The article tests a multi-line approach to the characterization of power institutions among nomads of Central Asia in the 5th-11th centuries. Based on the analysis of administrative structures of various nomadic societies, the author suggests four main stages of complexity of organizing power among the nomadic population of the eastern area of steppe Eurasia. Each of these models assumes two options:: 1) local and decentralized polities; 2) nomadic and nomadic-settled communities consolidated by military and political means.

Keywords: nomadic societies of Central Asia, politogenesis, multilinearity of development, models of power organization, acephalous and segmental polities, complex "secondary" chiefdoms, nomadic empires, nomadic-settled states.

introduction

Multilinear theories [Bondarenko, 1998; Claessen, 2000; Korotaev, Kradin, and Lynsha, 2000; Korotaev, 2003; Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotaev, 2006; Klassen, 2006; Grinin, Markov, and Korotaev, 2008; and others] open a new stage in the development of our ideas about politogenesis in pre-industrial societies. The multilinear approach is focused primarily on studying unique features in the evolution of societies, identifying alternative forms of socio-political organization, and multidirectional processes of transformation of power and social systems. At the same time, the research of nomad scientists in recent decades has mainly focused on identifying general trends in the development of the phenomenon [Barfield, 1989, 1993, 2000; Kradin, 1992, 2000, 2002(1), 2007; Khazanov, 2000, 2002, etc.]. They resulted in the development of forms of interaction between nomads and agricultural civilizations, an opinion about the predominantly pre-state nature of power in arid conditions (the state among nomads is formed when the sedentary population is conquered by the steppe people), and the limitation of the processes of complicating power systems even in the largest military-political associations of nomads by the level of super-complex chiefdom. Nevertheless, a significant number of researchers continue to refer to various nomad polities as "states". It is obvious that nomadic management systems, especially in nomadic empires, as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, cannot be described with unambiguous definitions.

The research methodology is based on the synthesis of the neo-evolutionist concept of politogenesis, the theory of multilinear evolution, the world-system and cross-cultural approach.

The work was carried out under the project of RGN-MinOKN of Mongolia N 07-01 - 92002a / G "Nomadic empires of the Mongolian steppes: from the Xiongnu to the power of Genghis Khan".

page 20
analysis. Based on the objectives of the article, the main attention is paid to multilinear theories, on the basis of which the specific features of power institutions in nomadic societies of the early Middle Ages are revealed.

NOMAD POWER SYSTEMS FROM A COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Among the political formations of the nomads of the fifth century. particularly noteworthy is the Ruan-Ruan Khaganate (402-552). The main steps to create a vast steppe polity were traditional: the conquest of neighboring nomads (Gaogyu and some Mongol-speaking tribes) and the reorganization of the military-administrative structure based on decimal principles [Materials..., 1984, pp. 267-269]. The specifics of the Ruan-Ruan Khaganate's interaction with China consisted in a more complex structure of relations between the Ruan-Ruan and the Chinese Song Empire due to the existence of the buffer state of Toba Wei. On the one hand, this set limits for the Ruan Ruan to exploit the House of Wei's limited resources. On the other hand, the nomadic roots of the Toba made it possible to use extremely effective measures to combat the Ruan Ruan (the Wei army, which included large cavalry units, made successful raids against the Ruan Ruan). But from the 520s, especially after the division of Northern Wei into Eastern and Western Wei in 534, the period of Ruan-Ruan dominance in northern China began. The consequences of this dominance were mixed. The khaganate's forces concentrated mainly on the Chinese direction. The Ruan-Ruan rulers sought to consolidate their status by marrying Wei princesses and hoped to create a united nomadic-sedentary state [Kradin, 2000(1), p. 90]. At the same time, control over the dependent nomadic tribes gradually weakened, as a result of which in the west of the khaganate in 522, 534-537, and 540, a series of Gao - Gyu attacks followed, and in 536, the tributaries of the Ruan-Ruan, the Turks, were able to conquer 50,000 caravans. forming a semi-independent chiefdom within the khaganate. After 16 years, the Turks created a new nomadic empire - the First Turkic Khaganate.

The history of the Ruan-Ruan Khaganate clearly shows the instability of typical nomadic empires. This is primarily reflected in the crisis models of interaction with China. It should be borne in mind that the line between those forms of relations with China that contribute to the centralization and strengthening of nomadic empires, and those relations that lead to their disintegration, is very, very thin, and it was not always caught by nomadic leaders. A strong unified China served both as an object of remote exploitation and as the strongest military threat to the nomads. Defeats from the Chinese and the inability to obtain prestigious goods and agricultural products from China undermined the authority of the steppe rulers and led to internecine strife. Moreover, most of the options for overcoming the crisis of nomadic formations were limited to various ways of restoring the prestigious economy (distribution of military loot, tributes, gifts and farm payoffs among the aristocracy and ordinary population). Weakened (divided into several kingdoms) and dependent on nomads, China, oddly enough, created no less a threat of the collapse of nomadic empires, which is clearly seen in the example of the Ruan-Ruan khaganate.

Apparently, it is not entirely correct to reduce the dichotomy "nomads-farmers" to one scheme and ignore the nuances of the relationship between nomads and the settled population. Thus, the First Turkic Khaganate had the potential to turn into a tributary empire and probably was such in the 570-590s, when East Turkestan, Central Asia, the Black Sea region and the Ciscaucasia became part of the possessions. But its transition to state forms of political management of farmers was also blocked by the unfolding internecine war and the disintegration into two parts. Later, the Eastern Turks, who survived the crisis associated with the de facto subordination to the Sui government and the active Sinicization of Tuli Khan's entourage (Bichurin, 1950, p. 242-245).,

page 21
they found a way out in the revival of imperial politics under Shibi Khan. Taking advantage of the weakening of the Sui dynasty, he made a raid in 615, during which he even managed to defeat the emperor and stop paying tribute. Then, as a result of active actions of Shibi Khan, control over nomads in the steppe was restored [Bichurin, 1950, p. 245].

Having submitted to China in 630, the Turks were perhaps the only Central Asian nomads who were able to recreate the empire in just over 50 years. This fact probably dominated the consciousness of the elite of the Second Turkic Khaganate for a long time. Even half a century after the successful uprising, during the period of peaceful relations with China, an inscription in honor of Kul-Tegin warned of the danger of rapprochement with the Han: "The Tabgach people, who gave so much gold, silver, alcohol and silk without restrictions, had sweet speech, and soft jewelry (pampering. - S. V.) ... Allowing yourself to be seduced by their sweet speech and luxurious jewels, you, O Turkic people, perished in large numbers" [Malov, 1951, p. 33-35]. Iollig-tegin, the author of the inscriptions on the stele of Kul-Tegin and Bilge-kagan, draws an archetypal binary opposition that reflected the mental attitudes of the ruling elite in the kaganate:"...O Turkic people, when you go to that country (China-SV), you are on the verge of death; when you are in the Otyuken rabble... you can live creating your own ale... " [Malov, 1951, p. 35]. These instructions had a very specific purpose, because the blame for the death of the First Khaganate was imposed not so much on the Tabgach people (China) as on the unwise and cowardly khagans (Malov, 1951, p.36-37). In this context, it is worth considering the first political task of the leaders of the khaganate - to be wise, to limit the contacts of nomads with the Chinese and to ensure the supply of Chinese goods to the steppe through raids and receiving gifts.

The stability of the entire system of ethno-tribal hierarchy in nomadic empires was ensured by military success, a prestigious economy, and the cohesion of the elite. Major defeats immediately brought the imperial nomad polity to the brink of collapse. Two failures of the Kapagan Kagan's troops in a clash with the Arabs (712 - 713) in Tokharistan and with the Chinese near Beshbalyk (714) caused a series of uprisings against the Karluk, Azov, Izgili, Tokuz-Oguz, Bayyrku and other Nomads (714 - 716) and almost led to the death of the Second Turkic Kaganate. Only the decisive actions of Kul-tegin made it possible to avoid a split in the Turkic society, and a series of military victories-to preserve the empire. In the political practice of the Kaganovs, a vicious circle played a key role: military success - production-its distribution-prestige. Thus, there was only one way to ensure the rise and functioning of the imperial system among the nomads - to wage wars and win. There was also the option of maintaining the policy of "peaceful coexistence", but it led to a gradual degradation of the imperial structure and its crisis, which happened with the Second Turkic Khaganate in the early 740s. The distribution of property captured during the campaigns and" gifts " from China occurred in accordance with the ethno-tribal hierarchy. Prestige goods went almost exclusively to the nomadic aristocracy and the Kagan's entourage. Nevertheless, the prestigious economy also included numerous layers of ordinary nomads. Turkic inscriptions record that the khagans "arranged and raised the Turkic people", " made the poor rich, made the few numerous "(Malov, 1951, p. 38). The role of the supreme redistributor is clearly characterized by an excerpt from the inscription in honor of Bilge Kagan:"..their gold and shiny silver, their well-woven silks, their drinks made from grain, their riding horses and stallions, their black sables and riding squirrels I got for my Turkic people "[Klyashtorny, 2003, p. 62].

The performance of military-administrative, redistributive, sacred-ritual and judicial functions by the Turkic khagans did not require the rulers to create a complex administrative apparatus. The khagans mostly relied on tradition ("Turkic institutions") and the traditional power structure (clan and tribal leaders).

page 22
and their relatives. The absence of cities and vast territories with farmers under their control precluded the transformation of the Second Turkic Khaganate into a more complex political organization than the imperial chiefdom.

The fate of a number of non-imperial political formations of nomads is closely connected with the Turkic khaganates. Let us focus on the example of the Seyanto khaganate led by Inan, which emerged during the confrontation between the Tele tribes and the Turks. The rise of Yinan was partly controlled by Tang (in 629 AD). Yinan received from China a charter, a timpani and a banner, as well as the title of Zhen-zhu Pitsye khan (Bichurin, 1950, p.338). After the submission of the Turks to China, Seoyanto occupied the steppe territories north of the Gobi, and many Soviet generations submitted to Inan. A medium-scale complex chiefdom emerged. But the further growth of possessions and the transition to imperial status was impossible. The Yinan failed to conquer other nomadic groups. An attempt to make a raid in 641 against the Turks settled in the Tang border zone ended in the defeat of the Seyanto troops from the Chinese. And while retreating, the Seyantos were caught in a snowstorm, in which "eight out of ten people"were killed. The plan to raise Seyanto to the imperial level failed. The combination of military-political and natural-climatic factors that "stopped" the growth of the complex Seyanto chiefdom into a nomadic quasi-empire is significant.

Turning Seoyanto into an imperial polity was also impossible because Yinan chose a different model of relations with China. The recognition of the Seyantos as Tang subjects had an informal meaning, but imposed quite specific obligations on the nomads to pay tribute. After the defeat of 641. Yinan sent 3,000 horses as a sign of reconciliation, and the following year the Seyanto ruler, asking for marriage, provided horses, oxen, rams and camels. However, even for this form of interaction with the Tang Empire, Seoyanto was not quite ready. Chronicles do not accidentally indicate that Seyanto "did not have a state treasury. What is required from subordinates is not fully collected... " [Bichurin, 1950, p. 341]. All this suggests that there were some political obstacles to centralization in the internal structure of Seoyanto, and explains the rapid disintegration of the Seoyanto association under Yinan's son Bajo. He tried to carry out centralization (Tang chroniclers point to the execution of many nobles who served under Inan), but did not succeed. Eventually, Chinese and Turkic troops destroyed the "Seyanto House" (Bichurin, 1950, p.343).

With the fall of the Turkic khaganates, several large nomadic associations emerged within the steppe Eurasia: in the North Caucasus and in the Lower Volga region - the Khazar Khaganate, in the Azov Region - Great Bulgaria, in the Aral Sea region - the Oghuz Confederation, in Mongolia - the Uyghur Khaganate, in Semirechye - the Türgesh Khaganate and the Karluk Khanate, etc. It would seem that the traditions of administrative structure, titulature, and military-political practice historically laid down by the ancient Turks should have determined similar forms of power organization in these entities. However, each of these polities developed quite individually. It is significant that the Uyghurs, who established their own khaganate on the same territory where the Second Turkic Khaganate existed, began to build cities and fortresses, and developed trade and exchange with the settled world much more actively [Danilov, 2004, pp. 56-66, 150-153]. This, in turn, helped the nomadic elite to get acquainted not only with the culture of China, but also with the cultural traditions of the Middle East. The result was the adoption of Manichaeism by the Kagan's entourage. The Uyghur association as a whole provides an example of a rather individual path of political transformation. Defeat fromThe Kyrgyz led to the migration of a part of the Uyghurs to East Turkestan, where they settled in oases and chose a completely different form of political adaptation: they created several small khanates in which nomadic Uyghurs interacted with the Sogdians (Ganzhou, Turfan, and other principalities) [Malyavkin, 1983; East Turkestan..., 1988, pp. 323-346]..

page 23
The model of relations between nomads and the settled population was close to the Uyghur model in the Türgesh Khaganate. Traditions of such interaction were born in the Western Turkic Khaganate. There were several large cities on the territory of the Turgesh Khaganate: Suyab, Nevaket, Kuva, Aktau, etc. Transit trade routes passed through these cities, which closely connected the Khaganate with the urban centers of Central Asia. In the cities of the khaganate, coins were minted with Sogdian inscriptions and Turkic tamgas. For example, coins with the tamga " at "were recorded in 15 cities, and coins with the Turkic tamga" at "and the Sughd inscription" Mr. Turgesh Khagan. Money" is represented by 916 copies only in Krasnaya Rechka [Aitova, 2000, p. 129-130]. Along with this, Chinese coins were also used in the Tyurgesh Khaganate (Kamyshev, 2000). All these data indicate the prosperity of trade and crafts in the Turgesh Khaganate. Probably, there was also a corresponding political apparatus that regulated the terms of trade and collected duties and taxes. At the same time, the nomad management system has changed little. Even the first khagan of Uch-elig (Uzhile) carried out an administrative reform, dividing the country into 20 regions (headed by Tutuks), each of which put up 7 thousand rubles. warriors. At the same time, Kagan rates were established in the Chui and Ili valleys (Bichurin, 1950, p.296; Klyashtorny and Savinov, 2005, p. 102). Most likely, Kagan and his entourage moved from bet to bet during the year. It was not only a nomadic route, but also a management method. Moving around the country, the kagan supervised, made decisions, and punished.

The leading role in nomad management in the Turgesh Khaganate was also played by the prestigious economy. About the khagan Suluk, "Tan Shu" reports that he "treated his subjects well", "the clans gradually united and his people multiplied to 200,000 souls; therefore, he became strong again in the Western region", " Sulu managed the people well; he was attentive and thrifty. After each battle, he gave all the loot to his subordinates: why the clans were happy and served him with all their might " [Bichurin, 1950, pp. 297, 298]. Suluk, who pursued an active foreign policy, is associated with the flourishing of the Turgesh Khaganate. However, numerous wars and the maintenance of the army required expenses. According to sources, " expenses increased daily, but there were no positive stocks. In later years, he felt the scarcity; therefore, he gradually began to keep the loot without dividing it up." Then "his subordinates began to distance themselves from him" (Bichurin, 1950, p. 299). The tension in the Khaganate was growing. A year after his crushing defeat by the Arabs in 737, Suluk was killed. Suluk's death marked the beginning of a twenty-year power struggle between the yellows and blacksThis was followed by the collapse of the Turgesh Khaganate.

The Karluk union, originally located in the south of present-day East Kazakhstan and Western Altai, turned out to be more stable. The Karluks played an important political role in the Western Turkic Khaganate and gained autonomy as it weakened. The troops of the Second Turkic Khaganate repeatedly made campaigns against the Karluks. An inscription in honor of Kul-tegin indicates the reason for these military expeditions: "the Karluk people, due to their freedom and independence, became (our) enemy "(Malov, 1951, p. 41). As a result, the Karluks were able to achieve independence, and their head took the title of yabgu. However, clashes with the Turks, and then with the Uighurs, continued. In this confrontation, the Karluks were able to occupy part of Semirechye, and in 766, after the Oghuz emigration to the lower reaches of the Syr Darya, they captured Taraz and Suyab. Thus, the Karluks established control over Tokharistan and trade routes [Klyashtorny and Savinov, 2005, pp. 113-117]. Reproducing the Türgesh model, the Karluks minted their own coins and used Chinese coinage (Kamyshev, 2000). The Karluks ' forces increased due to the migration of the Yagma tribe from Eastern Turkestan to the Khaganate. Samanid pressure forced the Karluks to move their centers to Kashgaria and the Issyk-Kul region, where their ruler began to call himself Tabgach Khan, the ruler of Kashgaria (Klyashtorny and Savinov 2005, p. 122). Thus, during the VII-IX centuries.-

page 24
a gradual increase in the status of power of the Karluk rulers was given. This undoubtedly reflected the complexity of the political system. The logical conclusion of these trends was the formation of the Karakhanid Khaganate in 840, when Yabgu Karlukov proclaimed himself Bilge Kyul Kadyr Khagan.

Initially, the khaganate did not have a centralized system of power. The dominant position in the Karluk Confederation was occupied by the Chigil and Yagma tribes. Under the sons of Bilge Kul Kadir Khan, the khaganate was divided into two parts - eastern and western. The Eastern khagan with the title Arslan Kara-khakan was from the Chigils and was considered supreme ("senior"). Its capital was located in Balasagun. The western Hillock of Kara Kagan represented the Yagma tribe. Its headquarters were located in Kashgar and Taraz. By the tenth century, there was a dual (each title and position in the eastern part of the khaganate had an analog in the western) multi-level system of administration of the khaganate (with three or more rulers at the head of the khaganate). The successful struggle with the Samanids for possession of Central Asia, as well as the adoption of Islam around 960, conditionally mark the final transformation of the Karakhanid Khaganate into a state. Its economic base consisted of taxes and duties on the sedentary population of Central Asia, East Turkestan and Semirechye, which contributed to the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus. Along with this, there were a large number of appanage princes with a greater or lesser degree of independence from the supreme ruler [Barthold, 1963, p. 285, 330; Karaev, 1983; Petrov, 1981; Kochnev, 2006, p.245-249]. Since 991, the Karakhanids began to mint their coins in Ferghana, Bukhara, Ilak, Shash, Uzgend, Balasagun, Kashgar, Samarkand and other cities. The coinage of Qarakhanid dinars and dirhams was initially intended not for economic, but rather for propaganda and political purposes (to witness the transition of these cities to Qarakhanid control and connection with the Islamic tradition). In the future, these goals of minting coins retained their significance, but the widespread use of Karakhanid coins also indicates their active use in trade [Kochnev, 2006, p. 149-190].

In 1041-1042 there was a division into two independent khaganates: the Western One (with the center in Samarkand) and the Eastern one (with the center in Balasagun). Initially, it was believed that each khaganate had several khagans: senior (Arslan Khan), junior (Bugra Khan), "lower" (Arslan-ilig, Bugra-ilig, Arslan-tegin, Bugra-tegin). However, B. D. Kochnev managed to show convincingly that there was no dual organization in the Western Khaganate. It was headed by a single khagan, who did away with many khans and princes, creating a centralized administration. The first Western khagan, Tabgach Khan Ibrahim, established a direct order of succession from father to son (Kochnev, 2006: 250-251). In the Eastern Khaganate, the dual system was preserved for a longer time, which is explained by the more stable influence of nomadic traditions, but in the end, even here in the XII century. it was eliminated. Speaking about the general trends in the development of state power in the Karakhanid Khaganate, it can be noted that during the expansion of the khaganate in the X - beginning of the XI century, the power structures were very mobile and assumed the participation of a large number of semi-independent rulers in the administration, but since the division of the khaganate in the middle of the XI century. and as the power of the Balasagun and Samarkand rulers strengthened, there was a tendency to centralize power. Undoubtedly, written, archaeological and numismatic data allow us to see the Karakhanid Khaganate as one of the most developed forms of statehood among the political entities created by nomads.

The Khitan Liao Empire is another example of the transformation of a complex chiefdom into a state entity. The founders of the empire, Abaoji and Deguang of the Yelu family, acted in the spirit of other famous nomadic leaders and carried out a political reform, as a result of which most of the representatives of the ancestral aristocracy were removed from power. Yelu Abaoji also proclaimed the principle of inheritance from father to son and elevated the Uyghur Xiao family, from which

page 25
Khitan rulers took wives. In 916, Abaoji assumed the imperial title of Tien-huang-wang, which served as a starting point for the movement towards a universal form of statehood (which united nomads and farmers) [Pikov, 2002, pp. 192-193]. In its heyday, the empire included territories with different economies (Northeast China, Mongolia, Manchuria, etc.) and was able to integrate them into a single economic system. Largely copying Chinese institutions of governance, the Khitan created their own central and provincial apparatus, fiscal and judicial bodies. The administration consisted of officials who managed territories with agricultural populations, and a separate, simpler apparatus of power for nomads. Khitan and Chinese law were widely used [Pikov, 1992; Dany-nin, 2006, pp. 117-125]. At the same time, the Khitan used the traditional policy of remote exploitation in relation to Southern China, seeking an increase in tribute and gifts. In the Mongolian steppes, the Khitan started building fortress cities, where Chinese, Bohai and other dependent peoples were resettled to serve the Khitan garrisons (Kradin, 2002; Pikov, 2002; Danilov, 2004). Almost by the middle of the XI century, we can say that the Khitan Liao Empire was transformed into a traditional state, in which a significant share was made up of political traditions of nomads.

The Pechenegs and Kipchaks demonstrate a completely different model without complicating the power hierarchy. Kipchaks (Polovtsians) both in the Kazakh steppes and in the Northern Black Sea region for several centuries, numerous tribal groups were formed, only occasionally and intermittently consolidated into primary (simple) chiefdoms, such as the unions of Bonyak, Tugorkan, Sharukan or associations of Kipchaks with centers in the city of Sygnak (on the Syrdarya) and in the Torgai steppes of Central Kazakhstan [Pletneva, 1975; 1990; Kumekov, 2003, p. 76]. The reasons for the decentralization of Kipchaks probably need to be looked for not only in the internal structure of tribal associations. Most likely, this was due to the location of individual Kipchak tribes in the zone of influence of large agricultural centers (Russia, Byzantium, the state of the Khorezmshahs, etc.). Thus, different tribal groups of Kipchaks, representing the periphery of these centers, gravitated to a certain one of them, which made it difficult to integrate them. A similar segmental nature of power is recorded in the Pechenegs. The picture of political decentralization of the Pechenegs is reflected in the work of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913-959)"On the management of the Empire". He names eight districts (ords?) Pechenegs, four of which were located between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers, and the other four-between the Dnieper and the Volga. Each district had its own khan and was divided into five other clans, which were headed by "smaller" khans (Konstantin Bagryanorodny, 1991). Thus, in the steppe spaces of Eurasia, the Pechenegs and Kipchaks were dominated by an akephalic segmental model of political adaptation, but with a certain periodicity, "centers of attraction" appeared in the form of simple and complex chiefdoms, the destinies of which were short-lived.

The above examples of power organization among nomads clearly show the variety of ways of political genesis and the inability to fit nomads into any single scheme of political development.

FORMALIZED CROSS-CULTURAL ANALYSIS

Another scientific tool for comparing nomadic formations and identifying their features is a formalized cross-cultural analysis. In this article, we will use the criteria for the complexity of societies developed by J. Murdoch and K. McCarthy. Provost [1972]. These authors collected information on 186 societies from all regions of the world and typologized them based on criteria of cultural complexity: 1) write-

page 26
Table 1

Dynamics of the difficulty level of the First Turkic Khaganate

An important stage in the political development of the First Turkic Khaganate

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

552 years.

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

3

2

15

570s.

3

0/4

0/4

0/4

3

3

1

1

4

2

17/29

603 g.

3

0/4

0/4

0/4

3

3

1

1

4

2

17/29

Table 2

Dynamics of the complexity level of the East Turkic Khaganate

An important stage in the political development of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

603 g.

3

0/4

0/3

0/4

3

3

1

1

4

2

17/28

629

3

0

0

0

3

3

1

0

3

2

15

Table 3

Dynamics of the complexity level of the Second Turkic Khaganate

An important stage in the political development of the Second Turkic Khaganate

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Late 680s.

3

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

2

2

15

After 716.

4

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

4

3

19

743-744 years.

4

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

3

2

17

2) degree of settlement; 3) agriculture; 4) urbanization; 5) technological specialization; 6) land transport; 7) money; 8) population density; 9) level of political integration; 10) social stratification. Each variable is evaluated on a five-point scale from 0 to 4. As a result, the database made it possible to identify a significant gap in these criteria between different societies and civilizations. In the USSR, similar work was carried out by L. B. Alaev. He made an important clarification, including societies at different stages of their development in the questionnaire. Thus, it was possible to get a picture of the dynamics of the complexity of societies in different historical periods (Alaev, 1982). Therefore, in order to trace the dynamics in the development of the nomadic associations of the early Middle Ages that we have chosen, we will make several chronological sections related to important stages of their political history. The tables were compiled using written sources and research materials on the history of nomads in the early Middle Ages. Double figures for a number of criteria reflect the situation in the steppe and at the same time in nomad-controlled territories with settled populations, cities (East Turkestan, Semirechye, Central Asia, Northern China).

page 27
Table 4

Dynamics of the complexity level of the Türgesh Khaganate

An important stage in the political development of the Turgesh Khaganate

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Late seventh century

4

1/4

1/3

1/4

3

3

2

2

3

3

23/32

Ca. 729

4

1/4

1/4

1/4

4

3

4

2

3

3

26/35

Approx. 756 g.

4

1/4

1/3

1/3

4

3

4

2

2

2

24/31

Table 5

Dynamics of the Uyghur Khaganate's complexity level

An important stage in the political development of the Uyghur Khaganate

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

745 g.

4

0

1

0

3

3

1

1

2

2

17

783 g.

4

1/3

1

1/4

4

3

2

1

4

3

24/28

Late 830s.

4

1/2

1

1/3

4

3

2

1

3

2

22/25

Table 6

Dynamics of the level of complexity of Pecheneg associations in the X - first half of the XI century

An important stage in the political development of the Pecheneg associations

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

915 g.

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

2

2

14

972 g.

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

2

2

14

After 1036.

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

1

2

13

Table 7

Dynamics of the level of complexity of Polovtsian associations in the XI century

An important stage in the political development of the Polovtsian associations in the 11th century.

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

The beginning of the XI century.

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

2

2

14

1055

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

2

2

14

The end of the XI century.

2

0

0

0

3

3

1

1

3

3

16

Table 8

Dynamics of the level of complexity of the Karakhanid Khaganate in the X-XI centuries.

An important stage in the political development of the Karakhanid Khaganate

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

840 g.

3

1/4

1/4

1/3

4

3

2

2

3

2

22/30

About 1000 g.

4

1/4

1/4

1/4

4

3

4

3

3

3

27/36

1050 g. 1

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

3

4

4

38

1 This line contains the characteristics of the Western Karakhanid Khaganate.

page 28
Table 9

Dynamics of the Liao complexity level in the X-XI centuries

An important stage in the political development of the Liao

Score according to the J. Murdoch criteria

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

907

3

1

2

1

3

3

2

2

2

2

21

947

4

1/4

2/4

1/4

4

3

4

4

3

3

29/37

The beginning of the XI century.

4

4

3/4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

38/39

Source for all tables: [Murdock G. and Provost C., 1972, p. 379 - 392].

The results obtained are undoubtedly quite conditional, but they show quite significant differences both in the complexity of the forms of socio-political organization and in the dynamics of development of nomadic societies.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Studies of the specific features of the organization of power in nomadic societies of the early Middle Ages allow us to identify quite diverse in complexity and functional purpose potestarno-political systems of nomads. This picture becomes even more complicated if we consider the power systems of nomadic empires in dynamics. In some cases, cyclical moments dominate, while in others, there is an increase in the complexity and stability of power. Even within the same region (Central Asia), we have tried to use the example of the Ruan-Ruan, Turkic and Uyghur khaganates, and the Liao Empire to show how different the ways of transformation of political institutions can be with external similarity. Although all of them, according to the researchers, tried to use a close semi-peripheral model of interaction with China, in real history this happened very, very differently. Thus, the Seyanto rulers initially proceeded from the doctrine of subordination to China, which excluded the possibility of the Seyanto khaganate growing into a nomadic quasi-empire.

Nomadic empires were of key importance for the history of nomadism. Their various models cover a wider range of variants than the typical, tributary, and conquering empires indicated by N. N. Kradin (2000 (1), p. 316). For example, there were different ways of political transformation of the Turkic and Uyghur khaganates, which combined (depending on the period of their history) the characteristics of typical and tributary empires. Starting its existence as a typical nomadic imperial entity, the Uyghur Khaganate eventually became a model of innovative development of steppe urbanism and corresponding political practices, along with external tributary forms of interaction with subordinate farmers. Nothing close was observed among the Turks, who, especially after 50 years under Tang rule, were opposed to anything that represented sedentary life, although this did not prevent the Turkic elite from using Chinese goods.

A special case was the Khitan Liao Empire, which for a long time retained the features of both a nomadic empire and a traditional Chinese state. This model will be in demand later by the Jurchens, Mongols, and Manchus. At the same time, the Liao can be put on a par with other states-empires, such as the Karakhanid Khaganate. This form of political formations of nomads should be separated into a separate type and further studied from a comparative historical perspective. The Tyurgesh and Kimak khaganates are potentially close to the empire-states. However, the centrifugal forces in these associations turned out to be

page 29
stronger than the steady trend towards the formation of traditional state structures.

Finally, the simplest system of power, based on the traditional rights of clan and tribal leaders, is demonstrated by the Pecheneg and Kipchak-Polovtsian associations. According to the version proposed in the article, their segmentation is to some extent explained by the" attraction " of individual tribal groups and unions to different agricultural centers-civilizations (Byzantium, Ancient Russia, Khorezm).

In general, if we develop a world-system view of the history of interaction between nomads and farmers, then for the early Middle Ages we can distinguish two forms. One of them was presented by T. Barfield (2002) as a model of proportional complication of nomadic polities to the level of nomadic empires in parallel with the increasing size and strength of the settled-agricultural "center". This" pattern " failed twice (Seyanto, when the Tang was at the peak of its development, and Liao in the conditions of an insurmountable crisis of Tang statehood). The second form prevailed in Central Asia, where, along with the remote exploitation of agricultural centers by nomads, the tradition of synthesizing nomadic and sedentary principles has long been developed and fully developed in the early Medieval period.

Comparing the results of studying the power institutions of specific nomadic polities with the data revealed on the basis of cross-cultural analysis, we obtained the following results.

Certain types of potestar-political systems (segmental akephalic association, complex chiefdom, super-complex chiefdom and state) coincide with the levels of complexity of nomadic societies expressed in formal digital indicators. Thus, the politically segmented Pecheneg and Polovtsian associations received according to the table of J. Murdoch and K. Provost no more than 16 points. The level of their political integration most often did not exceed two points and only in the case of non-permanent chiefdoms reached three points. It is interesting that some nomadic empires also had similar numerical indicators at the time of their origin or at the end of crises, which were followed by the collapse of polities. The sum of points from 17 to 25 is highly likely to indicate that this association has reached the level of a complex or super-complex chiefdom. At the same time, it should be taken into account that nomads outwardly used more developed socio-political practices in relation to conquered farmers and townspeople (in the second figures in the tables), and the inclusion of such territories with settled inhabitants gives an increase in indicators for technology, population density, urbanization, and so on further, it can add up to 25 to 35 points. This combination of" internal "and" external " assessments of nomadic societies also differentiates the picture of their socio-political and economic development. Nomadic societies with a difficulty level of more than 25 points are considered to be transitional to early statehood (26-30 points) or associations with already established state structures (31-34 points). Here, as in the previous case, it is important to take into account the "internal" (only nomadic) and "external" (taking into account the dependent settled population) parameters. The most complex forms of socio-political organization are found in those societies where there is an organic synthesis of nomadic and sedentary principles (35 and above points). Among the channels of complicating the socio-political organization of nomads, we should mention the conquest and integration of populations with different economic specialization into nomadic polities, the management system of subordinate nomadic and settled populations on the periphery of the nomadic empire, control of trade routes and cities, construction of trade and administrative centers in the steppe, etc.

In general terms, we can identify the following stages of complexity (models) of power organization among nomads.

The first stage should include two types of acephalic and segmental nomadic societies. The first type presupposes the existence of traditional clan leaders in akephalic nomadic communities divided into clans and lines, whose power is based on the custom of seniority, traditional authority. Such akephalic communities did not have a single center of integration, and the network of power holders was numerous and geographically dispersed (tele in the middle of the VI century, kyp-

page 30
chak associations). Within the second type, integration centers for solving military tasks appear periodically in the segmental space, which should most often be characterized as primary chiefdoms. The rulers of such centers not only relied on traditional clan law, but also had charismatic qualities. However, power in such formations was unstable and was not automatically inherited. Most often, such chiefdoms disintegrated after the death of the founding leader.

The second stage was represented by complex "secondary" chiefdoms - more centralized and numerous associations of nomads. Geographically, they can be defined as medium-scale nomadic societies. Here, as in the first case, two types of nomad polities can be distinguished. The first type is associated with still unstable forms of integration of different ethnic groups of nomads, resulting in a two-level ethno-tribal hierarchy (the union led by the Tugyu Turks, who subdued Tele in 536, the Seyanto khaganate, the union of Karluks at the beginning of the VIII century, etc.). The second type includes more stable complex chiefdoms, in which mechanisms were important political integration, related to the need to control the subordinate settled population (for example, the Karluks at the end of the VIII-IX centuries).

The third stage is associated with large political formations of nomads-nomadic empires. Following N. N. Kradin, we tend to define such nomadic state-like quasi-imperial polities as super-complex chiefdoms. According to external features-the presence of a political center (stavka) and a "headquarters" (military-administrative hierarchy), the organization of military enterprises, the conclusion of contracts with farmers and trade with them, the use of writing for memorial and propaganda purposes, the use of fiscal practices in relation to the subordinate sedentary population-nomadic super-complex chiefdoms resembled states, but the internal structure of the nomadic chiefdoms management and political activity itself in nomadic empires clearly did not reach the state level. Interaction between the authorities and the population was limited to religious, military, and redistributive spheres. The army and its military successes remained the main instrument for integrating nomads and providing them with agricultural goods. Power was based not on an extensive apparatus of civil officials, a state court and written law, but on nomadic traditions and the institution of a prestigious economy. This mechanism, along with military successes and sacred functions of the ruler, provided him with the authority and subordination of nomads, but hardly made the power stable.

The third stage is represented by two forms: typical and tributary nomadic empires. It should be noted at once that the differences between typical and tributary nomadic empires are rather conditional, since tributary relations are present in both models. In a typical nomad empire, tributes cover the least prestigious groups of nomads who supplied livestock (the Turks provided tribute to the Ruan-Ruan with iron products), and the settled population of the marginal hidden territories (Kyshtym). Tributary empires were focused on subjugating the agricultural population and obtaining agricultural products from them. In the history of large political formations of nomads, we can distinguish certain periods when they were closer to either typical or tributary empires. Thus, during the period of active expansion (mid-550s - 570s), the Turks managed to capture the oases of Eastern Turkestan and Central Asia. In relation to these territories, the First Turkic Khaganate acted as a tributary empire. However, after the division of the Khaganate in 603 into Western and Eastern Khaganates, the Eastern Turkic Khaganate became a typical nomadic quasi-empire.

The fourth level of complexity of nomad political systems is represented by states created by nomads during the conquest of territories with urban and agricultural populations. The first type is more or less local.-

page 31
nomadic communities, where nomads dominate the elite, and nomadic titulature and traditions prevail in the political organization (Uyghur khanates in East Turkestan). The second was the large-scale nomad states, which combined control of agricultural and steppe regions (respectively, combined tax and tributary practices) - the Liao and Karakhanid Khaganate.

conclusions

The eight types of nomadic associations proposed in the article are a kind of basic models, the parameters of which can be specified in relation to each nomadic society. The general range of forms of power organization is quite extensive: from segmental tribal communities and polities with a steady tendency to complicate power institutions to state formations. Spatially, there were regions in the Eurasian steppes where the nomads ' politogenesis had certain, more or less stable forms. In Central Asia, typical and tributary nomadic empires prevailed throughout the early Middle Ages. Nomadic super-complex chiefdoms centered on the Mongolian steppes reproduced the semi-peripheral model of interaction between nomads and farmers in relation to China. In Central Asia and the Semirechye region, during the early Middle Ages, there was a closer integration of nomads and sedentary populations. Nomads often seized political power in the cities, received handicrafts and agricultural products not so much through remote exploitation, but through tribute, rents, taxes, duties, etc. Naturally, such political practices led to the emergence of more complex political systems and the formation of statehood with a high share of nomadic participation.

In general, the application of multilinear theories of social evolution, cross-cultural and world-system concepts allows us to see the nomadic world not only culturally, but also in socio-political terms as more differentiated, complex and diverse. The methods of political adaptation of nomads differed significantly even within the same region, not to mention in different zones of steppe Eurasia.

list of literature

Aitova S. M. Statisticheskiy analiz nakhodok drevnetyurkskikh monetov v Semirechye i Otrarskom oazis [Statistical analysis of finds of ancient Turkic coins in Semirechye and Otrar oasis]. Izvestiya Ministerstva obrazovaniya i nauki Respubliki Kazakstan, Natsional'noi Akademii nauk Respubliki Kazakstan. Social Sciences series. 2000. N 1.

Alaev L. B. Experience of typology of medieval societies in Asia // Tipy obshchestvennykh otnosheniy na Vostoke v sredniye veka [Types of Public relations in the East in the Middle Ages].

Barthold V. V. Istoriya kul'turnoi zhizni Turkestana [History of cultural life in Turkestan].
Bichurin N. Ya. (Iakinf). Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times, Vol. I. M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

Bondarenko D. M. Multilinearity of social evolution and alternatives to the state // East (Oriens). 1998. N 1.

Bondarenko D. M., Grinin L. E., Korotaev A.V. Alternatives to social evolution / / Early state, its alternatives and analogues: A collection of articles / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, D. M. Bondarenko, N. N. Kradin, A.V. Korotaev. Volgograd: Uchitel Publ., 2006.

Eastern Turkestan in antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Ocherki istorii [Essays on History], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988.
Grinin L. E., Markov A.V., Korotaev A.V. Macroevolution in living nature and society, Moscow: LKI Publishing House, 2008.
Danilov S. V. Cities in nomadic societies of Central Asia. Ulan-Ude: Publishing House of the Buryat Scientific Center SB RAS, 2004.

Danshin A.V. Gosudarstvo i pravo khitan'skoy imperii Velikoe Liao [State and Law of the Khitan Empire of the Great Liao]. Kemerovo: Kemerovo Institute (branch) State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "RGTU": Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2006.

page 32
Kamyshev A.M. Local imitations of Chinese coins // Proceedings of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Social Sciences series. 2000. N 1.

Karaev O. History of the Karakhanid Khaganate (X-early XIII centuries). Frunze: Ilim, 1983.

Klassen H. Rannee gosudarstvo, ego alternativnosti i analogi: Sbornik statei [Early state, its alternatives and analogues: A collection of articles]. Ed. by L. E. Grinin, D. M. Bondarenko, N. N. Kradin, A.V. Korotaev. Volgograd: Uchitel Publ., 2006.

Klyashtorny S. G. the History of Central Asia and monuments runic letters. St. Petersburg: Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg.GU, 2003.

Klyashtorny S. G., Savinov D. G. Steppe Empires of ancient Eurasia. St. Petersburg: Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg.GU, 2005.

Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. On the Management of the Empire, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1991.

Korotaev A.V. Sotsial'naya evolyutsiya [Social Evolution], Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2003.
Korotaev A.V., Kradin N. N., Lynsha V. A. Alternatives to social evolution (introductory remarks) / / Alternative ways to civilization / Ed. by N. N. Kradin, A.V. Korotaev et al. Moscow: Logos, 2000.

Kochnev B. D. Numismatic history of the Karakhanid Khaganate (991-1209). Part I. Istochnikovedcheskoe issledovanie. M: OOO Izdatel'skiy dom "Sofia", 2006.

Kradin N. N. Nomadic societies. Vladivostok: Dalnauka Publ., 1992.

Kradin N. N., Korotaev A.V., Bondarenko D. M. and Lyn'sha V. A. Konchevniki, mir-imperii i sotsial'naya evolyutsiya [Nomads, world-empires and social evolution]. 2000(1).

Istoriya i arkheologiya Dalnogo Vostoka: k 70-letiyu E. V. Shavkunov [History and Archeology of the Far East: to the 70th anniversary of E. V. Shavkunov]. Vladivostok: DVGU Publishing House, 2000(2).

Kradin N. N. and Bondarenko D. M. Struktura vlasti v kochevykh imperiyakh [Structure of power in nomadic empires] / / Nomadic alternative to social evolution / Ed. by N. N. Kradin and D. M. Bondarenko.

Kradin N. N. Kompleksnye obshchestva nomadov v kross-kul'turnoi perspektivke [Complex societies of nomads in cross-cultural perspective]. Ulan-Ude: Publishing House of the Buryat Scientific Center SB RAS, 2004.

Kradin N. N. Nomads of Eurasia. Almaty: "Daik-Press" Publishing House, 2007.

Kumekov B. E. O drevnetyurkskikh gosudarstvennykh traditsiakh v Kimakskom kaganate i Kipchakskom khanstvo [On ancient Turkic state traditions in the Kimak Kaganate and Kipchak Khanate]. Social Sciences series. 2003. N 1.

Malov S.E. Pamyatniki drevnetyurkskoy pis'mosti [Monuments of Ancient Turkic writing], Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951.

Malyavkin A. G. Uyghur states in the IX-XII centuries. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1983.

Materials on the history of ancient nomadic peoples of the Donghu group / Introduction, translation and commentary by V. S. Taskin, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984.

Petrov K. I. Essays on the socio-economic history of Kyrgyzstan in the VI-early XIII centuries. Frunze: Ilim Publ., 1981.

Peaks of G. the problem of the influence of the Chinese law on the criminal law of the Khitans // North Asia and neighboring territories in the Middle Ages. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1992.

Pikov G. G. Khitan state Liao nomadic empire / / Nomadic alternative to social evolution / Ed. by N. N. Kradin and D. M. Bondarenko. Moscow: IA RAN-TSSIRI, 2002.

Pletneva S. A. Polovtsian land // Old Russian Principalities of the X-XIII centuries. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1975.

Khazanov A.M. Kochevniki i vneshnyj mir [Nomads and the external world]. 3rd ed. Almaty: Dyke-Press Publishing House, 2000.

Khazanov A.M. Kochevniki evraziyskikh steppei v istoricheskoi retrospektive [Nomads of the Eurasian steppes in historical retrospect]. Kochevaya alternativnaya sotsial'noi evolyutsii [Nomadic alternative to social evolution], ed. by N. N. Kradin and D. M. Bondarenko.

Barfield T. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1989.

Barfield T. The Nomadic Alternative // Englewood Cliffs. N.Y.: Prentice-Hall, 1993.

Barfield T. The Shadow Empires: Imperial State Formation along the Chinese-Nomad Frontier // Empires. Ed. by C. Sinopoli, T.D'Altroy, K. Morrision and S. Alcock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Claessen H.J.M. Structural Change: Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University, 2000.

Murdock G. and C. Provost. Measurement of Cultural Complexity // Ethnology. 1972. 12 (4).

© elib.tr

Permanent link to this publication:

https://elib.tr/m/articles/view/BASIC-MODELS-OF-POWER-ORGANIZATION-AMONG-THE-NOMADS-OF-CENTRAL-ASIA-IN-THE-EARLY-MIDDLE-AGES-IN-THE-LIGHT-OF-THE-THEORY-OF-MULTILINEARITY