To write a book on Central Asian civilisation without imposing some limits either to the area, to certain periods of history, or to the subject discussed, is an almost unmanageable task.
First, as an area, it had no fixed boundaries. Although its nucleus was what was later known as Russian Turkestan, its cultural influence extended at times far beyond its frontiers, to the Volga, the Ganges and the fringes of China. Secondly, its history is one of the most complex and fluid in the world, and yet without a historical introduction any talk of civilisation and art would be meaningless. Not only does this history go back some 2,500 years, but the nomads who so often played a key role in it had no written records of their own. Every piece of information about them had to be laboriously compiled from the scattered references in Greek, Arabic, Persian or Chinese writings. Differences in languages and scripts, in calendars, in pronunciation and transliteration make any verification and cross-checking of dates and names extremely difficult and often unreliable.
Four major invasions have altered the cultural pattern of the region: those of the Greeks, the Arabs, the Mongols and the Russians. Most writers select either the Arab or the Mongol invasion as a limit to their work. It has been, therefore, a challenging task to try and sum up the area’s development – both the transient and the permanent features – right up to the last of these milestones. It could, and should, give the reader the opportunity to judge for himself the importance of the changes that have occurred in this region during the last 100 years.
Finally, each of the three main subjects of this book mentioned in the subtitle – archaeology, art and architecture – is certainly worth a book on its own. But my objective has been to provide the reader who chooses to travel in these parts with a comprehensive guide rather than with an exhaustive and detailed study. I therefore accept in advance any reproof of superficiality and incompleteness.
The first part should give the reader some information – in a very condensed form – about the character of the countries concerned, their history and their pattern of civilisation. I have thought it useful to add a chapter on architecture and architectural decoration and another on sources. The list of these is, of course, far from complete, but I hope that at least the most important works are mentioned.
Sites and monuments (covered in Parts II to IV) can be found, with some exceptions, in oases or irrigated areas on rivers with a permanent flow of water, and along the main trade routes. It is therefore quite natural that the division into chapters follows this pattern, and a survey of sites from different periods is given under each heading. This may seem cumbersome, but the opposite principle, that is listing sites of the same period regardless of distance and geographical conditions, would run, to my mind, into even greater difficulties. Apart from the obvious disadvantage to the traveller, it would be difficult to show the similarity of development of one area in different periods of history; it would not be possible to follow the continuity of certain local traditions in architecture and in ornamentation typical of each oasis or region.
I am not an authority on linguistics, and therefore have preferred to avoid discussion of those problems that fall outside the scope of my work. Although a good deal has been written on this subject, or rather subjects, the complexity of language in this area is such that it needs a specialist to write even a brief note. Wherever manuscripts were part of archaeological finds, I have merely stated the fact and, where possible, just mentioned the languages and scripts in which they were written.
As far as the transcription of names is concerned, whether Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Mongol or Chinese, there is no unity in literature. There are several ways and several conflicting rules. Many of the place-names, for instance, have mixed Persian and Turkish roots, and can be quite legitimately transcribed in two or more different ways. Some of the oriental names had to be taken from Russian, and transcription from the Cyrillic alphabet simply added to the confusion. I have tried therefore to conform, where possible, to current English usage. Where there is no such usage or where there are several, I have had either to follow one of the authorities, or to choose the best way myself – a method which is of course open to criticism.
The transcription of Chinese names presents several problems. Some places are known under various names (Gaochang/Idikut Shahri), others can be transcribed in different ways (Urumchi/Urumqi/Ürümchi, or even, in Chinese, Wu-lu-mu-chu). Wherever possible, I have used the modern Pinyin transcription. In certain cases, however, I have kept the well-established, traditional names (Kashgar rather than Ka-shi etc).
I have kept the spelling ‘dzh’ for the ex-Soviet territories in conformity with my sources, whereas I have used ‘j’ or ‘dj’ for Afghanistan and Xinjiang. As an exception, I have used ‘Tajik’ for the whole area.