"Recently the relatively new geopolitical term "Central Eurasia" has been gaining currency. It has been normally applied to the eight states of the Central Caucasus (often referred to as South Caucasus) and Central Asia, which are treated as a single geopolitical space. However, this is not completely correct from the geopolitical viewpoint since it still reflects the Russian idea of this geopolitical expanse. The purpose of this study is to re-examine some aspects of the geopolitical-economic understanding of the region that encompasses the above-mentioned countries through a descriptive approach, that is, irrespective of the interests that motivate the world and other countries in this region"--Page 6.

The peoples of Inner Asia in the second half of the first millennium BC have long been considered to be nomads, engaging in warfare and conflict. This book, which presents the findings of new archaeological research in southeastern Kazakhstan, analyzes these findings to present important conclusions about the nature of Inner Asian society in this period. Pots, animal bones, ancient plant remains, and mudbricks are details from the material record proving that the ancient folk cultivated wheat, barley, and the two millets, and also husbanded sheep, goats, cattle, and horses. The picture presented is of societies which were more complex than heretofore understood: with an economic foundation based on both herding and farming, producing surplus agricultural goods which were exported, and with a hierarchical social structure, including elites and commoners, made cohesive by gift-giving, feasting, and tribute, rather than conflict and warfare. The book includes material on the impact of the first opening of the Silk Route by the Han emperors of China.

This work re-examines the place of Central Asia in world history and argues that Central Asia has to be thought of in its own terms, rather than within an Eurocentric framework. By reflecting on its unique history in state and identity formation, social structure and gender relations, the contributions to this volume show that studying Central Asia is important not only for its own sake but also because of the contributions it can make to comparative social theory.

"Greater Central Asia is reeling from the twin shocks of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The chaotic U.S. withdrawal risks postponing indefinitely Central Asian efforts to escape the region's key geography-induced challenge - its landlocked status - as the prospect of building direct links to the world seas through that country now seem bleak. Russia's aggressive behavior in Ukraine suggests it could be poised to assert itself in Central Asia as well, benefitting from Central Asia's inability to connect directly to the world economy. These events, to which China's growing role in the region should be added, suggest that U.S. and EU approaches to the region - governed through relatively recent strategy documents - must be rethought" --

"Recently there was a wave of celebration of the 20th anniversary of independence in all Central Asian states, yet their nation building process is not complete and the perception of the national identity is still distorted. By its nature national identity should bring people together and unite them around common values and goals, in Central Asian states, however; national identity, conceived on ethnic basis, is a divisive force fragmenting people along the lines of ethnicity, religion, language, birth place, and social status. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Central Asian republics--Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzsta--faced the difficult task of state- and nation-building. Although every Central Asian nation had its own challenges determined by its geography, ethnic and cultural composition, availability of natural resources and other factors, all of them faced same complexity that hindered the attaining of unity in those countries. As a result of abrupt dissolution of the Soviet Union, politically unstable, economically weak and interdependent, institutionally unprepared, and socially disorientated Central Asian states were in a serious crisis. In order to forge a new national identity, the political elites in all five Central Asian states decided to implement a nation building policy based on ethnicity. Ethnic nationalism was convenient and promising strategy capable of providing a sense of stability by uniting majority groups around the common and powerful link of ethnicity. In order to increase people's attachment to these new national identities, attractive myths regarding ethnic identities were created. In all of the Central Asian countries, the strategy of creating a national myth was similar. It consisted of rewriting history in order to show a strong attachment of the majority group to the present geographical location of the country as well as of choosing a historical figure that boosted the national pride of the dominant ethnic group. Consequently, Uzbeks have been putting emphasis on being successors of the famous conqueror Tamerlane who established Timurid Empire, Kyrgyz have been promoting the image of the mythical hero Manas, and Tajiks have been rediscovering their history that was linked to the Samanid Empire ruled by Ismail Samani, Kazakhs have been promoting nomadic culture and traditions, and Turkmens have been focusing on the Turkmen spiritual leader Magtymguly Pyragy. However, an important barrier to the nation building process around single ethnicity is the fact that most Central Asian states are multiethnic and multicultural societies. Thus, while ethnic nationalism provides the majority group a sense of belonging to the nation, minority ethnic groups in Central Asia do not easily embrace this new national identity and feel excluded from the nation building process. Moreover, majority ethnic groups also realize their dominance and often treat minorities unjustly. This creates tension and conflicts among the different ethnic groups. This paper addresses the question of how Central Asian societies can move away from divisive to inclusive form of nationalism"--Summary.

This collection brings together a variety of anthropological, historical and sociological case studies from Central Asia and the Caucasus to examine the concept of translocality. The chapters scrutinize the capacity of translocality to describe, in new ways, the multiple mobilities, exchange practices and globalizing processes that link places, people and institutions in Central Asia and the Caucasus with others in Russia, China and the United Arab Emirates. Illuminating translocality as a productive concept for studying cross‐regional connectivities and networks, this volume is an important contribution to a lively field of academic discourse. Following new directions in Area Studies, the chapters aim to overcome ‘territorial containers’ such as the nation‐state or local community, and instead emphasize the significance of processes of translation and negotiation for understanding how meaningful localities emerge beyond conventional boundaries. Structured by the four themes ‘crossing boundaries’, ‘travelling ideas’, ‘social and economic movements’ and ‘pious endeavours’, this volume proposes three conceptual approaches to translocality: firstly, to trace how it is embodied, narrated, virtualized or institutionalized within or in reference to physical or imagined localities; secondly, to understand locality as a relational concept rather than a geographically bounded unit; and thirdly, to consider cross‐border traders, travelling students, business people and refugees as examples of non-elite mobilities that provide alternative ways to think about what ‘global’ means today. Mobilities, Boundaries, and Travelling Ideas will be of interest to students and scholars of the anthropology, history and sociology of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as for those interested in new approaches to Area Studies.

Over the last three years, U.S. influence in Central Asia seems to have significantly waned. Decreasing U.S. influence appears to have been accompanied by a concomitant increase in Russian and Chinese influence in the region. While some have described the competition for influence in the region a "new great game," others claim that such a description is overstated. It is clear, however, that the United States, Russia, and China all have interests in the region. It is important, then, for the United States to clearly define its interests and understand whether its interests conflict or complement those of Russia and China. In some cases, U.S. interests may in fact coincide with Russian and Chinese interests, and it should seek ways to cooperate with Russia and China to achieve them. Regardless of whether its interests conflict or coincide with other major players in the region, it is imperative that the United States understand the interests and challenges of the Central Asian countries. Without such an understanding, it risks pursuing policies that diverge from the goals of Central Asian countries and the United States will find it difficult if not impossible to achieve its own interests in the region. However, the United States cannot ignore its commitment to the values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in seeking to placate the interests of Central Asia's authoritarian and often less than democratic leaders while pursuing its short-term interests. The challenge for the United States is to appropriately balance an understanding of the culture and history of the region and its individual countries without compromising its fundamental values. This paper will argue that the United States needs to reevaluate its policy in Central Asia in order to bring its advocacy of American values and its pursuit of its strategic interests into proper balance.