Robes, Kings, and Semiotic Ambiguity

Abstract

Rather than broad theory that seeks to explains all investiture in all settings, I propose a “middle range” hypothesis specific to the investiture tradition that began in Central Asia; it seeks to explain some of the major questions that arise from our essays: Why did this tradition survive in a recognizable form for almost two thousand years in spite of vast changes in governmental structure? Why did it spread across much of Asia, some of Europe, and parts of Africa? How did it find usage in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and various “barbarian” settings from Russia to sub-Saharan Africa? How is it that a tremendous variety of people received robes, such as particularly adept court dancers, sons of kings, diplomatic envoys, military commanders, nuns, and Sufi holy men? How is it that robing sometimes meant promotion and sometimes signaled defeat? How is it that robes sometimes honored single individuals and other times whole groups, such as all of the leaders going on a campaign? How is it that kings were sometimes robed by a high clergyman and other times they robed themselves? Why was the robing ceremony sometimes so simple as to be nonverbal, and other times included oaths and even written contracts? Why was the robe in some settings accompanied by items of real wealth—gold, silver, jewels—and other times not?