«Н.Н. Крадин Империя Хунну Издание 2-е, переработанное и дополненное Москва • Логос • 2001 УДК 930 85 ББК63 3 ( 5 ) К78 Крадин Н.Н. К78 Империя Хунну. Изд. 2-е, перераб. ...»
In accordance with the written and archaeological sources, the pastoral nomadism was a basic business of Hsiung-nu. As for the nomads of Mongolia and Transbaikalia in the later times, the Hsiung-nu bred a typical for Eurasia set of animals: sheep, cattle, horses and, more rarely, goats and camels. In addition, they had also in small proportion other species of domestic animals. The economic system of the Hsiung-nu empire was based not only on the pastoral nomadism. The Hsiung-nu developed the internal sedentarization and promoted the agrarian policy, and handicraft. They created the special settlements at the places fafourable for agriculture where they settled the immigrants from China and personers of war from the settled states. The best known settled sites of Hsiung-nu times are Ivolginsky fort and Dureny settlement in Buryatia.
A different nationality of the settled residents in the west Transbaikalia is confirmed by many arguments of the archaeological studies: (1) predominance in the materials of the Ivolginsky fort excavations of the bones of such ('non-nomadic") animals as dog and pig; (2) fishing business; (3) construction of warmed stovebenches in the houses – kangs; (4) typical Chinese agricultural tools; (5) Chinese shapes of vessels; (6) Chinese hieroglyphes on a pottery; (7) anthropologic determinations of skills from the Ivolginsky cemetery [Гохман 1960].
A problem of contacts between the nomads and farmers is among the permanently discussed problems. Almost the fundamental question is in an estimation of a role of nomads in these processes.
Some believed that the nomads were first of all robbers since earliest times and conquerors who brought death and destruction to people. While other considered that nomads were creators of the original mobile culture. The supporters of the latter standpoint see, as a rule, the relations between nomads and settled people within the framework of different conceptions of 'symbiosis'. It would be improper to regard the relation between nomadic and settled people unilaterally, only as enmity since earliest times or, on the country, symbiosis. In a reality, a situation was more complicated. Over the course of the Hsiung-nu empire existence, the relations between nomads and Han have not remained unchanged but have subjected to a particular evolution. One can identify four stages of the Hsiung-nu – Han relations.
At the first stage (200–133 ВС) for extortion of more higher profits, the Hsiung-nu have attempted to alternate the war and raids with the periods of a peaceful co-habitation with China [see Barfield 1981; 1992]. The first raids have been carried out to obtain a booty for all member of the imperial confederation of nomads regardless of their status.
The second stage (129-58 ВС) of the Hsiung-nu –Han relations is a period of governing of the Han emperor Wu-di who decided to abolish the strategy of farming from active expansion to the North. The war has been waged with a variable success and rendered lifeless both parties. None of the parties has neached the final victory. As a whole, an experience of a campaign showed that nomads in the steppe war, in spite of munerical superiority of the Chinese, have the unquestionable advantages as before. As a sole important achievement of the aggressive antiHsiung-nu policy of Wi-di, a strengthening of the Han positions in the East Turkestan should be considered. However a 'cold war' between the Steppe and China continued as far as a commencement of civil war within the Hsiung-nu tribes.
The third stage (56 ВС – 9 AD) of the Hsiung-nu – Chinese relations can be marked off since the time of assumption by the Shan-yii Hu-han-yeh of vassalage from the Han emperor. A policy of farming from the nomads by 'gifts' was formally replaced by the system of 'tributal' relations. The Hsiung-nu have undertaken to recognize a suzerainty of Han and to pay a nominal 'tribute'. For this, the emperor has provided the Shan-уй his protection and has given to him as a vassal the reply gifts. In fact, the vassalage of nomads camouflaged in terms reflecting the Chinese ideological superiority has been an old policy of extortion on the side of nomads with the only difference that the reply gifts of the Chinese emperor were vastly larger than before. In addition, as may be necessary, the Shan-yii has obtained from China the agricultural products to support his citizens.
The fourth, last stage (9–48 AD) of relations between the Han empire and Hsiung-nu imperial confederation was similar, by its content, to the first stage. As a pretext for a rupture of peaceful relations, the territorial claims of the Chinese emperor-pretender Wang Mang, his intervention in internal affairs of nomads and, finally, substitution of the Shan-уй seal by the Chinese ambassadors have served. Judging from all this, as opposed to the first stage of relations between the Hsiung-nu and China, the nomads have somewhat changed an emphasis of their foreign-polity strategy towards the stimulation of raids to the Han territory. It is possible this was related to the weakening of the frontier might of China and instable political situation within the country. If earlier the northern frontiers of China were protected using a powerful network of the signaling-guard duties and the towns and most crucial sections of the Great Wall were protected by armed to the teeth garrisons then, at the beginning of the Late dynasty of Han (since 23 AD), a maintenance of such army was beyond the Chinese government's means. The raids were found to be more safe and unpunished for inhabitants of steppe regions, that earlier.
Shan-уй had numerous relatives who belonged to his 'king's' clan of Luan-ti: brothers and nephews, wife's, sons and daughters etc. Besides the relatives of Shan-yii other noble 'families' (clans):
Hu-yan, Lan Hsti-pu and Quilin have been among the highest Hsiung-nu aristocracy. The next level in the Hsiung-nu hierarchy has been occupied by the tribal chiefs and elders. In the annals, they are mentioned, as a rule, as 'subordinate kings', 'chief commandants', 'household administrators', chii-ch'U officials [Лидай 1958: 17; see also Groot 1921: 55; Watson 1961a:
163-164; Материалы 1968: 40]. Probably, a part of'chiefs of a thousand' were tribal chiefs. The 'chiefs of a hundred' and 'chiefs of ten' were, most likely, clan leaders of different ranks. The economic judicial, cult, fiscal and military functions were considered as the responsibilities of chiefs and elders.
Slightly lower at the hierarchical ladder, the chiefs of non-Hsiung-nu tribes being members of the imperial confederation have been. The Hsiung-nu had a particular strata of service nobility – advisers – immigrants from China and bodyguards.
Basic population of the Hsiung-nu empire has consisted of ordinary nomads – cattle-breeders.
Based on some indirect data, one can assume that many most important features of economy, social organization, way of life were essentially little different from the features of the nomads of the Mongolian steppes of more recent times [Egami 1956; 1963; Крадин 1999].
In the written sources, there is no information concerning the different categories of poor persons and persons not processing full right who have been engaged in cattle-breeding in the Hsiungnu society. It is alto, unknown how were spread the slave-owning relations among the Hsiung-nu although the sources are gay with the data of a stealing by nomads of farmers. A lack of development of a slavery in the Hsiung-nu society can be explained by the cross-cultural anthropological studies which clearly demonstrate than in none of the pastoral societies, a slavery has not be widely spread [for details see Нибур 1907: 237-265; Хазанов 1975: 133-148; Khazanov 1984/1994: 160-161;
Крадин 1992: 100–111 etc.]. Those researchers are most likely right [Гумилев 1960:147; Давыдова 1975: 145; Rudenko 1969; Хазанов 1975: 143-144], who believe that the overwhelming majority of prisoners of war in the Hsiung-nu societies has been engaged in agricultural and handicraft in the specially established settlements. However, as to social-economic and legal position, the majority of these persons (many of these people were free deserters) have been no slavers. Their social status has been most likely unequal: from the conditional 'vassalage' to some similarity of serfdom. The Ivolginskoye fortes settlement near the city Ulan-Ude in Buryaita was a classical settlement of such type [Davydova 1968; Давыдова 1985; 1995; 1996; Hayashi 1984 etc.].
The archaeological data supplement to a great extent an information of writes annals. Even before a formation of the nomadic empire the social stratification traced on the archaeological data, has existed in the Hsiung-nu society. At the foot of the society, the ordinary burial places of ordinary nomads are. Above, there are graves of the representatives of the tribal ruling clique in which a great quantity of adornments for chariots, rare arms, jewelry and plates with highly artistic images of animals of gold, rods, pommes of banners etc. (burial ground of Aluchzaiden and Hsugoupan in the Inner Mongolia in China [Тянь Гуацзинь, Го Сусинь 1980; 1980а]).
During a period of the Hsiung-nu prosperity, a social stratification has further increased. The higher a status of individual the greater are expenses for erection of the funeral structure and the more splendid are things lowered in a grave. In the picturesque taiga Hentay, Mongolia, the world-famous Noin-Ula burial places were discovered and in the Ilmovaya pad in the Southern Buryatia, the monumental 'royal' and 'princely* mound graves of the Hsiung-nu elite are located for building of which considerable efforts were required [Unehara 1960; Rudenko 1969; Коновалов 1976]. The burials of ordinary nomads were much simpler and more poor in this. These are generally rounded or quadrangular stone burial mounds of 5–10 m in diameter. A depth of the grave hole was generally 2– m. At the bottom of a hole, a wooden coffin (more rarely a coffin within a framework) has stood. The burial place has been accompanied by individual goods of households, arms, harness, implements, adornments and funeral food [Доржсурэн 1961; Коновалов 1976; Цэвендорж 1985 etc.]. The graves of settled people living on the territory of Ivolginsky fort were even simpler and more poor [Davydova 1968; Давыдова 1995; 1996]. It demonstrates the complicated multilayer social structure of the Hsiung-nu society [in details see Крадин 1999: 405-67, 471, 476-94].
The Shan-уй has been at the head of the Hsiung-nu society. In the official documents of the prosperity period of the Hsiung-nu empire, the Shan-yii has been named as "born by the heaven and earth, raised by the sun and moon, great Shan-yii of Hsiung-nu [Лидай 1958: 30]. His power of the rulers of other steppe empires of Eurasia has been based on external rather than internal sources. Shanyii has used the raids to obtain political support on the side of tribes – members on the 'imperial confederation'. Furthermore, using the threats of raids, he has extorted from the Han empire the 'gifts' (for distribution among relatives, chiefs of tribes, and armed force) and the right for trade with the Chinese in the legions adjacent to a border (for all citizens). As to internal affairs Shan-yii had much lesser authorities. The majority of political decisions at a local level have been made by the tribal chiefs.
The American anthropologist Thomas Barfield assumes that it is possibly the Han politicians have relied on a simple human avidity and hoped that Shan-yii will make dizzy from the quantity and diversity of rare wonders and will store Up them in his depository for envy of subjects or squander them for extravagant behavior. However, the Chinese intellectuals – scribes did not understand the principles of the power of the steppe ruler. A psychology of a nomad is distinguished from that of a farmer and town-dwellers. The status of the ruler Of nomadic empire depended on the one hand, on the opportunity to provide his subjects with gifts and material wealth and on military might of the power, on the other hand, to make raids and extort 'gifts'. Therefore, a necessity to support a stability of the military-political structure rather than a personal avidity (as the Chinese believed erroneously) was a reason of permanent demands of the Shan-уй to increase presents. The largest insult which could be deserved by the steppe ruler was accusation of stinginess. Thus, spoils of war, gifts of the Han emperors and international trade were main sources of the political power in the steppe. Consequently, the 'gifts' flowing through their hands not only did not weaken and, on the contrary, strengthened the power and influence of the ruler in the 'imperial confederation' [Barfield 1992: 36–60].
In the eyes of Chinese historians, the Hsiung-nu empire has presented the expansionistic state with the autocratic power. However, in fact, the Hsiung-nu society has been a quite fragile mechanism.
Even during periods of the highest prosperity of the Hsiung-nu polity (under Мао-tun and his nearest successor), the military-hierarchical system has only co-existed and supplement the complicated genealogical hierarchy of tribes but never changed it finally. In theory, Shan-уй could demand from subjects implicit obedience and issue any orders but, in fact, his political might was limited. First, the supertribal power has remained in the Hsiung-nu empire because of that (a) membership in the confederation provided for tribes political independence from neighbours and a number of other significant advantages, (b) Shan-уй and his encirclement guaranteed for tribes a particular inner autonomy within the empire. Secondly, an actual power of the tribal chiefs and elders was autonomous from the policy of the centre. Before the tribes dissatisfied by the policy of the 'metropolis' of empire, the undesirable for the centre alternative of the decampment to the west or flight to the south under the patronage of Chine has always occurred.
The eminent Chinese historian Ssu-ma Ch'en has given a detailed description of the administrative system of the Hsiung-nu empire [Лидай 1958: 17; see also de Groot 1921: 55; Watson 1961a: 163-164; Материалы 1968:40]. The empire under Мао-tun was divided into three parts:
centre, left and right wings. The wings, in turn, were divided into underwings. The whole supreme power was concentrated in hands of Shan-yii. Concurrently, he was in charge of the centre – tribes of the 'metropolis' of the steppe empire. 24 highest officials who were in charge of large tribal associations and had at the same time military ranks of 'chief of a ten thousand' were subordinate to Shan-yu. In charge of the left wing, the elder brother – successor of the throne – was. There nearest relatives of the ruler of steppe empire were his cornier, leader and cornier of the right wing. Only they had the highest titles of 'kings' (wang in Chinese). 'Kings' and some more six most moble 'chiefs of a ten thousand' have been considered to be 'strong' and were in command of not less than ten thousand riders. The rest of 'chiefs of a ten thousand' were infact command of less than ten thousand cavalrymen [Лвдай 1958:
17; Watson 1961a: 163–164 etc.].
At the lowest level of the administrative hierarchy, local tribal chiefs and elders have been.
Officially, they have submitted to 24 deputies from centre. However, intact, a dependence of tribal leaders was limited. The headquarters was far apart and local chiefs have enjoyed support of related tribal groups. Thus, an influence of the imperial deputies on local authorities was, to a certain extent, limited and they were forced to take into account the interests of subordinate to them tribes. Total quantity of these tribal groups within the Hsiung-nu imperial confederation is unknown.
The use by the Chinese historian of military ('chiefs of a ten thousand', 'chiefs of a thousand', 'chiefs of a ten hundred') as well as traditional ('kings'= wang, 'princes' of different rank, 'chief commandants', 'household administrators', chii-ch 'u officials etc.) terms gives grounds to propose that the systems of military and civil hierarchy have in Parallel existed. Each of them had different functions. The system of non-decimal ranks has been used during wars when a great quantity of warriors from different parts of steppe have joined into one or several armies [Barfield 1992: 381.
The power of Shan-yii, highest commanders and tribal chiefs at local places has been supported by strict but simple traditional ways. At a whole, as the Hsiung-nu laws were estimated by the Chinese chronicles, the Hsiung-nu's punishment were 'simple and easily realizable' and were mainly reduced to strokes of the can, exile and death penalty. It provided an opportunity to quickly resolve the conflict situations at different levels of the hierarchical pyramid and to maintain a stability of the political system as a whole. It is no mere chance that for the Chinese accustomed from childhood to unwieldy and clumsy bureaucratic machine, the management system of the Hsiung-nu confederation seemed to be extremely simple: "management of the whole state is similar to that of one's body' [Лвдай 1958: 17].
A well-balanced system of ranks developed under Мао-tun has not remained later on. The Chinese historian Fan Yeh has given the same detailed description of the Hsiung-nu's political system in I AD as his eminent predecessor Ssu-ma Ch'ien [Лвдай 1958: 680; Материалы 1973: 73]. It provides an unique opportunity to observe a dynamics of the political institutions of the Hsiung-nu throughout 250 years. The most considerable differences between the power of Мао-tun epoch and Hsiung-nu society before collapses are as follows: (1) There has been a transition, from the tribe, military-administrative division to dual tribal division into wings; (2) Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote about clearly development military-administrative structure with 'chiefs of a ten thousand'. Fan Yeh does not mention a 'decimal; system and instead of military rank of 'chiefs of a ten thousand', the civil titles of 'kings' (wang) are enumerated; (3) According to Fan Yeh, the whole first ten of so called 'strong' 'chiefs of a ten thousand' that shows, from the viewpoint of the Chinese chronicles. Their more independent position on the side of the Shan-уй headquarters; (4) In the Hsiung-nu empire, an order of succession to the throne has changed.
If ordinally the throne of Shan-уй has been passed from the father to the son (except several extraordinary cases), them other order has become to predominate: from uncle to nephew; (5) In the Hsiung-nu society, a principle of join government has prevailed according to which the ruler of the nomadic empire has a cornier controlling a junior by rank 'wing'. A capacity of junior co-ruler is in herited within his lineage but his successors can not pretend on this Shan-уй 's throne.
Therefore, these changes demonstrate a gradual weakening of the autocratic relations in the empire and their substitution for federative relations as demonstrated partially by a transition from triple administrative-territorial division to dual one. The military-hierarchical relations have been pressed back and the genealogical hierarchy between 'seniors' and 'junior' by rank tribes have been pushed into the foreground.
ConclusionCould 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 (militaryhierarchical 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 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'.
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 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.
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., Отпечатано в РГУП «Чебоксарская типография № 1». 428019, г. Чебоксары, пр. И. Яковлева, 15.