11. The history discipline venerates the single authored work too much and often discourages collaboration

Thanks again for this exchange, and I hope we can find a format to keep the discussion alive. These topics deserve more than a few fleeting posts.

On this last point, by the way, Nik Matheou has a very thoughtful review article coming out soon in the English Historical Review. Definitely worth reading when it’s out.

Another sign of these unconscious prejudices is the recurring urge to explain Mongol violence in the conquest period. As far as I know, no sedentary empire conquered territory by handing out flowers to local populations.

Curiously, this “brain-drain” narrative always has to be emphasised in the case of the Mongols, whereas for the Romans, the British, the Chinese, or any other sedentary empire makers we rarely feel the need to justify the same dynamic.

Yes, the Mongols needed help in specific tasks (e.g. taxing sedentary populations, or setting up their postal system in the Caucasus). But they excelled at identifying and integrating the right people for the job.

The second point is what Lenny summarised brilliantly: “the assumption that the Mongols are not civilised enough to run their own state.” That idea is part of a broader sedentary bias against nomads that still shapes much of our field.

Simon pointed to a pervasive Euro- or Westcentrism (if that’s a term), while I tried to bring up our tendency to project modern categories of nation, language and ethnicity onto premodern contexts. Both habits are deeply entrenched and equally problematic.

Still, I’d like to pick up on two threads I found particularly stimulating. The first concerns the 19th-century or colonial legacies of our disciplines, and the dual consequences they carry for our understanding of the past.

Our exchange touched on at least 3–4 major issues that each deserve a workshop or roundtable of their own. I’m not sure Bluesky is the ideal forum to explore them in depth, I’m not active enough here to do that meaningfully.

First of all, thank you both. Over the past two days, your thoughts kept me reflecting on questions that lie at the heart of our broader field. They were so engaging they even helped distract me during a long dentist appointment today.

Secondly, in an extremely interdisciplinary field as ours, it is important to be tolerant of others' 'mistakes', because we will undoubtedly make similar ones if we venture beyond our own disciplinary boundaries. In other words, does anyone remember how many source languages are discussed in CHME?

All this said, I just want to make two points. Firstly, historical reality is usually much more complex than the purist linguistic attitudes inherent in most of our disciplines due to their 19th-century origins would suggest. (I often catch myself being influenced by them too...)

This language policy resulted in a situation in which, in most of the territories of the empire, most of the administrators referred to the postal system as 'yam', while most taxpayers and administrators probably called it 'zhan' or one of its Chinese variants.

They only introduced Mongolian at the highest levels, and sometimes quite late. For example, from the Chaghataid Ulus, we have a decree issued in the name of Arigh Böqe in Old Uyghur from 1259, whereas the earliest datable Mongolian decree is from the early 14th century, if I am not mistaken.

but we might don't want to represent more puristic linguistic views than the Mongols did. At least they had seemingly no problem with that in the jam-system elčis were riding ulagha. We also know, that the Mongols let the local administrative languages in usage in the local and regional levels,

I mean, I have been thinking about this system for a while, and the y-/j-spelling isn't even among the top fifty most interesting questions I have. Perhaps at this point it would be good to mention some intentionally provocative thoughts :) Philological accuracy is essential,

As always, accurate :) I think it's an acceptable approach to use the 'jam' spelling when talking about the YMU — if I'm not mistaken, I mostly used it as well — but I don't mind if someone uses a different spelling, as long as we understand each other.

The Turkic (Old Uyghur) pronunciation is also "yam", and as many peculiarities of the early Mongol relay system and a good deal of it's terminology goes back to it's Central Asian predecessors, I don't see it as a major problem.