Silk Roads Programme Events

Abstract

From environmental activism to international law, ‘cooperation’ between states is widely seen as key to protecting the environment from anthropogenic harm. Emphasising working together over the pursuit of self-interested goals, cooperation is imagined both as a method for managing water resources, and a description of the collaboration involved. But how cooperation is actually imagined and practiced in everyday life is not anthropologically well explored. This paper draws on historical and ethnographic material from Mongolia to examine how practices of joint water management were enacted between this country and the Soviet Union. Focussing on ideas of ‘fraternal relations’ between these two socialist countries during the second half of the twentieth century, it examines how kin relations were appropriated to frame the enaction of inter-state cooperation in environmental management. The material on which this paper is based relates to the Selenge river (Mon. Selenge mörön; Russ. reka Selenga), a major Asian transboundary river which rises in Mongolia’s western highlands before crossing the Russian border and flowing into lake Baikal.

About the Speaker

Dr Joseph Bristley is Research Associate at MIASU, University of Cambridge, working on the ESRC-funded project 'Resource frontiers: managing water on a trans-border Asian river'. He is responsible for carrying out project research in Mongolia, where he has worked since 2013. Aside from Joseph’s current research on the relation between international law and water resource management, he is also interested in Mongolian pastoral economies. Based on previous research he has published on social aspects of money, number and ideologies of abundance, new debt relations, and mountain sacrifices.

Abstract

Despite limited pre-1991 engagement due to strained Sino-Soviet relations and Moscow’s dominance in international affairs, China’s influence in Central Asia has surged over the past two decades, surpassing many other external actors, particularly in the economic realm, reshaping regional development trajectories. However, this ascent prompts introspection within Central Asian societies, raising questions about the management of future relations with China, its socio-economic impacts, and the balancing of ties with other partners such as Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Western countries. The presentation will examine Beijing’s multifaceted strategies for engagement with Central Asia, spanning security, strategic, and economic dimensions. It will evaluate the perceptions of China's involvement from the standpoint of Central Asia, encompassing both favorable and critical perspectives, and analyze China's pursuit of soft power initiatives in Central Asia, aimed at addressing negative perceptions and enhancing its influence in the region.

About the Speaker

Sebastien Peyrouse was a doctoral and postdoctoral Fellow at the French Institute for Central Asia Studies in Tashkent (1998-2000 and 2002-2005), a Research Fellow at the Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University in Sapporo (2006), and a Research Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington (2006-2007). In 2008-2012, he was a Senior Research Fellow with the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program (SAIS, Johns Hopkins University, Washington D.C.) and with the Institute for Security and Development Policy (Stockholm). He is an Associated Scholar with the Institute for International and Strategic Relations (IRIS, Paris), and with the Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE, Madrid) and a member of the Brussels-based EUCAM (Europe-Central Asia Monitoring).

Abstract

Since the 16th century, a significant volume of silver from Spanish America and Japan has circulated globally. Concurrently, the early 16th century implementation of the single-whip policy by the Ming dynasty, which consolidated all taxes and labor obligations into a singular silver payment, constituted a important fiscal reform for the empire and substantially increased its domestic demand for silver. Numerous historians contend that Ming China emerged as a primary recipient of silver trade during this era, significantly contributing to the early stages of globalization. Yet, the dynamics of silver distribution within China and the impact of substantial foreign silver influxes on its economic framework remain underexplored. Addressing this gap necessitates an examination of both textual records and archaeologically identified tax silver. A groundbreaking opportunity for such an investigation was provided by an excavation at Jiangkou, conducted by the Sichuan Provincial Institute of Archaeology. This excavation uncovered over 1000 official silver bullions, minted by local authorities across China for tax collection purposes. Through the development of networks based on the morphology and material provenance of these bullions—utilizing morphometric measurements, trace elemental, and isotopic analyses—a novel perspective on the Late Ming China's taxation system and the silver market dynamics has been unveiled.

About the Speaker

Professor Siran Liu serves as a faculty member in the field of archaeomaterial studies at the Institute for Cultural Heritage and History of Science & Technology, University of Science and Technology Beijing. He earned his PhD from University College London, Institute of Archaeology. Professor Liu's research primarily focuses on the application of advanced scientific techniques and data-driven methodologies for the analysis of archaeological materials. His aim is to shed light on the technological practices and origin of these materials, thereby reconstructing the intricate social and economic networks of pre-modern societies.

Abstract

Ancient Khmer religion was astonishingly open and tolerant of a wide pantheon of deities. The king who sent abroad for the texts of Buddhist Tantra built multiple monasteries around his lineage temple to Siva. When the largely Buddhist Mahidhara dynasty came to power, the king who was crowned by brahmins in Angkor, constructed a vast Esoteric Buddhist temple at home and send his Saiva guru to make donations to the Saiva shrines across the kingdom. In his family’s next generation, one king built the largest Vaisnava temple on earth and his younger brother, on succeeding him, built eight Esoteric Buddhist sanctuaries east of Angkor and addressed his major dedication inscription to the Adi-Buddha Vajrasattva. When Buddhism was finally made the religion of state it embraced the Mahayana pureland of Sukhavati and the cult of Hevajra, while conserving sanctuaries to Siva and Visnu in the state temple.

About the Speaker

Dr Peter D. Sharrock lectures at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) on the spread of Buddhism across Maritime Asia as it is visible in the art and architecture of Cambodia, Vietnam and Java from 800 to 1400 CE. His passion for the art of Indochina and Southeast Asia was behind his signing up as Reuters’ correspondent during the American war in Indochina. Dr Sharrock’s writings include The Creative South (2022, ed.); Vibrancy in Stone: Masterpieces of the Da Nang Museum of Cham Sculpture (2018, ed.), Banteay Chhmar: Garrison-temple of the Khmer Empire (2015) and (with Vu Hong Lien) Descending Dagon, Rising Tiger: a History of Vietnam (2014).

Since its “creation” in the late nineteenth century, Afghanistan has remained a politically destabilised region. Although ostensibly many different political models and governments have been imposed on Afghanistan, no political model or government has succeeded in creating social and political stability in the country, underlined by periodical state breakdowns. The reason behind the word “ostensible” is the fact that from monarch to republic, communist dispensation, Islamist and Taliban, as well as the liberal democratic experiences in post-2001 and the current religious totalitarian state, the prevailing constant remains the assimilationist model for the state, which was established in the 1920s. This situation creates important questions. What went wrong in Afghanistan? Why did the international community, led by the USA, fail to establish a “democracy” in Afghanistan despite investing a lot of resources, including blood and treasure? More importantly, why does the modern state cannot survive in Afghanistan? Why has there been a periodical state collapse in Afghanistan? What political model could be adopted from the available alternatives to make it more responsive to the realities on the ground? Exploring these and other relevant questions can help us understand Afghanistan and the issues facing the country.

Opening Remarks: Prof. Peter Frankopan

Discussants: Dr Gillian Tett

Dr Prajakti Kalra

Speakers: Dr Christina Lamb, Prof. Amin Saikal, Prof. Nazif Shahrani, Prof. Thomas Barfield, Prof. Jennifer Murtazashwili, Miss Munazza Ebtikar, Mr Abdullah Ahmadi, Dr Said Reza Huseini

Keynote Speaker: Dr Lauri Bristow

Closing Remarks: Mr Zalami Nishat

Since its “creation” in the late nineteenth century, Afghanistan has remained a politically destabilised region. Although ostensibly many different political models and governments have been imposed on Afghanistan, no political model or government has succeeded in creating social and political stability in the country, underlined by periodical state breakdowns. The reason behind the word “ostensible” is the fact that from monarch to republic, communist dispensation, Islamist and Taliban, as well as the liberal democratic experiences in post-2001 and the current religious totalitarian state, the prevailing constant remains the assimilationist model for the state, which was established in the 1920s. This situation creates important questions. What went wrong in Afghanistan? Why did the international community, led by the USA, fail to establish a “democracy” in Afghanistan despite investing a lot of resources, including blood and treasure? More importantly, why does the modern state cannot survive in Afghanistan? Why has there been a periodical state collapse in Afghanistan? What political model could be adopted from the available alternatives to make it more responsive to the realities on the ground? Exploring these and other relevant questions can help us understand Afghanistan and the issues facing the country.

Opening Remarks: Prof. Peter Frankopan

Discussants: Dr Gillian Tett

Dr Prajakti Kalra

Speakers: Dr Christina Lamb, Prof. Amin Saikal, Prof. Nazif Shahrani, Prof. Thomas Barfield, Prof. Jennifer Murtazashwili, Miss Munazza Ebtikar, Mr Abdullah Ahmadi, Dr Said Reza Huseini

Keynote Speaker: Dr Lauri Bristow

Closing Remarks: Mr Zalami Nishat