Scholarly Opinions of DunHuang Cave 17, Essay Example

According to the diverse number of theses addressing its existence in the academic literature, it is clear that DunHuang Mogao Cave No. 17 remains a contentious subject in scholarship. Such contention surrounding the cave can be reduced to the following main points: firstly, an ambiguity concerning the cave’s function, secondly, the nature of the documents contained there within, and thirdly, the reason behind the precise state in which it is discovered, i.e., as sealed. Hence, as Imaeda summarizes these issues, the main controversy surrounding the cave concerns “the nature of the Dunhuang documents, the reasons for the sealing of the cave, and its timing.” (2008, p. 83-84) Various scholars have attempted to determine the logic behind these precise puzzles. The following essay will summarize two theories concerning these aspects of the cave, those of Rong Xinjiang and the aforementioned Imaeda, while also offering a critical interpretive analysis of these same theories, in order to hopefully clarify some of the mystery surrounding the cave. In particular, the critical portion of the paper will emphasize the importance of understanding the linguistic and cultural context of the cave in order to derive robust theories.

In his article “The Nature of the Dunhuang Library Cave,” Rong Xinjiang offers his own unique interpretation of the historical site. Rong introduces his theory in juxtaposition to more traditional and “influential” (Rong, 2000, 248) theories, such as those advanced by Stein and Pelliot. According to Rong, Stein’s theory maintains the following: “On the basis of the fragments he found in the cave, Stein pout forth the waste-repository hypothesis, which held that the cave contained sacred waste collected from different shrines in Dunhang.” (2000, 248) In contrast to this theory, Rong suggests that the cave was “a book storehouse of the time, complete with manuscript rolls contained in wrappers as well as various materials awaiting repair from a typical Buddhist library”, (2000, 248) and furthermore, that “the library cave was sealed before 1006, when the people of Dunhuang heard about the fall of the Buddhist kingdom of Khotan to the Islamic conquerors from Kashgar.” (2000, 248) Rong’s argument is therefore based upon an approach in which he tries to “reconstruct the original appearance of the cave” (2000, 248), so as to test the viability of his theory. In this regard, what is crucial to Rong’s account is a reliance upon previous writing about the cave, in particular The Record of the Stone Caves at Dunhuang, which describe the cave’s contents in terms “of the high degree of preservation of the schools and their wrappings.” (Rong, 2000, 249) The library theory thus follows from the care with which the documents were maintained. Furthermore, Rong argues against the waste repository theory by Stein, a theory that he equates to “Stein (seeing) some bundles that he took to be refuse.” (2000, 252) In other words, these bundles of texts as refuse, Rong suggests, was the result of Stein “not understand(ing) the system of classifying Buddhist texts in traditional China.” (2000, 252) According to Rong, Stein’s inability to speak Chinese presents a clear problem with his theory, such that he sets out to develop this library theory in terms of Chinese language and textual tradition, primarily in relation to the accounts of the Three Realms Monastery, which leads him to conclude that “Cave 16 adjoining the library cave may be the site of the Three Realms Monastery during the Tang dynasty.” (Rong, 2000, 264) Hence, the cave was essentially a part of this monastery complex, as historical descriptions of this same monastery complex exist. Furthermore, Rong refutes the closing of the cave according to Stein’s logic because the existing documents in the cave may be dated to the year 1002: if theories that proposed a later date for the closing of the cave existed, Rong argues, then later documents would be found in the cave.

In contrast to Rong, Imaeda’s article does not offer any “new theory” (2008, 85) about the cave, but instead attempts to “examine these questions by taking into account a number of established facts that have nonetheless been disregarded or dismissed.” (2008, 85) In other words, Imaeda takes a more critical approach to the issue, aiming to debunk existing theories. At the same time, however, Imaeda is not above speculating on the origins of the cave. By considering the location of the cave and for example dates of documents found within, alongside the appearance of a “portrait statue” in the cave, the author suggests that the cave was the library of the monk Hongbian, which then became a chapel for him after his death, ultimately turning into a storage area. To understand the trajectory of the space, it is also important, following Imaeda, to understand the family history of Hongbian, who belonged to the Wu family, insofar as the history of the latter may explain the cave’s contents and function. Namely, the “Wu family produced several monks who played notable roles in the world Dunhuang Buddhism” (Imaeda, 91), meaning that Hongbian’s association to the family may explain the cave’s contents. As Imaeda writes, documents within the cave “would have been prized as ‘family documents’ connected with ancestors of the Wu family.” (Imaeda, 91) From this viewpoint, the cave thus designates a type of “family album” in space, as valuables connected to the lineage of Wu monks are found in a space consecrated towards one of its members, Hongbian.

At the same time, Imaeda presents a dynamic view of the cave’s function, the latter shifting according to particular circumstances. Using this notion of familial lineage as crucial to understanding the cave’s essence, it can be suggested that much like a family home changes over time, with renovations, extensions and demolitions of certain areas, the cave also changed its function. This notion of a fluidity in function, according to Imeada, may indicate why the cave was sealed: “the cave was sealed when it could not longer function even as a storage room, which occurred in the first half of the eleventh century.” (2008, 98) With this approach, Imaeda also concomitantly undermines theories that “seek the direct or indirect reasons for the sealing of Cave 17 in historical events.” (2008, 98) Imaeda proposes a more mundane view of the reasons behind the sealing of the cave, essentially suggesting that this occurred when the cave exhausted (one of) its functions.

Certainly, the views in the aforementioned texts, combined with views that have dominated the subject, such as the aforementioned interpretations of Stein and Pelliot, show the diversity of possible theories linked to the cave. In other words, this lack of consensus in such a radically different manner underscores the mystery of the cave. Arguably, uncovering the mystery of the cave, as Rong rightly points out, must be carefully considered in terms of language and cultural context. Rong makes a compelling point when he suggests that Stein’s failure to understand Chinese is a clear drawback to his theory; furthermore, his inability to understand the Buddhist classification structure of documents is a clear indictment of his theory, insofar as precisely such documents were found in the cave. One must place the cave in a proper socio-cultural context in order for a theory to be valid, since the cave itself was clearly had a cultural function because of its contents. This approach in essence is also adhered to by Imaeda, who looks at the functional aspects of the cave in terms of Buddhist culture.

At the same time, Rong uses the dates of the documents found to oppose Stein’s reasons for why the cave was closed: however, this chronology does not suggest a necessary casual relation. For example, there may be a more mundane reason why the cave was closed, such as the one presented by Imaeda’s logic: namely, there was simply no more room in the cave, such that the cave exhausted its function. Both Imaeda and Rong, however, appear correct to state the religious importance of the cave, and its somewhat sacral function is apparent. The precise nature of this sacral function is furthermore underscored when we consider issues of language. For example, Takata suggests that because of the documents found in the cave that  “it is possible to gain a rough picture of the linguistic situation prior to the eleventh century.” (2000, 68) What is important here is that such linguistic evidence can help clarify the nature of the cave: as Takata observes, there is a diverse number of languages found in the cave’s scripts for example Sogdian, Khotanese, Sanskrit and Uighur, amongst others. In regards to Sanskrit, as Tanaka notes, “it is unlikely that there would have existed in Tun-hung any Sanskrit-speaking social group. However, Buddhist monks from India often stayed not only in Tun-huang.” (2000, 53) In other words, the diversity of languages of writings in the cave suggest that it did in fact play a crucial role in itinerant Buddhist monks, serving as a type of library. This is all the more underscored by the location of Dunhaung itself on the Silk Road. Without an understanding of the linguistic factors behind the Cave, as Rong notes, it is impossible to forward a theory about function, such that Stein’s theory is severely jeopardized by this fact. Furthermore, concerning the sealing of the cave, it can be suggested that Imaeda makes a valid point when he critiques various speculations that the cave must have been closed because of some known historical catastrophe: this completely overlooks the more mundane explanations of when the cave was itself sealed. In light of this thesis, it is most useful to consider the dates of the documents contained within, as Rong states, although this is not any type of guarantor of the dates in question. In line with languages, records of cross-cultural travel and perhaps records from other Buddhist monasteries could therefore be sought for their potential reference to Dunhuang, so as to better understand the cave itself.

Certainly, these are only cursory critiques of the various interpretations of the cave. The cave does remain a mystery, as the diverse interpretations it fosters clearly indicate. However, it appears that theories such as those of Stein’s, like Rong argues, are clearly undermined by ignorance of language and cultural context. Moreover, as Imaeda states, connecting the sealing of the cave to known historical events, is forcing an answer based upon what has come to us down through historical record, while the very mystery of the cave itself arises from its unknown character. It is precisely this mystery that continues to fascinate researchers.

Works Cited

Imaeda, Yoshiro. (2008) The Provenance and Character of the Dunhuang Documents. The Memoris of the Toyo Bunko, No. 66, pgs. 81-102.

Rong, Xinjiang. (1999-2000)“The Nature of the Dunhaung Library Cave and the Reasons for its Sealing.” Cahiers d’Extreme Asie 11, 247-275.

Takata, Tokio. (2000) “Multilingualism in Tun-huang.” Acta Asiatica, 78. 49-70.