Anthony Barbieri-Low is one of the very few scholars of Chinese history who are willing to venture out of the comfort zone of their established expertise and take on the serious study of a second field of specialty, in his case, Egyptology. It cannot be gainsaid that the current trend of historical scholarship takes comparative study more and more seriously, as many have recognized that conscious and focused comparison can bring unexpected insight to our understanding of history. So far comparative studies between East and West are mostly concentrated on the comparison between Greco-Roman antiquity and Ancient China, particularly the pre- and early Imperial period. Comparisons between China and Egypt are much rarer.
In the introduction, Barbieri-Low discusses the why and how of comparative study of history and gives a very useful overview of the current state of comparative history in the areas of China/Greco-Roman and China/Egypt comparison, pointing out the possible methodological issues, and emphasizing that comparison can and should be made according to appropriate schemes and historical developmental stages. Comparison between Greco-Roman antiquity and ancient China may seem a natural choice, especially between the Roman Empire and Han Dynasty, yet there is no reason to limit our inquiry to these two periods. One point worth mentioning is the author's view that comparison should be based on structural similarity, rather than chronological proximity. Thus in this book the comparison is made between New Kingdom Egypt and Western Han China, since each of the two periods occupied a key structural position in the development of these two civilizations, and both shared some structural similarities in terms of geo-political development, bureaucratic government operated by highly trained scribes/literary class, universal justice guaranteed by the ruler and dispensed through law courts, and an elaborate funerary culture with imagined netherworlds.
The first chapter discusses the geo-political significance of the Nile and the Yellow River and provides rich information for our understanding of the hydraulic systems of the two rivers and their political, economic, and social implications. The discussion surpasses the theory of the “hydraulic civilizations” developed by Karl Wittfogel, which is reexamined using the most recent studies of the physical structure of the two rivers and their respective importance in agricultural production. What is interesting is that the author draws parallels between the physical landscape of the rivers and the political landscape of the two empires, the hydraulic engineering projects both implemented, and even the spiritual property both rivers entailed in their respective cultural milieu. This is the first serious comparison between the Yellow River and the Nile since they were recognized as the great rivers that nurtured two of the oldest civilizations.
In chapter 2, the author compares the foreign diplomacy of the two empires on a grand scale, analyzing the mechanics for imperial expansion, the rationale for establishing vassal states, and the means to sustain a stable relationship with the vassal states, such as gift exchange and marriage alliance. Although the reality of such processes of empire building was certainly much more complicated than what we can learn from the surviving evidence, especially on the Egyptian side, these elements of empire building are similarly present in both empires. The author attributes the similarities to the similar stages of social and economic development of Egypt and China. The comparison exposes the problem of viewing the expansion of these empires as either the result of well-planned long-term strategy or mere reactions to outside invasion or threat. As with most historical processes, the actual course of events results from a combination of certain structural necessity and unforeseeable incidental events.
When evidence allows for detailed analysis, some interesting results could be gained. For example, diplomatic marriage in Han China and New Kingdom Egypt is often mentioned as a means to create bonds between two polities. Yet exactly how firm or useful these marriages were in the eyes of each party is often not easy to determine. The author makes good use of the precious Amarna Letters to assess the character of diplomatic marriage between Egypt and the Levant, and compares them with the Han diplomatic marriages with the Xiongnu and Wusun, which are relatively well-known. The author points out similarities in the motivations for diplomatic marriage, such as maintaining peace, acquiring resources, and enhancing prestige among peers, all of which are to be expected. Yet one outstanding difference is that the Egyptian Pharaoh would not marry his daughter to a foreign prince, but would take foreign princesses into his harem, while the Han emperor would never take foreign princesses into the royal court but willingly gave out daughters of the royal family to the vassals as wives. This interesting difference reveals cultural differences between Egypt and China in terms of kinship relations and the relative importance of females in the marriage alliance between states.
In chapter 3 the author compares two heretic sovereigns (Wang Mang and Akhenaten) on a micro scale, detailing their reforms in the realms of political order, ruling ideology, economy, art, and architecture, and placing their efforts in the framework of a declining empire. The author points out the difficulty of reform from within such situations, as both finally failed. Wang Mang's demise is detailed in the Han Shu, albeit with possible biases on the part of the historian. Akhenaten's final days are still unknown, but possibly not so violent as those of Wang Mang. Their posthumous fate was rather similar, as both were banished from the legitimate royal chronicle, the difference is that while Akhenaten's name was literally erased from almost all of the monuments that he established, Wang Mang's name was kept in official history as a negative example of rulership. This is also the first attempt of comparing Akhenaten with another sovereign in China, which is methodologically very challenging. Akhenaten was always seen as a unique person. But exactly how unique? The suggestion that he and Wang Mang shared common features that can be understood in the context of a reformer within a mature empire is an interesting and bold proposal that could lead to further reflections on the interaction between individual initiative, court politics, and the larger socio-economic circumstances.
Again, in chapters 4 and 5, based on the expertise in Han Dynasty law and society demonstrated by his two previous books, Barbieri-Low is able to acquire enough evidence from the Egyptian side to make a compelling comparison between the legal and bureaucratic systems and the scribal cultures of the two empires, which should be intensely interesting to both Sinologists and Egyptologists, as one illuminates the other with many new ways of understanding. One important insight that the author highlights is the different natures of the Han and the Egyptian states. By using a key text that indicates the establishment of the state government that was separated from the ruler's household, the author convincingly demonstrates that China after the Han was ruled by a semi-autonomous bureaucratic government that was different from the emperor's household, in contrast to that of the Egyptian government, where the state was the king's household. While the Chinese side of the story has been known to scholars for some time, the comparison with the seemingly equally bureaucratic Egyptian government definitely raises new insights regarding the nature of state and government in the ancient world.
Another significant subject for comparison is funerary cultures, as both China and Egypt possessed rich and extensive funerary customs, with abundant tomb furnishings and mural paintings. This is of course a vast subject of study on both sides. Co-authored with Marissa A. Stevens, an Egyptologist in UCLA, chapter 6 discusses the elaborate funerary culture of both Egypt and China, and reexamines the origins and functions of tomb models, profusely illustrated with colorful pictures and graphs. After a summary of the development of the funerary models in both cultures, the authors discuss the various functions of the models, shared by both Egypt and China, related to production, transportation, entertainment, or even landed properties. These models were made for living in the netherworld, but also as a reflection of the good life on earth. The production and social context of the models are also a subject of discussion, as the materiality and quality of the models are related to the social and political status of the tomb owners. Similar observations are not made, perhaps wisely, regarding the tomb paintings, since it would have required at least another chapter.
In chapter 7, Barbieri-Low takes the subject of the idea of the netherworld for comparison, for it is obvious from the previous chapter that the funerary culture is closely related to the idea of the netherworld. The author first gives a brief introduction to the idea of soul and netherworld in both Egypt and China, so as to lay out the background for the following discussion. Again, similar to the comparison between Wang Mang and Akhenaten, the author opts to focus on two specific objects among all the funerary paraphernalia, i.e., the Liubo game board found in Han tombs and the senet game found in Egyptian tombs. These games are not only games that people played during their lifetime, but also items signifying the fate of the deceased in the netherworld: the winner gets to enter the blessed afterlife. The similar function of the two games, though different in how they were played, nevertheless expressed a common sentiment of people's hope for an ideal life in the netherworld. This common hope is also demonstrated by the eventual destination of the deceased in their journey to the West, the Paradise that awaits all if they are found to be of upright character in life. This comparison, though seemingly easy to comprehend and accept, should not be taken at face value. As the author hints at the end of the chapter, religious piety preserved positively in iconography or funerary texts could be read both ways, and it will always be a challenge for us to capture the illusive connection between individual conscience and collective or cultural ideology.
In sum, this is a trail-blazing work that will inspire more comparative studies, whether or not between Egypt and China, for the author has demonstrated the exciting result and the rich potential of comparative history. It shows that it is only by comparing the details of each subject in question that one can reach a more nuanced view of what was unique or common, so that no facile generalizations are made regarding the two cultures. What one used to consider unique to one culture may turn out to be not so unique, and vice versa. This is not to say that the author has reached any definitive conclusion or exhausted every possible explanation in the comparison between Egypt and China. Experts on each side of the comparison could certainly raise numerous quibbles about the details of facts and question the appropriateness of particular comparisons. Yet the purpose of review for these kind of books is to identify the major contributions of the author, pointing out the possible future direction of research that the book may initiate. The author has effectively demonstrated that meaningful comparison between different cultures can be done as long as one follows a principle, in this case structural similarities in cultural-historical developments, and, of course, done enough work on both sides. To compare an apple with an orange could indeed be fruitful, as new appreciation of the taste of each could, when one cuts into the fruit, emerge from a comparison. Where or in what direction should students who are interested in doing comparative work go? I would suggest that comparison for the sake of comparison would not do. There needs to be a genuine interest and passion in seeing humanity as a whole, and different historical traditions as variations of a central theme. If human beings belong to one species, what is the meaning of similarities and differences that we observe, and how should we as students of humanity position ourselves when equipped with some understanding derived from comparison? Professor Barbieri-Low's new book certainly provides numerous clues to the possible answer to this question, and further elaborations should be encouraged.
