Month: February 2019

sultantepe özbekler tekkesi and the road to hajj.

lale can talking about the motivations behind her research on central asian pilgrims.
she’s so clear and articulate!

writing social history can be extremely tedious. i have always admired people who work very closely with various methodological frameworks so that they can reveal the complexities of certain objects, goods, people and ideas in the form of descriptive writing.

but no shit. if you want to be a historian, you need to be able to peruse very detailed, dense descriptions of objects of study. otherwise you might be in a real dilemma. i really do think that the following is an excellent reminder that such historical writing, if presented well, can be very far from boring:

Can, L. (2012). Connecting People: A Central Asian Sufi network in turn-of-the-century Istanbul. Modern Asian Studies, Volume 46, Issue 2 (Sites of Asian Interaction) March 2012 , pp. 373-40.

oh, oh btw it is pronounced as jan not ‘ken’ and so basically turkish language the c is the j?¿ i am so shook right now.

so i was pretty surprised when a white guy in my class said he felt that this piece of writing was just too descriptive that the main point of the research was lost to him. i was like dafuq bruh. because if we compared to last week’s reading on chinatown enclaves by hu-dehart (2012) it seems pretty clear to me that can does the exact opposite.

well, for starters, she is writing about the movement of central asian pilgrims to the hajj in mecca and how they make a pitstop at this tekke (sufi lodge) called the sultantepe özbekler tekkesi in istanbul. she digs through a shit tonne of archives including guestbooks and diaries in the tekke to find out about the stories of central asian pilgrims that end up in this place. i mean c’mon man, look how epic her abstract is!

The role of Sufi networks in facilitating trans-imperial travel and the concomitant social and political connections associated with the pilgrimage to Mecca is often mentioned in the literature on Ottoman-Central Asian relations, yet very little is known about how these networks operated or the people who patronized them.

This paper focuses on the Sultantepe Özbekler Tekkesi, a Naqshbandi lodge in Istanbul that was a primary locus of Ottoman state interactions with Central Asians and a major hub of Central Asian diasporic networks. It departs from an exclusive focus on the experiences of elites, to which much of the conventional historiography on Ottoman-Central Asian relations has confined itself, and examines the butchers and bakers, craftsmen and students who set out on the hajj to Mecca in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Drawing on sources from the private archive of this lodge, the paper reconstructs the experiences of a diverse range of remarkably mobile actors and explores the myriad ways in which this Ottoman-administered institution facilitated their travel to and from Mecca. Through its focus on the conduits and mediators, the structures and buildings—the actual sites—where connections were forged, the paper sheds light on the role that such state-administered Sufi lodges played in delivering on the paternalistic rhetoric and system of sultanic charity that was an integral part of late Ottoman politics and society.

in case you’re not really into reading the whole thing, i wrote some notes.

i loved how she really humanizes the individuals that she discovers through her archival research. if you read the actual paper, she talks about how and why they ended up at the sufi lodge and the different things that they did. so, like some people ended up being mücavirs (long term residents) because they were refugees. some people were also just looking for a job in istanbul and needed a place to crash in while they figure out what to do next. they had names, hopes and aspirations – all of which can was able to capture by simply detailing their presence in the tekke.

the road to hajj is rendered as a non-linear, multidimensional journey for muslim lives, and in this case central asians. it didn’t matter that those who came to stay at the tekke where immediately making their way to the hajj. it could also have been a more sporadic process. they could come before and after or somewhere in between.

a wee bit more notes.

and contrary to popular belief, these sufi guys weren’t always the most morally upright people. in fact, can found records of sufis being thrown out of the tekke for engaging in illicit sex, drug and alcohol abuse LOL. it is so crazy yet so awesome because when reading islamic history it always seems so squeaky clean. so this paper is so cool because it is describing how naturally messy the lives of people are, no matter how islamic their contexts are.

when we were concluding our discussion at the end of class, i shared about what was at the back of my mind – what compelled these shaykhs to perform the role of the postnisin (kinda like the head of the sufi order, but he would also be the warden) in the tekke. and like he would take care of the poor, the destitute, the sick, the young or any muslim or non-muslim central asian that was in need to recollect themselves to perform the hajj, or just even get their shit together essentially. it’s pretty admirable tbh.

i guess ummah must be the underlying tone of inspiring such agency and goodness in these people. and i really liked that my lecturer brought up about how it is impossible for the journey to the hajj to be done in a linear fashion with zero interruptions. this tekke is so instrumental in the mobility of pilgrims, and that could probably be said for many other sufi lodges in different parts of the muslim world.

lale can is an amazing historian whose work reveals the fundamental flaws in conservative islamic studies writing to render social realities as invisible. islamic studies scholars shouldn’t still be writing about islam in a very monodimensional way today, especially given that when we unearth agents, driving forces, political economy and faith as very contingent to the spread of this world religion.

cool stuff, wei.

new history through archives of mobility.

currently wrestling with developing more specific research questions for my investigation of martaban jars. good thing is that my lecturer set some guidelines for us to follow in writing the archival research report. one of the suggestions he made was to read the following:

Harper, T. and S.S. Amrith, (2012) “Sites of Asian Interaction: An Introduction,” Modern Asian Studies 46, 2 (Mar.), pp. 249-257.

honestly, this is such an epic read. it is not just a summary of the papers that are in the book. it also lays out the various methodological frameworks that historians can utilize to tease out more subaltern aspects of history. the overarching theme of the book is histories of cosmopolitanism in asia, and how through a study of movements, goods, ideas, people and objects (i have literally memorized that phrase btw because my supervisor repeats it like a chant for lectures lel) we can actually even look at the limits of cosmopolitanism.

i am a neat-freak and use colour to memorize so here are my notes.

these limits are not necessarily dictated by the creation of the modern nation-state, but they seem to also be due to factors that involve the extent of mobility that these movements, goods, ideas, people and objects are capable of. huhu saw what i did there?

close-up #1

plus, my entrance into understanding the study of material culture began with one particular chapter in this book. it also started my extreme fandom during my gap year when i was self studying historiography and southeast asian studies in anticipation that my parents would force me back into the rigidity of law school. aren’t i glad i won the battle at the end.

Mandal, S.K. (2012) “Popular Sites of Prayer, Transoceanic Migration, and Cultural Diversity: Exploring the Significance of Keramat in Southeast Asia,” Modern Asian Studies 46, 2 (Mar.), pp. 355-372.

i never really looked at keramat (muslim shrines) in this way. this chapter taught me that history is not necessarily centred on the discourse of powerful individuals. i could actually make the focus of complex relations more evident if i tried to examine materials that can demonstrate a broader process that is going on in the vastness of world history.

so now onto my martaban jars *cracks knuckles*, perhaps i can write about how when we look at the localization of martaban jars into heirloom objects in borneo, we can actually see how cosmopolitanism fades away into the background, becoming deeply embedded to the point of subtlety.

most of the secondary sources i am reading to acquire photographs and information about the jars are from museum collection catalogues in europe. at first i thought of understanding the reasons for artifact acquisition to be the object of study, but then i need to make the jars as the archive itself. i think they can because of their aesthetic origins, but also for their functionality in different cultures, particularly ranging from myanmar to china and borneo.

close up #2
(please forgive me for that ugly ass arch in the second column)

plus, i found out that eric tagliacozzo wrote in one of his books about how martaban jars were so valuable that they were often looted and smuggled through the borders between borneo! that really does break the whole orientalist curation trope that seems to colonize narratives of material culture.

now that i have some ideas for my approach to the jars, i am quite excited to read some of the papers in my bibliography to further refine my research questions.

writing my first archival research report.

i’ve been so eager to take this module for my final semester in university. it is called “sites of asian interaction”, taught by one of the most remarkable malaysian historians of our time (and yes, i don’t count professor khoo kay kim as remarkable in this context). *scandalouuusss*

the module is shaped on the basis my supervisor’s book project with historians tim harper and sunil amrith. even the title is based on the book – sites of asian interaction: ideas, networks and mobility.

i really wanted to write about carcosa and king’s house, the resident and guest house of britain’s high commissioner pre-independence. for simple reasons obviously. one was that i have a strong affinity to the buildings after spending months of sleepless nights putting together an exhibition on the multiplicity of narratives about ‘merdeka’. the other was the accessibility of archives on the building, ranging from its blueprint, to photographs and memorandum of understanding between the british and malaysian governments. writing about this building’s history as site of interactions would allow to demonstrate it as a nodal point in the process of colonization and decolonization.

but my lecturer seemed pretty ambivalent about it. plus, he was pretty adamant that this assessment does not expect “conventional history” to be the choice of study. so my other suggestion to study the travels of the malay sufi poet, hamzah fansuri were shot down without hesitation.

and maybe i should put myself to do something that would allow me to explore past research interests that i never had the opportunity to. this was when i recalled my desire to learn more about the heirloom jars used by communities in borneo for rituals of life and death.

my tentative title at the moment is this:

Memory, Ritual and Transmission of Martaban Jars in Borneo 

the martaban jar is a lug-handled storage jar that originates from the southern coast of myanmar. during my visit to tun jugah foundation in kuching, sarawak, i learnt about the importance of martaban jars as heirloom pieces to orang asal families in borneo.

in fact, it felt like a first hand lesson about how much meaning these jars have for the indigenous communities in borneo. this was because i had the pleasure of meeting melia linggi brown, the granddaughter of tun jugah and director of the foundation.

it was quite annoying to be in a delegation of people who only cared to ask the kind of questions only private collectors would care about. such as the date of acquisition and origins. many of the martaban jars on dated back to the ming dynasty. it then occurred to me that many of us who were there with melia did not consider the movement of these jars from one point in the asian region to another.

so i took the opportunity to ask melia a question that the collectors around me probably thought was stupidly unsophisticated – “among the many jars here, which one is your favourite, melia?”

her eyes lit up almost immediately and she excitedly points to a very large, dark brown glazed martaban jar. “this one belonged to my grandmother and when she got married, this was the one jar she insisted to bring when she moved to her new home”, melia said. “i feel like a part of her is always with me because of this jar”. she proceeded to show me her first jar which she acquired as a teenager. they were often used for spiritual practices that date back centuries.

a tree of beads made from precious stones and glass.
with some martaban jars in the background.

these jars do not just have great commercial and aesthetic value, they are also attached with memories of ancestry, love, life and death. i hope to investigate the movements from across the asian region to borneo through an examination of artifact acquisition processes.

good news is that my lecturer approved this topic! but he asked me to specify what are the interactions that i wish to better understand and more specifically, how does the jar itself serve as an archive. gosh, i hate it everytime he asks me these difficult questions.

then again, i really do need to pin down how and why i am looking at artifact acquisition processes of museums around the world for martaban jars. can i even make the martaban jar itself the archive? or should the documentation on what, where and why the jar was acquired by various agents, be it curator or private collector, be the focus of my report?

i’ve compiled twelve sources for my bibliography. i guess i should get reading so that i can submit the paper in time of the original deadline.

also, what the hell is the format for an archival research report?!