Entire Volume 17 issue 1 - Journal of World-Systems Research ...

BOOK REVIEWS 252
Silk Road seeks to provide us with a different view of this commonly accepted understanding of
the role and function of Central Eurasia. Instead of placing Central Eurasia in its peripheral role,
and hence part of the periphery of the world system, Beckwith proposes that Central Eurasia has
played a key role in the making of the modern world. The book traced the history of Central
Eurasia from the earliest times to the modern period documenting the dynamics of the relations of
this region to what Beckwith has defined as the ‘peripheral civilizations’ such as China, India,
and Europe. In an effort to break down the myth of Central Eurasia, Central Eurasians of the past
according to Beckwith were not only nomads but as well agriculturalists, urbanists, traders, and
merchants. Instead of our orthodox impression of these Central Eurasian tribes as invaders and
pursuers of luxuries and other goods that they obtained through raids and invasions, Beckwith
wants us to view them as tribal groups that charged out of Central Eurasia because their trading
interests were restricted during certain periods of world history as a consequence of the
geopolitical policies and dynamics of the peripheral civilizations such as China, etc. In short, to
Beckwith, Central Eurasians of the past with its tribes and states were no different in terms of
economic and political interests than their counterparts (peripheral civilizations) existing on the
fringes of Central Eurasia. What this means is that these ‘barbarians’ as most historical accounts
have pejoratively defined Central Eurasians, went to war because of trade restrictions like
everyone else in the world system and not for lust.
Beckwith’s explanation for the dynamics of the political economy of Central Eurasia over
world history rests mainly on a cultural explanation. For him, the organization of the Central
Eurasian political economy was around what he has termed: the Central Eurasian Culture
Complex. The Complex is the basic social organization of tribal groups in Central Eurasia. The
social relationship is that of the lord/ruler surrounded by his comitatus warriors whereby loyalty
and fealty are rewarded with gifts from the lord/ruler to his followers. According to Beckwith,
this social organizational feature generated a powerful economic need on the ruler/lord’s part to
engage in trade so that this basic exchange relationship can be maintained and consolidated. To
such an extent, Beckwith even extended this explanation to suggest that the economic engine of
the Silk Road was based on internal demand of Central Eurasians for the products of its own
people, and that of the peripheral states neighboring Central Eurasia. Such is the crux of
Beckwith’s thesis and argument, and the book is replete with a detailed historical exposition of
Central Eurasia’s tribes, states, and empires. It is rather refreshing to read another revisionist’s
view of world history, and especially one covering a region which has not had much historical
accounting. Unfortunately, Beckwith’s history and its explanation for the historical processes,
structures, and events remain limited as his narrative is guided by his penchant emphasis on the
cultural dimension to explain the trajectory of the evolution of Central Eurasia in world history.
Beckwith does not offer any other factors that might also provide plausible explanations for the
dynamics of the political economy of Central Eurasia. In an era when the environmental factor
has returned to be a useful accounting of socioeconomic and political evolution, Beckwith’s book
is quite silent on this dimension. There is no deliberation on whether this factor had conditioned
the socioeconomic and political trajectory of Central Eurasia in world history. As recent studies
have shown, environmental degradation and climate changes have impacted on the landscape of
Central Eurasia, and consequently on the economics and politics of Central Eurasia over world
history.
Notwithstanding the above, it is very clear from Beckwith’s accounting that Central
Eurasia participated in the system-wide process of capital accumulation in world history. If this is