History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Vol. 3 [Hardcover]

Livinsky (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 8120815408 | ISBN-13: 978-8120815407 | Publication Date: March 1999 | Edition: 1

Volume III of the History of Civilizations of Central Asia covers the period from the third to the eighth century A.D.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 569 pages
• Publisher: South Asia Books; 1 edition (March 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 8120815408
• ISBN-13: 978-8120815407
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.5 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,224,586 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Indispensable for Students of the Silk Road, March 25, 2002

By 

P. Cornelius "pcornelius" (Mountain View, CA United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Vol. 3 (Hardcover)

Silk Road fans who have enjoyed Richard Frye's excellent THE HERITAGE OF CENTRAL ASIA may well have wondered, what's next? Is that all there is? Fortunately, there is more and it is to be found in this magnificent series produced by your tax dollars and UNESCO. These volumes deal in considerable depth with all the topics introduced by the Frye book. Just as with that book, while a scholarly work, it is accessible to the general reader. And it is reliable and reflective of modern research in the areas.

Edited and written by a Scientific Committee composed of two scholars from each of the seven Central Asian countries -- Afghanistan, China, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia and the former USSR -- and five experts from other countries -- Hungary, Japan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, the quality of the scholarship is excellent. The experts are the tops in their fields and the chapters accurately reflect the latest research and theories. Only the Chinese writers succumb to a nationalism that causes them to reveal the influence of the modern political situation. Even then, the information is not wrong, but simply shaded in emphasis. Tibet is called a kingdom whereas other writers have called it an empire. The invasions and conquests of the Xiong Nu (Hsiung Nu) receive a line here and there while the Chinese conquests and influences receive many paragraphs, even though the time periods for each are roughly comparable. Etc. But it is not serious, and anyway, the nomads are dealt with more fully in other volumes in the series.

The bottom line is that one simply cannot find this material anywhere else, unless by pursuing many, many obscure journals from all parts of the world,including faraway India, which are no longer available and often written in other languages.

For purposes of the book, Central Asia is defined as the civilizations of Afghanistan, northeastern Iran, Pakistan, northern India, western China, Mongolia and the former Soviet Central Asian republics.

Contents:

* Historical Introduction (B.A. Litvinksy, Zhang Guang-da)
* Sassanian Iran - economy, society, arts (N.N. Chegini, A.V. Nikitin)
* Sassanian Iran - intellectual life (A. Tafazzoli, A.L. Khromov)
* The Kushano-Sassanian Kingdom (A.H. Dani, B.A. Litvinksy)
* The Kidarite Kingdom in Central Asia (E.V. Zeimal)
* The Hephthalite Empire (B.A. Litvinsky)
* Eastern Kushans, Kidarites in Gandhara and Kashmir, and Later Hephthalites (A.H. Dani, B.A. Litvinsky, M.H. Zamir Safi)
* The Gupta Kingdom (K. Chakrabarti)
* Khwarizm (E.E. Nerazik, P.G. Bulgakov)
* Sogdiana (B.I. Marshak, N.N. Negmatov)
* The City-states of the Tarim Basin (Zhang Guang-da)
* Kocho (Kao-ch'ang) (Zhang Guang-da)
* Northern Nomads (L.R. Kyzlasov)
* The Turk Empire (D. Sinor, S.G. Klyashtorny)
* The Western Regions (Hsi-yu) under the T'ang Empire and the kingdom of Tibet (Mu Shun-ying, Wang Yao)
* Tokharistan and Gandhara under Western Turk rule (650-750) (J. Harmatta, B.A. Litvinsky)
* Religions and Religious Movements - I (Ph. Gignoux, B.A. Litvinsky)
* Religions and Religious Movements - II (B.A. Litvinsky, M.I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya)
* The Arab Conquest (B.A. Litvinsky, A.H. Jalilov, A.I. Kolesnikov)
* Central Asia, The Crossroads of Civilization (B.A. Litvinksy, Zhang Guang-da)
* Maps
* Bibliography and References
* Index

Bibliographical information:

Subtitle: The Crossroads of Civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750
Editor: B.A. Litvinsky
Co-editors: Zhang Guang-da and R. Shabani Samghabadi
Published: 1996 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (unesco.org), Paris

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars To the previous reviewer, December 7, 2005

By 

A "reader" (USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: History of Civilizations of Central Asia - Vol. 3 (Hardcover)

It's simply funny that the previous reviewer tries to pick on "Chinese nationalists" when he doesn't seem to have any real clue of what Chinese nationalistic agenda really is. The "shades of emphasis" he tries to attribute to them is quite uncalled for. If the reviewer actually knows the period in question, the reason being that the Xiongnu conquests are given lines only here and there is because during the time period that this volume covers, the Xiongnu empire was long dead and long gone and already ceased to become an expanding empire; the Xianbei were dominant but by the third century, even they were already broken up into small groups on the Mongolian steppe and that happened in the later half of the 2nd century CE, after Tan Shihuai's death. That is why there is no section devoted to the Xiongnu because they were already covered in the previous volume and therefore the less emphasis. Hardly the work of "Chinese nationalistic scholars". About the "Chinese conquests", I'm presuming you're talking about the Tarim, Gaochang/Turfan oasis, and Tang empire articles. During the period in question, ie c. 250 - 750 AD, the first strong nomadic empire during the period that achieved hegemon over most of Mongolia and competed against a sedentary empire based in north China was the Rouran and it was vs. the Northern Wei in a war the northern Wei ultimately won, crippling the Rouran and letting the Northern Wei gain control over the Tarim city-states with a similar objective like the Han-Xiongnu struggle of the late 2nd century BCE - 1st century BCE where the Han wanted to "cut off the right-hand of the Xiongnu". You can read about it in the Wei Shu. The fact was, a strong sedentary-based empire, like that of the Northern Wei/Sui/Tang, had a far more degree of control over the Tarim city-states because of their ability to station their own troops and establish garrisons there and still use their armies with advantage when fighting in the oases because they were mainly-infantry based so they can directly control the oases cities. With a severe lack of pastures and the inability of the oases to support almost entirely cavalry armies like those of the steppe nomads that required a huge number of horses for mobility (and this is no lie, if you think it is, you need to read up on the mounting system of steppe nomads), at most steppe nomads could only raid the northern oasis cities from the Tianshan and make some cities vassals but not station their own troops there and directly control them. Hence the emphasis on "Chinese conquests".

Now about Tibet. Yes, naming it "kingdom" might seem a bit sinocentric and underestimating the strength of the Yarlung empire, but hardly "nationalistic" in the sense of "Chinese nationalists", who wouldn't even give mention of Tibet at all or would simply say that Tibet was a part of the Tang empire, which it was not. During the Sui/early Tang period when Tibet was unified under a powerful ruler to the latter part of Gaozong's reign (c. 670's - 680's AD), the Tibetan empire was just gradually expanding and was a nominal vassal/ally of the Tang empire, nothing "nationalistic" about that, since nominal was clearly stated. Their conquests were mostly against the Tuyuhuns in Qinghai, which were at the time a minor power and most scholars of Central Asia hardly cover them anyway due to the lack of knowledge about them. True, near the end of Gaozong's reign, the Yarlung empire ceased to become a nominal vassal/ally of the Tang but a powerful enemy; however, they only took the Tarim for a brief period of time, and they didn't gain exactly huge chunks of territory from the Tang at this time until much much later after the An-Shi Rebellion which is after 750 AD. True, the Yarlung empire proved to be a serious and powerful threat to the Tang garrisons in Central Asia with their almost ceaseless raids, skirmishes and attempted invasions; however, by the 750's AD, the Tang ultimately remained victorious in the war against Tibet and even campaigned in Qinghai in 753 AD to invade Tibet which was almost on the brink of collapse. It was only after all this had changed due to the An-Shi Rebellion in 755 AD that Tibet eventually took over the Tang holdings in Central Asia; Yarlung's height was in the early 9th century C.E. and during the later part of the 8th century C.E. was when Yarlung was snatching Tang's holdings in Central Asia one by one. Hence, the emphasis on "Chinese conquests", all due to the period covered, and not "Chinese nationalists" as was previously claimed. You should know this if you've read the book, or primary sources like the Jiu and Xin Tangshu or excellent secondary sources like the article on Tibet and Tang in "Warfare in Chinese History" or the excellent Cambridge History of China: Sui-Tang. There was also nothing nationalistic about what was just said for any unbiased and factual person who has studied the history and if you claim otherwise, then provide sources and evidence.

Anyway, this is a rather good book and well-researched in general. Some of the quality of the chapters vary by quality (obviously due to many different authors) so do read with caution but in general they are well-written. For example, in V. 2, Ch. 7 on the Yuezhi, the author's disagreements (three authors, Enoki and two others) can be clearly seen by the often contradicting statements they make and also the over-assumptions about the Yuezhi based on a few linguistic similarities of names, and the authors denoting the Yuezhi to be Iranic-speakers, ie "Scythians", while of the linguistic and historical evidence present, the Yuezhi were clearly Tocharians. But this is just but one of a few exceptions to the generally good quality and the series is still worth a buy for any Central Asian - steppe nomad enthusiasts looking to find new material.