Culture, ethnicity and religion are all important things when defining and learning about people of the past, and more specifically the ancient people of Eurasia. The Silk Road dominated Eurasia’s trade and helped Eurasia flourish. Culture, ethnicity, and religion played a key role in the Silk Road and the way it was used. Through history culture, ethnicity, and religion have all had different meanings and definitions. For years anthropologists have formulated theories about these three things and how they affect our lives and the views of other people. In an article by David Levinson and Melvin Ember it discusses culture, ethnicity, and religion and their impact on the world and different theories associated with them. In the article an anthropologist was mentioned, Edward B. Tylor. In the nineteenth century the common belief among some anthropologists such as Edward B. Tylor, was that the more advanced a society was in art, technology and so on, the more culture they had. The societies that were seen as having less culture were often labelled as being primitive. This is obviously a bad assumption because it is an ethnocentric assumption. Would Tylor think the people of Eurasia who used the Silk Road as being primitive? In my opinion from the readings I have done for this class so far I would not label them as being primitive. I believe the people of Eurasia had a lot of culture and how could they not; they were constantly in contact with other cultures because of the Silk Road, and aspects of different cultures spread and get inherited by different cultures. Also in an article by David Crystal it mentions all the different languages that were spoken in Eurasia like Hittite, Greek and so on. If the people were not advanced culturally and had primitive brains how would they be able to learn to communicate with people along the Silk Road because there were so many languages. However we will never know what Tylor thought of the Eurasian people.
Levinson and Ember also mention ethnicity. The article states that to be part of an ethnic group, individuals must have something in common, like a language. In Crystal`s article about languages it states that all the languages spoken in Eurasia come from a parent language called Proto-Indo-European. Therefore does this mean that because all of the languages spoken in Eurasia all come from a parent language that the people of Eurasia are part of the same ethnic group? It states that there is evidence to support this, however it doesn’t reference any evidence.
Also in the article by Levinson and Ember it mentions that religion affects all aspects of life. This is no different when speaking about the people who used the Silk Road. Religion affected the Silk Road and how it was used. For example in another article by Liu Xinru, it mentions that silk became an important item in Buddhist temples and was used in ritual robes. The reason why silk was a prominent item in Buddhist temples was because it was traded along the Silk Road and there were many people living along the Silk Road who were Buddhist. Silk reached these Buddhist temples because the people of Eurasia could supply it and trade it. Therefore religion affected the way the Eurasian people lived and did business.
What I do not understand is that in the Levinson and Ember article culture, ethnicity, and religion are all separated however in my opinion ethnicity and religion are parts of culture, not separated. Culture could not exist without ethnicity and religion.
