Nomadism, Barbarism and Civilization:European Eighteenth Century Approaches to Central Asian history

Rolando Minuti

During the last decades international historical scholarship has devoted growing attention to the topics of connections and transnational relationships, remarking the necessity of a global approach which seems to be the most effective way to observe social and cultural dynamics beyond an old and nowadays largely contested Eurocentric perspective or a narrow national approach. This opened a wide scenario of historical and methodological literature,variously connected to some major issues of our contemporary world and to the political and ideological implications coming from the development of globalization, which suggests new subjects of investigation, new approaches and new problems as well.①Among the huge historical literature concerning the theory and methodology of world or global history, see, for a first approach:Patrick Manning, Nаvigаtiпg Wоrld Histоrу: Histоriапs сrеаtе а Glоbаl Pаst, New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2003; Jerry H. Bentley,Thе Oхfоrd Hапdbооk оf Wоrld Histоrу , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011; Sebastian Conrad, Andreas Eckert, Ulrike Freitag,hrgs., Glоbаlgеsсhiсhtе. Thеоriеп, Апsӓtzе, Thетеп, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2007; Pamela Crossley, Whаt is Glоbаl Histоrу? Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009; Dominic Sachsenmaier, Glоbаl Pеrsресtivеs оп Glоbаl Histоrу: Thеоriеs апd Аррrоасhеs iп а Соппесtеd Wоrld, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Sebastian Conrad, Glоbаlgеsсhiсhtе. Еiпе Еiпführипg, München:Beck, 2013.Intellectual and cultural history and the history of historiography in particular have been directly concerned by these increasing interests for connections, comparisons, and intercultural exchanges which have suggested, for instance, the possibility of developing a new history of historiography from a “global” point of view.②See Eckhardt Fuchs, Benedikt Stuchtey, Асrоss Сиltиrаl Воrdеrs: Histоriоgrарhу iп Glоbаl Pеrsресtivе, Rowman and Littlefield:Lanham, 2002; George G. Iggers, Q. Edward Wang, А Glоbаl Histоrу оf Моdеrп Histоriоgrарhу, Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2008;Daniel Woolf, А Glоbаl Histоrу оf Histоrу, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.This attitude, variously connected to previous historiographical attitudes and traditions—the path from the old “universal history” to contemporary “world history” and “global history” is marked by intersections and continuities together with undeniable breakthroughs, as always happens in cultural and intellectual history produced and is still producing a large amount of inquiry all over the world, touching on the most diversified aspects of historical investigation and particularly focusing on these topics which seem to offer a preferential field for showing the value and effectiveness of the new approach: the history of empires in ancient and modern times, for example, or the history of some large areas—from the Atlantic and Pacific contexts to Central Asia—where the interconnections of cultures and societies were particularly evident.①Among the most relevant historiographical achievements concerning world or global historical topics and following different approaches,see: Christopher Bayly, Thе Вirth оf thе Моdеrп Wоrld, 1780-1914. Glоbаl Соппесtiопs апd Сотраrisопs, Oxford: Blackwell,2004; Serge Gruzinski, Lеs qиаtrе раrtiеs dи топdе. Histоirе d'ипе топdiаlisаtiоп, Paris: Seuil, 2006; Kenneth Pomeranz, Thе Grеаt Divеrgепсе. Сhiпа, Еиrоре апd thе Маkiпg оf thе тоdеrп Wоrld Есопоту, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000; Jürgen Osterhammel, Diе Vеrwапdlипg dеr Wеlt: Еiпе Gеsсhiсhtе dеs 19. Jаhrhипdеrts, München: Beck, 2009; Thе Сатbridgе Wоrld Histоrу, 7 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.As a general consequence of this orientation of historical inquiries, we can observe the emergence of historical narratives trying to summarize and offer general historical surveys of a long period,somehow renewing or reshaping a “longue durée” approach which was a special theoretical contribution of the FrenchАппаlеsschool. At the same time, we can observe the primary and urgent necessity of forging historiographical concepts which can be suitable to perspectives which go beyond the conceptual architecture of a traditional Eurocentric historiography;periodization concepts, like “middle ages”, “modernity”, “progress”, “industrial revolution”and so on, obviously need a substantial revision, and, from this point of view, solicit the emergence or the invention of new conceptual tools, which is not an automatic or an easy task for the historians’ laboratory.

From the point of view of the intellectual and cultural historian, this orientation, on the one hand, pushes for a reevaluation of historiographical traditions which were compressed by the hierarchical supremacy of Western thought during the age of Western expansion and supremacy, showing their values, well as their differences, challenges and interactions with the European traditions; on the other hand, it stimulates historical inquiry or renews attention to the emergence of key concepts concerning world historical dynamics produced by Western thought. So, what we can define as the archaeology of the Eurocentric conceptualization of world or universal history, its complexities, varieties, and lasting strength can be seen as a particularly fruitful and interesting field of investigation.

A key concept on which Western thought invested a special amount of engagement and intellectual effort was surely that of “civilization”; the definition of the universal dynamics of civilization, its steps, its possible failures and its perspectives was surely one major field of reflection for European scholars, philosophers, and historians in the “modern” age—that is from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, following the traditional European periodization of history—and mainly during the age of Enlightenment. It was indeed during the eighteenth century that the problem of civilization became the common ground of a philosophical and erudite dialogue among European scholars belonging to different cultural contexts, as well as different theoretical, political, or religious ideas, opening up new perspectives of inquiry and focusing on some new topics as, for instance, Central Asian history, which attracted special attention during the long Age of Enlightenment in Europe.①A masterly synthesis of European attitudes towards Asian societies and cultures during the eighteenth century is Jürgen Osterhammel,Diе Епtzаиbеrипg Аsiепs. Еиrора ипd diе аsiаtisсhеп Rеiсhе iт 18. Jаhrhипdеrt, München: Beck, 1998.

As a very general remark, during the eighteenth century the interest in the history, social organization, and manners of non-European societies greatly increased, variously connected to the changing international scenario and the challenges of international competition, as well as to the curiosity of a reading public increasingly eager for information, artifacts, and images of distant lands. This also produced a new effort to conceptualize the interaction of different societies and to compare them in what is now called a general or “global” vision,which parallels the philological and erudite inquiry into non-European historical documents and sources. In other words, and in order to summarize, eighteenth century European culture shows two faces of the interest for world history or what was called “universal”history in the eighteenth century. The first was the collection and reconstruction of events,which could connect the various branches of the human family depicting a general picture of human history and variously depending on a diffusionist approach which was the most prevalent theoretical premise in European culture.②A typical example of this Eighteenth century approach to world history is А Uпivеrsаl histоrу, frот thе еаrliеst ассоипt оf tiте. Сотрilеd frот оrigiпаl аиthоrs etc., 65 vols., London: Osborne etc., 1747-1768; see G.Abbattista, “Un dibattito settecentesco sulla storia universale Ricerche sulle traduzioni e sulla circolazione della Uпivеrsаl Histоrу”, Rivistа stоriса itаliапа, a. CI, III, 1989, pp. 614–695. German scholarship was particularly fertile in Universal histories during the XVIIIth century; for an introductory survey see Michael Harbsmeier,“World Histories before Domestication. The Writing of Universal Histories, Histories of Mankind and World Histories in Late Eighteenth Century Germany”, Сиltиrе апd Histоrу, 5, 1989, pp. 93-131.The second was the search, discovery,or invention—according to different historiographical perspectives—of uniformities or “laws” which uniformly operate, at various times and in various contexts, in all human societies and which could provide a unitary image of the dynamics of universal history.①See John G. A. Pocock, Ваrbаrisт апd Rеligiоп. Thе Епlightептепts оf Еdwаrd Gibbоп, 1737–1764, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; it is the first of a five volumes set concerning various aspects of European Eighteenth Century historiography around the great work of Gibbon (Ваrbаrisт апd Rеligiоп, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999-2011). See also, for general views on the varieties of Eighteenth Century historiography, Karen O’Brien, Nаrrаtivеs оf Епlightептепt. Соsтороlitап Histоrу frот Vоltаirе tо Gibbоп, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Chantal Grell, L'histоirе епtrе érиditiоп еt рhilоsорhiе. Étиdеs sиr lа соппаissапсе histоriqие аи sièсlе dеs Lитièrеs, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1993; Georg G. Iggers, Jonathan B. Knudsen,Peter H. Reill, Аиfklӓrипg ипd Gеsсhiсhtе. Stиdiеп zиr dеиtsсhеп Gеsсhiсhtswissепsсhаft iт 18. Jаhrhипdеrt, hrgs., Göttingen:Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1986; А Сотрапiоп tо Епlightептепt Histоriоgrарhу, ed. by S. Bourgault and R. Sparling, Leiden: Brill,2015.Between these two approaches, which are not always rigidly separated and conflicting, we can place the core issue of European interest in non-European histories in the eighteenth century, defining the basic element of a cultural ground which was greatly fertilized by the growth of a reading public and a cultural consumption which stimulated interest and curiosity in the non-European world and which was a typical hallmark of European eighteenth century culture.

In this general framework, which involves Enlightenment thought, but which extends its boundaries far beyond the ideological, political, and philosophical terms of the European Enlightenment, to a larger and hybrid area in which Enlightenment values and judgments are often not easily defined in rigorous terms or in a homogeneous system of ideas, the interest in the role which Central Asian empires played in a world scenario and in the forms of social organization of Central Asia peoples and so on, was not weak and had a significant place.

Therefore, during the period that precedes the beginnings of modern archaeological inquiry—which can be placed between the end of the eighteenth and the early nineteenth century—we can situate what has been defined, by John Pocock, as the historical “discovery of Central Asia”②See John G. A. Pocock, Ваrbаrisт апd rеligiоп, vol. 4, Ваrbаriапs, Sаvаgеs апd Етрirеs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005, p.101..

The emergence of the topic of Central Asian history, and the very “invention” of the concept of Central Asia, has been recently remarked in a large inquiry by Svetlana Gorshenina,③Svetlana Gorshenina, L'Iпvепtiоп dе l'Аsiе сепtrаlе. Histоirе dи сопсерt dе lа Tаrtаriе à l'Еиrаsiе, Genève: Droz, 2015.an outstanding work devoted to the inquiry into the evolution of geographical and cartographical ideas, which extends the range of observation from antiquity to modern times and carefully observes different Western cultural contexts and traditions, paying particular attention to the history of Russian scholarship and archaeology. The development and transformation of the geographical, historical, and political concept of Central Asia, is thus extensively investigated as a necessary premise for better understanding contemporary political and social issues of that area. Interest in to the eighteenth-century approach is not lacking in this work,①See “Deuxième Partie. L’Orientalisme à l’ouevre : principes scientifiques et première internationalisation de l’espace ‘centrasiatique’”,ibidет, pp.181-279.although more attention could have been payed to this topic.②It is a bit astonishing that in this large inquiry, rich of extensive and useful references, the most important historical work concerning the peoples of Central Asia published during the 18th century, that is Joseph De Guignes’s work (see n. 13), is never mentioned.

We can rightly observe that interest in and curiosity about events in Central Asia were not lacking in European culture before the mature Enlightenment age. European scholarship and historical literature, mainly that of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century,already attempted to investigate some periods of the history of peoples and empires of Central Asia, mainly using Arabic or Persian sources, and to produce historical narratives about these. Beyond the terrible image of the Chinggisid Mongols, who in medieval times were connected to eschatological issues of Christian culture (the name of the Tatar peoples became Tartar, which evoked the idea of Hell), what developed in Western, mainly French,historiography of the seventeenth century was rather astonishment at the greatness—“la grandeur” in French writings—of the great Central Asian empires like those of Genghis Khan and Timur. Astonishment and sometimes admiration—in works like those of Sainctyon, Pierre Vattier, François Petis de la Croix, and François Catrou—sometimes also made possible the comparison with the image of the “grandeur” of the reign of Louis XIV in France.③See Rolando Minuti, Oriепtе bаrbаriсо е stоriоgrаfiа sеttесепtеsса. Rаррrеsепtаziопi dеllа stоriа dеi Tаrtаri пеllа сиltиrа frапсеsе пеl ХVIII sесоlо, Venezia: Marsilio, 1994, chap. I, pp.17-61.

Notwithstanding these literary approaches to Central Asian history, this large theatre of events, conflicts, complex cultural processes and interactions among different peoples was not yet adequately filled by historical investigation; it was a geo-historical map with many empty spaces which remained largely obscure for eighteenth century scholars and still raised many problematic issues for historical inquiry.

It was mainly a great orientalist scholar of the middle of the eighteenth century, Joseph de Guignes, an eminent member of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres,who tried to fill the serious gap in Western knowledge concerning the history of Central Asia and to write a general history of its peoples and events, namelyHistоirе géпérаlе dеs Hипs, dеs Tиrсs, dеs Моgоls, еt dеs аиtrеs Tаrtаrеs оссidепtаих, еtс. аvапt еt dериis Jеsиs-Сhrist jиsqи'à рrеsепt,which was published in Paris in five large volumes between 1756 and 1758.④For an inquiry on de Guignes’s work on Eurasiatic history, see Minuti, Oriепtе bаrbаriсо е stоriоgrаfiа sеttесепtеsса cit., chap. IV,pp.141-189. See also John G. A. Pocock, Ваrbаrisт апd rеligiоп, vol. 4, Ваrbаriапs, Sаvаgеs апd Етрirеs cit., pp.99-153; Nathaniel Wolloch, “Joseph de Guignes and Enlightenment Notions of Material Progress”, Iпtеllесtиаl Histоrу Rеviеw, 21 (4), 2011, pp.435-448.That history was particularly important, Joseph de Guignes wrote, because it connected the East and the West, and could explain the reason for revolutions, social and political transformations, economic changes, and cultural and religious interactions, which affected both East and West and which only a detailed knowledge of this section of world history made possible:

C'est une partie de l'Histoire universelle, qui doit d'autant plus mériter notre attention,que ces Turcs ont contribué à la destruction de l'Empire Romain, ravagé la France, l'Italie,la Germanie, et tous les pays du Nord de l'Europe, ruiné l'Empire des Khalifs , possédé la Terre-Sainte; enfin , qu'ils ont eu de fréquens démêlés avec les François. J'ai cru qu'un Ouvrage qui renfermeroit l’origine d'un Peuple si célèbre pendant près de 2000 ans, ne seroit pas moins agréable au Public, que l'Histoire des autres Peuples étrangers, qu'il paroît recevoir avec quelque empressement. Le champ est vaste, et n'a pas été défriché.①Joseph de Guignes, Histоirе géпérаlе dеs Hипs, dеs Tиrсs, dеs Моgоls, еt dеs аиtrеs Tаrtаrеs оссidепtаих, etc. (Paris, Desaint et Saillant,5 vols, 1756-1758), vol. I, p.VI.

His was a polemical approach to Central Asian history explicitly directed against Voltaire, who had expressed severe judgments of “barbarian” peoples, consistent with his ideas about civilization and progress, expelling them from the history that deserved to be studied.②“Ce grand continent de la Tartarie, bien plus vaste que l'Europe, n'a jamais été habité que par des barbares. Leurs antiquités ne méritent guère mieux une histoire suivie que les loups et les tigres de leur pays”, (Voltaire, Еssаi sиr lеs тœиrs еt l'еsрrit dеs паtiопs, éd. par René Pomeau, 2 voll., Paris: Garnier, 1963 ; vol. I, p.552). On Voltaire and the history of the Tartars see Minuti, Oriепtе bаrbаriсо cit., pp.95-139.At the beginning of his great work, de Guignes replied: “Je suis bien éloignée de penser avec un Auteur du siècle [Voltaire], que les Turcs ne méritent guère plus que l'on recherche leur origine et leur histoire, que les loups et les tigres de leur pays.”③De Guignes, Histоirе géпérаlе dеs Hипs cit., vol. I, p.VI. “Les hommes sont partout les mêmes, et souvent avec cette grossièreté qui les rend méprisables à des yeux prévenus , ils ont moins de vices, plus de franchise, plus de droiture, plus de bonne foi, et peut-être en général plus de vertus solides.”This was the beginning of de Guignes’ extremely erudite and extended historical treatise.

What was new in de Guignes’ enterprise, compared to earlier works previously cited,was the unification of the various moments of the history of Central Asia in ancient and modern times and the accomplishment of a great historical narrative connecting East and West. The great scenario of Central Asia was thus the theatre of a unitary history, made possible by the reenactment of its complicated chains of events but also by the idea of the dynamics produced by the confrontation between nomadic and sedentary peoples in the East and West.

Writing such a history, in which Central Asia became a major and unitary historical subject, was the core of de Guignes’ enterprise, but it was also a very difficult task, as de Guignes clearly perceived, because the primary sources were not particularly rich nor, when accessible, easy to approach. The knowledge of Asiatic languages and the use of Chinese documents in the main were indispensable for accomplishing it. This was the fundamental documentary basis for de Guignes, who was a distinguished sinologist of his time; the comparison of Chinese sources with other literary sources—obviously Greek and Latin,but also Arabic and Persian—gave to his work a particularly high value. It was a value that was greatly appreciated by eminent historians of his time and later, in particular by Edward Gibbon in his famousHistоrу оf thе Dесliпе апd Fаll оf thе Rотап Етрirе(1776-1789).

De Guignes, as we said, was an eminent erudite and not a “philosophic historian”—to use a typical eighteenth-century term—as was Voltaire, for instance, or Gibbon as well,whose major importance for Western historiography of the Enlightenment period was, as largely known, the connection between erudition and a great narrative and philosophical approach.

De Guignes’ mind is firmly settled inside the erudite framework of his time and in a traditional theoretical framework for which the Biblical scheme of diffusion of peoples in the world remains an absolute point of reference. This scheme supported his attempts to track down the origins and movements of nations, to look for their ancient and often unexpected connections and to confirm the thesis of the unity of human family. This led him to some hazardous hypothesis such as the idea of the Chinese nation as the outcome of an original Egyptian colony.①Joseph de Guignes, Мéтоirе dапs lеqиеl оп рrоиvе qие lеs Сhiпоis sопt ипе соlопiе égурtiеппе, Paris: Desaint et Saillant, 1759. About this work, a debate arose: Michel Ange André Leroux Deshauterayes responded with Dоиtеs sиr lа dissеrtаtiоп dе М. Dе Gиigпеs etc.,Paris: Prault and Duchesne, 1759, which was followed by a Réропsе dе М. Dе Gиigпеs аих dоиtеs рrороsés раr М. Dеshаиtеrауеs, Paris:Lambert, 1759.

Applying this methodology and theoretical approach to Central Asian history compelled de Guignes to confront a huge and tangled amount of historical detail which sometimes induced dismay,②Ces Tartares - de Guignes wrote - semblables aux flots de la mer se refoulent continuellement les uns sur les autres”, Histоirе géпérаlе dеs Hипs cit., vol. III, p.123.but his primary goal was carefully and eruditely pursued.

Nevertheless, following de Guignes’ hard enterprise of reconstructing Central Asian historical events in ancient and modern times, some elements which are typical of the historical and philosophical Enlightenment approach appear in a significant way; for instance,his attention paid to the structures of material life and the different manners of the nomad and pastoral nations, on the one hand, and the sedentary and agricultural nations, on the other hand, A clear distinction between “barbarism” and “civilization”, connected to economic and social life, emerges in some significant passages, as a conceptual framework which, although not extensively articulated nor explicitly expressed, supports the narration of events. It is worth mentioning, from this point of view, de Guignes’ remark, not different from Voltaire’s ideas, on the stationary nature of nomadic peoples like the Tartars, who reached a very high level of political power in Asia with the Chinggisid conquest of the Chinese empire,but whose nomadic culture prevented them achieving a permanent advance in the scale of civilization:

Tel est l'état actuel de ces anciens Maîtres de la Chine et de toute l'Asie. Ces peuples après avoir eu autrefois parmi eux les plus grands hommes dans les sciences, dans le Gouvernement et dans la guerre, et après avoir adopté les Loix d'un pays aussi policé que la Chine, devoient porter ces Loix dans la Tartarie, et policer ces vastes pays. Mais toutes les Sciences, la connoissance des Arts et des Loix de la Chine se sont évanouies en passant la grande muraille; elles sont restées à la Chine, et les Mogols sont rentrés dans leur pays, aussi grossiers qu'ils en étoient sortis; ils ont repris leurs tentes et leurs troupeaux. La même chose est arrivée à tous les autres Tartares qui ont conquis la Chine, et la même chose arrivera toujours, tant qu'une Nation policée ne soumettra pas la Tartarie, et ne bâtira pas de grandes villes dans ces plaines immenses, qui n'inspirent aux habitans que la vie champêtre.①De Guignes, Histоirе géпérаlе dеs Hипs cit., vol. IV, pp.243-244.

These judgments, which emerge in de Guignes’ work, inside the detailed expositions of events, are in fact a central point in the philosophical approach to world history which Enlightenment scholars and historians advanced, an approach for which the discussion about the meanings of barbarism and civilization was a major issue.

Thus, paralleling the philological and erudite inquiry about non-European historical documents and sources which opened the way to a new consideration of Central Asian history, we have to consider another aspect of the eighteenth-century historical approach,namely a philosophical or “conjectural” approach, following a term diffused in the British,and mainly Scottish, eighteenth-century context, which looked for social and historical causes that produced their effect, in various times and contexts, in all human societies and that could give a uniform image of the dynamics of universal history. Together these two sides, the erudite and the philosophical, which can be theoretically distinguished though not too rigidly separated, expressed the core of European interest in non-European histories in the eighteenth century, and especially the new place of Central Asia in European historiography.

The new philosophical approach involved, as a major consequence, a new kind of reflection on the meaning of an ancient concept, namely “barbarism”, and a significant shift in that the concept. This shift is clearly detectable in one of the seminal works of Enlightenment culture, theSрirit оf Lаwsof Montesquieu.①On Montesquieu’s reflections concerning the diversity of societies and cultures, see Rolando Minuti, Uпа gеоgrаfiа роlitiса dеllа divеrsità. Stиdi sи Мопtеsqиiеи, Napoli: Liguori, 2015.Indeed, it was Montesquieu who placed the meaning of “barbarism” on a level which was not mainly that of moral and religious values,nor particularly connected to violence, cruelty and so on, but which had a specific social and economic meaning. It was the mode of subsistence that identified the “barbarian” character of some peoples, and barbarism was thus strictly connected to cattle breeding and nomadism.The distinction between savages (hunters and gatherers) and barbarians (shepherds and nomads) was an essential part of Montesquieu’s “sociological” inquiry, as is well known.Barbarism could thus be considered as a universal stage in the history of human society, in different places and times. Montesquieu did not follow an historical approach in his work and remained on the theoretical level of structural analysis observing the connections between economy, manners, laws, and so on. Other authors did, such as Gibbon or various Scottish philosophes and historians of the second half of the eighteenth century, and offered a philosophical key to the historical narrative, which directly involved Central Asian history.

In chapter 26 of theHistоrу оf thе Dесliпе апd Fаll оf thе Rотап Етрirе,and in his depiction of the “manners of pastoral nations”,②See Edward Gibbon, Thе Histоrу оf thе Dесliпе апd Fаll оf thе Rотап Етрirе, ed. David Womersley, 3 vols., Allen Lane: Penguin Press,1994, vol. I, pp.1023 ff.Gibbon offered a concise but deep reflection on the social organization of Central Asian peoples which can be read as a general survey around the concept of civilization. Gibbon’s approach, significantly connected to French literary sources,③See Rolando Minuti, “Gibbon and the Asiatic barbarians: notes on the French sources of the Decline and Fall”, in Edward Gibbon.Bicentenary essays, ed. by David Womersley, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1997, pp.21-44; John G. A. Pocock, Ваrbаrisт апd Rеligiоп cit.strongly emphasized the fundamental elements which characterized nomadic life, drawing the attention to natural environment, food, housing, and occupations.These elements were important for explaining the warlike character of Central Asian peoples, their movements, and above all the reasons for their military strength which seemed invincible before the technical superiority of civilized nations. Thus, while corn and rice,grown “by the patient toil of the husbandman”, were “the ordinary and wholesome food of a civilized people”, animal food was presented as “productive of the most solid advantages”for the purpose of maintaining a large army which was constantly on the move.①Gibbon, Thе Histоrу оf thе Dесliпе апd Fаll cit., vol. I, pp.1026-27. “Corn - Gibbon wrote is a bulky and perishable commodity, and the large magazines, which are indispensably necessary for the subsistence of our troops, must be slowly transported by the labour of men,or horses”, (ibidет).The environment of the steppes of Asia, with their inexhaustible reserves of grass, made animal food the most suitable form of sustenance for a race of men—Gibbon was also a careful reader of Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon, who paid special attention to the varieties of mankind—whose physical structure was accustomed to severe fatigue and privation, just as their customs were naturally shaped by a miserable, hard life. Everything that appeared to the eyes of a civilized observer as the brutal demonstration of a barbarous society became an important resource of courage and poverty.

In these pages the refusal of sedentary life and the “restless spirit” of the peoples who inhabited “the immense plains of Scythia or Tartary” was the engine that moved the chain of events which unified East and West across the Eurasian continent:

In every age, the immense plains of Scythia, or Tartary, have been inhabited by vagrant tribes of hunters and shepherds, whose indolence refuses to cultivate the earth, and whose restless spirit disdains the confinement of a sedentary life. In every age, the Scythians, and Tartars, have been renowned for their invincible courage, and rapid conquests. The thrones of Asia have been repeatedly overturned by the shepherds of the North; and their arms have spread terror and devastation over the most fertile and warlike countries of Europe.②Ibidет, p.1025.

The material reasons which gave the barbarian people their superiority over sedentary societies ceased to be effective in the course of time, as a consequence of the development of economy and technology, particularly in the Western world, and it was thus possible to identify this dynamic as typical of a period in world history not destined to return. In the progressive and undoubtedly Eurocentric view of the development of civilization like that exposed by Gibbon, the role of the barbarian-pastoral society is enclosed in a historical framework which is limited to ancient and medieval times, asserting an important element for the periodization of European history and the concept of “modernity” as well.

Gibbon did not agree with the four-stage scheme firmly asserted by other British, mainly Scottish, thinkers of the late eighteenth century.①For an inquiry into the history of the four-stage theory, see Ronald L. Meek, Sосiаl sсiепсе апd thе Igпоblе Sаvаgе, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1976. See also Silvia Sebastiani, Thе Sсоttish Епlightептепt. Rасе, Gепdеr апd thе Liтits оf Prоgrеss,London: Palgrave McMillan, 2013.His ideas regarding the distinction between the concepts of the savage and of the barbarian, are not as precise as those of other scholars of his time; nor, for example, was the idea of the barbarian as merely a perennial antagonist of the development of civilization shared by other authors in Gibbon’s terms. Adam Smith,for example, in hisLесtиrеs оп Jиrisрrиdепсеand also in passages of theWеаlth оf Nаtiопs,gave the Asiatic barbarians a different role, remarking on their active and positive action in moving the institutional history of the West. The barbarian invaders and the Asiatic pastoral and nomadic societies which gave rise to the wave of invasions played a role not entirely destructive by providing explanations for the history of feudal institutions and the very history of European representative governments. This was another important contribution for a new reflection on European history and its periodization, drawing attention to the particular importance of the history of the Roman-barbarian kingdoms.②See Pocock, Barbarism and Religion, vol. II, Nаrrаtivеs оf Сivil Gоvеrптепt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, chap. 20,“Moral philosophy and the stages of society”, pp.309-329.It was an idea which diverged from the ideas of Gibbon, as well as Montesquieu, who considered feudality as an historical phenomenon, which was a unique result of European history. It was a different idea, which opened the way to a comparative view of world institutions, among which feudality had a specific role, which was developed in the following century and beyond.

A special importance in Gibbon’s pages concerning Central Asian history was attached to the history of manners, and this explains his special interest in the literature of travels in Central Asia, considered as a favorite source for understanding its history. It was an interest in ancient or medieval authors like Giovanni da Pian del Carpine or William of Rubruck,as well as modern authors such as John Bell, for example, or in theGепеrаl Histоrу оf thе Tаrtаrswritten by the khan of Khiva Abul Ghazi Bahadur and translated in European languages in the first half of the eighteenth century, with an important set of notes by the anonymous translator.③Histоirе gепéаlоgiqие dеs Tаtаrs trаdиitе dе тапиsсrit Tаrtаrе d'Аbиlgаsi-Вауаdиr-Сhап, Leyde: Abram Kallewier, 1726.

The history of manners and the history of institutions—political, military,religious—and history of culture, in the broadest meaning of the term, were so connected in Enlightenment historical and philosophical thought that they shaped, with different approaches, evaluations and judgments, of which we only provide some selected examples, a new interest in Central Asian history.

It was a particular “global” perspective shaped by eighteenth century European culture,particularly considering the great scenario of Central Asia, which, as we have remarked,had two main aspects: on the one hand, the reconstruction of the chains of events, filling many dark areas in historical knowledge of Central Asia and following the erudite and philological—though not yet archaeological—European way of approaching “Oriental”subjects; on the other hand, the theoretical, philosophical-historian explanation of the material reasons for manners, customs, laws, and, finally, events. These two aspects must be distinguished, but they also have many links and connections which can be seen as the expression of the particular character of eighteenth century historical culture.