Conclusion. Could the Hsiung-nu create their own statehood?

Could the Hsiung-nu create their own statehood? How should the Hsiung-nu society be classified in the anthropological theories of political evolution? Can they be considered as states or pre-state formations? These question are up to present discussed by the researchers of different countries and, especially, by Marxist anthropologists [in details review see in Крадин 1992]. At present there are two most popular groups of the theories explaining a process of origin and essence of early state. The conflict ox control theories show the origin of statehood and its internal nature in the context of the relations between exploitation, class struggle, war and interethnic predominance. The integrative theories were largely oriented to explain a phenomenon of the state as a higher stage of economic and public integration [Fried 1967; Service 1975; Claessen and Skalnik 1978; 1981; Cohen and Service 1978; Haas 1982; 1995; Gailey and Patterson 1988; Павленко 1989; Kradin and Lynsha 1995 etc.].

However, from the viewpoint of neither conflict nor integrating approaches, the Hsiung-nu nomadic empires can not be unambiguously interpreted as a chiefdom or state. A similarity of the Hsiung-nu empire to the state clearly manifests itself the relations with the outer world only (military-hierarchical structure of the nomadic society to confiscate prestigious product from neighbours as well as to surpress the external pressure; international sovereignty, specific ceremonial in the foreign-policy relations).

At the same time, as to internal relations, the 'state-like' empires of nomads (except some quite explainable cases) were based on non-forcible (consensual and gift-exchange) relations and they existed at the expense of the external sources without establishment of the cattle-breeders taxation. Finally, in the

[308]

Hsiung-nu empire the main sign of statehood was absent. According to many present theories of the state, the main dissimilarity of the statehood from pre-state forms lies in the fact that the chiefdom's ruler has only consensual power i.e., in essence authority whereas, in the state, the government can apply sanctions with the use of legitimated force [Service 1975: 16, 296–307; Claessen and Skalnik 1978: 21–22, 630, 639–640 etc.]. The power character of the rulers of the steppe empires is more consensual and prevented from monopoly of legal organs. Shan-yii, is primarily redistributor and its power is provided by personal abilities and know-how to get from the outside of he society prestigious goods and to redistribute them between subjects.

For such societies which are more numerous and structurally developed that complex chiefdoms and which are at the same time no states (even 'inchoate' early state), a term supercomplex chiefdom has been proposed [Крадин 1992: 152; Kradin 2000a]. This term has been accepted by the colleagues-nomadologists [Трепавлов 1995: 202; Скрынникова 1997: 49] although, at that time, clear logical criteria allowing to distinguish between supercomplex and complex chiefdoms have not be defined.

The critical structural difference between complex and supercomplex chiefdoms was stated by professor Robert Carneiro in the special paper [ 1992; 2000]. True Carneiro prefers to call they 'compound' and 'consolidated' chiefdoms respectively. In his opinion, a difference of simple chiefdoms from compound ones is a pure quantitative by a nature. The compound chiefdoms consist of several simple ones and over the subchiefs of districts (i.e. simple chiefdoms), the supreme chief, ruler of the whole polity, is. However, Robert Carneiro pointed out that the compound chiefdoms when they unite in the greater polities prove rarely to be capable to overcome a separatism of subchiefs and such structures disintegrate quickly. A mechanism of the struggle against the structural division was traced by him by the example of one of the great Indian chiefdoms inhabited in XVII century on the territory of present-day American state of Virginia. The supreme chief of this polity by Powhatan name, in order to cope with centrifugal aspirations of the segments chiefs, began to replace them with his supporters who were usually his near relations. This imparted the important structural impulse to the following political integration.

The similar structural principles have been by Thomas Barfield in the Hsiung-nu history [1981:49; 1992: 38–39]. The Hsiung-nu power has consisted of multi-ethnic conglomeration of chiefdoms and tribes including in the 'imperial confederation'. The tribal chiefs and elders have been incorporated in the all-imperial decimal hierarchy. However, their power was to certain degree independent from the centre policy and based on the support on the side of fellow-tribesmen. In the relations with the tribes being members of the imperial confederation. The Hsiung-nu Shan-yii has relied up on support of his nearest relations and companions-in-arms bearing titles of 'ten thousand commander'.

[309]

They were put at the head of the special supertribal subdivisions integrating the subordinate or allied tribes into 'rumens' numbering approximately 5–10 thousand of warriors. These persons should be a support for the metropolis' policy in the provinces.

Other nomadic empires in Eurasia were similarly organized. The system of uluses which are often named by Celtic term of tanistty [Fletcher 1986], has existed in all the multi-polities of nomads of the Eurasian steppes: Wu-sun [Бичурин 1950b: 191], European Huns [Хазанов 1975: 190, 197], Turkish [Бичурин 1950a: 270] and Uighur [Bariield 1992: 155] Khaganates, Mongolian Empire [Владимирцов 1934: 98–110].

Further more, in many nomadic empires, there were special functioners of lower rank engaging in the support of the central power in the tribes. In the Hsiung-nu empire, such persons were named 'marquises' Ku-tu [Pritsak 1954: 196–199]. In the Turkish Khaganate, there were functioners designed to control the tribal chiefs [Бичурин 1950а: 283]. The Turk have also sent their governor-general (tutuks) to control the dependent people [Бичурин 1950b: 77; Материалы 1984: 136, 156]. Chinggis Khan, after reform of 1206, has appointed special noyons to control his relations [Козин 1941: § 243].

The nomadic empires as supercomplex chiefdoms are already real model prototype of an early state. If population of complex chiefdoms are as a rule estimated in tens of thousand people [see, for example: Johnson and Earle 1987: 314] and they, as a rule, are homogenous in the ethnic respect then population of multi-national supercomplex chiefdom make up many hundreds of thousand and even more people (nomadic empires of the Inner Asia have amounted to 1–1,5 million pastoral nomads) their territory (nomads, needed for a great are as of land for pastures!) was several orders greater than areas needed for simple and complex chiefdoms.

From the viewpoint of neighbouring agricultural civilizations (developed pre-industrial states), such nomadic societies have been perceived as the independent subjects of international political relations and, quite often, as equal in status polities (Chinese called them go). These chiefdoms had a complex system of titles of chiefs and functioners, held diplomatic correspondence with neighbouring countries, contracted dynastic marriages with agricultural states, neighbouring nomadic empires and 'quasi-imperial' polities of nomads.

The sources of the urbanistic construction (already the Hsiung-nu began to erect the fortes settlement whereas the 'headquarters' of the empires of Uighur and Mongols were true towns), construction of splendid burial-vaults and funeral temples for the representatives of the steppe elite (Pazyryksky burial mounds al Altai, Scythian burial mounds in Northern Black Sea Area, burial placed in Mongolian Noin-Ula, burial mounds of Saks time in Kazakhstan, statues of Turkish and Uighur Khagans in Mongolia etc.) are characteristic if them. In several supercomplex chiefdoms, the elite attempted to introduce the sources if

[310]

clerical work (Hsiung-nu), in other ones, there was the epic history of people written down in runes (Turks), while there is a temptation to call some of the typical nomadic empires (first of all, Mongolian Ulus of the first decades of XIII century) the states. This is, in particular, supported by mentioning in Secret History of Mongols of the laws system (Yasa), legal organs of power, written clerical work and creation of laws (so called Blue book – Koko Defter Bichik) and by attempts to introduce a taxation under Ogbdei [Kradin 1995a]. However, one cannot forget that in the Hsiung-nu empire a specialized bureaucratic machinery and of elite's monopoly of legitimate application offeree. Just this circumstance provided a reason to interpret this society as supercomplex.

Научное издание

Крадин Николай Николаевич ИМПЕРИЯ ХУННУ

Редактор Л.Б. Казьмина

Переплет Е. Молчанова, С. Носова

Компьютерная верстка М.М. Егоровой

Корректор М.Д. Шунина

Изд. лиц. ИД N° 01670 от 24.04.2000

Налоговая льгота - общероссийский классификатор

продукции ОК-005-93, том 2: 953000

Подписано в печать 26.11.2001. Формат 60x90/16. Печать офсетная. Бумага офсетная. Печ. л. 19,5. Заказ № 2499.

Издательско-книготорговый дом «Логос» 105318, Москва, Измайловское ш., 4

Отпечатано в РГУП «Чебоксарская типография № 1». 428019, г. Чебоксары, пр. И. Яковлева, 15.

Поиск по сайту: