The concept of Eurasia is easily identified: it is the combine bodies of both the European and Asian landmasses. However, a concept of Inner or Outer Eurasia is no so easily defined. Whether sub-regions are delineated by culture, geography, politics, or religion is yet to be decided. Denis Sinor and David Christian are two authors that attempted to clarify the discrepancy of an Inner Asian border. Borders can be formed a number of ways. Rivers, mountain chains, and other geographic infrastructure can form visible boundaries.
Australia is clearly its own continent based on its geography. However, borders can also be formed simply on the common characteristics of citizens culture. Inner Asia is a region that many westerners know little about. Both logocentrism (the bias towards literate sources and literate societies) and agrocentrism (the bias towards agrarian, urbanized civilizations) have shaped western knowledge (or lack thereof) of this region. The Outer, sedentary civilizations of Eurasia were based on agrarian societies, whereas the Inner civilizations weren’t permitted this luxury, due to geographical circumstances. Therefore, “economic self-sufficiency” was a must for the sparsely populated Inner Asian societies. The peoples of Inner Asia survive one of two ways: by migrating to food sources (usually accompanied by raising livestock), and by subsistence-level farming. These lifestyles, Denis Sinor claims, form a border between Inner and Outer Eurasia.
The Term Paper on Society Today Is Confronted By A Profound Crisis And Challenge part 1
Society today is confronted by a profound crisis and challenge in the world of humans and of nature. God so orders creation that everything in it is related to everything else. All physical components and all organisms, including human beings, are purposefully woven together in ecological systems or ecosystems, such as forests, grasslands, the oceans, as well as the planet earth. When any part is ...
The civilizations of Inner Asia were never able to become immensely populated. This is because neither subsistence-level farming or nomadism result in large excesses of food, which is a necessity for a large population. Because of this, a unified army that could conquer surrounding (possible more fertile) areas could never be formed. The small amount of farming that is done in Inner Asia was in the steppe; the other zones, the arctic tundra, the forest region (taiga), and the desert [cannot] provide food for a population large enough to muster the political power necessary to initiate conquest. Sinor suggests that Inner Asia is inarguably a unified region. However, “the links which usually hold together or create cultural entity – such as script, race, religion, language – played only a very moderate role as factors of cohesion”. Instead, a common way of life is the main similarity that marked Inner Asia as decisively separate from Outer Asia. In order to survive, Inner Asian peoples had to either provide for themselves completely (which was difficult, as mentioned above), or to trade with more well endowed societies for what goods they could not produce.
The Inner Asian economy was very much based on its land and peoples’ ability to raise livestock. “The horse was the mainstay of steppe economy”. Bordering civilizations needed the horse, and Inner Asia had an abundance. Empires like China needed many horses for their military, and bordering Inner Asian civilizations attained much of their goods by trading their horses. The “Silk Road” was a trading route that stretched across all of Central Asia, connecting both the Eastern and Western regions of Outer Eurasia. Because many traders used this route, goods were able to be imported into (and exported out of) the small Inner Asian societies.
David Christian claims that ecology, rather than language or culture, creates the borders of Inner Asia. He thinks that if borders were formed based on cultural similarities, as Sinor suggests, they would be mobile. Ecologically, Christian argues, three features define Inner Asia: interiority; northerliness; and continentality. Inner Asia is landlocked almost completely, and what little shorelines it has are mostly frozen. Therefore, the land is extremely dry, and doesnt permit much agriculture. This lack of agriculture directly shaped the lifestyles of people living within Inner Asia. Because there was not enough food to fuel a large society, Inner Asia was settled much more sparsely than the surrounding areas of Outer Asia.
The Essay on People and society
The writer basically talks about the conditions, events, problems, and trends of the larger regions as well as the individual nations. The writer basically uses a cross-disciplinary approach and talks about the physical landscapes and the culture that is being followed in the Asian-Pacific countries where most of the people live, mainly China and Japan. Moreover, some of the highest mountains and ...
Northerliness is the latitudinal coordinates of the area. The geography of southern regions of Asia allow for different lifestyles (such as the Fertile Crescent, the Indian sub-continent, and Eastern Asia).
Inner Asia, however has extreme temperatures, and thus was much harder to settle. Continentality is the huge arcing temperature changes that occur in the small areas of agriculture of Inner Asia, making growing seasons short and unproductive. The ecological challenges of Inner Asia unify its peoples. [Inner Asian] societies faced similar ecological, political and military challenges, and responded in similar ways. Not only are Inner Asians unified by the harsh topography surrounding them, but in how they deal with living in such harsh conditions.
Both authors make convincing cases as to how and why the borders of Inner Asia are formed. Both are somewhat based on the topography of the region, but in different ways. Sinor argues that the topography forced people into a lifestyle, which was the essence of the cultural cohesion for the region. However, Christians argument includes not only the topography of the land, but also the effects caused by such topography. The independent region of Inner Asia is so because of the similar challenges faced by its peoples. The societies that did most to shape the history of Inner Eurasia did so because they evolved successful ways of concentrating or mobilizing the scarce human and material resources of a region of relatively low natural productivity.
Living in an environment so harsh created the societies that made Inner Asia clearly separate from Outer Asia..
