Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:57:54.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-Mongol States and Early Modern Chronology in Iran and China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

PAMELA KYLE CROSSLEY  and
GENE R. GARTHWAITE
PAMELA KYLE CROSSLEY
Affiliation:
Dartmouth college, Hanover, New [email protected]
GENE R. GARTHWAITE
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the aftermath of the Mongol occupations of the largest and most populous societies of Eurasia, greater visibility of popular religion, more widespread vernacular language use, rising literacy, and fundamental shifts in the structure of rulership and the relationship of state and society could all be observed. Many historians have related these changes to a broader chronology of early modernity. This has been problematic in the case of Iran, whose eighteenth-century passage has not been adequately explored in recent scholarship. Our comparative review of ‘post-Mongol’ Iran and China suggests that this period marks as meaningful a break between a schematic medieval and schematic early modern history in Iran as it does in China. Here, we first consider both societies in the post-Mongol period as empires with secular rulerships and increasingly popular cultural trends, and look at the role of what Crossley has called “simultaneous rulership”—rulership in which the codes of legitimacy of civilisations recognised by the conquest authority are given distinct representation in the rulership — in marking the transition away from religious-endorsed rule to self-legitimating rule as a mark of comparative early modernity.

Type
Part IV: Beyond the Empire
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 26 , Issue 1-2 , January 2016 , pp. 293 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Crossley, P. K.,’The Rulerships of China’, American Historical Review, 97, 5 (December 1992), pp. 1468–1483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crossley, P. K., A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology (Berkeley, 1999)Google Scholar; Garthwaite, G. R., The Persians (Oxford, 2005), pp. 12–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newman, A. J., Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire (London, 2008), pp. 30–32 Google Scholar, 114, 148; Garthwaite, G. R., 'Transition: The End of the Old Order—Iran in the Eighteenth Century' in Morgan, D. O. and Reid, A., (eds.), The New Cambridge History of Islam : Volume 3 (Cambridge, 2010)Google Scholar; Kasrael, M. S., 'Simultaneous Rulership, Governance and Legitimacy in Ancient Iran', Politics Quarterly: Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Science 40, 2 (Summer 2010), pp. 209–228 Google Scholar.

2 See Beatrice Manz's section ‘The fifteenth century and the creation of new models’ in her contribution to this volume.

3 Fletcher, J. F. Jr., 'China and Central Asia', in Fairbank, John King and Ch'en, Ta-tuan, (eds.), The Chinese World Order Traditional China's Foreign Relations (Cambridge MA, 1968), pp. 214 Google Scholar, 353.

4 Kolodziejczyk, D., 'Khan, caliph, tsar and imperator: The multiple identities of the Ottoman sultan', in Peter Fibiger, Bang and Kolodziejczyk, Dariusz, (eds.), Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture and Representation in Eurasian History (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 175–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See also Kafadar, C., Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley, 1995), pp. 151–154 Google Scholar.

6 Mango, C., Byzantium: The Empire of the New Rome (London, 1980; Phoenix, 1994, Darby PA 2005), pp. 192–193 Google Scholar, 219.

7 For reflection of these ideas in Ottoman imperial architecture, see Necipoglu, G., Ceremonial and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge MA, 1991)Google Scholar.

8 See also Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, pp. 9-43.

9 Potts, D. T., Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era (Oxford, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Newman, A. J., Twelver Shiism: Unity and Diversity in the Life of Islam, 632 to 1722 (Edinburgh, 2013)Google Scholar.

11 Amanat, A., Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy , 1831-1896 (London, 1997)Google Scholar.

12 Similar arguments are to be found in Porter, A., Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations: Weaving Together Society (Cambridge, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Garthwaite, ‘Transition: The End of the Old Order.'

14 Babayan, K., Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran (Cambridge, MA, 2002)Google Scholar.

15 Newman, Safavid Iran.

16 Zackery M. Heern, 'Usuli Shi'ism: The Emergence of an Islamic Reform Movement in Early Modern Iraq and Iran.' University of Utah, PhD. dissertation, 2011.

17 Babaie, S. , et al., Slaves of the Shah: New Elites of Safavid Iran (London, 2004)Google Scholar.

18 Lambton, A. K. S., 'The Tribal Resurgence and the Decline of the Bureaucracy in the Eighteenth Century', in Naff, Thomas and Owen, Roger, (eds.), Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History (Carbondale and Edwardsville IL, 1977), pp. 120–121 Google Scholar.

19 Ibid ., p. 6.

20 Grunebaum, G. E. von, Medieval Islam: A study in Cultural Orientation (Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar.

21 Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, pp. 44, 81, 105, 245.

22 Grunebaum, G. E. von, Modern Islam: The Search for Cultural Identity (Los Angeles, 1962)Google Scholar.

23 Hodgson, M. G. S., The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization (Chicago, 1971), pp. 3–4 Google Scholar.

24 Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, pp. 224-230. This discussion is eliding other Buddhist personae within the Qing rulership, including the imperial consciousness transmitted through the Mahâkâla cult, for which see Rawski, E. S., The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (Berkeley, 1998), pp. 251–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, pp. 218-241.

25 The relationship between čakravartinism and patronage of the Tibetan hierarchs was itself a simultaneity. The čakravartin ideal was old, and usually linked to Mauryan king Asoka. In his own time he expressed himself in terms of solidarity with Buddhist community, but never characterised himself as their instrument, or as a monarch devoted— in his political person— to any individual religion. See Thapar, R., A History of India , Vol. 1. (London, 1966), pp. 70–75 Google Scholar. The lineage of Dalai Lamas was a novelty dating to 1588, when a ruler of eastern Mongolia instituted patronage of the Dalai Lamas as a fundament of his legitimacy as khaghan.

26 Crossley, A Translucent Mirror, p. 31.

27 For reflections of these ideas in the treatment of other early modern monarchs see also Rodriguez-Salgado, M., The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II and Habsburg Authority 1551-1559 (Cambridge and London, 1988)Google Scholar; Necipoglu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power; Burke, P., The Fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven, 1992)Google Scholar; Frye, S., Elizabeth I: The Competition for Representation (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar; Corns, T. N., The Royal Image : Representations of Charles I (Cambridge and London, 1999)Google Scholar; Watkins, J., Representing Elizabeth in Stuart England: Literature, History, Sovereignty (New York and Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar.