Convergence 1 A&Q Premodern History and the Frontiers of the South China Sea In this A&Q feature, five scholars working on the premodern history of what is now south China and continental Southeast Asia respond to the following prompts of their choosing, and one provides a metacommentary to evaluate the responses in light of future directions for study. The prompts were designed to elucidate difficulties these scholars encounter when trying to cross boundaries of a variety of sorts: temporal, by virtue of the fact that all of these scholars work on periods predating 1000 ce; spatial, by virtue of the fact that the regions they study were either on the peripheries of great states and empires or outside and in between them; linguistic, by virtue of the fact that most of these cultures and societies were inhabited by peoples speaking languages that were drastically different from each other or from the Sinitic or Vietic spheres currently associated with the regions; and ethnic (boundaries of identity), by virtue of the fact that the diverse communities of premodern south China and Southeast Asia saw themselves and others in terms of distinctions that might be dubbed “ethnic” or, at the very least, “cultural.” Their responses echo a set of convergences that reveal why scholars of premodern societies have much to add to the larger conversation about frontiers as well as the role that nationalism plays in limiting ways forward. 1. In what ways would you respond to the editors’ call to use frontier as a methodological tool to break binaries such as center– periphery, core– margin, or core– frontier? Can you explain your response using an example from your work? 2. How do you prefer to represent the mixing of different cultural or social practices, ideas, peoples, technologies, or political and military systems? Do notions such as hybridity, syncretism, and networks of interaction play a role in your work, and if so, how? 3. How might nationalistic constructions of contemporary states such as China, Vietnam, Korea, or Japan as well as other ethnic 2 A & Q constructions of Han, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cantonese, Korean, Taiwanese, and so on, interfere or interject themselves into your work? 4. What does your work contribute to the current body of scholarship on frontier studies, and where would you like to see the field heading in the future? What about implications for the field of history more generally? Destabilizing Centers: Religious History on the Dali Frontier Megan Bryson My research focuses on the Dali region in what is now southwest China’s Yunnan Province. Between the seventh century and the Mongol conquest of 1253, Dali was home to a series of independent regimes whose territory encompassed parts of modern-day Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam as well as parts of the Chinese provinces Yunnan, Guizhou, and Sichuan. Dali’s status as a frontier depends on one’s perspective. From the view of Tang (618– 907) and Song dynasty records, Dali was a frontier region in the Turnerian sense of demarcating civilization from barbarism. If a frontier is “a territory faced and culturally perceived as being on the fringe of the usual” or a place “looked upon by external peoples and polities to be situated on the fringes of the world of each,” the court in Chang’an, Kaifeng, or Lhasa may have seen Dali as a frontier, but the courts centered in Dali did not (Anderson and Whitmore 2015, 2). From a modern area studies perspective, Dali is a frontier region by virtue of lying on the boundaries of East, South, central, and Southeast Asia and as such can call into question these disciplinary divisions. In examining Dali as a frontier region, I follow Hugh Elton’s (1996) looser definition of frontiers as places where different kinds of boundaries (religious, cultural, political, geographic) intersect and overlap. Dali’s position amid linguistic, cultural, and religious boundaries makes it a fruitful place for thinking about frontiers. Dali’s geopolitical location has also meant that it serves as a litmus test of sorts: the tendency to identify Dali’s origins as Tibetan, Indian, Thai, or Chinese reflects more about the scholar’s interests than evidence from premodern Dali itself. For instance, the view that the rulers...
Read full abstract