The article describes evidence that an educated member of the Persian elite was employed at an academy that trained officials of the Japanese imperial government. It's not at all clear how the researcher in the article makes the leap from this limited evidence for elite-to-elite contact to the conclusion that "...this suggests Nara was a cosmopolitan city where foreigners were treated equally.” Consider the conclusions that would be drawn from the modern-day scenario of a modern-day Persian employed at a government training facility in, say, Pyongyang...
China had a serious, flourishing, cosmopolitan age with people from tens of unique cultures and simultaneously invented critical technologies such as printing. Japan and Korea basically simply absorbed more from China, and there's little evidence that they came in to direct contact with foreigners from further afield such as Central and South Asians except inside of or via China.
For example, the period Japanese monk Ennin records that he visited a certain monastery near Taishan, at which the graves of numerous South Asian monks (as well as some Koreans, etc.) are found. His motivation for travel was literally seeking knowledge, and his destination was China.
This is likely to sound a bit reactionary, but hopefully it will help some people. In my estimation, the Japan Times exists to perpetuate a certain stereotype of Japan to the west. I suspect that it's not so much that the editorial staff holds these views personally, rather that it is lucrative to pander to pre-existing feelings toward Japan. Remember that this is primarily an English language newspaper. Japanese people generally do not read it.
If you use the Japan Times as your primary source of information about Japan, I suspect that you will come away with the impression that Japan is a xenophobic, corrupt, authoritarian, misogynist country that is on the verge of financial collapse. While there is some truth behind these things, the Japan Times has a way of presenting the information such that if you already hold this view, confirmation bias will very satisfyingly kick in.
Why do I mention this WRT to this article (apart from the fact that it is published in the Japan Times)? Because, as far as I know, nobody ever doubted that Japan in the Nara time frame had foreigners living in Japan. Just look at the Wikipedia page for the Nara period. Anyone who has ever been to Nara will have seen the evidence for themselves. Nara was not just open to foreign cultures, it was aggressively adopting them (especially Chinese culture). The fact that there was a Persian living in Japan at the time is interesting, but hardly mind blowing.
So why on earth would you publish this article? To provide a contrast for readers -- Wow, Japan wasn't always xenophobic! I wonder when it started? Perhaps I'm jaded, but that's what I see here. The original question is a good one, because it tries to probe the intent of the original research, rather than to accept the presentation of the editing staff at face value.
Your comment assumes that the Japan Times coverage is exceptional but I didn't find the Yomiuri Shimbun's very different and the ideas you object to and want to attribute to the Japan Times slant seem to be consistent with direct quotes from the researcher.
> nobody ever doubted that Japan in the Nara time frame had foreigners living in Japan
Actual claim is: "this is the first time a person as far away as Persia was known to have worked in Japan" Seem like an important difference.
> Just look at the Wikipedia page for the Nara period... Anyone who has ever been to Nara
I'm guessing Akihiro Watanabe of the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties has both been to Nara and is as familiar with the place as the average reader of the English wiki article. He apparently holds these views you ridicule as nothing so much as Japan Times editorializing.
> The fact that there was a Persian living in Japan at the time is interesting, but hardly mind blowing.
The idea that the article claims it's "mind blowing" seems like a straw man.
> So why on earth would you publish this article?
Probably because the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties had a press release and it seemed like an interesting item. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You're probably both right. Japan Times is known for two things: rehashing other news and publishing original content that has all the pernicious and perverse qualities mentioned above. In the end, Japan Times is a blemish on journalism and has no meaningful connection to real life in Japan. It seems to appeal to a certain demographic of extremely angry and bitter gaijin expats who failed to find a place in Japan. As for rehashing other news, that's probably just how they keep the lights on.
I'm talking about actual Japanese coverage[1] which includes stuff like "古代の日本が予想よりも国際色豊かだった可能性" ('It appears Ancient Japan was more international than expected') not strikingly that different from the Japan Times headline.
My google results do no match yours. Mainichi has a story and does not include that quote (or any other). Nikkei as well. There is a Youtube video of the story which describes it, but includes no quotes. It mentions that there is an exhibition where you can go and see the artefacts.
I could not find the story in the Japanese version of the Yomiuri newspaper from google, but I found another site that linked to it. When I followed the link, it was dead.
The focus of the articles I've read seems to be that this is the oldest written evidence of Persians coming to Japan, which I agree is very interesting.
Why is this supposed to be a way to deflect criticism? Is popular consumption of assertions that are unverified, or difficult for a reader to verify, a good thing?
> Is popular consumption of assertions that are unverified, or difficult for a reader to verify, a good thing?
Yes, that's the whole point of summarizing expertise for lay readers and it's common and expected. The idea that it isn't strikes me as a symptom of engineers disease. When I read an article about any technical subject the assertions in there are basically never verifiable in the article alone; people with more serious questions can presumably go and look at the actual research that's being published that the article is reporting on.
I think this is an excessively charitable interpretation. The researcher draws a direct link between this rather limited bit of evidence and his sweeping conclusion, not even bothering to preface it with something along the lines of "Along with other archaeological evidence, this suggests...".
It's possible he was misquoted or gave additional context that was excised from the article, but then the writer is at fault for writing an article that leaves out crucial details.
I'm saying it's ok to have shorter articles that don't have the detail every reader might want. I'm saying it's not badly written just because it's not a comprehensive academic review that answers every single possible question every reader might have.
Prior to Europe's Age of Discovery, much of the world was actually quite well-connected. Just look at Ibn Battuta's travels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Battuta) -- when in Yuan Dynasty China, he stayed in a city's Muslim quarter with Egyptian immigrants!
The Ancients were not that primitive. There is the Periplus Maris Erythraei, a manual for traders that describes the ports of the Indian Ocean, from Zanzibar to Sri Lanka. These are the ports that were regularly visited by merchantmen on trading voyages. More adventurous characters might want to cut out the middleman and sail further to China, whose existence is mentioned in the same text.
700 years prior Pharao Necho II outfitted an expedition to sail around the African continent, for no other reason than research.
The most famous one being Marco Polo of course. From his descriptions of the Khan's empire, he's practically tripping over the foreigners. Turks, Arabs ("Saracens"), Indians, Tartars, "Latins" (ie. europeans), all traveling Eurasia.
The article isn't about the Heian period (794–1185) but Nara period (710–794). (Or at least it is implied.) The Nara period was the first historical period in the history of Japan. (Historical defined as: written history surviving from that period exists) In that sense, it makes sense to me to call it "ancient".
This is why i like HN. often it isnt the OPs but how reading posted articles means accessing news sources i wouldnt normally see. From the OP about ancient japan i found this amusing story about modern japanese language and cultural perspective.
A Japanese people saying "He rarely speaks logically, and he only emphasizes one side of things as if it were the absolute truth." feels very ironical to me. Having lived there I discovered that logic is not a core value and more often than not one have to do something the way it is supposed to be done, period. Given that's the second paragraph first sentence, I would take the whole article with a grain of salt.
Evidence that prejudiced white western beliefs about orient turned out to be wrong ? Who is surprised fellas.
This might sound like a racist rant but it is not. I routinely come across American Indologists routinely publishing papers about India which are way off than what an Indian might be able to see as trivial truth. I will not be surprised of Western world has made similar mistakes about the Orient.
I think western academia needs a more unbiased fact-check about their understanding of the rest of the world especially in the times of xenophobia.
