About: | Walter Pohl |
Position: | Board of Directors |
Nodes: |
For the study of empire, the particular dynamic of steppe realms offers a fascinating test case. Research on the Central Asian steppes has often attempted to construct models of ‘the’ ancient steppe realm, perhaps allowing for changes with the establishment of the Mongol Empire (Barfield 1989). Yet recent studies show how differently the various realms -- Xiongnu, Huns, Xianbei, Avars, Turks, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars and others -- actually evolved. In spite of apparent similarities, no two cases of imperial projects in the steppe followed the same trajectory, and we have to acknowledge their multiplicity (Di Cosmo 2004, Pohl 2021). This case study takes a comparative approach to processes of empire-building and multipolarity in the steppe, from the Huns to the decline of the Mongol Empire/s. It addresses the role of borderlands under the sway of highly mobile steppe warriors with very varying degrees control. How did frequent shifts affect the population of these zones of fluctuating dominion?
The challenge in the much-studied history of Christianisation (and also de-Christianisation in some parts) is that it the field is still shaped by Christian apologetic narratives and, in contrast, by the enlightenment critique of the Church. It should therefore be studied in a wider context of social and cultural change and of shifting identities between the 4th and 9th centuries CE (Brown 1996; Pohl 2013b). How were Christian forms of identification developed, and how did Christianity shape other constructions of identity (ethnic, political…)? How were gender roles and attitudes to diversity modified? The study builds on previous research in the ERC AdG ‘SCIRE’ and the SFB ‘VISCOM’.
"This is a conceptual topic based on the comparative study of a variety of cases and relying on a new reading of the sources. The way in which human groupings constructed their social identities by emphasising particular distinctions has been studied under a great variety of categories: racism, nationalism, ethnic prejudice, exclusion, othering, stigma, gender bias, religious intolerance, ideologies of superiority, persecuting society, orientalism. Recent research has often stressed ‘positive’ interaction, mutual respect, cultural exchanges, similarity and hybridity against all these ‘negative’ ways of dealing with diversity. The problem is that human interaction is not always as black and white as these models suggest. There may be hidden admiration paired with hate, cultural emulation coupled with a sense of superiority, exclusion of groups that are secretly regarded as superior, gender stereotyping cast as love, and many other forms of ambiguity. The cases to be considered here should help to explore the entire of reactions to diversity. ‘Historical diversity research’ should not simply take account of the fascinating range of human forms of existence, but also face the problems that attitudes to diversity have always created – and explore the paradox ways in which seemingly contradictory attitudes are entangled.
After a long period in which identities have been (and had to be) deconstructed as fluid, negotiable, constructed and altogether invented, we have to recreate the methodological instruments to deal with identities that seem to be intractable by negotiation or social change, at least in the short term. This often leads beyond functional analysis when subaltern groups of population remain loyal to their communities at all costs, and emphasise their identifications under duress. Historical identities (and perceptions of difference) may be be surprisingly resilient. This study will also address recent challenges such as Critical Race Theory which assumes that behind the ways in which the West dealt and deals with otherness there is unacknowledged race-thinking and an idea of white superiority. It is a challenge to explore whether and how this concept can be made productive for relations between Europe and Asia, but also within Asia. This is not intended to deny that many identifications are fluid and situational, and may shift during a lifetime, and that communities which claim to be intrinsically related may in reality be very heterogeneous, but to study under which circumstances identifications/distinctions remain. Why did Huns and Avars disappear, and Bulgars and Hungarians remain? Why did Romans disappear from most of the former Roman empire, but subaltern ‘Romans’ stuck to their habits of identification in some places? Why did Jews remain Jews despite all persecutions? The comparative study of cases of resilient identities in premodern Eurasia should shed light on the complex strategies of identification in the past.
Deliverables (of both case studies in node 3A): Monograph by W. Pohl, ‘Diversity, Identity and Difference in the First Millennium’ (Cambridge University Press); workshops; publications by the Research Associate.