‘Converting’ Knowledge, Culture and Themselves

Abstract In this paper, I propose a new model of how the Mongol empire connected the various systems used by the subject peoples under their control. I contrast this to modern empires, which used a system of direct standardisation, so that one calendar, one currency, one system of measures, one way of doing history, often even one language (at least for most public purposes) and so on, was imposed on the entire empire. In the Mongol Empire, while a single system was not imposed, new methods of ‘conversion’ – or perhaps we could say ‘conversion formulae’ – appeared, by which disparate cultural practices of the conquered peoples were maintained, but rendered easily ‘convertible’ to each other, using tables and cognate methods. I discus this ‘conversion’ empire – as opposed to the modern ‘integration’ empire – in the fields of the calendar, language, money and historiography.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Inner Asia
Published
2024-11-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-02602005
Primary Topic
Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘Converting’ Knowledge, Culture and Themselves

Yoichi Isahaya
Inner Asia
Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
article

‘Converting’ Knowledge, Culture and Themselves

Yoichi Isahaya
article en

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, I propose a new model of how the Mongol empire connected the various systems used by the subject peoples under their control. I contrast this to modern empires, which used a system of direct standardisation, so that one calendar, one currency, one system of measures, one way of doing history, often even one language (at least for most public purposes) and so on, was imposed on the entire empire. In the Mongol Empire, while a single system was not imposed, new methods of ‘conversion’ – or perhaps we could say ‘conversion formulae’ – appeared, by which disparate cultural practices of the conquered peoples were maintained, but rendered easily ‘convertible’ to each other, using tables and cognate methods. I discus this ‘conversion’ empire – as opposed to the modern ‘integration’ empire – in the fields of the calendar, language, money and historiography.

Inner AsiaVol. 26(2)
Hokkaido University (JP)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.