The author of this ambitious book is a well-known scholar who has labored long and with great profit in the field of Inner Asian (or, to use his preferred terminology, Central Eurasian) history and culture. His publications reveal a wide range of interests from political and economic history to historical linguistics. This recent title benefits from his decades of work in these and related areas, and represents his latest views on the subject.
Christopher Beckwith is very clear about his purpose in writing this book. He seeks to assert the centrality of Central Eurasia to world history and, in doing so, to point out some important historical themes that have not received adequate attention and to dispel some persistent historical misconceptions connected to Central Eurasia. He argues that trade is most important to understanding the history of Central Eurasia, and that much of this trade was promoted by the common Central Eurasian institution of the ruler's personal guard, whose loyalty had to be continually reinvigorated by the bestowal of gifts. These themes are seen as part of a larger “Central Eurasian cultural complex,” which is expressed in foundation myths that share multiple features. Of course, the broad contours of this myth complex have been recognized for more than a century; the book's examples (pp. 1–12) are drawn from numerous Eurasian traditions, to which more (from Eurasia and beyond) could be added.
Among the misconceptions that Beckwith seeks to correct are the notions that Central Eurasian nomads were more “warlike” and even more “cruel” than their sedentary neighbors, that they greedily lusted after goods their neighbors' goods, and that they enjoyed a significant military advantage over those neighbors, for whom they remained “a permanent military threat” (pp. xxii–xxiii). He is particularly eager to shatter the image of the “barbarian” that has cast a long and pernicious shadow over many accounts of the region's history (pp. 320–62).
This book is significant because it seeks to highlight Central Eurasia's importance and take a fresh look at its history. There is much to appreciate, as the author makes a compelling case for paying greater attention to economic history and the paramount role of trade, for rethinking the image of the nomad warrior, and for taking greater care in the reading of sources that mold our understanding of historical forces. He is certainly right in his concern that while historians have tended to deplore the violent acts of Central Eurasian peoples, they have celebrated many of those of their sedentary neighbors.
The book's arguments are important and useful, but some are subject to challenge. For example, Beckwith decries the theory of the “non-autarky” of nomadic economies in Central Eurasia (pp. 324–30 and 424–25), yet he insists that regular trade was necessary to supply the luxury goods needed by Central Eurasian rulers to maintain the loyalty of their closest supporters. This is certainly a type of “non-autarky.” His point is that nomadic economies were no less “non-autarkic” than sedentary economies in that both desired trade, but that does not negate the demand for luxury and other goods that Beckwith regards as crucial to the functioning and survival of Central Eurasian polities.
Given the author's overall purpose, it is not surprising that he considers the chronological narrative of Central Eurasian history to be secondary to his broader goal. This approach results in long sections of the book that are essentially thumbnail sketches of important events and trends. Unlike the iconoclastic and stimulating sections dealing with the author's primary themes, those devoted to the chronological narrative are often highly traditional; while too brief for the specialist, they are still weighted down with an abundance of names and terms that will likely prove overwhelming for the nonspecialist. Complex events and issues are glossed over in ways that will certainly be disappointing to some readers.
The question of the author's intended audience remains unresolved. Beckwith offers complex and sometimes densely argued appendices and endnotes that will attract the interest of specialists in the field, who will also be engaged by his overarching themes. Those same specialists, however, will find much that is too briefly discussed, and will likely be perplexed by the author's attack on “modernism” (in his own definition), with commentary on artists such as T. S. Eliot, Picasso, and Stravinsky (pp. 287–301). They will also note surprising gaps in the book's bibliography on subjects ranging from anthropology and archeology to political history. Nonspecialists will find many sections that are highly informative and intriguing, but also serious lacunae and an approach that in many ways cleaves to tradition by distilling complex historical experiences to a few sentences about “high” political history.
This book demands our attention and will stimulate interest and debate in many circles. The author is to be congratulated on a book that is both thoughtful and provocative in its call for a reassessment of Central Eurasia and its role in world history.
