A Lost Concept: Coming to Terms with the Many Meanings of the Early Silk Road(s)

Much has been said and written about ‘The Silk Road’ since Ferdinand von Richthofen coined the term in 1877. Fostered by spectacular finds made by so-called ‘explorers’ such as Sir Aurel Stein, Paul Pelliot, Sven Hedin and others it quickly became the subject of countless museum exhibitions and legends. In times when almost any location – virtual or real – is but one mouse click away, the catchphrase ‘Silk Road’ has not lost any of its original appeal. Quite the contrary, the term is almost ubiquitous in all kinds of media. Yet, it is never quite clear what exactly the Silk Road concept really entails. When was it established? What was its original purpose? Was there but one function? And, more importantly for us as scholars, how useful is the concept to begin with?

In order to answer these questions, I will evaluate the earliest sources at our disposal: archaeological finds from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Chinese historiography, and indigenous documents written in Kharosthi script. I will show that Silk Road history (and its so-called pre-history) down to the early fifth century BCE was considerably more complex than it is generally claimed. For instance, we can certainly not pinpoint a fixed date on which the Silk Road was established; neither were the intercontinental land routes primarily traveled (and populated) by traders. China’s initial forays into Central Asia in the second century BCE were politically motivated and had little to do with silk trade. The exchange of the famed fabric was at best a corollary. Consequently, I am going to argue that the Silk Road as an analytical concept does not do justice to the intricacies of pre-historical and historical realities. We ought to focus on good old-fashioned case studies instead of relying on an outdated and overly generalizing framework.