Almaty: Daik-Press, 2007. 416 p.

The reviewed monograph includes a series of the most famous publications and reports at international conferences for 2000-2006 by the famous Russian researcher N. N. Kradin. The paper raises theoretical issues of nomadic studies (nomads in the light of modern historical concepts, the social system of nomads and its dynamics, the level of complexity of the political organization of nomads, etc.), pays attention to individual historiographical subjects (especially I will note essays about N. N. Kozmin and E. Gellner), and examines the features of nomadic empires on the example of a number of large nomadic polities, the methodology of paleosociological studies of archaeological sites of the Xiongnu in Transbaikalia is shown in detail, according to anthropological theories, the functioning of power under Genghis Khan and his descendants in the Mongol Empire is analyzed, and the results of an ethnological study of cattle breeding in the Agin steppes are given. The objects of specific historical research of N. N. Kradin are the Xiongnu, Zhuan-Zhuan, Khitan, Mongols and the Mongol Empire, modern Agin Buryats and many other nomadic societies. Thus, the chronological framework of the monograph covers more than two millennia.

As N. N. Kradin himself points out in the Preface, the appearance of this monograph is connected with the desire to generalize diverse research on the archeology, history and ethnology of nomads, as well as to revise his own views in comparison with the neo-Marxist concept reflected in his well-known work "Nomadic Societies"in the early 1990s. The researcher clarifies that he does not reject what is written in this book, but his new work summarizes the results of studying nomads in the 1990s and early 2000s through the prism of other historical paradigms. In this regard, it should be noted that N. N. Kradin is not limited to any particular methodology. This book best expresses the idea that he has repeatedly voiced in recent years: the history of nomads is an excellent testing ground for various modern concepts. Each of them, having certain advantages and disadvantages, opens up new aspects of nomad life. Thus, the combined use of theories gives a very diverse and ambiguous picture, reflecting the heterogeneity and complexity of the historical past. N. N. Kradin defends the strict and reasonable use of historical concepts, argumentation based on established facts, and the possibility of verifying the results obtained. For him, each historical concept is a certain set of concepts and techniques, i.e., the tools of a scientist.

Nor does N. N. Kradin seek to combine concepts mechanically into some kind of synthesis research program. On the contrary, throughout his entire work, he quite consistently tested the first Marxist theory based on the materials of the history of nomads.

page 171
At the turn of the 1990s - 2000s, he turned to world-system analysis. In recent years, N. N. Kradin has also been interested in other historical schools. In his monograph, he clearly showed that when studying any aspect of nomad life, a scientist has the right to choose the most appropriate research method, to combine different approaches. In the materials of the peer-reviewed publication, this attitude is particularly well traced on the example of studying the anthropology of Genghis Khan's power (Chapters 13, 14).

N. N. Kradin notes that the image of Genghis Khan's power in historiography was often viewed through the prism of a unipolar view. At the same time, either pragmatic (Marxist interpretations, personal cruelty and cunning, etc.) or metaphysical (genius abilities) assessments prevailed. According to the researcher, a more multifaceted picture of the organization of power in the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan is given by the anthropological direction. N. N. Kradin, in particular, points out the most important components of the power of the leaders and rulers of early states: "managerial and redistributive duties...", "control over productive resources", exchange and trade, handicraft production, as well as ideology, military functions, etc. (p. 264).

Comparing the power of nomads and sedentary peoples, N. N. Kradin noted that its economic basis for nomads, unlike farmers, is extremely weak. If" in an agricultural-urban society " the economic power of the authorities rested on "control and redistribution of the surplus product", then "the surplus product of nomadic farming (cattle) cannot be effectively concentrated and accumulated", since there was a threat of exceeding the resource capabilities of pastures, and therefore their depletion. In this regard, there was no regular taxation in nomadic formations, and the role of the nomadic ruler in the economy was small. Nomadic leaders could only compensate for the lack of resources from external sources, and therefore, in those nomadic polities whose leaders received more or less regular income from outside, a "stable power structure" emerged (pp. 264-265). All this determined the main functions of the rulers, primarily related to receiving tributes, "gifts", war booty and its distribution among nomads and the elite. The asymmetry of power between external and internal tasks led to the fact that within the nomadic empire, most decisions were made not at the level of the central "government", but by tribal and clan leaders. The khagan (khan) who was at the head of the empire was forced to coordinate his policies with them and win their loyalty through giveaways. Along with this, the ruler possessed sacredness, magical properties and served as an intermediary between the nomads and the divine world. However, N. N. Kradin emphasizes that the significance of the religious and ideological factor in the steppe cannot be overestimated: "the ruler of a nomadic empire could not only be a "Son of God", looking from afar at the subjects swarming at his feet", he "had to have real talents as a military leader or organizer... to lead the nomads to success on the battlefield and then provide their supporters with the riches of settled peoples " (p. 269).

As applied to the history of the rise of Genghis Khan and the emergence of a vast Mongolian polity, these conclusions of N. N. Kradin made it possible to review the factors and mechanisms of power formation in the Mongol Empire, assess its character during the reign of Genghis Khan, and identify ways of statehood formation. Critically assessing the opinion of supporters of the Mongol state in the early 13th century, the author pointed out two main reasons for this aberration. First, the illusion of state organization among the Mongols at the beginning of the 13th century was created by Chinese chronicles, in which the "world of steppe nomads" was interpreted in terms of "bureaucratic society" (Mongolian officials, titles, taxes, etc.). Second, the assessment of the management system of the Mongol Empire largely depends on the understanding of the term "state". In particular, N. N. Kradin gives an example of its interpretation in political science as a combination of four characteristics: territory, population, government, and sovereignty. Based on this, the state should be considered not only the Mongol Empire of the beginning of the XIII century, but also many less complex communities from the point of view of organizing power.

The author calls for using the proven vocabulary of political anthropology, which creates a conceptual "grid" that is adequate to historical realities and defines the basic models of pre-state and state societies. With regard to the power structures of the Mongol Empire, N. N. Kradin conducted a study in two directions.

page 172
Describing statehood within the framework of the first of them, he proceeded from the functional activity of persons engaged in management. In his opinion, only the presence of " special functionaries performing their duties... in any one area of government", can serve as a "universal criterion of a state society". In the context of this approach, he analyzed the composition and functions of representatives of Genghis Khan's entourage, showing the extremely small number of "managers" and their frequent lack of strict specialization, which allowed him to conclude that the Mongols did not have statehood under Genghis Khan.

The second area of research on the political structures of the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan was related to the concept of the "early state". N. N. Kradin showed that some features of the early state are quite clearly manifested in the administrative practice of the Mongol Empire as early as 1206 (extra-clan administration, judges). However, he believes that under Genghis Khan there was no codified legal code (the Great Yasa is not one), regular payments to "functionaries", taxes and civil administration. Thus, a more comprehensive study than in the first direction also showed the absence of most of the institutions of even early statehood under Genghis Khan. Therefore, the researcher proposed to define the Mongol Empire of the beginning of the XIII century as a super-complex chiefdom and identified several factors that ensured its transition to the state in the middle of the XIII century.

The monograph provides an opportunity to see the application of complex analysis at several levels. The first of them is the study of specific material. Thus, when reconstructing the social organization of the Xiongnu of Transbaikalia on the basis of archaeological data, the scientist widely uses not only the already familiar methods of "social archeology", but also statistical and combinatorial methods. Based on the experience of his predecessors (G. A. Fedorov-Davydov, A. O. Dobrolyubsky, E. P. Bunyatyan, V. F. Gening, etc.), N. N. Kradin developed a clear and optimal procedure for statistical processing of archaeological data in relation to the analyzed material. This research program was implemented by him based on the materials of the Ivolginsky burial ground and Ivolginsky hillfort (Chapter 11). All the "socially" significant signs (their number exceeds 130, and taking into account the variants - 250) of the 216 analyzed burials of the Ivolga necropolis were combined by the author into several aggregates: 1) grave structures; 2) burial structures; 3) remains of the buried; 4) accompanying equipment; 5) sacrificial food. I think it is very significant that the scientist did not limit himself to familiarizing readers only with the results of research, but practically showed the entire "kitchen" of statistical processing of artifacts, accompanying the corresponding chapter with tables on factor analysis and dendrograms on cluster analysis. This allows you to evaluate the procedure and the results of the study "from the inside".

Based on the results of the analysis of ground burials of the Ivolginsky burial ground, it was possible to establish "a similar distribution by types of burial structures" for male and female burials (the presence of burials in a pit and the predominance of burials in a log cabin), while children's burials were mainly carried out in simple pits. At the same time, the average length and width of male graves exceeded the average length and width of female graves. To clarify the gender and age differences of the buried, the author used matrices of correlation coefficients of signs of accompanying inventory for male, female and children's burials. The conclusion about "specific nuances for each of the sex and age groups" allowed N. N. Kradin to "in some cases quite accurately determine the sex and partly the age group of those buried" (p. 226). This became the basis for including in the male, female and children's massifs burials with indeterminate sex and age of the buried, but corresponding in a number of features to a certain sex and age group of burials.

A more detailed picture of the differentiation of the population of Transbaikalia during the Xiongnu era was obtained based on the results of cluster analysis (such indicators as intra-grave structures, accompanying equipment, and sacrificial food were crucial) using the factor method. At the Ivolginsky burial ground, two "sharply different social groups of the male population" were identified. The first small group - burials with poor inventory (persons with "low social and economic status", "exploited layer"). The second group was distinguished by a more diverse inventory, including the presence of weapons, and, according to the researcher, in accordance with the presence of certain categories of inventory (weapons; weapons and belts; weapons, belts, harnesses) could be conditionally divided into three stratified subgroups. Among the women's graves, five were identified

page 173
conditional groups: non-essential; only with ceramics; with ceramics and individual items of inventory; with inventory that includes a belt, coins, jewelry, mass inventory with an abundant and diverse funeral feast. Four statistical groups were identified among children's burials. Cluster analysis was also used to identify stratification based on the study of housing structures of the Ivolginsky settlement. This additional procedure allowed us to record five main groups of dwellings that differed in size and inventory found. The author identifies several levels of social differentiation: from the lowest social groups to the well-off inhabitants of the settlement, whose burials were accompanied by a variety of accompanying equipment, weapons, and plentiful funeral food. Between these extreme social strata, the researcher identifies several "layers" (in male burials - up to three, in female burials - from two to four, in children's burials - one).

All this, according to the scientist, indicates a complex social structure of the population of the settlement. The presence of multilevel social differentiation is also confirmed by the results of studying housing complexes. In the interpretation of N. N. Kradin, those buried in the Ivolginsky burial ground were representatives of the settled-agricultural part of the Xiongnu society. Their status was lower than that of nomads, but these people " played... an important role in the economic structure of the steppe empire" (p. 238). If we talk about the comments, it should be noted that no attempt was made to identify the internal differentiation of male and female burials by age. It is not necessary to prove that age barriers in traditional societies were also fixed in the adult population. Undoubtedly, the statistical analysis of the materials of the Ivolginsky settlement and the neighboring necropolis could be supplemented by studying the social planigraphy of these two monuments. In this regard, it can be noted that the researcher did not fully use the potential of the methods used by him, which leaves the possibility of further studying the problem of the social organization of the Xiongnu of Transbaikalia according to archeology.

A higher level of comprehensive research by N. N. Kradin can be traced primarily in the historical sections of the monograph. They are characterized not only by a systematic view of the object of research (as a rule, they cover the main subsystems-economy, society, power, mentality, etc.), but also by a wide use of the achievements of various sciences in the spirit of interdisciplinary synthesis. This approach is most clearly reflected in the study of the Xiongnu state in this monograph. The author first of all shows the specifics of the socio-political development of nomads in relation to the classical one - line neo - evolutionist scheme (local group - community-tribe-chiefdom-early state). According to the scientist, not all of these forms were characteristic of nomadic pastoralists. Therefore, he proposed a typology of nomadic associations that is more adapted to nomadic realities: 1) akephalic segmental clan and tribal polities; 2) "secondary" tribe and chiefdom; 3) nomadic empires and "quasi-imperial" pastoral polities of smaller sizes. He also noted the alternation of integration and disintegration processes among nomads. This is explained not only by the grassroots locality of nomadic groups determined by the ecological conditions of the arid steppes, but also by the extreme instability of large nomadic formations, which much more often followed the path of its disintegration and replacement by new associations of nomads rather than complicating the management system. According to N. N. Kradin, the nomads had "a considerable number of intermediate forms between the chiefdom and the state." One of these "intermediate" forms, he considers nomadic empires, the assessment of which is very controversial in historiography. The corresponding chapter (7) of the monograph is aimed at clarifying the nature of the political organization of nomadic empires on the example of the Xiongnu state.

Considering the prerequisites for the formation of the Xiongnu Empire, the researcher noted that " the leading internal prerequisites of politogenesis (ecology, economic system, demographic optimum)" the nomads, in contrast to settled agricultural societies, "did not contribute to the formation of statehood." He points out that "the centralized organization of power among nomads arose solely for solving external problems" (p. 117). Therefore, his next position is conceptually logical - a strong correlation between the object of nomad expansion and the size of nomadic society itself. It was the Central Asian nomads, who were adjacent to the Chinese agricultural civilization, who were forced to adapt to it in the form of nomadic empires, by which N. N. Kradin understands "a complex society organized on a military-hierarchical basis, occupying a relatively large territory".

page 174
space and receiving the necessary non-livestock resources, as a rule, through external exploitation... " (p. 118). Developing this definition, the researcher identifies the following features of nomadic empires:: 1) the multi-stage hierarchical nature of the social organization, permeated at all levels by tribal and supra-tribal genealogical connections; 2) the dual (wings) or triad (wings and center) principle of administrative division of the empire; 3) the military-hierarchical nature of the public organization of the "metropolis", most often according to the "decimal" principle; 4) the yamskaya service 5) a specific system of inheritance of power (the empire is the property of the entire khan family, the institution of co-government, the Kurultai); 6) the special nature of relations with the agricultural world (pp. 118 - 119).

N. N. Kradin implies the most complex model of a nomadic empire, so not all the features indicated by him are universal. For example, the Yamal service is unknown in many nomadic empires (Xianbi, Ruan-Ruan, Turks, etc.). Such a sign as "military-hierarchical nature of the social organization of the metropolis"does not have an unambiguous assessment. Did the "military-hierarchical" organization imply a rigid social division? Did such a "military-hierarchical organization" exist in most empires permanently or only during periods of military tension? Was the stavka limited to a permanent "military-hierarchical organization" in most empires, or did it cover all steppe territories? Undoubtedly, the last sign of the special nature of relations between nomads and the agricultural world should be spelled out more clearly and precisely, especially since N. N. Kradin himself considers the main goal of centralizing empires to obtain their resources from farmers. Therefore, in the context of his ideas, this feature should occupy a central place in the characterization of nomadic empires. Even more vague is the term " multi-stage hierarchical character of social organization, permeated at all levels by tribal and supra-tribal genealogical connections."

Questions also arise: how multilevel was this hierarchy? were the levels of the hierarchy classes or certain strata? did this hierarchy mean a dependent or non-free status for the most low-prestige clan-tribal groups? did the lower-ranking tribes have access to the spoils of war? etc. Some of the features identified by the researcher were absent in a number of large nomad associations or did not have a permanent character. The First Turkic Khaganate during the period of conquest (550 - 570s), the Xiongnu state during the period of stagnation and division, the Ruan-Ruan Khaganate, and the Kimak Khaganate are far from being characterized by scholars of the nomadic empire. Most of these features are missing from such centralist nomad associations as Attila's Hunnic empire and the Avar Khaganate. At the same time, their imperial status is also debatable. Obviously, the characteristics of nomadic empires require special discussion, refinement, and refinement.

Using the example of the Xiongnu Empire, N. N. Kradin significantly details the picture of the genesis, flourishing and political transformation of the nomadic empire. The main reason for the unification of the Xiongnu into an "empire" at the turn of the III-II centuries BC, he calls the creation of a single centralized Chinese state of the Qin Empire (then Han), its aggression in the Ordos inhabited by the Huns (p. 119-120) and points out the subjective factor - the founder of the empire needed to have luck, organizational talent, political flair, i.e. bright individual abilities. Only such a leader was able to rally nomads to raid China for loot and ransom, and create an image of a constant threat to farmers so that the nomads received regular gifts. According to the researcher, shanyu (kagan, khan) should have been an outstanding warrior, have authority in the paramilitary environment of the nomads. It is no coincidence that N. N. Kradin considers a well-established military system to be "the basis of the Xiongnu's dominance in Central Asia". He also clarifies one more characteristic: during the periods of power, the Xiongnu state was not only a typical nomadic empire, but also used the tribute levied on the peoples of the "Western Region" and Sayano-Altai as an instrument of exploitation.

The relationship between the Xiongnu and China is considered by N. N. Kradin through the prism of the world-system approach, which led to a rather unambiguous interpretation of the interaction of the world-empire (China) and pastoral society (the Xiongnu Empire). They are based on various ways for the pastoral empire to obtain Chinese resources, which played a key role in" cementing " the nomadic empire and maintaining the authority of the steppe ruler. The "prestige economy" (the distribution of gifts to fellow tribesmen and tribal leaders) ensured both the loyalty of tribal leaders and the support of the ordinary population. In the military field, such instruments of power were used that are within this narrow sphere of government.-

page 175
We have discussed the possibility of making and implementing individual decisions (mobilization of soldiers, unquestioning subordination of subordinates, the right to severe punishments justified by military conditions for any misdemeanors, demonstrative executions of entire units for desertion and violation of military norms, etc.). In my opinion, other functions of the shanyu are not sufficiently disclosed - cult, judicial. All this suggests the need for a more balanced assessment of the role of nomadic leaders.

In general, N. N. Kradin characterizes the Xiongnu state as a super-complex chiefdom, but much closer to the early state than to a complex chiefdom, arguing his point of view by indicating the area and population size that are larger than the corresponding indicators of simple and complex chiefdoms. He drew attention to the beginnings of urban construction and office management in the Xiongnu. Apparently, it is necessary to recognize the dual character of the Xiongnu Empire (some super-complex chiefdom structures may have developed to early state forms). But it is necessary to make a number of important adjustments that will create a more objective picture of the characteristics of nomadic empires.

First, it is not necessary to limit the role of management institutions only to the organization of external expansion and exploitation. Thus, we are also seeing internal integration on a religious-religious, military, and customary-legal basis. Their importance in traditional societies is always very significant. The trial and punishment of military and "political" crimes, for example, becomes one of the privileges of the shanyu and the "central apparatus". A special topic is the perception of nomadic leaders, around which the nomads unite.

Second, the Xiongnu Empire had a complex hierarchy of tribes and clans, many of which owed tribute and military service to the elite. It is difficult to imagine that the numerous campaigns of the Xiongnu to the north, east and west against the indigenous population of Transbaikalia, Southern Siberia, East Turkestan, Dzungaria and Semirechye ended with the peaceful establishment of the submission of the population of these territories to the Xiongnu without any obligations to the latter. These relations of dominance and subordination could, by the way, be completely ignored in Chinese sources.

Third, the structures of the empire were cemented by a rigid military system designed to also ensure tribal and lineage loyalty to the supreme government. Suffice it to recall that the Second Turkic and Uyghur Khaganates spent most of their existence fighting not with China (peaceful and even allied relations were more often maintained in this direction), but with subordinate tribes that regularly raised uprisings (Turgesh, Kyrgyz, Karluks, etc.), whose actions were stopped only by military defeats.

All this shows the rather complex and ambiguous nature of political institutions in nomadic empires and does not exclude the fact that along with the structures of the imperial chiefdom, some elements of early statehood were also developed.

The next level of complex analysis involves applying different methodological approaches, as discussed above. Continuing this topic, I would like to add that in recent publications (the reviewed monograph is no exception) N. N. Kradin addresses such areas as the world-systemic and cross-cultural approaches, multilinear theories, everyday history, comparative analysis of civilizations, etc. The author's experience with cross-cultural technologies is interesting (Chapter 4). The strategic task of this study was to compare different nomadic societies based on formalized cross-cultural criteria. These criteria for the complexity of social systems were developed by J. Murdoch and K. Provost (Murdock G. and C. Provost. Measurement of Cultural Complexity // Ethnology. 1972. 12 (4). P. 379-392). These authors collected information on 186 societies from all regions of the world and typologized them based on a range of indicators of cultural complexity - writing, settlement, agriculture, urbanisation, etc.Each variable was rated on a five-point scale from 0 to 4. The compiled database revealed a significant gap in these criteria between different societies and civilizations. Based on these developments, N. N. Kradin compared eight nomadic empires (the Xiongnu, Xianbi, Zhuzhani, Turks, Uyghurs, Liao, Mongols in 1206, and the Golden Horde). The Liao (35 points), the Golden Horde (25 points), and the Uyghur Khaganate (20 points) were particularly distinguished by their total scores. Other nomadic empires "scored" from 17 to 19 points (p. 72, Table 2).

Let me clarify that this program did not take into account specific historical cross-sections, but "evaluated" nomadic societies for the entire period of their existence. In this regard, many of the assessments are

page 176
rather conditional in nature. For example, indicators of the degree of settlement or the level of urbanization can be significantly refined if we take into account that during the rise of the Xiongnu state, the First Turkic Khaganate, the Western Turkic Khaganate and other associations, they included significant territories with a settled population and cities. Moreover, the Uyghur Khaganate had a network of military fortresses and trading cities, so it is not entirely correct to estimate the level of Uyghur urbanization by "O". Nevertheless, the overall picture of historical development, expressed in points, seems to be quite adequate to historical data and shows significant differences between nomadic associations.

The results obtained forced N. N. Kradin to return to the problem of typology of nomadic societies. According to the scientist, we can talk about several levels of cultural complexity: 1) segmental akephal societies of pastoralists (less than 10 points); 2) secondary tribal formations (10-13 points); 3) chiefdoms and nomadic empires (from 13 to 22 points); 4) nomadic empires of the" tributary "and" conquering " types with different sectors of the settled-urban economy (from 25 up to 35 points). These conclusions can be considered as one of the main results of cross-cultural comparative studies.

Among other subjects of the reviewed monograph, I will focus on the problems of ethnology of the Agin Buryats (Chapters 16, 17, 18), which are of great practical importance. These sections are prepared on the basis of a thorough study of statistical data, research by Russian historians, ethnographers, geographers, and government officials. But the main thing is the result of N. N. Kradin's field research in the Agin steppe for several seasons, which allowed the author to compare his observations with data from the XIX-XX centuries. He was able to identify a number of significant changes in the society of the Agin Buryats at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. In particular, the "crisis" years of the 1990s led to a reduction in the number of livestock by 3-4 times, not only due to the difficult socio-economic situation of the era of "democratic reforms", but also due to an oversupply of sheep (the number of livestock exceeded the resource capacity of pastures of the Agin steppe) and the crisis of the ecosystem. The grazing system itself has changed significantly during the 20th century and cannot be called fully nomadic. As N. N. Kradin shows, small migration routes prevailed among the Agin Buryats, and in winter cattle were kept in pens, etc. The researcher was able to record the revival of traditional patronage-client relations in the Agin steppes in the 1990s. The scientist states that by the beginning of the 2000s, the further decline in the livestock population had stopped, but the growth of the traditional cattle-breeding economy was not observed.

Summing up, I would like to emphasize that the reviewed work is undoubtedly a major contribution to the development of problems of nomad history. I would especially like to highlight N. N. Kradin's consistent testing of various modern methodological concepts for the history of nomads, the complex nature of research, and their scale. All this allows us to speak about the great importance of this publication for modern nomad scholars, which clearly demonstrates the transformation of methods and approaches to reconstructing the historical past of nomads in Russian historiography.

Permanent link to this publication: