over the relative intelligence of the different physical subtypes. [...] If it were not for the atrocities perpetrated by 20th-century racists, the history of research concerning the cranial index and the Indo-Europeans would be a subject of pure amusement." (pp. 232-3)
"[...] it is hardly surprising that the cephalic index became an object of ridicule and Colin Renfrew could write: 'Craniometry, the study and measurement of human skulls, has in recent years enjoyed about as much prestige in scientific circles as phrenology [i.e. the determination of a person's character on the basis of his or her skull shape].' Renfrew's statement is probably an accurate description of the attitudes of many archaeologists although it might be emphasized that archaeologists are as much subject to their own 'fashions' as people in any other discipline and many archaeologists are woefully ignorant of the current state of physical anthropology. But the cleavage has also occurred among physical anthropologists themselves who, on studying a cemetery may provide information on the sex, age, stature, demography, nutrition and pathology of the population but have no interest in what they regard as the arcane and suspect attempt to extract historical information out of the 21 separate bones that constitute the human skull." (pp. 233-4)
WHAT IS EUROPE? WE JUST DON'T KNOW
There are a couple of things that are just plain disappointing. Playing up the concept of the "mysterious" origin of the Tarim Basin mummies (we know where they were from—the Tarim goddamn basin!), for example. These mummies are, of course, from multiple different cultures existing in the region for some two millennia, and consequently the variety of culture therein represented is fascinating, although the book almost entirely ignores this in favour of making its case that these people were of "Caucasoid" (white) or "Europoid" (European) descent. Not only is the idea of "Europe" as a cogent region highly contestable, particularly the further back in history you go, the book doesn't even use it consistently! Sometimes Central Asia is considered European, sometimes India, sometimes exclusively Western- and Central Europe. Increasingly obvious is the fact that, when the authors said "European," they really meant "white." The amount of times they reiterated that preserved bodies were "tall and blond" (pp. 7-9), had "light hair" and "light eye colour" (pp. 24), were noted for their "white bodies" (pp. 53), or were just straight-up "fair-haired and blue-eyed people" (pp. 124) was exhausting. Mallory's & Mair's claim was, essentially, that "the Indo-Europeans" possessed "the characteristic long noses, red or blond hair, blue or greenish-hazel eyes [...]. These are our most recent depictions of the physical type that we find across the Tarim Basin from 2000 BC onwards and it is now time to look the mummies in the face" (pp. 175).
Automatically assuming that any group described as having "pale" or "light" skin absolutely must be more-or-less equivalent to the modern idea of "white people" is stupid for so many reasons I barely know where to begin. Although the Tarim Basin is falsely identified as located within the purview of "ancient China" (it's in Xinjiang, which has not always been part of "China"!), it's important to note that fair skin was considered desirable throughout the majority of Chinese history, because it signified less exposure to the sun, i.e., less physical labour. (Nor is this standard exclusive to China, ancient or modern.) I'm not saying it's any more likely than lily-white Indo-Europeans, but I am saying that it's silly to discount the possibility that ancient Chinese sources were merely noting that these mysterious western visitors were smokin' hot. But I digress.
WHERE IN THE WORLD IS XINJIANG?
Further mistakes include but are not limited to trying to "have your cake and eat it too," so to speak, in regards to the location of Xinjiang and the Tarim Basin (is it in "ancient China," or are we speaking of populations from "the West"?), lambast Early Mediaeval Studies for the whole "Aryan" thing while saying shit like "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid," and flip-flop between being angry at actual Chinese experts for daring to want to research the artefacts and proudly positioning themselves as trailblazers for daring to want to research the artefacts:
"What is so remarkable, however, is that apart from a few exceptions where Chinese scientists have undertaken admirably thorough examinations, there actually has been little analysis of these outstanding human relics. [...] If one is going to accede to the demands for scientific investigation and public education, hence admitting that there are legitimate reasons for removing the mummies from their graves rather than re-interring them, then there is clearly a responsibility to provide the highest standards of conservation and analysis. We will turn to those few about which something more can be illustrated and said." (pp. 181)Yikes. And that's even without the sneering condescension towards other countries, cultures, or demographics which would have the audacity to claim one of these mummies as their own:
"The 'Beauty of Krorän' has become an icon of the Uyghur people who have claimed her (without any serious linguistic or cultural foundation but not without some genetic basis) as 'the mother of our nation' and her reconstructed face adorns national (Uyghur) posters." (pp. 182)It's not a good look (even if you ignore the snide parenthetical) given that a good percentage of the book is spent trying to claim that these people were "Caucasoids."
LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS
Oh, but wait! There's more! How about this wholly unnecessary condescension in the chapter about textiles:
"The Tarim and Turpan basins offer one of the largest collections of textiles in the ancient world. Their study has been primarily confined to Western scholars such as Vivi Sylwan who made detailed examinations of material uncovered in the earlier excavations of Sven Hedin, Folke Bergman and Aurel Stein. The more recent discoveries have seen enormous accumulations of new material in much better dated contexts and some useful descriptive work by Chinese specialists, but more detailed analysis has been limited to the work of Irene Good of the University of Pennsylvania and Elizabeth Barber of Occidental College, California, who were given partial access to some of the material (which provided a basis for Barber's fine book on the Xinjiang mummies and their textiles). Chinese archaeologists have been somewhat loath to surrender their material to foreigners for analysis. From their viewpoint, the archaeological treasures of China have been pillaged quite enough by Westerners and no one wants to defer to 'foreign experts' to interpret one's own heritage, especially when it concerns textiles, a field in which China has traditionally excelled. While this is understandable, it is frustrating to find the scientific reports which could place East Central Asia in the larger picture of the development of textiles in Eurasia so slow in coming. Textile production is nor a mere adjunct to the cultural arsenal of a people: the materials employed and the technology involved in its production can be used to trace the course of cultural influences, possibly even migrations, while the decorative patterns employed in textiles or the cut of the material has long been known to be one of the more sensitive expressions of a culture's self-identity." (pp. 208)I quote verbatim. Like... yeah? Obviously Chinese academics and scientists would want to deal with their own research, artefacts, and history before anyone else could muck it up? How is this a bad thing, exactly?
BUT ANYWAY...
TL;DR I found this book to be mostly unhelpful, which is a real shame because the majority of the other academic material regarding the Tarim Basin mummies is limited to research papers which, while enlightening, tend to be either inaccessible or expensive (and thus also ultimately inaccessible), particularly since this isn't technically my actual area of study. Yet this book was riddled with both factual and ideological issues which detracted greatly from any value it might have had. It's unfortunate that I can't think of any viable alternatives, because I certainly will not be recommending this one.