Under Xi Jinping, archaeology has become yet another domain through which the Chinese government has increasingly sought to expand its geopolitical influence. Evidence—whether objective or subjective—of ancient Chinese civilizations in peripheral regions along the Silk Road has been used to legitimize PRC territorial claims and promote contemporary economic and political projects, notably via the Belt and Road Initiative. Numerous pieces in Chinese and Western media over the past two months have demonstrated this phenomenon.
On Monday, Sha Hua from The Wall Street Journal, with photographer Alexander Parkyn-Smith, reported how China is reaching back in time through archaeology to challenge the West:
After decades of digging in their own backyard, Chinese archaeologists are now fanning out across the world, trying to unearth connections between Chinese civilization and pivotal moments in global history.
On the plains of southern Uzbekistan, a team of Chinese scientists is working to excavate burial sites they discovered in 2019. The tombs offer potential clues about the fate of a mysterious nomadic tribe with roots in what is now considered China that could rewrite the history of the Silk Road, the network of trade routes that connected the East and West over two millennia.
Chinese researchers have also traveled to Kenya and Saudi Arabia seeking traces of Chinese seafarers from the 15th century. In the South China Sea, others are scouring centuries-old Chinese shipwrecks that could help bolster Beijing’s disputed claims over maritime territory.
The expanding scope of China’s work is challenging long-held beliefs. Some scholars say it has the potential to change the field of archaeology itself, along with China’s place in the sweep of human history.
[…] Because the evidence it deals with is fragmentary, archaeology offers wide room for interpretation. That ambiguity opens a window for Chinese researchers to push the field in new directions, some archaeologists say. [Source]
Last month, Zhao Ziwen from the South China Morning Post described how this strategy plays out in Uzbekistan through an archaeological project pursuing artifacts from the Kushan Empire:
The dig is one of a number of projects that China is using to boost cultural ties with Central Asian republics, with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology, the Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology and Northwestern University playing a leading role.
[…] Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly highlighted the importance of such initiatives, both during a visit to Uzbekistan in 2016 and last year, when he hosted the leaders of five countries at the first China-Central Asia summit.
He told the visitors it was important that we “carry forward our traditional friendship and promote people-to-people exchanges”, promising to boost cultural tourism.
[…] Zhu Yongbiao, an international relations professor at Lanzhou University, said China wanted to promote joint archaeological projects to strengthen cultural and human-to-human exchanges, which could then help promote the Belt and Road Initiative – a modern-day infrastructure project based on the old Silk Road.
“The promotion of belt and road construction requires people-to-people communication, and archaeological cooperation is one of the crucial fields,” Zhu said. [Source]
In some cases, archaeology is instrumentalized not just to advance economic cooperation but also legitimize the Chinese government’s authority and policies in its periphery. Last month, The Economist highlighted an example of this in Xinjiang with an article provocatively titled, “China is using archaeology as a weapon.” The article focused on an ancient Buddhist stupa called Mo’er in the desert outside Kashgar, where Chinese archaeologists claimed that artifacts discovered at the site are similar to those dug up in Han-dominated eastern China:
These claims may sound academic, but China’s government is using them to justify its brutal rule over Xinjiang. At the peak of a security campaign in 2018-19, perhaps a million Uyghurs and other Muslim residents of Xinjiang passed through camps where they were forcibly assimilated into Han Chinese culture. Critics accuse China of cultural genocide. Officials say they are trying to stamp out religious extremism. Moreover, if the inhabitants of Xinjiang have always been Chinese, then accusations of forced assimilation make no sense.
Last month China organised a conference in Kashgar that focused on the discoveries made at Mo’er temple and other sites. They prove that there is no separation between the culture of Xinjiang and Chinese culture, said Pan Yue, head of the state’s Ethnic Affairs Commission. Those who criticise China’s policies in the region reveal their “ignorance of history” and are peddling “baseless narratives”, he added. [Source]
This Tuesday, China Daily published a strong critique of The Economist article by Ding Geng, a Ph.D. candidate in archaeology at Peking University, which in some ways eloquently reflected the Chinese government’s position. Ding acknowledged that “as powerful nations often try to establish their historical legitimacy, archaeology has frequently been used as a weapon by those in power,” and listed multiple examples showing how “Western archaeology has played [a role] in the formation of Western-centric perspectives.” Ding noted that Chinese archaeology’s contribution to “national history” is partly “a reaction against colonialism and the influx of Western knowledge,” and noted that a “Sino-centric view” does not negate a “Western-centric view” nor refute its foreign influences. But ultimately Ding argued that “Chinese archaeology has never been used as a weapon to undermine others,” and refused to acknowledge the way in which the Chinese government is instrumentalizing archeology to help justify assimilationist policies in Xinjiang, policies which the U.N. concluded may constitute crimes against humanity.
Another Peking University archaeology student made headlines recently: Zhong Fangrong was selected to give a graduation speech at the university’s School of Archaeology and Museology. The daughter of migrant workers from Hunan, Zhong incited an intense social media debate in 2020 after scoring top marks on the gaokao and choosing to attend Peking University, but opting for archaeology, an unpopular and unlucrative major. While her choice was likely a product of personal passion, state media coverage then and now has attempted to connect it to broader state goals for the role of archaeology in nation-building. As Wang Yu Hsuan and Wang Jia En from PKU News reported (amplified by China Daily), Zhong’s past inspiration for joining the field and her choice of future professional specialization both relate to a Silk Road religious and cultural hub:
Zhong’s decision to pursue archaeology at PKU was influenced by the story of Fan Jinshi, a renowned Chinese archaeologist and alumna of the university. Fan was dedicated to the preservation of Dunhuang’s cultural heritage, a city with a significant historical role along the ancient Silk Road and home to the Mogao Caves, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
[…] Zhong has long regarded archaeology as a part of her life, drawing nourishment and strength from it. She is very much looking forward to contributing to the writing of the Dunhuang Grottoes archaeological report after joining the Dunhuang Academy. [Source]
Stories such as these have been amplified in domestic Chinese media to reinforce the importance of the Silk Road in China’s modern-day international relations. CGTN published a 40-minute video last month highlighting the annual Silk Road Week at the China National Silk Museum, which “provides a platform for professionals to share their latest Silk Road research and stories.” China Daily recently published an article about a Shaanxi History Museum exhibition on the Silk Road, featuring cultural relics from China, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan and portraying Chinese engagement in those regions in a positive light:
“[Han Dynasty (206 BC-AD 220) imperial envoy Zhang Qian’s] opening of the road in the 2nd century BC demonstrates Chinese people’s eagerness for communication with the outside. His efforts effectively introduced the Qin (221-206 BC) and Han dynasties to Central Asian and even Western countries of that time,” [said Yue Minjing, curator of the exhibition].
“Even today, we maintain an open-minded attitude and a desire for communication with others. This mindset transcends both time and space,” she added. [Source]
Other examples are more explicit in their use of Silk Road history to advance China’s geopolitical interests. In one People’s Daily video published this month and titled “Indonesian calligraphers preserve Chinese culture, trace Silk Road legacy,” the chairman of the Indonesian Calligraphers Association stated, “Our Chinese culture must continue to be passed on in Indonesia.” During Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s visit to Beijing this week, a Global Times published an editorial titled, “Inheriting Silk Road spirit, road of China-Italy ties will become wider.” The author argued that “[b]oth sides should view and develop bilateral relations from a historical dimension, facing important opportunities for mutual development,” adding, “If we can continue to uphold the spirit of the Silk Road of civilization exchange and mutual learning, then China-Italy relations will have a continuous source of vitality and dynamism.” Earlier this month, the People’s Daily highlighted a 2019 article that Xi published in Tajikistan’s leading newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta and state-run Khovar News Agency, emphasizing the deep bonds between China and Tajikistan that are rooted in Silk Road histories:
Each Silk Road tale narrates touching anecdotes of enduring friendship between China and Tajikistan.
A Tang tri-colored glazed pottery bears witness to their ancient ties.
“Sogdian musicians and dancers are prominently featured in the glazed potteries from China’s Tang Dynasty (618-907) preserved to this day,” noted Xi in his 2019 article, a testament to centuries of vibrant interactions, enhancing the enduring friendship between China and Tajikistan.
[…] For over 2,000 years, the echoes of camel bells and rhythmic horse hooves have carried friendship and cooperation along the Silk Road. Through the centuries, the friendship of the two peoples has withstood the test of time, as solid as the majestic Pamirs. [Source]
But China is not the only actor seeking to benefit from renewed interest in the Silk Road. In Carnegie Politika last month, Shujaat Ahmadzada wrote about how Central and Western Asian countries can utilize China’s Silk Road ambitions for their own empowerment, using the case of the Trans-Caspian International Trade Route, or the Middle Corridor, a land-based trade route running from central China to the South Caucasus:
A genuine resurgence of the Silk Road could well foster the rise of new economic hubs in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. It could also stimulate economic development. Oddly, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Kazakhstan—with a combined population of around 30 million—lag behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country of about 3 million, in terms of economic complexity. Increased interregional connectivity could generate moderate GDP growth for these communities, if only temporarily.
Many feasibility studies suggest the growth of the Middle Corridor will bolster EU–China trade, though not enough to significantly affect global trade dynamics. Therefore, the Middle Corridor should be reimagined: from a global conduit between Far Eastern markets and Europe to a regional connectivity initiative, aimed at deepening the Caucasus and Central Asia’s integration and potentially boosting their economic and political resilience.
Indeed, the calculations around the Middle Corridor transcend mere economics. After all, connectivity projects operate within securitized environments. The aspiration of economically linking the Caucasus and Central Asia could eventually evolve into an interregional political and security dialogue. Perhaps, in an era of multipolarity, this is the best approach: fostering local alliances to help manage the influence of multiple hegemonic powers. [Source]
