History of civilizations of Central Asia, v. 6 ... - unesdoc - Unesco

ISBN 92-3-103985-7 Introduction
composed at the courts of local rulers up to the early twentieth century. They illustrate
the diversity of attitudes and the many views (exogenous, endogenous) and assessments
of the situation according to the position of the protagonists, both the conquerors and the
conquered.
Research into the history of the states or state structures of Central Asia in the latter
half of the nineteenth century was conducted at the intersection of these exogenous and
endogenous historiographic traditions – Russian, 1 British and Chinese on the one hand,
and Bukharan, Khivan, Kokandi, Kazakh, Afghan and Iranian on the other. The powers
with interests in Central Asia developed very different traditions of knowledge from each
other, and the abundance of documentation is a clear departure from the preceding period
(the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), in which local sources predominated, since the
future conquering empires of Central Asia knew little or nothing of the region.
However, owing to their nearness in time, their volume, the quality of the information,
and their variety and accuracy, the different exogenous traditions continue to influence
current knowledge about Central Asia – this is true both in the different countries of the
region and outside. There are, as a result, a number of historiographic myths marking each
of these traditions. The Western tradition has many such, including the idea that current
state borders in Central Asia are only the product of the ‘Great Game’ (see below). It
would be more accurate to say that the empires accelerated endogenous trends relating to
borders between the states in the region and attributed them to their policy of expansion. In
fact, many pre-colonial endogenous trends are reflected in current borders, and territorial
relations between Persia and Khiva, Afghanistan and Bukhara, and the Qing empire of
China and Kokand should also be taken into account in analysing this particular era. One
of the main advantages of the current period is that it affords the opportunity to address all
the documentation simultaneously, both local and exogenous, Eastern as well as Western.
Lastly, it should be noted that, at the end of the eighteenth century and particularly in the
first half of the nineteenth century, the expression ‘Central Asia’ replaced the expression
‘Tartary’ in Western and Russian knowledge traditions. ‘Central Asia’ was thus the most
common expression in the second half of the nineteenth century, with its numerous variant
forms in Russian, English, French and other languages. Its use has continued to spread,
owing in particular to its adoption by the countries of the region.
1 Including orientalism: see Lunin, 1965; Lunin, 1979.
31