31

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge
vs.
Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge―The Times Before Writing―Alfons LABISCH*

Abstract / Summary
In light of the widely discussed issues on the modernization and industrialization of East Asia, it is sometimes overlooked that there has been a
constant exchange of knowledge between East Asia and Europe. This
“transfer of knowledge” during all known times was associated with thetraffic of humans, animals and goods and had an input on skills and techniques, too. And it were not only goods, skills and knowledge, but religions,world views and cultures that were exchanged.
Thus is it productive to speak of an “transfer of knowledge”? Is it notrather productive to speak of a constant exchange and thus of an “interchange of knowledge” - and so of a steadily ongoing process of giving andtaking? So is the real question what separates East Asia and Europe or what
they have in common?
It is precisely this general problem that is to be pursued in a special
question in time, for which there are no written sources. So it is about theearliest history, possibly even the origin of exchange processes between Eastand West, which can be achieved with most modern methods. Are the latest
methods and results of archeology providing us with information on whether,as of when and in what areas, an exchange of knowledge between East andWest existed before the time of writing? This question is being examined ina central region of the exchange, namely the “Oasis Silk Road” with the“bottle neck” of the Taklamakan.
The present study / presentation is only a small, highly incomplete“florilegium” – a selection of flowers. Pilot studies with precise questions
would be needed. Such preliminary investigations and pilot studies could also
* Alfons LABISCH is emeritus Professor, History of Medicine, Heinrich-HeineUniversity Düsseldorf and honorary Professor, Global History, Beijing Foreign
Studies University.

32

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018be made for other regions of knowledge exchange and cultural interactionin East Asia in general.
On the methodical side, all methods of historiography and archeology
have their specific advantages, but also their specific disadvantages. In theissue “Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge in Times before Writing”, thecombined results of historiography, modern archeology, and recent naturalscientific and (molecular) biological archaeology are the basis for our current
state of knowledge. On the long run the different methods and results from avariety of different scientific areas have to be evaluated in their meaningfulness, reach and validity for the historiography of human action.
On the basis of the results from historiography and archeology in thewidest sense, can be assumed that there has been an exchange of materials,
products, skills and creatures - animals and humans - since the beginning of
the early agrarian culture in the Neolithic Age. Exchange processes in thewidest sense in the later times of writing therefore seldom meet an almost
untouched field. Rather, exchange processes usually build on existing cultural
peculiarities, which are already an amalgam and thus an inseparable mixtureof previous exchange processes.
In this sense, we do not have to speak of an “Eurasian Transfer ofKnowledge”, but rather an “Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge”.

1. Transfer of Knowledge vs. Interchange of Knowledge: general
problem
The Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge is an essential aspect of what
separates Asia, especially China, and Europe - with a view to industrialization as well as with a view to modernization in general. The “Needham
Question” (Tianlin, 2014), the thesis of “Great Divergence” (Pomeranz, 2000,
Rosenthal and Wong, 2011) and similar questions reflect a time when Europe
and East Asia continued to separate scientifically and technically.
The pre-modern forms of knowledge exchange between Asia and Europe
are known in Europe through reports: since ancient times - beginning with theearly Greek author Herodotus and others - into the High Middle Ages - here
the famous Venetian Marco Polo must be mentioned - and the Early Modern
Period - for example, through the extensive reports of the Jesuit Mission in
China and Japan (Uhlig, 1986, Reichert, 1992, Frisch, 2016).
However, since the late 19th and early 20th century, we know fromexcavations that there must have been a lively exchange of knowledge even
before we can rely on written sources.
For Europe, three examples of an exchange of knowledge in the period

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

33

before the written language can be mentioned:- the “man of the Tisenjoch” or “man of the Houselabjoch”, in shortthe world-famous “Ötzi”, who probably was murdered between 3.359
and 3.105 years BCE, thus more than 5,000 years ago. The genetic andtechnical analysis revealed his origin and the circumstances of his life.
His dagger of flintstone came from Lake Garda, his copper ax probably
originated from southern Tuscany (Fleckinger, 2011, Guilaine, 2011).

- the “Archer of Amesbury”, buried 2200 to 2400 BC. near worldfamous Stonehenge, so about 4300 years before today. This man comes
not from England, but from the northern Alpine region. His copper
knives come from France and Spain (Clark, 2009, Fitzpatrick, 2011).

- the “ship of Uluburun”, which has sunk about 1,400 BC, so about
3,400 years before today, on the now Turkish Mediterranean coast. The
ship transported among others red copper plates and bars (10 t), tin bars
(1 t), glass bars (350 kg) and many other goods. The jewelry came from

34

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

Egypt, copper from Cyprus, cylinder seals from Assyria, weapons andceramics from Mycenae, a sword from Sicily, amber from the Baltic Sea
and glass bars from the Syrian-Palestinian area (Pulak, 1998). Various
sets of scales found in this ship indicate rather civilized modes of interchange.

In all three examples, the archaeologists come to the conclusion that there
has already been a widespread trade network from the early Bronze Agein Europe. In this network, not only goods, but also processing methods,
for example for bronze or gold, have spread. The rare and therefore expensivetin, with which copper can be alloyed to bronze, probably originated fromCentral Asia at that time. Since the second millennium, tin has been dismantled
along the route of the later Silk Road.
The conclusion is: in the face of the strongly discussed research questions
on, for example, the modernization and industrialization of East Asia, it issometimes overlooked that there has been a constant exchange of knowledge between East Asia and Europe. This “transfer of knowledge” during
all known times was often associated with the circulation of goods, animals,
and people, and was also affected by copying skills and techniques. And it
was not only goods, skills and knowledge, but cultures, world views andreligions that were exchanged.

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

35

Thus is it right to speak of a “transfer of knowledge”? For this meansa process which goes from one side to the other – in premodern times, withsuch goods as silk, paper, porcelain, or tea. evidently from East to West, inmodern times with weapons, then with industrial goods from West to East.
Do we not have to speak of an exchange and thus of an “interchange ofknowledge” - and thus, first of all, about a process of giving and taking, butalso about a process in which, in this exchange, something new emerged thathas not existed before on neither side?
It is therefore not a matter of what separates East Asia and Europe,
but of what Asia and Europe have in common and what Asia andEurope have produced together for mankind.

2. “Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge in Times before Writing”- the special question

This general problem has to be subsequently addressed at least in a firstattempt in a special question, in a special time, and thus also with special
methods. Because of the three examples mentioned above, it must be
assumed that there has been an exchange of people and goods also between
East Asia and Europe, and thus also before the time of writing. So “EurasianInterchange of Knowledge in Times before Writing” is the subject of thefollowing considerations. The questions are:- Has there been an exchange between East and West in the period
before writing, which can be testified by valid methods and findings ?
- If yes, what does this exchange refer to and how long goes thisexchange back in time?
- What kind of remnants and methods are used to determine the results
and answers to these questions?

36

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

- What new findings have been achieved? What old findings had to berevised? What findings led to new questions?
- How can we, as historians, deal with these results and methods?
- What may be the aims of further work?
Methods of knowledge production over the past beyond the times ofwriting
The evidence of modern historical research is based on the remains ofhuman activities of all kinds. In fact, historians mainly work with written
sources, including (ancient) papyrus, inscriptions, coins as well as pictorial
representations, objects, cloth and clothes, monuments, buildings, etc.
The methods and results of modern archeology differ considerably fromthese classical historiographical methods and sources. Thus, the sophisticatedmethods of classical excavation archeology, which are mainly concerned withthe overall situation of an excavation site and its careful environmental analysis, are expanded and enhanced by recent methods as e.g.
- Underwater archeology (e.g., ships, cargoes)- experimental archeology (e.g., weapons, machinery)- Dendrochronology (determination of age)
- C dating for the analysis of biological materials (determination of age)
- Paleopathology - macro- and microscopic - radio-carbon method (determination of age)- Microscopy, infrared and ultrasound recordings- X-ray- Chemical analyzes- etc.
And as recent natural scientific and (micro-)biological methods are – among
others - to mention- aerial archeology and geophysical methods of soil analysis, e.g. bymagnetic resonance, ground radar or ultra-sound (e.g., detection of
hidden finds or discrete settlement traces such as foundations or posts)- strontium isotope analysis (including exploration of origin and migration of humans and animals)- different methods of genome analysis (origin and kinship of humans /animals / any biological remnants)- Paleopathology - including genetic and molecular biology- Archaeometallurgy (origin of metals, especially in alloys)- spectroscopy / mass spectrometry (analysis of chemical, physical andbiological findings)

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

37- laser scans- etc.
This list is not exhaustive. It is, however, easy to see that these are themost modern methods, often accompanied by a great scientific and technicalapparatus, which in the widest sense can be attributed to natural sciences,(molecular) biology or medicine.
But historians are not archaeologists - and certainly not scientifically or
biologically trained archaeologists. History is only an auxiliary science forarcheology - and vice versa: archaeologists, technicians, molecular biologists
are no historians; for historiography, archeology can be an auxiliary science.
There is by no means always peace and harmony between archaeologists andhistorians. Lothar von Falkenhausen, a leading US-American China archaeologist, emphasizes that archeology must free itself from the leash of textbased research (von Falkenhausen, 2006, Shaughnessy, 2007): The written
tradition does not cover all aspects of life - so von Falkenhausen; to thisextent, archeology is more than complementary. But even with the mostcareful interpretation of the finds, archeology can only make conditional andlimited statements - especially since the finds often come from burial grounds
and therefore can represent a large part of human life only to a limited
extent. Thus also the archaeological tradition does not cover all aspects oflife.
The key can therefore only be in a cooperation of both methods. And
without doubt, archeology often goes deeper in the past as written sources.
This is also true for the cultures which - like Egypt, Mesopotamia and also
China - have developed writing very early.
And these questions are to be followed in the following steps:
What do we know from the latest results of archeology as to whether, whenand in what areas, there has been an exchange of knowledge between Eastand West before the time of writing?
After setting out the general problem, the period and the specific questionnaire, the place where archaeological evidence are presented is to be defined.
Between East and West, there are a number of famous routes, which werelater labelled in a very shortening way as “Silk Road”. There should bediscriminated at least four different routes:- “Steppe Silk Road” north of Tianshan - Mountains- “Oasis Silk Road” via Taklamakan- “Buddhist Silk Road” via Pamir - Mountains- Sea Silk Road

38

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

The “Oasis Silk Road” is chosen for the following considerations. In thisonce again widespread trading network, there is an area where all routes haveto come through: this is the notorious Taklamakan. Coming from the west in
Kashgar this road spreads into different routes through the Taklamakan andre-unites east of Dunhuang. In the southern arms of this “Oasis Silk Road”
converge paths of the “Buddhist Silk Road”. And east of Dunhuang converge
also the branches of the “Steppe Silk Road”, which extends north of the
Tianshan and thus north of Taklamakan and flows then into the “Hexi-” or“Gansu corridor”.
So also the reach of this study is defined: to search for archaeologicalevidence based on the methods of modern and recent archeology working
with natural scientific and (molecular) biological methods gained on the“Oasis Silk Road” from the earliest known remnants to the time of thewritten reports on the Silk Road, that is to say until the 5th century BC.

3. Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of
Knowledge in Times before Writing – the “Oasis Silk Road”
3.1 Some preliminary methodological remarks
The literature on the Silk Road fills libraries. This mass shrinks considerably, if only those contributions are considered, which can be regarded as
scientific. But also the scientific literature on the Silk Road is no longer to beoverlooked and swells constantly.
From the classical - German-speaking - scientific Silk Road literature, aseries of commodity trades are known or discussed (Haussig, 1983, Haussig,
1988, Klimkeit, 1988, Ptak, 2007, Wieczorek and Lind, 2007b, Höllmann,
2011, Selbitschka, 2014):

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

39- jade from Khotan for approximately 7000 years (later also from
Tai-shi: Southeast China, there are further deposits)- ores (e.g., tin), metals, bronzes- payments: shells, cast metals (silver, bronze), coins- gemstones- ivory- silk since about 3600 BC; silk production and processing- cotton, cotton fabrics- ceramic products; methods of manufacture and finishing- glass, mirrors- (Bactrian) camels- horses from Ferghana; horse sculptures (the famous “flying horse” ofWuwei, Gansu)- chariots- weapons and armor - and related tactics- a.s.f.
But artefacts unearthed from tombs which are typical for Bronze Age archaeology in Asia are generally problematic in several respects:- they represent a selection process, due to religious as well as economic
frameworks. Moreover,- dating is only as terminus ante quem possible, i.e. remnants foundcould have a considerable life-time before they were buried.
- Thus, a combination of dating methods including if possible C14 or
dendrochronology should be applied, and- many finds of silk road archaeology are probably not as old as indicated by classical archaeology- but on the other hand some findings will be much older than assumed
before.
Since the 1980/90s, the archeology of China is involved in many international archaeological projects. A special “UNESCO Silk Road Project” wasalready developed 1988 (http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/welcome-unesco-silkroad-online-platform). From this project numerous other cooperation projects
are still continuing today, such as the Sino-German “Silk Road Fashion
Project” running since 2013, which focuses on the question of communication through clothing from the first millennium BC (Wagner, 2014).
In the meantime an extremely rich literature on the classical excavationsof the late 20th and early 21st century in China is on display, which has also
produced impressive, beautifully illustrated catalogues and books (Chang etal., 2005, Wieczorek and Lind, 2007a, Liu and Chen, 2012, von40

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

Falkenhausen, 2006). Valerie Hansen has summarized the recent results ofthis period in a book that is not only a wonderful reading, but is recommended internationally as a standard for the state-of-the-art introduction to thehistory of Silk Road (Hansen, 2012, Hansen, 2016).
In a first restriction only younger publications, published since about 2000,
which deal with the question of knowledge exchange, will be taken into
account. The most interesting and important questions of the exchange andthe mixing of worldviews, especially of religions, are not pursued.
Recent research has given a new picture of the Silk Road. Thus the Silk
Road, as Valerie Hansen elaborates on numerous treaties, invoices and legal
disputes, was by no means a kind of long-distance road from the extreme
west of Europe to the extreme east of Asia. Rather the Silk Road was a
widely intertwined network of various trade routes, where predominantly
regional retail trade was operated. The luxury goods were passed fromtrading partners to trading partners and passed through numerous stations
before they finally arrived in the Far East or the Far West.
Wieczorek and Lind work up that the Silk Road was by no means a routefor luxury goods. Rather, it was “a self-organizing network, which in its
entirety could never be planned or even managed from a single point”. The
Silk Road was a network of relations between the Mediterranean Sea andthe Yellow Sea, and also between Siberia and the Indian subcontinent,that means also in the often overlooked North-South axis (Wiezcorek and
Lind, 2007b, 22).
Although facing the astonishing results of modern classical archeologyof the years 1990 to 2010, however, there are also numerous questions open
to the general public, including archeology itself, which in particular refer tothe fact that from the visible circumstances of excavation finds cannot be
concluded to their real origins: This is by no means true only of materials,
but above all also of creatures, and above all of human beings - who, at firstglance, seem sometimes to have come directly from Europe. In fact, neither
written sources nor modern archeology provide reliable information about theorigin of primarily biological materials.
It is at this point that the latest scientific and (molecular) biologicalmethods of archaeology are used which have been developed with thelatest techniques since the end of the 20th century.
So our aim is devoted to a sceptical viewpoint asking for evidence fromarchaeologically excavated objects that must have been exported from the twomost far reaching ends of Eurasia- namely from Europe and from China,
sometimes even from early Korea or even Japan (see e.g. (Selbitschka, 2014)
on (Wieczorek and Lind, 2007a)). To discuss the archaeological findings weeither complete or contrast the referring literature with most recent findings

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

41

from modern natural scientific and / or (micro-)biological methods in archaeology. So as probably new sources of the history of the Eurasian Interchange
of Knowledge, medical and scientific bibliographies, namely, PubMed and
Web of Science, were systematically used as the basis for recent publications.
The lemmas, among which was researched, were- silk road- silk road and history- silk road and archeology- silk road and genetic or genetics- silk road and disease
There were so many - including, however, many false positive – bibliographical data that the research had to be limited to the last 10, possibly also
to the last 5 years.
This makes another point clear: this paper / lecture can only be a small
first look. For, apart from the many limitations already mentioned, the abovecited bibliographies cover exclusively English periodicals, and this mainly if
not exclusively from the field of medicine, life sciences and natural sciences.
Literature not published in English - for example articles from China or from
Germany - is not reported in these bibliographies. It should therefore be saidfrom the outset that the bibliographical research on this contribution probably
does not cover more than 25 % of the relevant publications for the period inquestion – maybe even less. And also from these publications a strict choicemust be made due to reasons of space and time. In the following lines
evidence is often quoted directly from the summaries and conclusions of theliterature mentioned.
3.2 Export goods from Far East (China) excavated in the Far West(Europe, Asia minor)
Silk and Textiles
Silk import from China (“serica”) has been documented by narrative
sources from Roman imperial times. Thus, from Han-times onwards, there isalso archaeological evidence of Chinese silk in Western oases like Palmyra in
Syria (Pekridou-Gorecki, 2006).

42

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

MAP (from: Good 1995: 960; Margariti 2011 falsified N° 5
not be silk, reported the same about N° 2–3, ibid. p.526).

However, for decades have European archaeologists tried to solve “thequestion of silk in pre-Han Eurasia” (Good, 1995). Problems with antique silk
are manyfold:- Fine textiles like silk are prone to decay over the centuries.
- Is ancient silk really Chinese silk (serica), or some other cocoon material?
- So: are these textiles imported from China via silk-roads or was it
produced and distributed from India, Mesopotamia, or Greece (Kos)?
Textiles found by silk road archaeologists will become more and morethoroughly analysed by an already mentioned special Chinese-German
programme for which the attractive term “silk road fashion” was coined.
Another subject in the area of silk and textiles is the – also complicatedand just to be mentioned here - analysis of ancient dye stuff.
Export goods from the Far West (Europe, Asia minor) excavated in
Far East (China)
Glassware
Glass beads from the Mediterranean or Persia were unearthed in tombs
from the Spring and Autumn or Warring Times period in oasis tombs of
Xinjiang (Bo and Lipeng, 2009): 327–28). In the Sampula oasis, also an ear
pendant of typical Chinese design was found. So artefacts from China as well
as Persia or even Asia minor were found in the same graveyard on theSouthern silk road, however dated only to late Han period 1st c. BC (Bo &Lipeng 2009, 323–24).

3.3

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

43(Map Fig. 2.3 in Fuxi 2009: 54)

Ancient typical Chinese glass spread westward along the oasis silk roadno further than Xinjiang only since the Han Dynasty ((Fuxi, 2009a, Fuxi,
2009b, Fuxi et al., 2009a, Fuxi et al., 2009b). Only few Chinese glass or
fayence artifacts have been unearthed from pre-Han periods in Mongolia andSiberia (N=2, Fuxi 2009: 46–51).
Central China produced different glass material than central Asia or
western Eurasia. The Chinese products e.g. of the Zhou period resembled intheir chemical components rather fayence material; techniques were developed from pottery and glazing (“proto-porcelain“) (Fuxi 2009: 9–12; (Wei,2009): 244–45).
It was not before ca. 500 BC that also in China not only fayence but glassin modern terms was produced by increasing the oven temperature andchanging compounds. But these alkali-lime-silicate as well as the later
lead-barium-silicate or potash-silicate glass were still of clearly different
composition than glass made in other parts of the world (Fuxi 2009: 8).
Glass was made for precious objects to imitate precious stones esp. Jade.

(Fig. 1.1 in Fuxi 2009: 8)

44

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

Clustering 2000 artifacts, Chinese glass contained specific lead percentages
and can thus be distinguished from others.

(Fig. 3.2 in Brill 2009: 115)

In general, however, ancient glass finds along the oasis silk road rather
show a border: Chinese glass remained east of Urumqi or Turfan.
3.4

Migration or spatial diffusion of organisms due to archaeologicalfinds
3.4.1 People (anthropometrically or culturally reconstructed ethnicalcategories)
For Western archaeologists it seems impressive to see that mummified
corpses from regions like Tarim or Altai look quite similar to modern
Europeans, so far from Europe.

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

45

However, they have to bear in mind that most probably these persons did not
migrate from the Atlantic coast, but that common Indo-European ancestors
came probably from Lake Aral. Even when Skythian or Sogdian individuals
might have been especially involved in far distance trade along northernroutes, the distance covered by the individuals unearthed in Xinjiang, Siberia
or Kasakhstan remains unclear. Change of burial rites is difficult evidence for
migration or even transfer in general, especially if there is not a specificburial model from another region copied completely.
So defining “alien“-humans being buried among indigenous graveyards
by artefacts only seems difficult. So – the question is: what can recent
biological data contribute to this question?
“Northwest China is closely adjacent to Central Asia, an intermediate
region of the Eurasian continent. Moreover, the Silk Road through thenorthwest of China once had a vital role in the east-west intercommunications. Nevertheless, little has been known about the genetic makeup of
populations in this region.” Shou et al. collected 503 male samples from 14
ethnic groups in the northwest of China. Their “results illustrated obvious
genetic difference among these ethnic groups, and in general their genetic
background is more similar with Central Asians than with East Asians. The
ancestors of present northwestern populations were the admixture of early
East Asians peopling northwestward and later Central Asians immigrating
eastward. This population mixture was dated to occur within the past 10 000
years. The (…) lineages (sc. in question) likely entered China during theeastward migration of Central Asians. The influence from West Eurasia
through gene flows on the extant ethnic groups in Northwest China wasrelatively weak”(Shou et al., 2010).
“Archeological researches have proposed arguments for human mobility
and long-distance trading over the Eurasia before the Silk Roads. (Sc. In the
study was utilized) biologically available strontium isotope analysis to assess
the extent of pre-Silk Road population movements and cultural communications across the Asian interior. From an early Iron Age cemetery (ca. 2500 yr
B.P.) on the eastern Pamir Plateau (…) from 34 individuals display considerable variability, and 10 individuals are distinguished as migrants (…).
Comparison of the proportion (10/34) with the regional census data
completed in 1909 A.D. (3% non-locals) suggests a highly migratory
behavior on the Pamir plateau 2500 years ago. Furthermore, exotic
mortuary objects, such as silk fabrics from eastern China and angularharp originated from the Near East, clearly demonstrate an interaction
between different cultures on the plateau before the establishment of the
Silk Road” (Wang et al., 2016).
“There are several indigenous ethnic populations along the silk road in46

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

the Northwest of China that display clear differences in culture and social
customs, perhaps as a result of geographic isolation and different linguistic
traditions. However, extensive trade and other interactions probably facilitatedthe admixture of different gene pools between these populations over the last
two millennia. (…) Phylogenetic tree and principal component analysis
revealed clear pattern of population differentiation between 4 populations
living in Sinkiang Uighur Autonomous Region and other 9 populations
dwelled in the upper regions of Silk Road. (Sc. Further analysis) showed
high-level gene flow and population admixture dose among these ethnic
populations in the Northwest region of China. (…) a larger percent ofgenetic variance (21.58% versus 2.3%) can be explained by geographic isolation than linguistic barriers, which matched with the contribution ofgeographic factors to other world populations” (Zhang et al., 2014).

“The Tarim Basin, located on the ancient Silk Road, played a very importantrole in the history of human migration and cultural communications between
the West and the East. However, both the exact period at which the relevant
events occurred and the origins of the people in the area remain very
obscure. (Sc. Li et al.) present data from the analyses from human remains
excavated from the Xiaohe cemetery, the oldest archeological site withhuman remains discovered in the Tarim Basin so far. (Sc. The results
demonstrated) that the Xiaohe people were an admixture from populations originating from both the West and the East, implying that the
Tarim Basin had been occupied by an admixed population since the early
Bronze Age. To our knowledge, this is the earliest genetic evidence of anadmixed population settled in the Tarim Basin” (Li et al., 2010).
Some supplementary remarks:
While most populations on the Silk road have been characterized, little is
known about past migration patterns.” The scientific expedition “Marco Polo”

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

47

has recently collected genetic and phenotypic data in six regions (Georgia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan) along the Silk Road tostudy the genetics of a number of phenotypes. The genetic structure of these
populations was characterized within a worldwide context. Observed was aWest-East subdivision albeit the existence of a genetic component sharedwithin Central Asia and nearby populations from Europe and Near East.
Mezzavilla et al. observed a contribution of up to 50% from Europe andAsia to most of the populations that have been analyzed. The contribution
from Asia dates back to ~25 generations and is limited to the Eastern Silk
Road. Time and direction of this contribution are consistent with the Mongolian
expansion era” (Mezzavilla et al., 2014).
“Uyghurs are one of the many populations of Central Eurasia that is considered to be genetically related to Eastern and Western Eurasian populations.
However, there are some different opinions on the relative importance of thedegree of Eastern and Western Eurasian genetic influence. In addition, thegenetic diversity of the Uyghur in different geographic locations has not beenclearly studied. (…) Xinjiang Uyghurs are more genetically related toChinese population in genetics than to Caucasians. Moreover, there was
genetic diversity between Uyghurs from the southern and northern regions.
There was significance in genetic distance between the southern Xinjiang
Uyghurs and Chinese population, but not between the northern Xinjiang
Uyghurs and Chinese. (…) The study confirms that there are significant genetic
differences among the Uyghurs in different geographical locations” (Ablimit etal., 2013).
“Contemporary Jews retain a genetic imprint from their Near Easternancestry, but obtained substantial genetic components from their neighboring
populations during their history. Whether they received any genetic contribution from the Far East remains unknown, but frequent communication with
the Chinese has been observed since the Silk Road period. To address thisissue, 55,595 Eurasians are analyzed. The existence of some eastern Eurasian
haplotypes in eastern Ashkenazi Jews supports an East Asian genetic contribution, likely from Chinese. Further evidence indicates that this connection canbe attributed to a gene flow event that occurred less than 1.4 kilo-years ago(kya), which falls within the time frame of the Silk Road scenario and fits wellwith historical records and archaeological discoveries. This observed genetic
contribution from Chinese to Ashkenazi Jews demonstrates that the historicalexchange between Ashkenazim and the Far East was not confined to the cultural
sphere but also extended to an exchange of genes” (Tian et al., 2015).

3.4.2 Domesticated animals
As we know, donkeys have been among the first pack animals – probably
before cattle and certainly before camels. In recent research “the process ofdomestication and the dispersal routes of the Chinese donkey” was questioned. “In this study, the phylogenetic analysis reveals that ancient Chinese
donkeys have high mitochondrial DNA diversity and two distinct mitochondrial maternal lineages, known as the Somali and Nubian lineages. These

48

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

results indicate that the maternal origin of Chinese domestic donkeys wasprobably related to the African wild ass, which includes the Nubian wild ass(Equus africanus africanus) and the Somali wild ass (Equus africanus somaliensis). Combined with historical records, the results of this study
implied that domestic donkeys spread into west and north China before
the emergence of the Han dynasty. The number of Chinese domestic
donkeys had increased primarily to meet demand for the expansion of
trade, and they were likely used as commodities or for shipping goods along
the Silk Road during the Tang Dynasty, when the Silk Road reached its
golden age” (Han et al., 2014).
“The Kazakh horse is an important old horse breed in Xinjiang. They
have contributed greatly to the breeding and improvement of other local
horse breeds, yet their genetic diversity and population structure are not wellunderstood.” In their recent genetical research Gemingguli and others havefound a high level of genetic diversity in the Kazakh horses in China and in
Kazakhstan. “However, no clear correspondence between haplogroups andgeographic origin and no significant differentiation between populations in thetwo countries were observed. This might have resulted from the frequentcontact between the two countries through the Silk Road in the past, ordue to long-term outcrossing and hybridization with the introduced
horses”(Gemingguli et al., 2016).
A comparable study by Warmuth and others on horses has the same results
on a general level. “The overall level of genetic differentiation was low,
consistent with historically high levels of gene flow across the study region.
The spatial genetic structure was characterized by a significant, albeit weak,
pattern of isolation by distance across the continent with no evidence for thepresence of distinct genetic clusters. Incorporating landscape features considerably improved the fit of the data; however, when we controlled for
geographical distance, only the correlation between genetic differentiationand the Silk Roads remained significant, supporting the effectiveness of
this ancient trade network in facilitating gene flow across large
geographical distances in a topographically complex landscape” (Warmuth
et al., 2013).
A study on Mongolian cattle as one of the most widespread breeds withstrictly Bos taurus morphological features in northern China comes to theresults, that this typical Chinese cattle is a mixture with cattle from India.
“Historical and archeological records indicate that B. taurus was introduced to
Xinjiang during the second millennium BC and B. indicus appeared in thisregion by the second century AD. The two types of cattle coexisted for many
centuries in Xinjiang, as depicted in clay and wooden figurines unearthed in
the Astana cemetery in Turfan (3rd-8th century AD). Multiple lines ofEurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

49

evidence suggest that the earliest B. indicus introgression in the Mongolian
cattle may have occurred during the 2nd-7th centuries AD through the Silk
Road around the Xinjiang region. This conclusion differs from the previous
hypothesis that zebu introgression to Mongolian cattle happened during theMongol Empire era in the 13th century” (Yue et al., 2014).
This is a correction in time for nearly more than 1.500 or even 2.000
years earlier as previously had been assumed.
An even more astonishing result is on chicken – as we assume one of
the main and one of the oldest dishes in Chinese kitchen. “The chicken(Gallus gallus domesticus) is the most widespread domestic animal in theworld. However, the timings and locations of their domestication haveremained debatable for over a century. China, and particularly northern
China, has been claimed as one of the early centers for the domestication ofchickens, because many chicken remains have been discovered at a numberof archaeological sites. However, the identification of archaeological domestic
chicken bones from early Holocene sites in China remains contentious. In thisstudy, we analyzed 1831 bird bones, which included 429 bones previously
recorded as “domestic chicken” from 18 Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites
in central and northern China. Although morphological species identification
criteria for the bones of 55 modern Chinese Phasianidae species, including
the domestic chicken and wild red junglefowls, have not yet been fully
established, upon reanalysis none of the “domestic chicken” bones were
derived from chickens. In addition, bones determined to be candidate
chicken bones were found at only 2 of the 18 sites, suggesting thatchickens were neither widely kept nor distributed in central andnorthern China during the early and middle Holocene period”(Eda,
2016).
3.4.3 Grains etc
Jones and others present 2016: “A number of crops that are of global
importance today, including wheat (Triticum spp) and barley (Hordeum
vulgare), were domesticated in Southwest Asia between 10,000 and 11,000
years ago and subsequently spread through the Old World, into Europe, North
Africa and eastwards across Eurasia. Their routes of expansion have been afocus of debate and are increasingly being revealed by widespread dating ofarchaeobotanical remains from across Eurasia. Of particular interest is workby Zhao (2009) who proposed three routes for the spread of wheat into
China: firstly, across the Eurasian Steppe, second by sea from India tothe east coast of Eurasia and third, along the Hexi Corridor, which forms
part of the Silk Road in western China” (Jones et al., 2016).
Wheat is the sort of grain, which is widely agreed upon to have been

50

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018transferred from western Asia, where it has been improved since ca. 8000
BC, all over Eurasia by human beings. In China, it seems to have appeared
before 2000 BC in densely populated eastern regions (Yellow River valley)even some hundred years earlier than in western China (Xinjiang, 2000–1500
BC), so that probably there were diverse distribution channels, sometimes
rather from northern than western neighbours (Liu & Chen 2012, 92–94).
During the 2nd millenium BC it were those western regions, where wheat
replaced more and more indigenious sorts of millet, which were domesticatedoriginally before 7000 BC in late palaeolithic Yellow River valley (Liu &Chen 2012, 82–85). Pasta made from millet was found in a silk road oasis
5th-3rd cent. BC (Wieczorek 2007: 178).
However, the velocity over 5–6 millennia seems hardly to exceed 1–2 km
per year and just the scale of distribution seems more efficient than propagation of prolific seeds in a prevailing west wind zone.
The article of Spengler and others emphasizes the role of part-time
nomadic, part-time sedentary living in the developing of grains (=transhumance; pastoralism). They “present a new archaeobotanical analysis
from pastoralist campsites in the mountain and desert regions of Central
Eurasia that documents the oldest known evidence for domesticated grains
and farming among seasonally mobile herders. Carbonized grains from thesites of Tasbas and Begash illustrate the first transmission of southwest Asianand East Asian domesticated grains into the mountains of Inner Asia in theearly third millennium BC. By the middle second millennium BC, seasonal
camps in the mountains and deserts illustrate that Eurasian herders incorporated the cultivation of millet, wheat, barley and legumes into theirsubsistence strategy. These findings push back the chronology fordomesticated plant use among Central Eurasian pastoralists by approximately 2000 years” (Spengler et al., 2014).
3.4.4 Fermenting, Brewing, Liquor, and Beer
In connection with grains we think more or less automatically on
fermenting and brewing processes. “Chemical analyses of ancient organics
absorbed into pottery jars from the early Neolithic village of Jiahu in Henan
province in China have revealed that a mixed fermented beverage of rice,
honey, and fruit (hawthorn fruit and/or grape) was being produced as
early as the seventh millennium before Christ (B.C.). This prehistoric drink
paved the way for unique cereal beverages of the proto-historic second
millennium B.C., remarkably preserved as liquids inside sealed bronze
vessels of the Shang and Western Zhou Dynasties. These findings provide
direct evidence for fermented beverages in ancient Chinese culture, whichwere of considerable social, religious, and medical significance, and help

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

51

elucidate their earliest descriptions in the Shang Dynasty oracle inscriptions”(McGovern et al., 2004).
The first known recipe for making beer was also found nearly as early as
the production of barley: “The pottery vessels from the Mijiaya site reveal, to
our knowledge, the first direct evidence of in situ beer making in China,
based on the analyses of starch, phytolith, and chemical residues. Our data
reveal a surprising beer recipe in which broomcorn millet (Panicum
miliaceum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), Job’s tears (Coix lacrymajobi),
and tubers were fermented together. The results indicate that people in
China established advanced beer-brewing technology by using specialized
tools and creating favorable fermentation conditions around 5,000 y ago. Ourfindings imply that early beer making may have motivated the initial translocation of barley from the Western Eurasia into the Central Plain of China
before the crop became a part of agricultural subsistence in the region 3,000
y later” (Wang, 2016).
3.4.5 Fruits and vegetables
The period from the late third millennium BC to the start of the firstmillennium AD witnesses the first steps towards food globalization in which
a significant number of important crops and animals, independently
domesticated within China, India, Africa and West Asia, traversed
Central Asia greatly increasing Eurasian agricultural diversity.” Stevens’s
et al. “paper utilizes an archaeobotanical database (AsCAD), to explore
evidence for these crop translocations along southern and northern routes ofinteraction between east and west. To begin, crop translocations from the
Near East across India and Central Asia are examined for wheat (Triticum
aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) from the eighth to the second
millennia BC when they reach China. The case of pulses and flax (Linum
usitatissimum) that only complete this journey in Han times (206 BC–AD220), often never fully adopted, is also addressed. The discussion then turns
to the Chinese millets, Panicum miliaceum and Setaria italica, peaches(Amygdalus persica) and apricots (Armeniaca vulgaris), tracing their movement from the fifth millennium to the second millennium BC when the
Panicum miliaceum reaches Europe and Setaria italica Northern India, withpeaches and apricots present in Kashmir and Swat. Finally, the translocationof japonica rice from China to India that gave rise to indica rice is considered, possibly dating to the second millennium BC. The routes these crops
travelled include those to the north via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor,
across Middle Asia, where there is good evidence for wheat, barley and theChinese millets. The case for japonica rice, apricots and peaches is less clear,and the northern route is contrasted with that through northeast India, Tibet

52

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

and west China. Not all these journeys were synchronous, and this paper
highlights the selective long-distance transport of crops as an alternative todemic-diffusion of farmers with a defined crop package” (Stevens et al.,2016).
Vitis vinifera in contrast to other undomesticated sorts would be a tracer,and some archaeological finds of wine seeds have been found in even early
Bronze age Chinese sites (5000, 3000–2000 BC cf. table 2 in Jiang 2009:1463). However most of these plants were some kind of wild types and not
the Mediterranean sort. A piece of wood from domesticated wine wasunearthed from a tomb in Xinjiang, dated ca. 300 BC which might serve
as evidence for viniculture in the Turpan district, probably imported byHellenistic migration, which was also illustrated by specific ornaments
found from this period (Jiang 2009, cf. also Wieczorek 2007: 74sq).
“Common walnut (Juglans regia L) is an economically important species
cultivated worldwide for its wood and nuts. It is generally accepted that J.
regia survived and grew spontaneously in almost completely isolated stands
in its Asian native range after the Last Glacial Maximum. Despite its naturalgeographic isolation, J. regia evolved over many centuries under the influenceof human management and exploitation. We evaluated the hypothesis that thecurrent distribution of natural genetic resources of common walnut in Asia is,
at least in part, the product of ancient anthropogenic dispersal, human culturalinteractions, and afforestation. Genetic analysis combined with ethnolinguistic and historical data indicated that ancient trade routes such as
the Persian Royal Road and Silk Road enabled long-distance dispersal of
J. regia from Iran and Trans-Caucasus to Central Asia, and from
Western to Eastern China. Ancient commerce also disrupted the local
spatial genetic structure of autochthonous walnut populations between
Tashkent and Samarkand (Central-Eastern Uzbekistan), where thenorthern and central routes of the Northern Silk Road converged.
Beyond the economic importance of common walnut, our study delineates analternative approach for understanding how the genetic resources of longlived perennial tree species may be affected by the interaction of geography
and human history” (Pollegioni et al., 2015).
3.4.6 Tea
China is the father- / or motherland of tea. But the beginning of tea –production and its use in everyday life is still uncertain. So we are all glad tohear, that the early beginning of tea-culture in China is now proven bybiomolecular evidence:“Phytoliths and biomolecular components extracted from ancient plantremains from Chang’an (Xi’an, the city where the Silk Road begins) andEurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

53

Ngari (Ali) in western Tibet, China, show that the tea was grown 2100
years ago to cater for the drinking habits of the Western Han Dynasty(207BCE-9CE), and then carried toward central Asia by ca. 200CE, several
hundred years earlier than previously recorded. The earliest physical evidenceof tea from both the Chang’an and Ngari regions suggests that a branch of
the Silk Road across the Tibetan Plateau, was established by the second to
third century CE” (Lu et al., 2016).
Summary - Conclusions
On the basis of the results and valuable hints from historiography andarcheology, we can assume that there has been an exchange of knowledge at
the latest since the beginning of the Neolithic period, and probably earlier,and therefore well before the time of writing.
This exchange includes goods, products, skills, animals – and also humans.
The transfer of knowledge should have been similar to that of goods: bymeans of traded goods and products and of migrating skilled people, newknowledge was transferred, new skills were assimilated.
Certain populations - obviously on transit areas such as the Oasis Silkroad- developed their own cultures, in which something new developed throughsteady exchange processes with other cultures.
That means: Exchange processes in the widest sense rarely encounter acompletely independent, untouched field. Rather, exchange processes areusually based on cultural peculiarities, which in turn represent an amalgam,
an inseparable mixture of previous exchange processes.
In this sense, we are talking about an “Eurasian Interchange of
Knowledge” rather than “Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge”.
The present study is only a small, highly incomplete selection – a“florilegium”. So precise pilot studies are necessary. These studies, if succesfull and promising, can be systematically expanded to research projects, e.g.
on specific products, specific skills or specific procedures. In this context thedifferent methods and results from a variety of different scientific areas haveto be strictly evaluated in their meaningfulness, reach and validity for thehistoriography of human action.
Above all, such preliminary surveys and concise pilot studies could also
be made for other regions of knowledge exchange and cultural interaction:
our opening examples speak for Europe; in East Asia others are, just for
example, the North-South axis from Siberia to Indonesia, or the continuingroutes to Korea and Japan.

54

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

“The Silk Roads have normally been treated as a system of exchanges
linking the major regions of agrarian civilization in Afro-Eurasia, and as
originating in the classical era. A revised understanding of the role andhistory of the Silk Roads shows the extent to which the entire AfroEurasian landmass has been linked by complex networks of exchange
since at least the Bronze Age. It reminds us that Afro-Eurasia has acommon history despite the ecological and cultural variety of its manydifferent regions” (Christian, 2000).

Literature
ABLIMIT, A., QIN, W. B., SHAN, W. J., WU, W. W., LING, F. J., LING, K. H.,
ZHAO, C. J., ZHANG, F. C., MA, Z. H. & ZHENG, X. F. 2013. Genetic
diversities of cytochrome B in Xinjiang Uyghur unveiled its origin and migration history. Bmc Genetics, 14.
BO, W. & LIPENG, L. 2009. Glass artifacts unearthed from the tombs at theZhagunluke and Sampula cemeteries in Xinjang. In: FUXI, G., BRILL, R. &SHOUYUN, T. (eds.) Ancient glass research along the silk road. New Jersey etal.: World Scientific.
CHANG, K.-C., XU, P. & ALLAN, S. (eds.) 2005. The formation of Chinese
civilization. An archaeological perspective, New Haven / Beijing: Yale University
Press / New World Press.
CHRISTIAN, D. 2000. Silk Roads or Steppe Roads? The Silk Roads in WorldHistory. Journal of World History, 11, 1–26.
CLARK, P. 2009. Bronze Age connections : cultural contact in prehistoric Europe,
Oxford; Oakville, Oxbow Books.
EDA, M. 2016. Reevaluation of early Holocene chicken domestication in northern
China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 67, 25–31.
FITZPATRICK, A. P. 2011. The Amesbury Archer and the Boscombe Bowmen. Bell
Beaker burials on Boscombe Down, Amesbury, Wiltshire, Salisbury, Wessex
Archaeology.
FLECKINGER, A. 2011. Ötzi 2.0 eine Mumie zwischen Wissenschaft, Kult undMythos, Wien, Folio.
FRISCH, H.-J. 2016. Die Welt der Seidenstraße. Von China nach Indien und
Europa, Darmstadt, Theiss - WBG.
FUXI, G. 2009a. Origin and evolution of ancient Chinese glass. In: FUXI, G.,
BRILL, R. & SHOUYUN, T. (eds.) Ancient glass research along the silk road.
New Jersey et al.: World Scientific.
FUXI, G. 2009b. The silk road and ancient Chinese glass. In: FUXI, G., BRILL,
R. & SHOUYUN, T. (eds.) Ancient glass research along the silk road. New
Jersey et al.: World Scientific.
FUXI, G., BRILL, R. & SHOUYUN, T. (eds.) 2009a. Ancient glass research along
the silk road, New Jersey et al.: World Scientific.

Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

55

FUXI, G., HUANSHENG, C., YONGQUING, H., BO, M. & DONGHONG, G.
2009b. Study of the earliest eye beads in China unearthed from the Yu Jialing
Tomb in Xichuan of Henan Province. In: FUXI, G., BRILL, R. & SHOUYUN,
T. (eds.) Ancient glass research along the silk road. New Jersey et al.: World
Scientific.
GEMINGGULI, M., ISKHAN, K. R., LI, Y., QI, A., WUNIRIFU, W., DING, L. Y.
& WUMAIERJIANG, A. 2016. Genetic diversity and population structure of
Kazakh horses (Equus caballus) inferred from mtDNA sequences. Genet Mol
Res, 15.
GOOD, I. 1995. On the question of silk in pre-Han Eurasia. Antiquity, 69,
959–968.
GUILAINE, J. 2011. Caïn, Abel, Ötzi l’héritage néolithique, Paris, Gallimard.
HAN, L., ZHU, S., NING, C., CAI, D., WANG, K., CHEN, Q., HU, S., YANG, J.,
SHAO, J., ZHU, H. & ZHOU, H. 2014. Ancient DNA provides new insight into
the maternal lineages and domestication of Chinese donkeys. BMC Evol Biol,14, 246.
HANSEN, V. 2012. The Silk Road. A new history, New York, NY u.a., Oxford
Univ. Press.
HANSEN, V. 2016. The Silk Road. A History with Documents, Oxford, OUP.
HAUSSIG, H. W. 1983. Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstrasse invorislamischer Zeit, Darmstadt, Wiss. Buchges.
HAUSSIG, H. W. 1988. Die Geschichte Zentralasiens und der Seidenstraße inislamischer Zeit, Darmstadt, Wiss. Buchges. [Abt. Verl.].
HÖLLMANN, T. O. 2011. Die Seidenstrasse, München, Beck.
JONES, H., LISTER, D. L., CAI, D., KNEALE, C. J., COCKRAM, J., PEÑACHOCARRO, L. & JONES, M. K. 2016. The trans-Eurasian crop exchange inprehistory: Discerning pathways from barley phylogeography. QuaternaryInternational, 426, 26–32.
KLIMKEIT, H.-J. 1988. Die Seidenstrasse. Handelsweg und Kulturbrücke zwischen
Morgen- und Abendland, Köln, DuMont Buchverlag.
LI, C., LI, H., CUI, Y., XIE, C., CAI, D., LI, W., MAIR, V. H., XU, Z., ZHANG,
Q., ABUDURESULE, I., JIN, L., ZHU, H. & ZHOU, H. 2010. Evidence that aWest-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early
Bronze Age. BMC Biol, 8, 15.
LIU, L. & CHEN, X. 2012. The archaeology of China: from the late Palaeolithic
to the early Bronze Age CUP, Cambridge.
LU, H., ZHANG, J., YANG, Y., YANG, X., XU, B., YANG, W., TONG, T., JIN,
S., SHEN, C., RAO, H., LI, X., LU, H., FULLER, D. Q., WANG, L., WANG,
C., XU, D. & WU, N. 2016. Earliest tea as evidence for one branch of the Silk
Road across the Tibetan Plateau. Sci Rep, 6, 18955.
MCGOVERN, P. E., ZHANG, J., TANG, J., ZHANG, Z., HALL, G. R., MOREAU,
R. A., NUNEZ, A., BUTRYM, E. D., RICHARDS, M. P., WANG, C. S., CHENG,
G., ZHAO, Z. & WANG, C. 2004. Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historic
China. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 101, 17593–8.
MEZZAVILLA, M., VOZZI, D., PIRASTU, N., GIROTTO, G., D’ADAMO, P.,
GASPARINI, P. & COLONNA, V. 2014. Genetic landscape of populations
along the Silk Road: admixture and migration patterns. BMC Genet, 15, 131.
PEKRIDOU-GORECKI, A. 2006. Silk. In: CANCIK, H. & SCHNEIDER, H. (eds.)

56

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

Brill’s New Pauly. Antiquity. Leiden: Brill.
POLLEGIONI, P., WOESTE, K. E., CHIOCCHINI, F., DEL LUNGO, S.,
OLIMPIERI, I., TORTOLANO, V., CLARK, J., HEMERY, G. E., MAPELLI, S. &MALVOLTI, M. E. 2015. Ancient Humans Influenced the Current Spatial Genetic
Structure of Common Walnut Populations in Asia. PLoS One, 10, e0135980.
POMERANZ, K. 2000. The great divergence. Europe, China, and the making of
the modern world economy (= The Princeton economic history of the Westernworld), Princeton Univ. Press.
PTAK, R. 2007. Die maritime Seidenstraße. Küstenräume, Seefahrt und Handel invorkolonialer Zeit, München, Beck.
PULAK, C. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 27, 188–224.
REICHERT, F. E. 1992. Begegnungen mit China. Die Entdeckung Ostasiens im
Mittelalter, Sigmaringen, Thorbecke.
ROSENTHAL, J.-L. & WONG, B. R. 2011. Before and Beyond Divergence. The
Politics of Economic Change in China and Europe, Cambridge Massachusetts,
Harvard UP.
SELBITSCHKA, A. 2014. Prestigegüter entlang der Seidenstraße? Archäologische
und historische Untersuchungen zu Chinas Beziehungen zu Kulturen desTarimbeckens vom zweiten bis frühen fünften Jahrhundert nach Christus. Teil 1
und Teil 2. Asiatische Forschungen, Bd. 154. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
SHAUGHNESSY, E. L. 2007. Chinese society in the age of Confucius (1000–250BC): The Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Asian Studies, 66, 1129–1132.
SHOU, W. H., QIAO, E. F., WEI, C. Y., DONG, Y. L., TAN, S. J., SHI, H.,
TANG, W. R. & XIAO, C. J. 2010. Y-chromosome distributions among populations in Northwest China identify significant contribution from Central Asian
pastoralists and lesser influence of western Eurasians. J Hum Genet, 55, 314–22.
SPENGLER, R., FRACHETTI, M., DOUMANI, P., ROUSE, L., CERASETTI, B.,
BULLION, E. & MAR’YASHEV, A. 2014. Early agriculture and crop transmission among Bronze Age mobile pastoralists of Central Eurasia. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281, 20133382.
STEVENS, C. J., MURPHY, C., ROBERTS, R., LUCAS, L., SILVA, F. &FULLER, D. Q. 2016. Between China and South Asia: A Middle Asian corridorof crop dispersal and agricultural innovation in the Bronze Age. The Holocene,
26, 1541–1555.
TIAN, J. Y., WANG, H. W., LI, Y. C., ZHANG, W., YAO, Y. G., VAN STRATEN,
J., RICHARDS, M. B. & KONG, Q. P. 2015. A genetic contribution from theFar East into Ashkenazi Jews via the ancient Silk Road. Sci Rep, 5, 8377.
TIANLIN, L. 2014. Needham Puzzle: A Historical Approach.
UHLIG, H. 1986. Die Seidenstraße. Antike Weltkultur zwischen China und Rom,
Bergisch Gladbach.
VON FALKENHAUSEN, L. 2006. Chinese Society in the Age of Confucius(1000–250 BC): The Archaeological Evidence. (= Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Ideas, Debates and Perspectives), Los Angeles, University of California.
WAGNER, M. 2014. Silk Road Fashion: Clothes as a means of communication in
the 1st millennium BC, Eastern Central Asia. Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2012 und
2013. FORSCHUNGSBERICHTE DES DAI [Online], Faszikel 1.
WANG, J. 2016. Revealing a 5,000-y-old beer recipe in China. Proceedings of theEurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge

57

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - PNAS, 113,
6444–6448.
WANG, X., TANG, Z., WU, J., WU, X., WU, Y. & ZHOU, X. 2016. Strontium
isotope evidence for a highly mobile population on the Pamir Plateau 2500
years ago. Sci Rep, 6, 35162.
WARMUTH, V. M., CAMPANA, M. G., ERIKSSON, A., BOWER, M., BARKER,
G. & MANICA, A. 2013. Ancient trade routes shaped the genetic structure ofhorses in eastern Eurasia. Mol Ecol, 22, 5340–51.
WEI, Q. 2009. On the glass origins in ancient China from the relationship between
glassmaking and metallurgy. In: FUXI, G., BRILL, R. & SHOUYUN, T. (eds.)
Ancient glass research along the silk road. New Jersey et al.: World Scientific.
WIECZOREK, A. & LIND, C. 2007a. Ursprünge der Seidenstrasse. Sensationelle
Neufunde aus Xinjiang, China [Begleitband zur Ausstellung Ursprünge der
Seidenstrasse. Sensationelle Neufunde aus Xinjiang, China ; eine Ausstellung
der Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen, Mannheim (Rem) ... Station Berlin, MartinGropius-Bau, 13. Oktober 2007 bis 14. Januar 2008 ; Station Mannheim, ReissEngelhorn-Museen, 9. Februar bis 1. Juni 2008], Darmstadt, Wiss. Buchges.
WIECZOREK, A. & LIND, C. (eds.) 2007b. Ursprünge der Seidenstraße.
Sensationelle Neufunde aus Xinjiang, China. Ausstellungskatalog der ReissEngelhorn-Museen, Mannheim, Stuttgart: Theiss.
YUE, X., LI, R., LIU, L., ZHANG, Y., HUANG, J., CHANG, Z., DANG, R.,
LAN, X., CHEN, H. & LEI, C. 2014. When and how did Bos indicus introgress
into Mongolian cattle? Gene, 537, 214–9.
ZHANG, Z., WEI, S., GUI, H., YUAN, Z. & LI, S. 2014. The contribution ofgenetic diversity to subdivide populations living in the silk road of China. PLoS
One, 9, e97344.
I did this study with the careful help of Ulrich Koppitz, librarian at the Institutefor History, Theory and Ethics of Medicine at the Heinrich Heine University,
Düsseldorf, Germany. It is my pleasure to thank him cordially for his constantand reliable support.

CV and Correspondence:
Alfons LabischU.-Prof.em. U.-Prof.h.c. Dr. med. Dr. phil. Dr.phil.habil. M.A.(Soz.) ML
U.-Professor h.c. Beijing Foreign Studies University and Research Fellow Institutefor Global History, BSFU, Beijing, VR China
Honorary Member Council of the Confucius Institute Headquarters Hanban,
Beijing, VR China
Spokesman Center for Science Research of Leopoldina. German National
Academy of Sciences, Halle a.d.S., Germany
Chairman Trustees Hiller-Foundation-Rheumatology, Düsseldorf, Germany
Rector emeritus Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf

58

Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia Vol. 9 2018

Main interests of research: interrelation of medicine and society via the notion
and definition of health. “Homo Hygienicus. Health and Medicine in Modern
Times”, historical sociology and social history of public health and hospitals,
financing of hospitals in Germany; correlation of science and practice in medicine; correlation of history as experience and history as science in medicine.
Recent research focuses on the history of malaria, the culture of humanmobility, and the institutional configuration and the social effects of modern
science and medicine in intercultural context, especially in the interchange ofEurope and the Far East.