10 Meinert
[.. .] may or may not have high rank or be a hub but, typically, could be an
end of an important ‘bridge’ between parts of the network; a ‘bridge’ in
the sense that, if it is broken, the connectivity of the network is damaged.
It is understood as a measure of the influence a site has over the flows of
people, goods, and information through the network, insofar as it lies on
important exchange routes between central sites.14
This further qualification of a major node as a gateway in a network is note-
worthy and, in fact, applies to some of the sites mentioned in various chap-
ters of this volume. Gateways are particularly those major nodes, which are
at the ‘border’ or in the ‘periphery’ of (former) ‘greater empires’, such as the
Chinese, Tibetan or Indian. The Central Asian oasis of Dunhuang may serve as
a prime example: it was situated at the periphery of the Chinese Tang Dynasty
until the 780s, when it was conquered by Tibetans and became part of the
Tibetan Central Asian periphery; then it fell, with the demise of the Tibetan
Empire, under the local rule of the Zhang (張) clan in 848 and became, in
fact, the centre of that clan’s attention.15 Thus Dunhuang may very well be
regarded not only as a major node or a central place but also as an important
gateway between various cultures (according to the terminology used by Ray
Rivers, Carl Knappett, and Tim Evans) that enabled the crossing of cultural
boundaries.16 In fact, Dunhuang is a very rich locale for the study of Buddhism,
where material culture and textual influences, both moved in intercultural
exchange from the neighbouring former empires (Tibetan, Chinese, Indian) as
well as from regional contacts (e.g. the Uyghurs at Turfan), are visible.17
14 Rivers, Knappett, and Evans, “What Makes a Site Important?,” 129.
15 For a micro-historical investigation of the role of clergy and administration in changing
political and religious contexts, that is during the transition period from Tibetan to local
rule in Dunhuang, see the chapter by Gertraud Taenzer in this volume.
16 Originally I chose “Periphery as Centre” as the title for the present volume. However, Chris
Beckwith, in his function of an advisor for the publication series Dynamics in the History
of Religions, rightfully criticised this title. Such a title could be regarded as a continuation
of an old core–periphery assumption, misplacing directionality and implying that influ-
ence and resources of any kind radiate out from locations uniformly—from the centres of
big empires to their periphery—and thereby continuing the presumption of Central Asia
as a periphery, a misconception which was until recently rather persistent in academia
as well. However, I always had in mind to focus on the centrality of Central Asia and I
believe the approach discussed here, of interregional and local exchange does cover this
meaning. Many thanks to Chris Beckwith for pointing out the problem with the prelimi-
nary title.
17 The chapter by Henrik H. Sørensen in this volume provides a good example of this
process from the perspective of the development of Esoteric Buddhism.