Empires of the Silk Road: a History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EMPIRES OF THE SILK ROAD A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present 5 CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS Princeton and Oxford Copyright © 2009 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cata loging- in- Publication Data Beckwith, Christopher I., 1945– Empires of the Silk Road : a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the present / Christopher I. Beckwith. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978- 0- 691- 13589- 2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Asia, Central–History. 2. Europe, Eastern—History. 3. East Asia—History. 4. Middle East—History. I. Title. DS329.4.B43 2009 958–dc22 2008023715 British Library Cata loging- in- Publication Data is available Th is book has been composed in Minion Pro. Printed on acid- free paper. ∞ press.princeton.edu Printed in the United States of America 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 CONTENTS 5 preface vii a c k n o w l e d g m e n t s x v abbreviations and sigla xvii introduction xix prologue: The Hero and His Friends 1 1 Th e Chariot Warriors 29 2 Th e Royal Scythians 58 3 Between Roman and Chinese Legions 78 4 Th e Age of Attila the Hun 93 5 Th e Türk Empire 112 6 Th e Silk Road, Revolution, and Collapse 140 7 Th e Vikings and Cathay 163 8 Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Conquests 183 9 Central Eurasians Ride to a Eu ro pe an Sea 204 10 Th e Road Is Closed 232 11 Eurasia without a Center 263 12 Central Eurasia Reborn 302 epilogue: Th e Barbarians 320 appendix a: Th e Proto- Indo- Eu ro pe ans and Th eir Diaspora 363 appendix b: Ancient Central Eurasian Ethnonyms 375 endnotes 385 bibliography 427 index 457 This page intentionally left blank PREFACE 5 Th is book presents a new view of the history of Central Eurasia and the other parts of the Eurasian continent directly involved in Central Eurasian history. Originally I planned to write a sketch of the essential topical ele- ments of a history of Central Eurasia, without much of a chronological nar- rative. Having in mind the French tradition of writing professionally in- formed but readable essays for an educated general audience, with minimal annotation, I imagined it with the title Esquisse d’une histoire de l’Eurasie centrale. In the actual writing, the people and events insisted on following their proper order and I found myself giving a basic outline of the po liti cal and cultural history of Central Eurasia within the context of a history of Eurasia as a whole, sometimes with extensive annotation, only occasionally involving reexamination of primary sources.1 Nevertheless, I have kept my original main goal foremost in my mind: to clarify fundamental issues of Central Eurasian history that to my knowl- edge have never been explained correctly or, in some cases, even mentioned. Without such explanation, it would continue to be impossible to understand the ebb and fl ow of history in Eurasia as anything other than the fantasy and mystery that fi ll most accounts. Mysteries are intriguing, and some- times they must remain unsolved, but enough source material is available to explain much of what has been mysterious in Central Eurasian history without resorting to the “usual suspects.” In this connection there is a widespread opinion that few sources exist for Central Eurasian history and consequently little can be said about it. Th at is a misconception. An im mense body of source material exists on the history of Central Eurasia, especially in its connections with the peripheral civiliza- tions.2 Because that history covers a span of four millennia, and as there is a 1 On the meaning of “primary sources” in the history of premodern periods, see endnote 1. 2 Th e history of Central Eurasian interaction with the Indian subcontinent (and, to a slightly lesser extent, the pre-Islamic history of Persia and southern Central Asia) is very poorly docu- mented until fairly recent times. Due partly to this fact, and partly to my own failings (includ- ing lack of interest in South Asia), I have paid less attention to the topic. However, much im- portant and interesting work is currently being done on the history of the region from Mughal times to the nineteenth century, and it is to be hoped that more will soon be learned about the earlier periods as well. 5 vii preface correspondingly large secondary literature on some of the topics within that area and period, to do it any sort of justice would require a series of massive tomes that could be produced only by a team of scholars, not by one writer working alone with attendant limitations on knowledge, skills, energy, and time. Th e only way a single individual could manage to produce a book on such a huge topic would be by pulling back and taking a big- picture approach— a very broad perspective—which, as it happens, is what interests me. In general, therefore, this book is not a highly focused treatment of any specifi c topics, individuals, politi cal units, periods, or cultures (not even of the Central Eurasian Culture Complex, which deserves a book of its own), with the partial exception of those that are of par tic u lar interest to me. It is also not an exhaustive account of events, names, and dates, though the ob- servant reader will note that I have tried to provide that information for all important events and people, even though I sometimes have had to go to surprisingly great lengths to fi nd it. Finally, it is not a source study or a com- prehensive annotated bibliography. In recent years a number of excellent studies have been published on some of the most notable people, places, pe- riods, and other topics, with full annotation and references, and I recom- mend them to interested readers. What I have done is to reexamine the more or less unitary received view of Central Eurasians and Central Eurasian history and attempt to revise it. Th e notes are therefore largely devoted to discussion of selected points I felt needed further comment or investigation. What ever detail I have been able to squeeze into the narrative or the topical sections is there mostly because it seemed important to me at the time and I did not want to leave it out. Th at means I have left out many things that are undoubtedly important but did not seem crucial to me at the time, or that I simply overlooked. I originally did not intend to include more than absolutely minimal annotation, to keep my focus on the argument. As one can see, it did not end up quite that minimal. Habits are diffi cult to repress, and apparently I like notes that go into detail on interesting topics. (Some long notes, which are mainly of in- terest to specialist scholars, would cause congestion in the main text, so I have placed them in a separate notes section at the end.) However, this book does not go to the other logical extreme either. It is not a general theory of history, and I do not intend to imply any such theory in it. Th ere are many recent works of this type, but my book is not one of them. I also do not examine in any detail the many theories—or, rather, vari- 5 viii preface ants of the one current theory—of Central Eurasian state formation that have been published in the past few de cades, though they are discussed briefl y in the epilogue. Neither my interpretation nor my terminology de- rives from such theoretical or metatheoretical works. My intention has been to let my interpretations arise naturally from straightforward presen ta tion and analysis of what I consider to be the most relevant data known to me. I may not have succeeded in this attempt, but in any case I have intentionally left the book free of overt and covert references to world- historical theories and metatheories, most of which I know little about. With respect to the data and history writing in general, some comment on my own approach is perhaps necessary, especially in view of the recent application of the “Postmodernist” approach to history, the arts, and other fi elds. According to the Modernist imperative, the old must always, unceas- ingly, be replaced by the new, thus producing permanent revolution.3 Th e Postmodernist point of view, the logical development of Modernism, rejects what it calls the positivist, essentially non- Modern practice of evaluating and judging problems or objects according to specifi c agreed criteria. In- stead, Postmodernists consider all judgments to be relative. “In our post- modern age, we can no longer take recourse to [sic] the myth of ‘objectivity,’ ” it is claimed.4 “Suspicions are legitimately aroused due to the considerable diff erences in the opinions of the foremost authorities in this area.”5 History is only opinion. Th erefore, no valid judgments can be made. We cannot know what happened or why, but can only guess at the modern motivations for the modern “construction of identity” of a nation, the nationalistic po- lemics of anti- intellectuals and nonscholars, and so on. All manuscripts are equally valuable, so it is a waste of time to edit them—or worse, they are said to be important mainly for the information they reveal about their scribes and their cultural milieux, so producing critical editions of them eliminates this valuable information.