Let us figure out tentatively what the Hou Han Shu (後漢書) is.
1) The Hou Han Shu is a grand narrative which claims truth at the expense of earlier historical records (such as the Shiji) and personal experiences (such as those of Zhang Qian and Ban Yong). In other words, where contradictory versions exist, a comprehensive account and explanation of history is provided by suppressing some local narratives . Thus, the question here is: Do we still have the suppressed local narratives? If yes, where do the discontinuities of the grand narrative lie? If not, how are we to use the grand narrative in our study of Central Asia?
2) The Hou Han Shu was written for a purpose. However, when contextualized, we see that there are different purposes at different levels. On the most superificial level, the Hou Han Shu can be said to be written for the enjoyment of the exotic of the emperor. Considering government positions, the ruler who reads it would see it as a reference for whether to open his empire to foreign trade and whether to send troops (and how many soldiers) when a war is to be waged. For the general, it serves as a map to plan his route of advancement and his initial information on the kingdom he is to claim for his empire. The advisor, on the other hand, uses it to advise his ruler on the diplomatic policies to adopt based on the historical “behavior” of the particular kingdom.
3) The Hou Han Shu is also a text structured around the “hero” explanation for causation in history. It is a history of emperors, kings, governors, and generals and they are recorded insofar that their actions have a perceived impact on the history of the “Western Regions.”
The most obvious subject matter that was left out when we place the Hou Han Shu in the context of Frances Wood’s Chapter 4 of The Silk Road is that of the “Heavenly horses.” In the census of the “Western Regions,” there was no count of horses or even “Heavenly horses.” Does this mean that Arthur Waley was right to say that the Han concern with these horses was spiritual rather than practical? Let us place this question in the context of question 2. We are told in Wood’s Silk Road that the Han realized that a smaller group of Xiongnu on Heavenly horses could wipe out an entire army of Han infantry. If so, wouldn’t it be curious that in the census, the number of infantry soldiers (since they were counted without horses) was given primacy over the number of horses? Although it seems like Arthur Waley’s argument is more worthy of consideration than when first read, it is actually quite problematic. Consider the following “hymn” taken from Wood’s Silk Road:
The Heavenly Horses are coming,
Coming from the Far West,
They crossed the Flowing Sands,
For the barbarians are conquered.
That issued from the waters of a pool. Two of them have tiger bacjs: They can transform themselves like spirits.
The Heavenly Horses are coming
Across the pastureless wilds
A thousand leagues at a stretch,
Following the eastern road.
The Heavenly Horses are coming;
Jupiter is in the Dragon.
Should they choose to soar aloft,
Who could keep pace with them?
The Heavenly Horses are coming;
Open the gates while there is time.
To the Holy Mountain of Kunlun.
The Heavenly Horses have come
And the Dragon will follow in their wake.
I shall reach the Gates of Heaven,
I shall see the Palace of God.
Consider the lines I bolded (spiritual parts) with the ones I italicized (practical parts). In his argument, Waley suppressed the practical element. What is more problematic was his total neglect of the parts on the practical. Thus, it seems that Heavenly horses are important both in spiritual and practical ways.