DOCSLIB.ORG

The Development of Diplomatic Relations and Trade with Ming in the Last Years of the Koryŏ Dynasty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Development of Diplomatic Relations and Trade with Ming in the Last Years of the Koryŏ Dynasty International Journal of Korean History (Vol.10, Dec. 2006) 1 The Development of Diplomatic Relations and Trade with Ming in the Last Years of the Koryŏ Dynasty Lee, Jin- Han∗ Introduction Although it was an unprecedented mega-empire, Yuan began to see signs of agitation in the mid-14th century onwards. Not only did there exist fierce strife for the imperial throne and conflict among the aristocracy but also the misgovernment of Emperor Shundi (Huizong) brought about financial difficulties and the misery of the masses, in turn leading to uprisings nationwide. Originally under the command of Guo Zixing from Haozhou, one of the most powerful forces involved in such unrest, Zhu Yuanzhang (the future Emperor Gaodi or Taizu) declared his independence as the Duke of Wu upon Guo Zixing’s death in 1355 (5th year of King Gongmin’s reign). He then proclaimed himself the King of Wu in 1364 in Nanjing, subdued rival forces such as Zhang Shicheng and Fang Guozhen in 1367, proclaimed himself as the Ming emperor in 1368, and initiated the conquest of Yuan to the north, thus capturing the capital and seizing control of China.1 With the founding of the Ming Dynasty, Koryŏ put its effort into forging diplomatic relations with Ming to be free from Yuan political interference. As for Ming, unlike Koryŏ’s intention, it sought to maintain ∗ Associate Professor, Dept. of Korean History, Korea University 2 The Development of Diplomatic Relations and Trade ~ the Koryŏ-Yuan diplomatic form, which had been based on suzerain-tributary relations. Consequently, as with Yuan earlier, Ming stated the types and amounts of goods that it needed and strictly controlled the number and quality of tribute despite its superficial claim that goodwill was most important to tribute. Because it was not militarily invaded by Ming, unlike in the case of Yuan, Koryŏ was able to manage diplomatic relations with the new Chinese dynasty in a more assertive manner, just as it had done with Song, Liao, and Jin during the early Koryŏ period. Because it presumed that it would gain economic profit through diplomatic relations, Ming’s attitude naturally surprised Koryŏ. In the end, Koryŏ-Ming relations surrounding the tribute problem were also a process through which Koryŏ, which sought to restore diplomatic relations to pre-Yuan conditions, and Ming, which wished to maintain diplomatic relations as established by Yuan, endeavored to establish new tribute relations through compromise. Bearing all of this in mind, the present paper will examine the development of Koryŏ-Ming diplomatic relations following their initial establishment. Koryŏ had no choice but to accept Ming’s restriction of the frequency of missions to China, prohibition of Koryŏ envoys’ use of sea routes, and continued increase in the total volume of tribute demanded because its monarchs wished to secure political legitimacy through Ming investiture and to strengthen their authority by introducing Ming institutions and goods, and its officials had much to profit from the trade that took place during the Koryŏ envoys’ visits to China. In other words, for the ruling class of Koryŏ, it was imperative that relations with Ming be amicable. In order to gain better insights into the process of conflict and reconciliation between the two nations during this period in terms of the tribute problem, emphasis will be placed on political as well as cultural exchange and trade.2 Lee, Jin-Han 3 The Development of Diplomatic Relations with Ming and the Tributary Relations at the End of the Koryŏ Period As Yuan deteriorated and Ming seized the Central Plains, Koryŏ’s diplomacy likewise had to shift its focus to Ming.3 On January 17, 1368, after the fall of Dadu (Khanbaliq; modern-day Beijing), Zhu Yuanzhang established Great Ming (Da Ming) and adopted the regnal title of Hongwu. Accordingly, Koryŏ dispatched Jang Ja-on to the King of Wu in November 1368,4 in response to which Ming dispatched an envoy in April 1369 with an imperial rescript and 40 rolls of silk gauze.5 After a month, Koryŏ dispatched Hong Sang-jae, a secretary in the Board of Rites, to Ming to congratulate the emperor’s accession and to express gratitude,6 in response to which Ming dispatched an envoy in May 1370 to invest King Gongmin as the King of Koryŏ and to bestow the Datong Calendar and 10 rolls of silk carpets.7 Diplomatic relations between the two nations were thus swiftly normalized because Ming needed Koryŏ’s cooperation in subduing Northern Yuan, which was still a threat, and Koryŏ in turn wished to free itself from Yuan pressure by hastily forging diplomatic relations with Ming.8 However, with its advance into Liaodong in 1371, Ming began to change its attitude toward Koryŏ and to become coercive. The Ming emperor’s edict brought back from China in July 1373 by chief secretary Gang In-yu conveyed Ming’s suspicion that Koryŏ was secretly in league with Northern Yuan. It accused Koryŏ of engaging in espionage under the guise of trade, exchanging envoys with the King of Wu in Liaodong, failing to present horses from Jeju Island according to Ming demands, and attacking Niujiazhuang in collusion with Naghachu.9 In addition, the imperial edict and the advice of the Central Secretariat brought back by envoy Jeong Bi in June 1374 stated that Koryŏ was to present tributes to Ming once every 3 years and to use sea routes. In addition, claiming that Koryŏ’s goodwill was more important than the amount of tributes, Ming only accepted hemp and returned the 4 The Development of Diplomatic Relations and Trade ~ remaining gold, silver, dishes, colored cushions, ramie, leopard hide, otter hide, and white ramie. Ming also refused to provide, as Koryŏ had requested, the machinery, gunpowder, sulfur, and nitrate necessary for constructing ships to fight against the marauding Japanese pirates.10 This was a flagrant refusal to accept Koryŏ’s original request that envoys from the latter be allowed to travel through the safer Liaodong and that Koryŏ be permitted to dispatch envoys several times a year for occasions such as the New Year and the birthdays of Ming emperors, empresses, and crown princes. Ming continued to maintain a strong attitude toward Koryŏ because it wished to prevent the latter from endangering Liaodong by colluding with remaining Northern Yuan forces and to control Koryŏ effectively by putting the latter in a difficult position through relentless critique of its supposed insincerity and rebelliousness.11 Amid such a situation, Koryŏ’s own political environment, too, changed. Yi In-im, who came to power after enthroning King U in the eleventh month of 1374, switched to foreign policy that would forge diplomatic relations with both Yuan and Ming at the same time. This was because King Gongmin, the head of the pro-Ming faction, had been assassinated, Ming’s hard-line policy had strengthened the pro-Yuan faction by giving rise to Koryŏ court officials’ antipathy, and Koryŏ had been placed in a compromising position through the murder of Ming envoy Cai Bin, who had arrived to demand annual tribute horses, by escort Gim Ui at the incitation of An Sa-gi, a chief secretary who belonged to the pro-Yuan faction.12 On the other hand, new literati such as Jeong Mong-ju, Bak Sang-chung, and Jeong Do-jeon argued for continued relations with Ming, which had been forged under King Gongmin’s reign as a part of the “policies of the previous monarch” and opposed the resumption of diplomatic relations with Yuan. They believed that because it was the “righteous lord of all under heaven” and equipped with “celestial troops,” Ming had the political legitimacy and military power to necessitate Koryŏ’s continued diplomatic relations in both name and practice.13 In the end, Yi In-im’s forces dispatched envoys to Ming to request a Lee, Jin-Han 5 posthumous title for King Gongmin because, in consideration of contemporary international situation, it was difficult for Koryŏ to relinquish completely diplomatic relations with an increasingly dominant Ming. In addition, though Koryŏ explained the assassination of King Gongmin and the murder of Cai Bin, Ming’s suspicions were not cleared, which even led to the imprisonment of Koryŏ envoy Choe Won. However, with Ming’s release of Choe Won in June 1378, relations between the two nations began to ease. In September of the same year, Koryŏ once again started to use the Ming regnal title of Hongwu,14 thus creating a mood for reconciliation. Nevertheless, Ming’s demand for tribute became more stringent. In March 1379, Ming envoys visited Koryŏ and demanded: Koryŏ must send 1,000 tribute horses, as King Gongmin had promised, together with envoys, half of who were to consist of state ministers; starting in the following year, Koryŏ must customarily present 100 catties of gold, 10,000 taels of silver, 100 good horses, and 10,000 rolls of fine hemp; and Koryŏ must repatriate all Ming subjects whom it had taken from Liaodong.15 In addition, Ming notified Koryŏ in August 1380 that it would pardon the latter for the murder of the Ming envoy if Koryŏ would newly send the 1,000 horses, with additions, that Ming had demanded earlier (even though a portion had been sent already) and make it a custom, starting in the following year, to send 100 catties of gold, 5,000 taels of silver, 5,000 rolls of hemp, and 100 horses.16 Invaded by Japanese pirates and devastated by the Red Turban Rebels, Koryŏ found it difficult to comply with Ming’s demand for tribute. Nevertheless, because Ming’s investiture would stabilize both royal power and the border region, it prepared the annual tribute as demanded.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ancient, British and Foreign Coins and Commemorative Medals
    ANCIENT, BRITISH AND FOREIGN COINS AND COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS 27-28 MARCH 2018 LONDON ANCIENT, BRITISH AND FOREIGN COINS AND COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS 69 Southampton Row, Bloomsbury London WC1B 4ET tel +44 (0)20 7563 4000 fax +44 (0)20 7563 4066 Vat No: GB 791627108 Sale Details | Tuesday 27 March 2018 at 10.00 a.m. (Lots 1-263) Tuesday 27 March 2018 at 3.00 p.m. (Lots 264-454) Wednesday 28 March 2018 at 2.00 p.m. (Lots 455-744) In sending commission bids or making enquiries, this sale should be referred to as DORRIEN - 18004 Viewing of Lots | At Spink London Friday 23 March 2018 at 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday 26 March 2018 at 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. | Private viewing by appointment only Live platform | and/or (3% fee on hammer price) Your Specialists for this Sale Bids Payment Enquiries Dora Szigeti Veronica Morris [email protected] [email protected] +44 (0)20 7563 4005 +44 (0)20 7563 4018 fax +44 (0)20 7563 4037 VAT Enquiries Internet Bidding John Winchcombe Richard Bishop Greg Edmund [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lewis [email protected] +44 (0)20 7563 4053 +44 (0)20 7563 4048 [email protected] +44 (0)20 7563 4101 +44 (0)20 7563 4090 +44 (0)20 7563 4089 Barbara Mears [email protected] +44 (0)20 7563 4091 The Spink Environment Commitment: Paper from Sustainable Forests and Clean Ink Spink has a long history of preserving not only collectables but our planet, too.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Accession and Coronation
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE INAUGURATING A NEW REIGN: PLANNING FOR ACCESSION AND CORONATION BOB MORRIS INAUGURATING A NEW REIGN: PLANNING FOR ACCESSION AND CORONATION Dr Bob Morris The Constitution Unit University College London May 2018 i ISBN: 978-1-903903-82-7 Published by: The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy University College London 29-31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU United Kingdom Tel: 020 7679 4977 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit © The Constitution Unit, UCL, 2018 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published May 2018 Front cover image: Nathan Hughes Hamilton; licenced under Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode ii CONTENTS Preface……………………………………………………………………………….v Executive summary………………………………………………………………….vi 1.1-1.25 Conceptual changes since 1952……………………………………………...1 1.1-1.5 Social…………………………………………………………..1 1.6-1.8 Religion……...………………………………………………....1 1.9-1.10 Political…………………………………………………….....2 1.11-1.14 Geopolitics and security……………………………………..2 1.15-1.23 Constitutional……………………………………………….3 1.24-1.25 Machinery of government…………………………………...5 2.1-2.22 Accession…………………………………………………………………....6 2.1 Demise…………………………………………………………….6 2.2-2.4
    [Show full text]
  • June 2020 Margaret Stewart & the Birth of the Red Douglases, 1389
    VOL 47 ISSUE 2 June 2020 IN THIS ISSUE PAGE WHAT TO SEE 2 OFFICERS & REGENTS 4 President’s Comments 5 SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS 6 Stand-off at Tantallon Castle: Margaret Stewart & the Birth of the Red Douglases, 1389 by Dr. Callum Watson 13 Tantallon Castle by Ian Douglas 17 Scotland and the Confederate States of America by Colin MacDonald 21 CDSNA Septs & Allied Families: Harkness, Inglis, Kilgore 24 NEWS from ALL OVER 31 2021 CDSNA GMM INFORMATION UPDATE BACK COVER – List of the Sept & Allied Family Names Recognized by CDSNA J u n e 2 0 2 0 Dubh Ghlase P a g e | 2 NEWSLETTER FOUNDER Gilbert F. Douglas, JR. MD (deceased) OFFICERS REGENTS President UNITED STATES INDIANA OKLAHOMA Jim & Sandy Douglas Jody Blaylock Chuck Mirabile ALABAMA - Gilbert F. Douglas III 765-296-2710 405-985-9704 7403 S. Parfet Ct. 205-222-7664 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Littleton, CO 80127-6109 IOWA – Regent wanted for the OREGON (North) Phone: 720-934-6901 ALASKA --- Regent wanted Quad City area Carol Bianchini [email protected] 971-300-8593 ARIZONA KANSAS --- Regent wanted for Wichita [email protected] Barbara J. Wise area Vice-President 520-991-9539 OREGON (South) – Regent wanted [email protected] KENTUCKY --- Co-Regents wanted Tim Tyler Elizabeth Martin PENNSYLVANIA -- Regent and/or 7892 Northlake Dr #107 ARKANSAS – Co-Regent Wanted 931-289-6517 Co-Regents wanted Diana Kay Stell [email protected] Huntington Beach, CA 92647 501-757-2881 SOUTH CAROLINA Co-Regent Phones: 1-800-454-5264 [email protected] LOUISIANA – Regent/Co-Regent wanted George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan William Haddrick LLB Jamescook, LLM Qldut, Graddiplegprac ANU
    The Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth: The Relationship between the Prerogatives of the Crown and the Executive Power of the Commonwealth Ryan William Haddrick LLB JamesCook, LLM QldUT, GradDipLegPrac ANU A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2017 T.C. Beirne School of Law i ii ABSTRACT The orthodox view is that the prerogatives of the Crown are textually incorporated, or sourced, in the language of s 61 of the Australian Constitution. This work challenges that assumption by examining the text, structure and history of ss 2, 61 and 64 of the Constitution. In particular, the inclusion of the words “under the Crown” and “shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth” in the preamble and s 64 respectively are, it is argued, textual indicators (and devices) that the prerogative is textually recognised or affirmed by those provisions, and ought to be seen as emanating from the Crown, and recognised by common law – and not as emanating from s 61 of the Constitution. Having argued that the executive power of the Commonwealth (that is, s 61) is not the textual source, or recognition, of the prerogatives of the Crown, this dissertation then posits a theory as to how s 61 should be construed. True to its Montesquieuian heritage, it is argued that the executive power of the Commonwealth ought to be understood in a functionalist sense. The evidence considered to support these propositions is the text, structure and history of the constitutional provisions. In particular, this dissertation examines the historical concept of the prerogatives of the Crown; the way that body of constitutional doctrine became part of the Australian constitutional landscape; and how the prerogative was understood to operate in pre-Federation Imperial and colonial case law.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 the Uighurs, the Kyrgyz and the Tangut (Eighth to The
    ISBN 978-92-3-103467-1 THE UIGHURS AND THE KYRGYZ 9 THE UIGHURS, THE KYRGYZ AND THE TANGUT (EIGHTH TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY)* D. Sinor, Geng Shimin and Y. I. Kychanov Contents THE UIGHURS IN MONGOLIA AND THE KYRGYZ ............... 196 THE UIGHUR KINGDOM OF KOCHO ........................ 206 THE TANGUT HSI HSIA KINGDOM (982–1227) .................. 212 Part One THE UIGHURS IN MONGOLIA AND THE KYRGYZ (D. Sinor) The first mention of the Uighurs (under the name Hui-ho and various graphic variants) appears in Chinese sources and refers to the early seventh century a.d. when this people lived on the banks of the Selenga river and was subjected to the Türks. The Chinese viewed the Uighurs as the descendants of the Hsiung-nu, the dominant power on the steppe from * See Map 2. 196 ISBN 978-92-3-103467-1 THE UIGHURS AND THE KYRGYZ about 200 b.c. to a.d. 48. This may indeed have been the historical truth, but there is no way to substantiate it, since the Chinese sources tend to ascribe Hsiung-nu origin to any of the numerous steppe peoples with whom the Chinese had contacts over succeeding centuries. It is thus not surprising that the description given of the Uighurs by the Chin T’ang-shu [Old T’ang Annals] follows the traditional pattern of characterization of the steppe peoples: They have no chiefs, no permanent dwellings; they wander in search of water and pasture. These men are of an evil disposition and cruel. They are excellent riders and archers and most rapacious.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric and Reality of the Tribute System: Interstate Relations in the 10 Th -11 Th Century East Asia Peter Yun (Youngsan University)
    1 Rhetoric and Reality of the Tribute System: Interstate Relations in the 10 th -11 th Century East Asia Peter Yun (Youngsan University) I. Rhetoric and Reality of the “Tribute System” Chinese states in the premodern period approached interstate relations in terms of the so called tribute system. By the Han dynasty, the tribute system was “a continuous quest on the part of the Chinese empire for a proper form in which Sino-foreign relations could be regulated in keeping with the general imperial order” (Yü 1967, 39), and “the Chinese had begun to believe that the tributary relationship was the only normal one which did not conflict with their view of the known world” (Wang 1968, 41). It has also been asserted that China’s size, culture, power, and wealth would induce foreign people to voluntarily accept inferior status and seek recognition as “tributaries” in the hierarchical “Chinese World Order.” Indeed, the conduct of regular interstate exchanges in traditional East Asia utilized mostly Chinese [or Confucian] in concept, ritual, and rhetoric. The tribute system model has been useful in providing its basic features in theory and practice, and in understanding how such a system had become so deeply embedded in premodern Chinese political ideology. However, there have been efforts to rethink the model on both empirical and conceptual grounds. The Chinese superiority in the East Asian World Order was not based on its “cultural advancement” but had to be demonstrated through economic wealth and military power. The Han Chinese states often did not dominate surrounding states and peoples, and at times parts or all of China fell under the direct rule of foreign peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution Unit Monitor 76 / November 2020
    1 Constitution Unit Monitor 76 / November 2020 There was tolerance in the early stages of the pandemic Democratic lockdown? for quick decision-making, and partial bypassing of parliament. But that has increasingly grown thin. The England entered a new COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ just UK is one of many countries where concerns have been before Monitor went to press. The pandemic continues expressed about COVID facilitating an executive ‘power to dominate politics in the UK and globally, with a return grab’. Worldwide, experts have warned that ‘democracy, to politics-as-usual appearing distant. Both the handling human rights and the rule of law cannot be allowed to of the crisis and the government’s latest actions on become the collateral damage of the pandemic’. Most Brexit have been key factors driving serious concerns key decisions at UK level have come via secondary about the maintenance of constitutional norms in the UK. legislation, often published at short notice with little or But as this latest Monitor catalogues, the roots of those no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Increasing concerns – about declining respect for conventions and protests from MPs, parliamentary committees and the deliberate or accidental erosion of ‘checks and balances’ Commons Speaker (see page 5) extracted concessions – are now spread across many fields. from ministers that parliamentary oversight would Image above: Boris Johnson putting on a mask as he leaves increase – hence the difficult vote on the new lockdown Downing Street (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister arrangements on 4 November. A total of 34 Conservative MPs voted against the new regulations – which In this edition represents almost half of the government’s working majority – and others abstained; though the measure Brexit 3–5 Parties and politicians 14–15 passed comfortably with Labour support.
    [Show full text]
  • Jahangir, Collector
    41 JAHANGIR, COLLECTOR Jahangir, Collector: Seizing the World Mughal Emperor Jahangir (r. 1605-1627) was an avid collector of many things: art, animals, and natural wonders. By tracing his acquisition habits, including networks of trade and types of acquisitions, this article reveals how the emperor constructed his self-concept by way of his collection. Jahangir collected prestige objects to reinforce his own wealth, but also desired to know and possess the most fantastic animals, plants, stones, or other natural oddities. By allowing him to place his mark on such a wide range of objects, Jahangir’s collection justified his regnal title: Jahangir, World-Seizer. Due to copyright restrictions, not all figures referenced were reproduced within this journal. Clair Hopper Written for HIST 477: Cover Image: Figure 2, Mansur. Zebra. 1620-21. Islamic Art and Empire Opaque watercolor and ink on paper. 18.3 x 24cm. Dr. Lisa Balabanlilar London, Victoria and Albert Museum. and Dr. Aimée E. Froom SPRING 2019 CLAIR HOPPER 42 9 mules very fayre and lardg, 7 Camells laden with veluett, two Sutes of …Venetian hanginges of veluett with gould…two Chestes of Persian Cloth of gould, 8 Carpettes of silke, 2 Rubyes ballast, 21 Cammelles of wyne of the Grape, 14 Camelles of distilld sweet waters, 7 of rose waters, 7 daggers sett with stones, 5 swordes sett with stones, 7 Venetian looking glasses, but these so fame, so rich that I was ashamed of the relation.1 The above passage was recorded by Sir Thomas Roe, English emissary to the court of Mughal emperor Jahangir, upon seeing a convoy of finery acquired by the emperor.
    [Show full text]
  • Swearing in the New King
    The London Gazee Friday , 8 February, 1952 SWEARING IN THE NEW KING: THE ACCESSION DECLARATION AND CORONATION OATHS Whitehall, February 6, 1952 Upon the intimation that our late Most Gracious Sovereign King George the Sixth had died in his sleep at Sandringham in the early hours of this morning the Lords of the Privy Council assembled this day at St James’s Palace, and gave orders for proclaiming her present majesty: Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George the Sixth of Blessed and Glorious Memory by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary: We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assist ed with these of His late Majesty’s Privy Council, with representatives of other members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Alderman and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the Death of our late Sovereign of Happy Memory, become Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience, with hearty and humble Affection; beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess Elizabeth the Second with long and happy Years to reign over us.
    [Show full text]
  • Osu1179937403.Pdf (2.74
    THE LORDS OF THE AUSPICIOUS CONJUNCTION: TURCO-MONGOL IMPERIAL IDENTITY ON THE SUBCONTINENT A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lisa Ann Balabanlilar, M.A. ****** The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Stephen Dale, Advisor Professor Jane Hathaway ____________________________ Professor Geoffrey Parker Advisor Graduate Program in History Copyright by Lisa Ann Balabanlilar 2007 ABSTRACT Contemporary studies of the Mughal dynasty in India have long been dominated by nationalist, sectarian and ideological agendas which typically present the empire of the Mughal as an exclusively Indian phenomenon, politically and culturally isolated on the sub- continent. Cross disciplinary scholarship on the Middle East and Islamic Central Asia assigns to the Mughals a position on the periphery. Omitting reference to a Central Asian legacy, scholars instead link the Mughals to the preceding nearly one thousand years of Muslim colonization in India. Yet to insist on a thousand years of Muslim continuity in India is to ignore the varied religious, cultural, and political traditions which were transmitted to the subcontinent by a widely diverse succession of immigrant communities. This study radically re-evaluates the scholarly and intellectual isolation with which the Mughals have been traditionally treated, and argues that the Mughals must be recognized as the primary inheritors of the Central Asian Turco- Persian legacy of their ancestor Timur (known in the West as Tamerlane). Driven from their homeland in Central Asia, the Timurid refugee community of South Asia meticulously maintained and asserted the universally admired charisma of their imperial lineage and inherited cultural ii personality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rastafari Movement Is a Monotheistic, Abrahamic, New Religious Movement That Arose in a Christian Culture in Jamaica in the 1930S
    PREPARED BY JAH ROOTSMAN July 2010 RASTAFARI The Rastafari movement is a monotheistic, Abrahamic, new religious movement that arose in a Christian culture in Jamaica in the 1930s. Its adherents, who worship Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia, former Emperor of Ethiopia (1930–1936 and 1941–1974), as the Second Advent, are known as Rastafarians, or Rastas. The movement is sometimes referred to as "Rastafarianism", but this term is considered derogatory and offensive by some Rastas, who dislike being labelled as an "ism". Rastafari is not a highly organized ‘religion’; it is a movement and an ideology. Many Rastas say that it is not a "religion" at all, but a "Way of Life". Most Rastas do not claim any sect or denomi- nation, and thus encourage one another to find faith and inspiration within themselves, although some do identify strongly with one of the "mansions of Rastafari" — the three most prominent of these being the Nyahbinghi, the Bobo Ashanti and the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The name Rastafari is taken from Ras Tafari, the pre-regnal title of Haile Selassie I, composed of Amharic Ras (literally "Head," an Ethiopian title equivalent to Duke), and Haile Selassie's pre-regnal given name, Tafari. Rastafari are generally distinguished for asserting the doctrine that Haile Selassie I, the former, and final, Emperor of Ethiopia, is another incarnation of the Christian God, called Jah. They see Haile Selassie I as Jah or Jah Rastafari, who is the second coming of Jesus Christ onto the Earth. The Rastafari movement encompasses themes such as the spiritual use of cannabis and the rejection of western society (called Babylon, in reference more to the metaphoric Babylon of Christianity than to the historical Mesopotamian city-state).
    [Show full text]
  • For King and What Country?
    For King and What Country? Chinggisid-Timurid Conceptions of Rulership and Political Community in Relation to Territory, 1370–1530 by Shuntu Kuang A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto © Copyright by Shuntu Kuang 2020 For King and What Country? Chinggisid-Timurid Conceptions of Rulership and Political Community in Relation to Territory, 1370–1530 Shuntu Kuang Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto 2020 Abstract This thesis investigates Chinggisid-Timurid conceptions of rulership and political community in relation to territory, focusing on Perso-Islamic Central Asia and Iran during the period 1370–1530. It also discusses the thirteenth-century Mongol-ruled world for backdrop, and highlights the distinctiveness of the said conceptions through comparisons with contemporaneous European and East Asian/Ming Chinese conceptions of the same. This is a study of a chapter in the history of “international states system” before the European model of international states system became the global standard. The political culture of the Chaghatayids, Ilkhanids, and Timurids included conceptions of rulership and political community vis-à-vis territory that were rooted in a mix of Mongol and Perso-Islamic traditions. In the early thirteenth century, the Mongols conceived of a qan (khan) as leading an ulus, that is, a mobile demographic entity not defined by specific territory. Tājīk historians in Mongol service appeared to have understood this, though a number of them also attributed certain territorial characteristics to ulus. The matter becomes more complicated when Chinggisid-Timurid chancellery documents/diplomatic ii letters are considered, as unlike their European and East Asian counterparts, these documents lacked straightforward claims of rulership over politico-administrative territory.
    [Show full text]