Life of nomadic peoples. Who are nomads? Non-pastoral nomadism

Our ancient ancestors, the Turks, were mobile, i.e. nomadic, a way of life, moving from one place of residence to another. That's why they were called nomads. Ancient written sources and historical works describing the way of life of nomads have been preserved. In some works they are called brave, courageous, united nomadic cattle breeders, brave warriors, while in others, on the contrary, they are presented as savages, barbarians, invaders of other peoples.

Why did the Turks lead a nomadic lifestyle? As mentioned above, the basis of their economy was cattle breeding. They mainly bred horses, kept large and small cattle, and camels. The animals were fed all year round. People were forced to move to a new place when old pastures were depleted. Thus, two or three times a year the camp sites changed.

To lead such a lifestyle required large spaces. Therefore, the Turks developed more and more new lands. The nomadic way of life was a unique way of protecting nature. If cattle were always in the same place, the steppe meadows would soon be completely destroyed. For the same reason, it was difficult to farm in the steppe; the thin fertile layer was quickly destroyed. As a result of the migrations, the soil did not have time to deplete, but on the contrary, by the time the meadows returned again, thick grass would again cover them.

Nomad Yurt

We all know very well that people did not always live, as we do now, in large stone apartment buildings with all the amenities. The Turks, leading a nomadic lifestyle, lived in yurts. There was little wood in the steppe, but there was an abundance of cattle, which provided wool. It is not surprising that the walls of the yurt were made of felt (compressed wool) covered with a wooden lattice frame. Two or three people could very quickly, in just an hour, assemble or disassemble a yurt. The disassembled yurt could easily be transported on horses or camels.

The location and internal structure of the yurt were strictly determined by tradition. The yurt was always installed in a flat, open, sunny place. It served the Turks not only as a home, but also as a kind of sundial. For this purpose, the dwellings of the ancient Turks were oriented with the door to the east. With this arrangement, the doors also served as an additional source of light. The fact is that there were no windows in the yurts and on warm days the doors of the dwelling stood open.

Interior decoration of a nomadic yurt

The interior space of the yurt was conventionally divided into two parts. Usually the side to the left of the entrance was considered masculine. The owner's belongings, his weapons and tools, and horse harness were kept here. The opposite side was considered female; dishes and other household utensils, women's and children's things were stored there. This division was also observed during feasts. In some yurts, special curtains were used to separate the female part from the male part.

In the very center of the yurt there was a fireplace. In the center of the vault, directly above the hearth, there was a smoke hole (dimnik), which was the only “window” of the nomadic dwelling. The walls of the yurt were decorated with felt and woolen carpets and multi-colored fabrics. Rich and prosperous families hung silk fabrics. The floor was earthen, so it was covered with felt bedding and animal skins.

The part of the yurt opposite the entrance was considered the most honorable. Family heirlooms were displayed there; old people and especially honored guests were invited to this part. The hosts usually sat with their legs crossed, and the guests were offered small stools or seated directly on the floor, on laid skins or felt mats. Yurts could also have low tables.

Rules of conduct in a yurt

The ancient Turks had their own customs and traditions related to the rules of behavior in the yurt, and everyone in the family tried to observe them. Violating them was considered bad manners, a sign of bad manners, and sometimes could even offend the owners. For example, at the entrance it was forbidden to step on the threshold or sit on it. A guest who deliberately stepped on the threshold was considered an enemy, announcing his evil intentions to the owner. The Turks tried to instill in their children a respectful attitude towards the fire of the hearth. It was forbidden to pour water, much less spit on the fire; it was forbidden to stick a knife into the fireplace, touch the fire with a knife or a sharp object, or throw garbage or rags into it. This was believed to offend the spirit of the home. It was forbidden to transfer the fire of the hearth to another yurt. It was believed that then happiness could leave the house.

Transition to a settled life

Over time, when the ancient Turks began to engage in other types of economic activities in addition to cattle breeding, their living conditions also changed. Many of them begin to lead a sedentary lifestyle. Now yurts alone were not enough for them. Other types of housing are also appearing, more consistent with a sedentary lifestyle. Using reeds or wood, they begin to build dugouts, one meter deep into the ground.

Steps made of stone or wood led into the house. If the doorway was small, then it was closed with a wooden door. Wide openings were covered with animal skins or felt blankets. The hut had bunks and beds, traditionally located along the front of the hut. The floors were earthen. They laid matting woven from bast on them. Felt mats were placed on top of the matting. Shelves were used to store dishes and other household utensils. The dugouts were illuminated by fat and oil lamps made of clay. As a rule, there was no heating in the dugouts; very rarely traces of a fireplace are found in them. Perhaps their inhabitants warmed themselves in winter with the heat of braziers.

Such a home required constant cleaning and ventilation to protect it from dampness, dust and soot. Our ancestors sought to keep not only their homes clean, but also the area surrounding the house. In Bulgar, archaeologists found small streets covered with wooden flooring.

The first wooden houses of nomads

Gradually, houses begin to be built from oak or pine logs in the form of a log house. As a rule, people of the same profession settled in the same neighborhood; craftsmen lived near their workshops. This is how settlements of potters, tanners, blacksmiths, etc. arose. The Bulgars, who were engaged in agriculture, had cellars (grain pits lined with boards) and hand mills in almost every household. They baked their own bread and other flour products. Archaeologists find at excavations of Bulgarian villages traces of semicircular ovens in which food was prepared and used to heat the home.

The tradition of dividing a home into two parts, common among nomadic peoples, was preserved at this time. The main part of the house was occupied by the front part of the house with a “tur yak” stove. The basis of the furnishings were bunks (a wide plank platform) located along the front wall. At night they slept on them, during the day, after removing the bedding, they set the table on them. Featherbeds, large pillows and quilts were stacked on one side of the bunks against the side wall. If there was a table, it was usually placed against the side wall near the window or in the partition between the windows. At this time, tables, as a rule, were used only for storing clean dishes.

Chests were used to store festive clothes and decorations. They were placed near the stove. Guests of honor were usually seated on these chests. Behind the stove was the women's half, where there were also couches. Food was prepared here during the day, and women and children slept here at night. Outsiders were prohibited from entering this part of the house. Of the men, only the husband and father-in-law, as well as, in special cases, mullahs and doctors could enter here.

Dishes. The ancient Turks used mainly wooden or clay utensils, and in more prosperous families - metal ones. Most families made clay and wooden dishes with their own hands. But gradually, with the development of crafts, craftsmen appeared who made dishes for sale. They were found both in large cities and in villages. Pottery was originally made by hand, but then the potter's wheel began to be used. The craftsmen used local raw materials - clean, well-mixed clay. Jugs, kumgans, piggy banks, dishes and even water pipes were made from clay. The dishes fired in special ovens were decorated with embossed ornaments and painted with bright colors.

Palaces of the Khans

When the Turks led a semi-nomadic lifestyle, the khan had two dwellings. Winter palace made of stone and summer yurt. Of course, the Khan's palace was distinguished by its large size and interior decoration. It had many rooms and a throne room.

In the front corner of the throne room was a luxurious royal throne, covered with expensive overseas fabrics. The left side of the royal throne was considered honorable, so during the ceremonies the khan's wife and most dear guests sat on the left hand of the khan. On the right hand of the khan were the leaders of the tribes. Guests entering the throne room, as a sign of respect, had to remove their hats and kneel, thus greeting the ruler.
During feasts, the ruler himself had to taste the dishes first, and then treat his guests in turn. He personally distributed a piece of meat to each of the guests, according to seniority.

Only after this could the feast begin. The festive feasts of the Bulgarian nobility lasted a long time. Here they read poems, competed in eloquence, sang, danced and played various musical instruments. Thus, the Turks knew how to adapt to a wide variety of living conditions. With the change in habitat, the way of life and even the types of housing changed. The love of work and loyalty to the customs and traditions of their ancestors remained unchanged.

• Markov G.E. Cattle farming and nomadism.
  Definitions and terminology (SE 1981, No. 4);
• Semenov Yu.I. Nomadism and some general problems of the theory of economy and society. (SE 1982, No. 2);
• Simakov G.N. On the principles of typology of cattle breeding among the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. (SE 1982, No. 4);
• Andrianov B.V. Some notes on the definitions and terminology of livestock farming. (SE 1982, No. 4);
• Markov G.E. Problems of definitions and terminology of pastoralism and nomadism (answer to opponents). (SE 1982, No. 4) .

The literature has repeatedly noted the need to clarify and unify ethnographic concepts, and in some cases, introduce new terminology. The systematics and classification of many phenomena in ethnography and the history of primitive society have not been sufficiently developed. Solving these problems is an urgent task for our science.

As for the terminology of cattle breeding and nomadism, here the situation is especially unfavorable. Suffice it to say that there is no generally accepted classification of types and types of cattle breeding and corresponding definitions. The same types and forms of economic and social life of pastoralists are understood and designated differently. Most of the terms are interpreted differently by the authors, and one term denotes different phenomena.

Attempts have already been made to streamline the taxonomy of some phenomena associated with livestock breeding and terminology, but a significant part of the problems remained unresolved.

First of all, it is necessary to agree on what is meant by cattle breeding and animal husbandry. In the specialized and reference literature there is no uniform definition of these types of economic activities. Thus, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia states that livestock farming is “a branch of agriculture engaged in the breeding of farm animals for the production of livestock products.” Cattle breeding is defined there as “a branch of livestock raising for the production of milk, beef and hides.”

In historical and ethnographic literature, cattle breeding is not usually reduced to cattle breeding as a branch of animal husbandry, but is understood as an independent form

Economic activities underlying certain economic and cultural types.

Following this tradition, it is necessary to establish the relationship between animal husbandry and cattle breeding and economic and cultural classification.

It appears that the term “livestock husbandry” covers forms of animal husbandry, including the breeding of large and small ruminants and transport animals (cattle breeding), reindeer husbandry and fur farming. As a result, there are many economic and cultural types based on livestock farming.

The situation is more complicated with the definition of the concept of “cattle breeding” due to the variety of forms of cattle breeding. Many of them have not been sufficiently studied, and their study continues. In addition, individual types of pastoralism differ greatly from each other, and depending on this, fundamental differences in social structures are observed.

Apparently, cattle breeding should be called a type of economic activity based mainly on more or less extensive breeding of animals and either completely determining the nature of the economic and cultural type, or constituting one of its most important features.

In general, cattle breeding can be considered as a form of farming. But according to whether cattle breeding is the basis or only one of the most important features of the economic-cultural type, and also depending on the method of farming and the social structure of a particular society of pastoralists, it can be divided into two types, which have fundamental differences among themselves. One of them is “nomadic cattle breeding”, or “nomadism”, the other, in which cattle breeding is only one of the more or less important sectors of the economy, can be called the previously proposed term “mobile cattle breeding”.

Nomadic pastoralism

It should immediately be emphasized that this concept presupposes not only an economic, but also a social characteristic of society.

The economic basis of nomadic cattle breeding (nomadism) is formed by extensive pastoralism, in which animal breeding is the main occupation of the population and provides the bulk of the means of subsistence.

The literature usually indicates that, depending on natural conditions, the political situation and a number of other circumstances, nomadic cattle breeding can exist in two forms: strictly nomadic and semi-nomadic. But there are no fundamental differences between these types of economy, and on their basis the same socio-economic relations, social and tribal structures are formed. There are no universal signs by which one can distinguish between a truly nomadic (“pure” nomads) and a semi-nomadic economy in all areas of the spread of nomadism. The differences between them are relative and are revealed only in each individual, territorially limited region. Thus, “semi-nomadic economy” represents only one of the subtypes of nomadism.

In the most general form, we can say that with nomadic cattle breeding proper, pasture farming is carried out in a mobile form, and the amplitude of nomadism is significant for the given conditions. Primitive hoe farming is either absent altogether, which occurs, however, in exceptional cases, or plays a relatively small role in the general economic complex. However, animal breeding was never the only occupation of nomads, and depending on historical conditions, the natural environment and the political situation, livelihoods were also provided by hunting, military fishing, escorting caravans, and trade.

As an example of “pure” nomads who were not involved in agriculture in the past, one can name the Bedouin camel breeders of Central Arabia and some groups of Kazakhs. The overwhelming majority of nomads were engaged in primitive hoe farming to some extent.

The semi-nomadic subtype of the nomadic economy is also based on extensive pastoralism and, as already mentioned, in principle differs little from the nomadic one. His mobility is somewhat less. Various auxiliary activities, primarily agriculture, occupy a larger place in the economy.

The amplitude of nomadism cannot be considered as a decisive feature when classifying a particular type of cattle breeding as a nomadic or semi-nomadic subtype. The range of migrations is a relative phenomenon; it does not represent a universal criterion and is specific to certain natural conditions and political situations.

To the same extent, the distribution of agriculture among nomads and semi-nomads varied in different areas and in different eras. Some differences can be found between nomads and semi-nomads in the types and breeds of their livestock. Nomads usually have more transport animals than semi-nomads. In the deserts of the south, camel breeding is of particular importance for nomads; in the north, horse breeding is of particular importance, as a consequence of the tebeneva (winter, snow-covered) grazing system. In modern times, horse breeding has acquired commercial significance.

Among the semi-nomads and nomads of the steppes, breeding is widespread mainly of small cattle, as well as transport animals.

Opinions have been expressed that an essential feature in determining the type of nomadic economy among steppe nomads is the presence or absence of winter roads with long-term buildings. However, there are so many local variations that this feature cannot be considered a universal criterion.

Certain differences exist in the economics (degree of marketability, profitability, etc.) of nomadic and semi-nomadic economies, but this issue has not been sufficiently studied.

Finally, there are statements that a semi-nomadic economy is only a transitional stage from nomadism to sedentism. In such a generalized form, this point of view contradicts the facts. The semi-nomadic economy existed in certain conditions along with the nomadic economy throughout the entire history of nomadism, i.e., about 3 thousand years. There are many examples when nomads, bypassing the stage of semi-nomadism, directly transitioned to sedentary life, such as, for example, part of the Kazakhs and Bedouins in the first two decades of our century. And only in certain areas, with the intensive decomposition of nomadism from the end of the 19th century. The transition of nomads first to a semi-nomadic, and then to a semi-sedentary and settled way of life was observed as a particular phenomenon.

From the above it is clear that the nomadic and semi-nomadic subtypes of pastoral nomadic economy form the basis of one economic and cultural type of nomadic pastoralists.

It must be emphasized that many features of a nomadic and especially semi-nomadic economy are characteristic not only of nomadism, but also of other types of cattle breeding. It follows from this that it is quite difficult to distinguish nomadic cattle breeding as an independent economic and cultural type, as well as, in the words of K. Marx, a method of production only by the type of economic activity. Nomadism is a significant historical phenomenon, the essence of which is not about. hundred in the way of farming, and above all in the presence of a specific set of socio-economic relations, tribal social organization, political structure.

As already noted, the main way to obtain the goods of life in nomadic conditions is extensive grazing with seasonal migrations. The nomadic lifestyle was characterized by alternating wars and periods of relative calm. Nomadism developed during the next major division of labor. On the extensive economic basis, a unique social structure, public organization, and institutions of power arose.

Due to the importance of the problem, it is necessary to clarify what is meant here by the “extensiveness” of the economy and the uniqueness of the social organization.

Extensiveness characterizes the economy of societies that obtain their means of subsistence through an appropriative or primitive producing economy. Thus, the economy of hunters, fishermen and gatherers develops only in breadth and quantity. Qualitative changes follow only as a result of a change in the economic basis - with the transition to agriculture and other sectors of the intensive economy. The same applies to social relations. The quantitative changes occurring in them do not lead in societies with an appropriating economy to the formation of developed class relations and the state.

Unlike hunting, fishing, and gathering, nomadic cattle breeding is a branch of the producing economy. However, due to the specifics of economic activity, it is also extensive. For natural reasons, the number of livestock can increase only to a limited extent, and due to various types of disasters it often decreases. There is no significant improvement in the species and breed composition of herds - this is impossible in the harsh conditions of a nomadic economy. Production technology and improvement of labor tools are developing extremely slowly. The nomad's relationship to the land is extensive. " Assigned And reproduced there is actually only a herd here, and not land, which, however, is temporarily used at each campsite together» .

As nomadic cattle breeding emerged as an independent economic and cultural type, new forms of economy and material culture appeared. New breeds of livestock were developed, adapted to the difficult conditions of nomadic life, and vast areas of pasture were developed. New types of weapons and clothing, vehicles (horse riding equipment, carts - “homes on wheels”) and much more, including collapsible nomadic dwellings, were improved or invented. These innovations were no small achievements. However, the emergence of nomadic cattle breeding did not mean significant progress in the economy in comparison with the level of complex economy of the Mountain-Steppe Bronze tribes that preceded the nomads. It was rather the opposite. Over time, the nomads lost metallurgy, pottery and many home industries. The volume of agriculture has decreased. The consequences of these phenomena were a limitation of the division of labor, increased extensiveness of the economy, and its stagnation.

It was noted above that the definition of nomadic cattle breeding as a specific socio-economic phenomenon is based not only on the nature of economic activity, but to an even greater extent on the characteristics of the social structure and tribal social organization.

Primitive relations decomposed among the nomads already in the course of their separation from other barbarians, and societies differentiated in property and social relations were formed. Developed class relations among the nomads could not develop, since their emergence was inevitably associated with the transition to intensive occupations, sedentism, that is, with the collapse of nomadic society.

The extensiveness of the economy led to stagnation of social relations. At the same time, at all stages of history, nomads were in diverse, more or less close contacts with sedentary peoples, which affected the forms of social and political structure.

With all the diversity of relationships between nomads and sedentary farmers, they can be reduced to four main types: a) intensive, multifaceted relationships with sedentary neighbors; b) the relative isolation of nomads, in which their connections with settled farmers were sporadic; c) subjugation of agricultural peoples by nomads; d) subjugation of nomads by agricultural peoples.

In all four types of relationships, the social organization of nomads turned out to be quite stable if the pastoralists fell into the sphere of influence or relationship with a society that had not reached the capitalist level of development.

The situation was different when nomads were influenced by societies with developed capitalist relations. At that time, property and social stratification increased significantly, which led to the formation of developed class relations and the disintegration of nomadism.

Depending on the political and military conditions, the social relations of nomads could be military-democratic or patriarchal, but in any case they simultaneously included elements of slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and other structures, i.e. they were multi-structured. The multistructure was caused by both the extensiveness of the economic and social structure, teak and the influence of neighboring agricultural states. K. Marx wrote: “Take a certain stage of development of production, exchange and consumption, and you will get a certain social system, a certain organization of the family, estates or classes - in a word, a certain civil society.”

In connection with the considered definitions, it is necessary to dwell on some aspects of social terminology.

Contacts of nomads with the inhabitants of oases led to significant cultural mutual influences. Representatives of the ruling strata of nomadic societies sought to possess the products of urban artisans, especially luxury items; adopted pompous titles for the rulers of agricultural states: khan, khagan, etc. This social terminology became widespread, since ordinary nomads believed that in relations with settled neighbors it increased the prestige of the people as a whole.

However, both the leaders of the nomads and ordinary pastoralists understood the content of this social terminology completely differently than settled farmers, namely in their usual military-democratic or patriarchal sense. This circumstance makes us very cautious about interpreting the social system of nomads based on their social terminology, which they borrowed from agricultural peoples. The same must be said about the reports of ancient and medieval sources about “kings”, “kings”, “princes”, etc. among nomads. These sources approached assessments of nomadic pastoralists and their social order with their own standards, from the standpoint of social relations in agricultural states that were familiar and understandable to them.

A typical example of the conventions of nomadic terminology are the titles of Kazakh khans and sultans, whom an authoritative source called “imaginary leaders,” which was confirmed by many other authors. An arbitrary interpretation of the Mongolian term “noyon” as “prince” is widespread in the literature. Extrapolation of the relations of Western European feudalism to nomads became widespread after the appearance of the famous work of B. Ya. Vladimirtsov, many of whose conclusions are based on arbitrary translation and interpretation of Mongolian terms.

The dominant layer of nomads consisted, in principle, of four social groups: military leaders of various kinds, elders, clergy, and the richest owners of herds.

We have already written about the essence of the social tribal organization of nomadic societies. But the problem of terminology remains poorly developed.

The issue under consideration falls into two independent problems:

1. principles of tribal organization and the possibility of introducing a single terminology for all its levels;
2. actual terminology.

As for the first problem, it is obviously impossible to create a unified terminology for the nomadic organization as a whole, since its structure is different for all nomadic peoples, although its essence is the same.

There is a contradiction between the form and content of this structure; formally, it is based on the genealogical patriarchal principle, according to which each nomadic group and association is considered as a consequence of the growth of the primary family. But in reality, the development of nomadic social organization occurred historically, and with the exception of the smallest nomadic groups there was no blood relationship.

Genealogical “kinship” and the fictitious idea of ​​“unity of origin” acted as ideological forms of awareness of really existing military-political, economic, ethnic and other connections.

The consequence of the noted contradiction was that the oral and written genealogies of the tribal structure did not coincide with the real nomenclature of the social organization.

As for the second problem - terms, a considerable part of them are unsuccessful. They are either related to the characteristics of societies at the level of primitive communal development, or are uncertain. Often one term denotes the most diverse elements of a social organization or, conversely, different terms are applied to similar cells of the social structure.

The most unfortunate terms used in connection with the social organization of nomads are “clan”, “tribal organization”, “tribal system”, “tribal relations”. Often these terms are, as it were, fetishized, and in the phenomena they denote they try to find (and sometimes “find”) remnants of the primitive communal system.

The sound of the term “tribe” is also “primitive”. But tribes existed both in primitive times and at the time of the formation of class societies (for example, the tribes of the Germans in the “pre-feudal period”). In addition, this term is widely used in the literature and has no equivalent. And since it is inappropriate to introduce new terms unless absolutely necessary, then, with appropriate reservations, divisions of the social organization of nomads can be designated by the term “tribe” in the future.

Usually unsuccessful are attempts to introduce local names as terms in Russian translations, for example “bone” (Altai “seok”, etc.), understandable in the language of the people, but meaningless in translation.

In many cases, it is advisable to use without translation the terms used by the nomads themselves, which better conveys the specificity of their content (for example, the Turkmen “dash” seems more successful than such a universal but close concept as “tribal division”).

The principles and structure of the social organization of nomads have already been discussed in the literature. Therefore, it should only be emphasized once again that this structure changed depending on the “military-nomadic” or “community-nomadic” state in which the nomadic society was located. Accordingly, the number of levels in the social structure and their subordination changed. In certain cases, in parallel and in close connection with the tribal one, a military organization based on the decimal principle arose. An example is tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. Mongol army. But this military structure existed on a tribal basis, and the latter consisted of nomadic communities of large and small families. K. Marx wrote about this: “Among the nomadic pastoral tribes, the community is actually always gathered together; it is a society of people traveling together, a caravan, a horde, and forms of subordination develop here from the conditions of this way of life.”

The highest form of social organization of nomads is the “people” (cf. the Turkic “khalk”), as a more or less established ethnic community, nationality.

The so-called “nomadic empires” were temporary and ephemeral military associations, did not have their own socio-economic structure and existed only as long as the military expansion of the nomads continued.

The “nomadic people” did not always represent a single ethnosocial organism, and its individual parts were most often separated territorially, economically and politically.

“Nomadic people” are made up of tribes that usually have an ethnic self-name, specific ethnic composition, cultural traits, and dialectal characteristics. Only in some cases did the tribes act as a single whole, which depended mainly on the political situation.

Tribes, in turn, include large and small tribal divisions that make up the tribal hierarchical structure. This structure varies among different “peoples,” tribes, and often among neighboring tribal divisions.

The considered model of tribal structure is only approximate and does not exhaust the diversity of social organization among different peoples and tribes. It more or less corresponds to the structure of the tribal organization of the Mongols, Turkmens, Arabs and some other nomadic peoples. But the system of Kazakh zhuzes does not fit into this scheme, since it is a relict political structure.

When analyzing the social structure of nomads, one should strictly distinguish between its elements associated with genealogical-tribal, economic, military, political and other organizations. Only this approach makes it possible to identify the essence of social relations and the nature of social organization.

Mobile cattle breeding

The situation is much more complicated with the definition of the concept of “mobile cattle breeding”, with the identification and classification of its types, and the development of appropriate terminology. The number of varieties of mobile cattle breeding is quite large, and there are significant economic and social differences between them. This complicates the problem and, given its current knowledge, allows us to express only preliminary considerations and only on its individual aspects.

The problem under consideration is far from being resolved, individual details have not been clarified, and generalizations are unconvincing. And first of all, the question is: is it legal to combine all types of livestock farming that are not related to either nomadic cattle breeding or stable livestock farming into one type? With the existing knowledge of the material today, obviously, it cannot be solved. Therefore, taking all these forms of livestock farming purely conditionally as one type, we do not exclude the possibility of further improvement of the typology. Accordingly, with the solution of this issue, types of mobile cattle breeding should be included in one or more economic and cultural types.

Speaking about mobile cattle breeding, we should first of all note the diversity of natural conditions, historical traditions, social and political systems in which its different types exist. An example of this is the Caucasus, the Carpathians, the Alps and other areas of distribution of mobile cattle breeding. In addition, within the same region in different localities, various types of this type of economy are known. The example of the Caucasus is especially indicative, where there are different types of cattle breeding in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the North Caucasus.

At the same time, especially strong differences between different types of mobile cattle breeding are observed not only in the purely economic sphere, in forms of farming, but also in social conditions and social organization. It is enough to compare the patriarchal and patriarchal-feudal relations among many cattle breeders of the Caucasus in the past and the developed capitalist relations among the Alpine cattle breeders of Switzerland. By the way, this circumstance suggests the need to distinguish different types of mobile cattle breeding.

It should be emphasized that there are fundamental differences in the patterns of emergence and development of social and socio-tribal organization among nomadic and mobile pastoralists. Among nomads, social relations, like tribal social organization, are formed on the basis of their extensive socio-economic basis. Among mobile pastoralists, social relations are determined by the social system of their neighboring farmers, although they are somewhat patriarchal. The public organization also has corresponding forms. There is no tribal structure among mobile pastoralists. Thus, in political and social terms, mobile pastoralists do not represent ethnosocial organisms, ethnic communities, social and political entities independent of farmers.

As noted above, today it is still impossible to give a comprehensive definition to the concept of “mobile cattle breeding,” especially since, apparently, this is not one type at all, but several types. Therefore, without claiming universality and completeness of the definition, one can only tentatively formulate the essence of the type (or types) under consideration.

It seems that the concept of “mobile cattle breeding” covers a set of very diverse types of extensive and intensive livestock farming, which provides the main means of subsistence and is carried out by driving or driving livestock to pastures (from year-round keeping on pastures to various forms of transhumance semi-sedentary farming). Depending on the type of livestock farming, small and large horned livestock and transport animals are bred.

The differences between mobile cattle breeding and sedentary livestock farming of farmers are that if for pastoralists breeding livestock is the main, although not the only, occupation, then for farmers livestock breeding is an auxiliary branch of agricultural agriculture. Livestock farmers, as already mentioned, also raise pigs and poultry.

From the above, we can conclude that in the conventional concept of “mobile cattle breeding”, not only the characteristics of its specific content are significant, but also its differences with nomadic cattle breeding and livestock farming of farmers. Establishing a complete typology of mobile cattle breeding is obviously a matter of the future.

In connection with terminology, it is necessary to note - and we will have to return to this issue below - that in order to avoid confusion, when one term refers to fundamentally different phenomena, the terms “nomadism”, “nomadic cattle breeding”, “migration” should not be applied to types of mobile cattle breeding ", etc. Enough has already been said about the deep social differences between nomadic and mobile cattle breeding, and I think such a terminological distinction is absolutely necessary. In this case, instead of the term “nomadism”, one can use the concepts of “transhumance”, “transportation”, etc. Obviously, there should be a fairly wide range of terms, since the nature of the seasonal movements of herds is very different and ranges widely - from the movement of livestock to long distances, which in form resembles nomadism, to transhumance and stationary forms.

Successful attempts to classify and define the types of farming type, called here “mobile cattle breeding,” were made by Soviet authors, and in particular Yu. I. Mkrtumyan and V. M. Shamiladze. However, on some theoretical points these authors do not agree with each other, which indicates that the problem is debatable.

Based on the literature and his research, V. M. Shamiladze identifies several types of cattle breeding: “alpine” (“mountain”), “transhumans” (“transhumans”), “nomadic” and “plain”.

He defines an alpine economy as “an economic-geographical community of summer pastures and main agricultural settlements located at a certain altitude with winter stall feeding of livestock; movement of herds and staff from the settlement to the pastures and back; the zonal nature of alpine cattle breeding, its seasonality and economic and organizational dependence on the main settlements." With alpine cattle breeding, only part of the population climbs the mountains, the rest are engaged in farming, preparing feed for livestock for the winter, etc.

The same author considers transhumans as a transitional stage from Alpine to nomadic cattle breeding. According to his point of view, transhumance is “the constant movement of the herd and its staff from winter to spring-autumn and summer pastures and back, during which the main agricultural settlements, territorially excluded from the annual cycle of caring for livestock, maintain economic and organizational functions of livestock breeding".

Both definitions do not raise objections, except that they lack a description of the social functions and relationships that develop under this form of economy.

The term “nomadism” in relation to the type of economy under consideration has already been discussed. But the very definition of nomadism given by V. M. Shamiladze also seems unsatisfactory. He writes that nomadism (nomadism) is “the nomadic way of life of the population and their conduct of the corresponding form of economy, which excluded the conduct of other branches of the economy in settled conditions.”

Obviously, this definition more or less fits the type of mountain cattle breeding that he and a number of other authors call “nomadic.” But, firstly, it does not provide a sufficiently clear distinction between what is meant by “transhumanity,” and the characteristics that underlie the characteristics of these two types of economy are typologically different. Secondly, there is no main thing: the characteristics of social relations and the social structure of population groups defined as “nomads”. Finally, the fundamental differences that exist between actual nomadic pastoralists in socio-economic relations, social and political structure and those groups of mountain pastoralists who are called “nomads” are not taken into account.

From the works of researchers of Caucasian mountain cattle breeding it follows that groups of pastoralists, called “nomads,” do not represent independent ethnosocial organisms, ethnic communities, do not form independent social and political structures, but are organically included in the societies of farmers, although economically, due to the conditions of division of labor, several are isolated from them.

To complete the picture, it should be noted that in history there are cases when nomads and farmers had a single social organization and a single political and administrative structure. An example of this kind is the Turkmen nomads and farmers in Southern Turkmenistan from the beginning of the 19th century. and until the time of annexation of the Trans-Caspian regions to Russia. However, this is a phenomenon of a special kind, and the essence was not that the nomads turned out to be integrated sedentary farmers, but that the latter still continued to preserve the traditional tribal structure of social organization and carried out their land use in accordance with it. In addition, nomadism in these conditions intensively decomposed and turned into a branch of oasis complex agricultural and livestock farming. A similar situation developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. among the Kurds in Iran, Turkey and Iraq, among some groups of Bedouins and among many other nomadic peoples. This kind of phenomenon was characteristic of the era of rapid expansion of nomadism and the settling of pastoralists on the land, especially the era of capitalism. Nothing like this was observed in most of the pastoral areas of the Caucasus, and the only nomadic pastoralists in this region were the Karanogais.

In contrast to nomadic cattle breeding, which had the socio-economic, tribal and ethnic characteristics discussed above, mobile cattle breeding, as a branch of complex agricultural and livestock farming, not only did not decompose under the influence of capitalist relations, but, on the contrary, developed, became more intensive and commercial. As a result, the fates of nomadic and mobile cattle breeding under socialism are different. The first completely decomposed and disappeared during collectivization, turning into a distillation and transhumance. The second was developed within the framework of modern specialized mechanized sedentary cattle breeding.

If we leave aside the term “nomadism”, then we can consider that V. M. Shamiladze gave a very convincing classification of mobile Georgian cattle breeding, which can be extended with certain completeness to other areas of existence of mobile cattle breeding.

According to this classification, the type of herders in question is represented by several species and subspecies. This is a type of “mountain” cattle breeding with subspecies: “transhumance” and “intra-alpine”; type “transhumans” (“transhumans”) with subspecies “ascending”, “intermediate” and “descending”; the type of “nomadic” (“transhumance”) with the subspecies “vertical-zonal” and “semi-nomadic” (“transhumant”) and, finally, the type of “plain” cattle breeding with the subspecies “extensive hut farming” and “auxiliary cattle breeding”. It must be assumed that this classification lacks only one type of mobile cattle breeding, widely known from the literature - “semi-sedentary cattle breeding”.

Problems of definitions and terminology are not limited to the issues discussed. It is necessary to study in more detail the social terminology, terms and definitions relating to various pastoral activities. It is necessary to improve the classification of methods and techniques of nomadism. All these serious and important problems require special discussion.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NOMADISM. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

The study of peoples engaged in animal husbandry has made significant progress in recent years. However, there are still no universally recognized definitions of the various types and forms of animal husbandry, no general classification; terms are applied loosely.

In the view of the author, pastoralism (skotovodstvo) and animal tending (zhivotnovodsivo) represent two types of animal husbandry (skotovodcheskoye khoziaytuo). The former is a more or less independent field of economy, while the latter is the cattle-breeding branch of an agricultural economy based on plant cultivation.

Pastoralism comprises various forms, primarily nomadic (including its semi-nomadic sub-group) and mobile pastoralism (also comprising a number of sub-groups). Nomads subsist mainly by extensive pastoral cattle grazing; they form independent ethnosocial organisms (ESO) possessing tribal organization, each having its own specific socio-economic relations.

Mobile pastoral groups in their economic activity often resemble the nomads but form a part of the ESO of plant cultivating agriculturalists and do not possess a tribal organization.

Crop cultivators practice animal husbandry in the form of transhumance and in the form of stall maintenance of animals.

Owing to the plurality of subgroups of mobile pastoralism and animal tending their classification and terminology require further elaboration.
____________________

See, for example, Bromley Y.V. Ethnos and ethnography. M.: Nauka, 1973.
See, for example: Rudenko S.I. On the issue of forms of cattle breeding and nomads. - Geographical Society of the USSR. Materials on ethnography. Vol. I. L., 1961; Pershits A.I. Economy and socio-political system of Northern Arabia in the 19th - first third of the 20th centuries. - Tr. Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. T. 69. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961; Tolybekov S. E. Nomadic society of Kazakhs in the 17th - early 20th centuries. Alma-Ata: Kazgosizdat, 1971; Vainshtein S.I. Historical ethnography of Tuvinians. M.: Nauka, 1972; Markov G. E. Some problems of the emergence and early stages of nomadism in Asia. - Sov. ethnography, 1973, No. 1; him. Nomads of Asia. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1976; Simakov G. N. Experience of typology of cattle breeding among the Kyrgyz. - Sov. ethnography, 1978, No. 6; Kurylev V.P. Experience in the typology of Kazakh cattle breeding. - In the book: Problems of typology in ethnography. M.: Nauka, 1979.
TSB. T. 9. M., 1972, p. 190.
TSB. T. 23. M., 1976, p. 523.
This is how the authors listed in footnote 2 interpret the problem. K. Marx and F. Engels used the term “cattle breeding” in the same sense (see K. Marx, F. Engels. Soch. T. 8, p. 568; vol. 21, p. 161, etc.).
See Markov G.E. Nomads of Asia.
There, p. 281.
See Markov G. E. Nomadism. - Soviet Historical Encyclopedia. T. 7. M., 1965; him. Nomadism. - TSB, vol. 13, M., 1973; him. Nomads of Azin. This article does not address the very specific problems of reindeer husbandry. In addition, most of the reindeer herders cannot be classified as nomads, since they obtain their main means of subsistence through hunting and some other types of activities, while the deer serves them mainly as a means of transport.
See S.I. Vainshtein. Decree. slave.
Thus, one of the few works specifically devoted to this problem was published in 1930 (Pogorelsky P., Batrakov V. Economy of the nomadic village of Kyrgyzstan. M., 1930).
Thus, K. Marx writes about the nomads: “These were tribes engaged in cattle breeding, hunting and war, and their method of production required extensive space for each individual member of the tribe...” (Marx K., Engels F. Works. Vol. 8, p. 568). In another work, Marx pointed out that “the Mongols, when devastating Russia, acted in accordance with their method of production...” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 12, p. 724). The “primitive mode of production” of the “barbarian people” is spoken of in “German Ideology” (Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 3, p. 21).
Wed. Tolybekov S. E. Decree. worker, p. 50 et seq.
Marx K.., Engels F. Soch. T. 46, part I, p. 480.
In terms of the possibilities for socio-economic development, nomadic cattle breeding is fundamentally different from even the most extensive types of agriculture. The latter, developing quantitatively, then passes into a new qualitative state, becoming the basis of an intensive economy and the formation of a new mode of production. Examples of this are the development of societies of ancient farmers who created the world's first civilizations; the development of many tropical peoples from the level of primitive agriculture to class societies. As for nomadism, there is no data on the transition of pastoral farming from one qualitative state to another, its transformation into an intensive branch of occupation, and on the corresponding social processes. In connection with this, the transition to a new qualitative state could only occur after the decomposition of nomadism. This point of view has been expressed by many other authors. See, for example, Vainshtein S.I. Decree. slave.; Tolybekov S. E. Decree. slave. On the economy of the mountain-steppe bronze tribes, see G. E. Markov, Nomads of Asia, p. 12 et seq.
See Markov G. E. Nomads of Asia, p. 307, 308.
Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 27, p. 402.
A clear example of this is the relationship between ordinary Bedouins and their leaders (see G. E. Markov, Nomads of Asia, p. 262).
See Rychkov N.P. Day notes of the traveler captain II. Rychkov to the Kyrgyz-Kaisak steppes in 1771. St. Petersburg, 1772, p. 20. For reports by other authors, see Markov G, E. Nomads of Asia, ch. II-V.
Vladimirtsov B. Ya. Social structure of the Mongols. M.-L., 1934. For criticism of the views of B. Ya. Vladimirtsov, see: Tolybekov S. E. Decree. slave.; Markov G. E., Nomads of Asia” and others. Marx wrote about the inadmissibility of this kind of extrapolation in his time (Marx K. Synopsis of Lewis Morgan’s book “Ancient Society.” - Archives of Marx and Engels, vol. IX, p. 49).
See Markov G.E. Nomads of Asia, p. 309 and SLM, etc.
See Neusykhin A.I. The pre-feudal period as a transitional stage of development from the tribal system to the early feudal system. - Questions of History, 1967, No. I.
See Markov G.E. Nomads of Asia, p. 310 et seq.
Marx K., Engels F. Soch., T. 46, part I, p. 480.
There is extensive domestic and foreign literature on the problem under consideration. It is neither possible nor necessary to list her works. Therefore, we note only those in which special attention is paid to theoretical issues. See: Mkrtumyan Yu. I. Forms of cattle breeding and the life of the population in the Armenian village (second half of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century) - Sov. ethnography, 1968, No. 4; him. To the study of forms of cattle breeding among the peoples of Transcaucasia. - In the book: Economy and material culture of the Caucasus in the 19th-20th centuries. M.: Nauka, 1971; him. Forms of cattle breeding in Eastern Armenia (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries). - Armenian ethnography and folklore. Materials and research. Vol. 6. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSR, 1974; Shamiladze V. M. Economic, cultural and socio-economic problems of cattle breeding in Georgia. Tbilisi: Metsipereba, 1979, and many others. his other publications. Certain problems are discussed in the works of: Ismail-Zade D.I. From the history of the nomadic economy of Azerbaijan in the first half of the 19th century. - Historical notes of the USSR Academy of Sciences, I960, vol. 66; hers. Nomadic farming in the system of colonial administration and agrarian policy of tsarism in Azerbaijan in the 19th century. - Sat. Historical Museum. Vol. V. Baku, 1962; Bzhania Ts.N. From the history of the Abkhaz economy. Sukhumi: Mashara, 1962; Gagloeva 3. D. Cattle breeding in the past among Ossetians. - Materials on the ethnography of Georgia. T. XII-XIII. Tbilisi, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR, 1963; Zafesov A. Kh. Livestock farming in Adygea. - Author's abstract. dis. for academic competition Art. Ph.D. history Sci. Maykop: Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR, 1967; Gamkrelidze B.V. Cattle breeding system in the mountainous zone of North Ossetia. - Bulletin of the GSSR, 1975, No. 3. From foreign works one can name: Boesch N. Nomadism, Transhumans und Alpwirtschaft - Die Alpen, 1951, v. XXVII; Xavier de Planhol. Vie pastorale Caucasienne et vie pastorale Anatolienne. - Revue de geographie Alpine, 1956, v. XLIV, no. 2; Viehwirtschaft und Ilirtenkultur. Ethnographische Studien. Budapest, 1969.
See, for example, Shamiladze V.M. Decree. worker, p. 53 et seq.
There, p. 43.
There, p. 46.
There, p. 47.
See König W. Die Achal-Teke. Berlin, 1962.
See Markov G. E. Settlement of nomads and the formation of territorial communities among them. - In the book: Races and peoples. Vol. 4. M.: Nauka, 1974.
Shamiladze V. M. Decree. worker, p. 60, 61.

What is the nomadic lifestyle? A nomad is a member of a community of people without a fixed abode who regularly move to the same areas and also travel around the world. As of 1995, there were about 30-40 million nomads on the planet. Now they are expected to be much smaller.

Life support

Nomadic hunting and gathering, with seasonally available wild plants and game, is by far the oldest method of human subsistence. These activities are directly related to the nomadic lifestyle. Nomadic pastoralists raise herds, lead them, or travel with them (astride them), following routes that usually include pastures and oases.

Nomadicism involves adaptation to barren regions such as steppe, tundra, desert, where mobility is the most effective strategy for exploiting limited resources. For example, many groups in the tundra are reindeer herders and semi-nomads precisely because of the need to seasonally feed their animals.

Other Features

Sometimes “nomadic” also refers to various moving groups of people who travel through densely populated areas and support themselves not from natural resources, but by offering various services (this could be crafts or trade) to the permanent population. These groups are known as peripatetic nomads.

A nomad is a person who does not have a permanent home and moves from place to place to obtain food, find pasture for livestock, or make a living in other ways. The European word for nomad, nomad, comes from the Greek, which literally means “one who roams the pasture.” Most nomadic groups follow a fixed annual or seasonal pattern of movement and settlement. Nomadic peoples traditionally travel by animal, canoe or on foot. Today some people travel by car. Most of them live in tents or other shelters. The housing of nomads, however, is not particularly diverse.

Reasons for this lifestyle

These people continue to move around the world for various reasons. What did the nomads do and what do they continue to do in our time? They move in search of game, edible plants and water. For example, savages in Southeast Asia and Africa traditionally move from camp to camp to hunt and gather wild plants.

Some American tribes also followed a nomadic lifestyle. Pastoral nomads make their living by raising animals such as camels, cattle, goats, horses, sheep or yaks. The Gaddi tribe of Himachal Pradesh in India is one such tribe. These nomads travel to find more camels, goats and sheep, covering vast distances across the deserts of Arabia and northern Africa. Fulanis and their cattle travel through the grasslands of Niger in West Africa. Some nomadic peoples, especially pastoralists, may also raid sedentary communities. Nomadic artisans and traders travel to find and serve customers. These included blacksmiths from Lohar in India, gypsy traders and Irish travelers.

Long way to find a home

In the case of Mongolian nomads, the family moves twice a year. This usually occurs in summer and winter. The winter location is near the mountains in the valley, and most families already have fixed and favored wintering sites. Such locations are equipped with animal shelters and are not used by other families in their absence. In summer they move to a more open area where livestock can graze. Most nomads usually travel within the same region and rarely venture beyond it.

Communities, communities, tribes

Since they usually circle over a large area, they become members of communities of people who share a similar lifestyle, and all families usually know where the others are. They often do not have the resources to move from one province to another unless they leave the area permanently. A family can move alone or with others, and if it goes alone, its members are usually no more than a couple of kilometers away from the nearest nomadic community. There are currently no tribes, so decisions are made among family members, although elders consult each other on standard communal matters. The geographical proximity of families usually leads to mutual support and solidarity.

Pastoral nomadic societies usually do not boast large populations. One such society, the Mongols, gave birth to the largest land empire in history. The Mongols originally consisted of loosely organized nomadic tribes living in Mongolia, Manchuria and Siberia. In the late 12th century, Genghis Khan united them and other nomadic tribes to found the Mongol Empire, which eventually extended throughout Asia.

Gypsies are the most famous nomadic people

Gypsies are an Indo-Aryan, traditionally wandering ethnic group, living mainly in Europe and America and originating from the North Indian subcontinent - from the regions of Rajasthan, Haryana, and Punjab. Gypsy camps are widely known - special communities characteristic of this people.

Houses

The Doms are a subethnic group of Gypsies, often considered a separate people, found throughout the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, Central Asia and parts of the Indian subcontinent. The traditional language of the houses is Domari, an endangered Indo-Aryan language, making the people an Indo-Aryan ethnic group. They were related to another traditionally wandering ethnic group, the Indo-Aryans, also called the Roma or Romani people (also known in Russian as the Gypsies). The two groups are believed to have diverged from each other or to at least share some of the same history. Specifically, their ancestors left the northern Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 1st centuries. The houses also live in something like a gypsy camp.

Eruki

The Eruks are nomads who live in Turkey. However, some groups, such as the Sarıkeçililer, continue to lead a nomadic lifestyle, traveling between the coastal cities of the Mediterranean Sea and the Taurus Mountains.

Mongols

Mongols are an ethnic group of East Central Asian origin originally from Mongolia and the Mengjiang province of China. They are listed as minorities in other regions of China (such as Xinjiang) as well as in Russia. Mongolian peoples belonging to the Buryat and Kalmyk subgroups live mainly in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation - Buryatia and Kalmykia.

Mongols are bound by a common heritage and ethnic identity. Their indigenous dialects are collectively known as The ancestors of modern Mongols are referred to as Proto-Mongols.

At different times they were equated with the Scythians, Magogs and Tungus. Based on Chinese historical texts, the origins of the Mongol peoples can be traced back to Donghu, a nomadic confederation that occupied eastern Mongolia and Manchuria. The peculiarities of the nomadic way of life of the Mongols were already evident at that time.

T. Barfield

From the collection “A Nomadic Alternative to Social Revolution.” RAS, Moscow, 2002

Nomadic pastoralism in Inner Asia

Nomadic pastoralism was the dominant way of life on the steppes of Inner Asia for most of its history. Although it was often unfairly described by outside observers as a primitive form of economic organization, in reality it was a sophisticated specialization in the use of steppe resources. However, this way of life was so alien to the surrounding sedentary civilizations that misunderstanding and misinterpretation were inevitable. The history of the nomads and their connections with the surrounding regions were based on what the nomads themselves accepted as self-evident about their cycles of movement, the requirements of animal husbandry, economic constraints and basic political organization.

The term "pastoral nomadism" is commonly used to refer to a form of mobile pastoralism in which families migrate with their herds from one seasonal pasture to another in an annual cycle. The most characteristic cultural feature of this economic adaptation is that nomadic pastoral societies adapt to the demands of mobility and the needs of their livestock. It should be noted, however, that the concepts of “nomadism”, “nomadism”, “pastoralism” and “culture” are semantically different. There are pastoralists who are not nomads (such as modern livestock farmers, and nomadic groups who do not herd livestock, such as hunters). There are also societies in which mobile forms of pastoralism represent the only economic specialization in which individual shepherds or cowboys are hired to look after the animals (as happened in Western Europe or Australia with sheep and in the Americas with cattle). When raising livestock is a professional occupation firmly embedded in the culture of sedentary peoples, a separate society of pastoralists never exists.

Pastoralism in Inner Asia has traditionally depended on the use of extensive but seasonal grasslands in the steppes and mountains. Since people could not eat grass, raising livestock that could do so was an effective way to exploit the energy of the steppe ecosystem. The herds consisted of a range of herbivores, including sheep, goats, horses, cattle, camels and sometimes yaks. There was no specialization in the breeding of individual species, which developed among the Bedouins who bred camels in the Middle East and reindeer herders in Siberia. The ideal for Inner Asia was the availability of all types of animals needed for food and transportation, so that a family or tribe could achieve self-sufficiency in pastoral production. The actual distribution of animals in the herd reflected both environmental variables and cultural preferences, but their composition was essentially the same, regardless of whether the nomads used the open steppe or the mountain pastures. Changes in herd composition were particularly common among pastoralists who exploited more marginal areas where, for example, goats survived better than sheep, or where aridity favored camel breeding rather than horse breeding.

Sheep were by far the most important in terms of subsistence and the basis of pastoralism in Inner Asia. They provided milk and meat for food, wool and hides for clothing and shelters, and dung that could be dried and used as fuel. Sheep reproduced quickly and their diet was the most variable in the steppe. On the Mongolian Plateau they accounted for 50 to 60% of all farmed animals, although their numbers declined in parts of Mongolia where grassland was poor, such as arid deserts, at high altitudes, or on forest borders. The percentage of sheep reached its maximum among those nomads who bred sheep for the whiting trade or sold animals for meat in city markets. For example, under the same environmental conditions in Kulda (19th century) (Ili Valley), sheep made up 76% of the herds of the Turkic Kazakhs who were engaged in the whiting trade, compared to 45% in the herds of the more food-oriented Mongolian Kalmyks (Krader 1955: 313).

Although sheep were more important economically, there were also horses, which were a source of pride for the steppe nomads. From the very beginning, traditional nomadism in Inner Asia was determined by the importance of horse riding. Horses were vital to the success of nomad societies in Inner Asia, as they allowed rapid movement over vast distances, allowing communication and cooperation among peoples and tribes that were, by necessity, widely dispersed. Steppe horses were small and strong, lived in the open air all winter, usually without forage. They provided a minor source of meat, and sour mare's milk (kumiss) was the favorite drink of the steppe. Horses played a particularly large role in the military exploits of the nomads, giving their small detachments mobility and strength in battle, which allowed them to defeat far superior enemy forces. The epic of the peoples of Inner Asia glorified the image of a horse, and the sacrifice of horses was an important ritual in the traditional religions of the steppe people. The man on the back of a horse became a true symbol of nomadism, and as a metaphor entered the cultures of neighboring sedentary communities. However, while some anthropologists have defined nomadic cultures as cultures associated with horses, horse breeding was never the exclusive activity of any steppe tribe, despite the cultural and military importance of this animal species. And at the same time, although there were no great epic poems dedicated to sheep, small livestock were the basis of the steppe economy, with horse breeding an important addition to this more necessary task (Bacon 1954; Eberhardt 1970).

Raising horses and cattle required regions with a more humid climate. For this reason, their numbers were higher in those parts of the steppe where there were rivers and streams and good pastures. They also had to be grazed separately from small livestock. Sheep and goats eat grass too low for cattle to graze after them. Therefore, special pastures must be reserved for cattle; or they must graze before sheep and goats if the same pastures are used. In arid regions, where horses and cattle are most difficult to raise, the camel population increases greatly. Camels in Inner Asia are usually two-humped (Bactrian). Unlike their Middle Eastern relatives, Bactrian camels had thick hair, which allowed them to survive cold winters. They were a mainstay of the overland caravan routes for over 2,000 years, and their wool is still a highly valued export for textile production. Yaks are relatively rare in Inner Asia and live mainly on the border with Tibet. They are only good at high altitudes, but they can be crossed with cows to produce a hybrid (called "zo" in Tibet and "hainak" in Mongolia) which is better adapted to low altitudes, more docile and produces more milk.

Nomadic life is based on the ability of people to move with their animals during seasonal migration. Shelter and household items must be dismountable and portable. In this regard, nothing is more striking than the yurt, used throughout the Eurasian steppe. It consists of a set of folding wooden lattice frames that are installed in a circle. Curved or straight wooden sticks are tied to the top of a lattice frame and attached to a round wooden crown to form a hemispherical or conical dome, depending on the angle at which the sticks are bent. The resulting frame is light in weight, but nevertheless exceptional durable and very stable in strong winds. In winter, the yurt is covered with thick mats of felt, which provide insulation from severe frosts. In summer, the side felt mats are removed and replaced with reed mats, which allow air to circulate. In ancient times, yurts were built on large carts and moved everywhere in one piece , but the practice became relatively rare in the Middle Ages.However, the use of wheeled carts to transport objects drawn by oxen or horses has always been characteristic of nomadic life in Inner Asia, while the nomads of the Middle East did not use wheeled carts (Andrews 1973; Bulliet 1975 ).

In most nomadic societies, pastures were shared among large kin groups, while animals were individually owned. The movements of nomads from pasture to pasture did not occur randomly, but within a certain range of pastures to which the group had access. Where grazing was reliable, the nomads tended to have only a few fixed sites, to which they returned every year. If only marginal grasslands were available, the migration cycle showed both more frequent movement and greater variation in site locations. In the absence of external authority, the range of pastures was also determined by the strength of the clan group. The strongest tribes and clans laid claim to the best pastures at the best times of the year, weaker groups could only use them after the stronger groups moved on. For nomads, time and space were related elements: they were concerned with the right to use pasture at certain times or to retain ownership of fixed enterprises like wells; exclusive ownership of land had little intrinsic value in itself (Barth 1960).

The migration cycle of the nomads of Inner Asia consisted of four seasonal components that had their own characteristics. The continental climate of the region is characterized by significant temperature changes; and winter is the harshest time of the year. The location of winter camps was thus important for survival, as they had to provide both shelter from the wind and the necessary grazing land. Once chosen, winter camps tend to remain the same throughout the season. Favorable sites can be valleys in the foothills, floodplains and lowlands in the steppe. The yurt's felt insulation and smooth round shape provided sufficient protection from strong winds even at extremely low temperatures. Since nomads, as a rule, did not engage in forage procurement, the productivity of the winter pasture set limits on the total number of animals bred. Windswept areas free of snow were preferred when available, but if the ground had snow cover, horses were turned out first so they could break the ice crust with their hooves, and open the pasture to other animals that could not forage from underneath. snow. Winter pastures provided only a minimum of food, and livestock lost significant weight in the open air.

After the snow melted and spring rains, the pastures blossomed again. Although at other times of the year most of the steppe was brown and waterless, in spring the vast expanses turned into soft green carpets dotted with red poppies. Groups of camps spread widely across the steppe to take advantage of the abundant pastures. Delving deeper into these meadows, the nomads approached the seasonally existing zones of melted snow in the lowlands to water their horses and livestock. On such pastures, sheep did not need to be watered at all, since they received the necessary moisture from grass and dew. Animals, weakened after winter cold and hunger, began to regain their weight and energy. Lambing began in the spring, and fresh milk appeared. Adult animals were shorn. Although this was usually considered the best time, there was always the possibility of disaster if an unexpected snowstorm hit the steppe and the steppe became covered with ice. Under these conditions, many livestock, especially newborn young animals, quickly died. This may have been a once-in-a-generation occurrence, but the damage to the pastoral economy would have lasted for years to come.

The movement to summer pastures began when spring grasses dried out and water bodies evaporated. Nomads using the flat steppe could move north to higher latitudes, while nomads near the mountains could move upward, where shepherds met the “second spring.” In summer camps, the animals quickly gained weight. Mares were milked to make kumiss, a moderately intoxicating drink favored by the nomads of Inner Asia (stronger alcoholic drinks were purchased from representatives of sedentary societies). Excess milk from other animals, mainly sheep, was processed into curds and then dried into rock-hard balls for use in winter. The wool of sheep, goats and camels was cleaned and spun into thread, which was then used to make rope, or dyed and woven into rugs, saddle bags or knotted carpets. Large quantities of sheep's wool were retained to make felt, the production of which involved beating the wool, pouring boiling water over it, and then rolling it back and forth until the fibers were woven together to form a cloth. Felt could be decorated by applying a layer of dyed wool to the surface before rolling. Heavy felt strips made from coarse wool were used to cover yurts, while finer wool, sheared from lambs, was used to make cloaks, winter boots or saddle blankets.

The summer camp was abandoned with the onset of cold weather, when the nomads began returning to their winter camps. Autumn was the time for sheep to crossbreed so that lambing would occur in the spring, since a significant proportion of the lambs that fell out of this seasonal cycle died. Those nomads who used stored forage could consume it at this time, but a more common strategy was to keep the animals grazing away from the winter camp; to save nearby pastures for the most difficult times. In areas where nomads could not sell their animals in sedentary markets, they slaughtered livestock and smoked meat for the winter, especially when winter pastures were limited. In general, the nomads tried to preserve as many living animals as possible, since in the event of a disaster, when half of the herd was lost due to frost, drought or disease, the owner of a herd with 100 animals could recover much faster than the owner with 50 animals. Autumn was also traditionally the time in which nomads preferred to raid China and other sedentary regions, as their horses were strong, the work of the herding cycle was largely completed, and the farmers had harvested their crops. These raids provided grain to help the nomads survive the winter.

The annual migration cycle required mobility, but movements occurred within a fixed range. However, the ability to easily move herds and families had significant political implications. When the nomads were threatened by attack from sedentary armies, they disappeared, so that the invader found nothing but an empty plain with a cloud of dust on the horizon. When the invader left, the nomads returned. In more extreme cases, nomads used their mobility to emigrate from the region entirely rather than remain under the control of another nomadic people. Entire peoples moved hundreds and even thousands of miles to other places, where they established new migration spheres. Such mass movements inevitably forced other peoples to migrate, leading to invasions into the areas of settled nomadic peoples on the border of the steppe. Such large-scale migrations, as a rule, were not the result of famine and the search for new pastures. They were, rather, the result of a political decision by a nomadic people to find a new home rather than fight for an old one.

Tribal organization

Throughout Inner Asia, historically known nomadic pastoralists had similar principles of organization that were alien to sedentary societies. Although it is known that details varied, it is nevertheless useful to briefly analyze the social world of the steppe in order to explain some of the concepts that nomads accepted without evidence in their daily lives.

The basic social unit in the steppe was the household, usually measured by the number of tents. Blood relatives shared a common pasture and camped together whenever possible. Aberle's description of the Kalmyk structure was a typical ideal for Inner Asia:

An extended family may consist of several generations of male half-relatives related more or less closely by descent, together with wives and minor children, and headed by the eldest male of the older family. After marriage, the son can claim his cattle and leave, but, ideally, he should remain with his sheep and brothers. Leaving is a sign of difficulties between relatives. There was a tendency for large family herds to remain under common ownership for as long as possible (Aberle 1953: 9).

Groups consisting of large families were well adapted to pastoral production. One person could not manage separate herds of large and small livestock without help. Because the pasture was held in common and a shepherd could effectively oversee hundreds of animals, individual livestock were combined to form one large herd. Likewise, large families made it easier for women to do communal work, such as processing milk or making felt. But the man was always responsible for his livestock and if he did not agree with their management, he had the right to leave the camp and go somewhere else. Large groups also provided protection from theft and allies in disputes with other groups.

The composition of the groups reflected the stages in the development of households. An independent household began to exist after marriage, with the man usually receiving his share of the herd and the woman receiving her own tent, but lacking the livestock and labor to be completely self-sufficient. During the betrothal period, young men sometimes visited the brides and lived with their relatives, but usually the couple lived in the husband's father's camp after marriage. As children were born and the family's herd increased, it became increasingly independent, but when the children reached marriageable age, a significant percentage of the household's livestock was spent on weddings and inheritances. Each son received his share of the herd depending on the total number of brothers, with one share remaining for the parents. The youngest son eventually inherited the parental household along with his own share - this was a form of social security for his parents. The household of the eldest in the family, in this regard, increased its influence, since the man could count on the support and work of his adult sons and their families. The development of the household cycle was usually limited by the number of brothers and their sons, with the death of brothers entailing the disintegration of the group (Stenning 1953).

The large family was a cultural ideal and had many economic advantages, but it was not easy to maintain because large groups were internally unstable. Since individuals owned their own animals and could separate from the group if they were not satisfied with it, cooperation was voluntary. While brothers usually maintained a fair amount of solidarity in managing the herd, their own sons and groups of cousins ​​were unable to do so. It was also difficult to keep large families intact if the number of animals they owned grew beyond the capacity of the local pasture. Nomadic pastoralism's adaptability was based on mobility, and trying to keep too many people or animals in one place reduced its viability. When local grazing was scarce, some families may have migrated to other areas, maintaining political and social ties but no longer living together.

Women had greater influence and autonomy than their sisters in neighboring sedentary societies. Polygamy was common among the political elite, but each wife had her own yurt. It was impossible to practice the forms of seclusion so common in many sedentary Asian societies. Daily life required women to take a more public role in economic activities. Although the details cannot be confirmed for the entire history of Inner Asia, most travelers testified, like Plano Carpini, the Pope's envoy to the Mongols in the 13th century, in his History of the Mongols (§ IV, II-III):

The men do nothing except shoot arrows, and also have some care for the herds; but they hunt and practice shooting... And both men and zhetzins can ride for a long time and persistently. Their wives do everything: sheepskin coats, dresses, shoes, boots and all leather goods, they also drive and repair carts, pack camels and are very agile and quick in all their affairs. All Zhetzins wear pants, and some shoot like men.

Even if the official structure was based on patrilineal kinship, women also participated in tribal politics. The structures of mutual alliances between clans gave women an important structural role in linking the tribes to each other. Thus, daughters, although lost to their blood family, nevertheless connected it with other groups. For example, representatives of the clan along the line of Genghis Khan's wife liked to repeat that their political strength lay in the strength of their marriage alliances, and not in military force:

“They are our daughters and the daughters of our daughters, who, by becoming princesses through their marriages, serve as a defense against our enemies, and by the petitions they make to their husbands they obtain favor for us” (Mostaert 1953: 10; cited in Cleaves 1982: 16, n.48).

Even after the death of her husband, a woman retained significant influence through her sons, and if they were young, she often acted as the legal head of the family. Since the time of the Xiongnu in the second century BC. Chinese political reports regularly described elite women in critical positions during conflicts over leadership succession. The best example of this was seen in the early Mongol Empire, when the eldest wife of the "Great Khan" was the usual choice for regency during the interregnum.

The household (family) and encampment were the most important elements in the daily life of the Inner Asian nomad, but in order to deal with the outside world it was necessary to organize into larger units. The political and social organization of the tribe was based on kinship groups organized on the principle of a conical clan. The conic clan was an extensive patrilineal kinship organization in which members of a common ancestral group were ranked and segmented along genealogical lines. Older generations outranked younger generations in the same way that older brothers were higher in status than younger brothers. During expansion, lineages and clans were hierarchically classified based on seniority. Political leadership in many groups was limited to members of the senior clans, but from the lowest to the highest all members of the tribe shared a common origin. This genealogical privilege was important because it confirmed grazing rights, created social and military obligations between kin groups, and established the legitimacy of local political authority. As nomads lost their autonomy and came under the authority of sedentary governments, the political significance of this extensive genealogical system disappeared, and kinship ties remained important only at the local level (Krader 1963; Lindholm 1986).

However, this ideal concept of the tribe was more difficult to accurately define at higher levels of the organization. The structure of the conical clan was based on a number of principles, which were subject to significant changes and manipulations. Ideal explanations attributed leadership to seniority and emphasized the solidarity of male relatives against outsiders, but in the world of steppe politics these rules were often ignored or criticized in the pursuit of power. Tribal leaders recruited personal followers who renounced their own family ties, swearing exclusive allegiance to their patron. Junior lines moved up by killing more senior competitors, a practice common in many steppe dynasties. Likewise, the simple principles of agnatic inheritance, whereby members of a tribe claimed inheritance from a common ancestor, were often modified to accommodate unrelated people. For example, some groups justified their inclusion because their founder was adopted into the tribe, or because their group of relatives had a historical client relationship with the dominant lineage. Male-related groups also had ties through cross-marriage, which created long-term bonds with other clans or tribes with which they could form alliances even against direct relatives. For these reasons, the question of whether tribes or tribal confederations were ever truly genealogical has led to particularly acrimonious debate among historians (Tapper 1990). Part of the problem was that there was no distinction made between the tribe, which was a small element of an association based on a genealogical model, and the tribal confederation, which contained many tribes to form a supra-tribal political entity. Because the tribal systems of Inner Asia used segmental building blocks at the local level, with successively larger amalgamation elements introducing more people, it was assumed that each higher level was simply a product of the same principles applied to ever-increasing numbers of people. However, this was rarely true. "Actual" kinship ties (based on the principles of inheritance and affiliation through marriage or adoption) were empirically evident only within the smaller elements of the tribe: nuclear families, extended households, and local lineages. At higher levels of association, clans and tribes maintained ties of more political origin, in which genealogical ties played only a minor role. In powerful nomadic empires, the organization of constituent tribal groups was usually the product of reorganization caused by division from top to bottom, rather than a consequence of kinship from bottom to top.

Of course, it was possible that the political structure based on kinship existed only in the minds of the participants. For example, there were no permanent leaders among the Nuer of East Africa. Factions were organized on the basis of segmental opposition, in which the individual supports more closely related groups against more distant relatives. A company of brothers, in opposition to their cousins ​​in family conflicts, could unite with them in the fight against strangers. In the event of an invasion by another tribe, the warring families and clans could unite to defeat the aggressor and resume their internal conflict when the enemy was defeated. Segmental opposition in particular suited the pastoralists well, as it directed expansion against outsiders to the benefit of the entire tribe. However, among the nomads of Inner Asia, the segmental structure was more than a mental construct; it was strengthened by permanent leaders who provided leadership and internal order for clans, clans and entire tribes. This hierarchy of leadership positions went far beyond the needs of simple cattle breeding. It was a centralized political structure that, although still based on the idiom of kinship, was much more complex and powerful than the relationships observed among nomads in other regions (Sahlins 1960)

In conclusion, it should be said that kinship played its most important role at the level of family, clan and clan. Elements of organization at the tribal or supratribal level were more political in nature. Tribal confederations formed through alliance or conquest always contained unrelated tribes. However, the idiom of kinship remained in common use in determining the legitimacy of leadership within the ruling elite created by the nomadic empire, since there was a long cultural tradition among the tribes of the central steppe to take leadership from the same dynastic lineage. Deviations from this ideal were masked by juggling, distorting, or even inventing genealogies that justified changes to the status quo. Powerful individuals looked at ancestors retroactively and, through demotion of the elite and “structural amnesia,” put forward genealogically senior but politically weak lines of inheritance into oblivion. This tradition gave dynasties unparalleled duration. The direct heirs of the founder of the Xiongnu empire, Mode, ruled the steppe for 600 years with more or less skill, the direct heirs of Genghis Khan for 700 years, and the only unconquered Turkic dynasty ruled the Ottoman Empire for more than 600 years. However, this hierarchical tradition was not shared by all nomads of Inner Asia; Nomads in Manchuria traditionally rejected hereditary rights to the throne and elected their leaders based on their talents and abilities. Even on the central steppe, conquering tribes could rid themselves of all old obligations by advancing themselves to power, after which they would destroy their rivals or push them into marginal territories.

Political organization of nomads and the border

The emergence of nomadic statehood is built on contradictions. At the top of the nomadic empire there is an organized state led by an autocrat, but it turns out that most members of the tribe retain their traditional political organization, which is based on kinship groups of various ranks - lineages, clans, tribes. In the economic sphere there is a similar paradox - there was no economic foundation of the state, since society was based on an extensive and undifferentiated economic system. To resolve these contradictions, two series of theories were proposed, which were supposed to show either that the tribal form is only a shell for statehood, or that the tribal structure never leads to a real state.

Based on his observations among the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz in the 19th century. V.V. Radlov viewed the political organization of nomads as a copy of local political behavior at higher levels of the hierarchy. The basic pastoral unit formed the core of both the economy of the nomadic society and its politics. Differences in wealth and power within these small groups allowed certain individuals to aspire to positions of power; they resolved conflicts within the group and organized it to defend or attack enemies. Radlov viewed the growth of larger units as an attempt by ambitious influential individuals to unite the largest possible number of nomads under their control. This could ultimately lead to a nomadic empire, but the power of the steppe autocrat was entirely personal. It was defined by his successful manipulation of power and wealth within a complex tribal network. Such a ruler was a usurper of power, and after his death, the empire he created again disintegrated into its component parts (Radloff 1893a: 13-17). V.V. Bartold, an outstanding historian of medieval Turkestan, modified Radlov's model, suggesting that steppe leadership could also be based on the choice of the nomads themselves, due to the emergence of one or another popular personality among them, similar to the consolidation of the Turks during the creation of the Second Khaganate in the 7th century. Choice, according to his argument, was a complement to coercion, since brilliant personalities, through their success in wars and raids, attract voluntary followers with them (Barthold 1935: 11-13). Both theories emphasized that nomadic states were essentially ephemeral, with state organization disappearing with the death of its founder. In their view, the nomadic state only temporarily dominated the tribal political organization, which remained the basis for social and economic life on the steppe.

Alternative theories resolved the paradox of the relationship between the state and tribal political organization on the assumption that the latter was destroyed during the creation of the state, even if the new relationship was camouflaged using old tribal terminology. In his study of the Huns, the Hungarian historian Harmatta argued that a nomadic state could only arise through a process in which the tribal basis of a nomadic society was destroyed and replaced by class relations. The focus of his analysis should not be on major leaders, but on the profound changes in the socio-economic order that made possible the emergence of autocrats like Attila of the Huns (Hannatta 1952). Although it was difficult to demonstrate evidence to support it, Krader, in his anthropological writings on nomads and state formation, argued that since the state could not exist without class relations, the historical existence of nomadic states presupposed their existence (Karder 1979). If these states lacked stability, it was because the basic resources of the steppe were insufficient for any degree of stability.

The existence of statehood among nomads has been a more vexing problem for some Marxist interpretations, since nomads not only did not fit into any unilinear historical constructs, but also because when nomadic empires collapsed, they returned to their traditional tribal way of existence. From the point of view of unilinearity, this is impossible, since tribal institutions would have to be destroyed in the process of creating statehood. Soviet publications, in particular, were devoted to this problem, usually in a discussion of the concept of “nomadic feudalism,” first proposed by B.Ya. Vladimirtsov in his analysis of Mongolian society, which, by the way, became widespread partly due to the fact that Vladimirtsov himself never precisely defined what this type of society was (Vladimirtsov 1948; for a summary of Soviet interpretations see: Khazanov 1984: 228 ff.). This form of "feudalism", according to interpreters, was based on the assumption that within the nomadic community there were classes based on the ownership of pastures. Confirmation of this was obtained from the organization of the Mongol aimags of the 18th - 19th centuries under the reign of the Qing dynasty, where aimak princes were separated from ordinary members of the tribes, who were not allowed to leave the borders of their districts. Likewise, archaeological excavations at the site of the medieval Mongol capital of Karakorum have revealed the extensive development of agricultural societies in the surrounding area, which contributed to the development of a class of sedentary nomads feeding the feudal nobility. However, other Soviet theorists pointed out that the ownership of livestock, rather than land, was essentially the main element, and these remained under the control of ordinary members of the tribe, and the development of crafts and agriculture could quite easily be incorporated into existing kinship structures. Consequently, such economic specialists never formed a separate class of people (see "Editor's Introduction" by C. Humphrey in Vainshein 1980: 13-31). Moreover, examples taken from Qing Mongolia or the Kazakhs under the Tsarist regime were of only limited value for understanding earlier nomadic polities. Following a policy of indirect rule, such sedentary empires protected an elite class of local rulers whose economic and political power was a product of the colonial system.

Whether the political leadership of a nomadic society was based on class inequality or on the individual abilities of the individual, in both cases it is assumed that the creation of the nomadic state was the result of internal development. Nevertheless, the historically known state formations of nomads were organized at a level of complexity that far exceeded the needs of nomadic pastoralism. Radlov and Bartold emphasize the ephemeral nature of nomadic states, but many steppe empires far outlived their founders, especially the powers of the Xiongnu, Turks, Uighurs and Mongols, and the ruling dynasties of nomads, in comparison with their sedentary neighbors, are quite stable. However, with the exception of the Mongols, all of the above societies remained steppe empires that used state organization without conquering a large agricultural society.

Those theorists, like Harmatta and Kräder, who accepted the existence of the state but denied the continuity of tribal social organization were forced to justify the emergence of a class structure within the framework of a relatively undifferentiated and extensive pastoral economy. While nomadic aristocracies were common in many steppe societies, such hierarchical social divisions were not based on control of the means of production; access to key pastoral resources was based on tribal affiliation. Class relations were little developed in Inner Asia until nomads became incorporated into sedentary states during recent centuries or when they left the steppe and became integrated into the class structure of agricultural societies.

A potential answer to this dilemma has emerged from a consideration of recent anthropological research in Africa and southwest Asia. The correlations cast doubt on the assumption that nomadic states arose as a result of internal dynamics. In a comparative study of African pastoral nomads, Burnham concluded that low population densities and freedom of geographic mobility made the local development of any institutionalized hierarchy in such societies unlikely. Under these conditions, Burnham found, segmental opposition provided the most optimal model of political organization. The development of the state among the nomads, therefore, was not a reaction to internal necessity. Rather, it developed when nomads were forced to deal with the more highly organized societies of sedentary agricultural states (Burnham 1979). Using cases from southwest Asia, Ions came to the same conclusion and reduced it to the following hypothesis:

Among nomadic pastoralist societies, hierarchical political institutions are generated only by external relations with state societies and never develop solely as a consequence of the internal dynamics of such societies (Irons 1979: 362).

This argument has a number of broad implications for understanding nomadic states in Inner Asia. This is not a diffusionist explanation. The nomads did not “borrow” the state; rather, they were forced to develop their own special form of state organization in order to deal effectively with their larger and more highly organized sedentary agricultural neighbors. These relationships required a much higher level of organization than was necessary to resolve problems regarding livestock and political conflicts within the nomadic society. It is no coincidence that nomads with the least formalized system of political institutions were found in Saharan Africa, where they dealt with few state societies, and the most rigidly politically organized nomadic societies resulted from their clash with China, the world's largest and most centralized traditional agricultural state.

In his large-scale anthropological study of nomadic pastoralists

A.M. Khazanov argued that nomadic states were the product of asymmetrical connections between steppe and sedentary societies, which were beneficial to pastoralists. For Inner Asia, he focused on the relationships created by the conquest of sedentary areas by nomadic peoples, where they became the ruling elite of a mixed society (Khazanov 1984). However, many nomadic states established and maintained such asymmetrical relationships without conquering agricultural regions. Using advantages in military power, these nomadic states extorted tribute from neighboring states, imposed taxes on them and controlled international overland trade, giving freedom to organized raiders who specialized in “direct appropriation” (plunder), and the nomads achieved this without leaving their permanent havens. in the steppe.

In North Asia, this was the connection between China and the steppe, which created the basis for hierarchy among the nomads. The nomadic state was maintained by the exploitation of China's economy rather than by the economic appropriation of the labor of scattered herders, which was effectively organized by the nomadic state to make such extortion possible. Therefore, there is no need to postulate the development of class relations in the steppe in order to explain the existence of the state among the nomads. Just as there is no need to resort to the concept of a nomadic autocrat, after whose death the given state was doomed to collapse. However, because the steppe state was structured by its external relations, it differed significantly from sedentary states, which simultaneously contained both a tribal and a state hierarchy, each with separate functions.

The nomadic states of Inner Asia were organized as "imperial confederations", autocratic and centralized in external affairs, but consultative and heterogeneous internally. They consisted of an administrative hierarchy with at least three levels: the imperial leader and his court, imperial governors appointed to oversee the tribes within the empire, and local tribal chiefs. At the local level, the tribal structure remained intact; power continued to be vested in the chiefs, who derived their influence and strength from the support of their fellow tribesmen rather than from imperial appointment. Thus, the structure of the state changed little at the local level, with the exception of ensuring an end to the raids and murders characteristic of the peoples of the steppe in the absence of centralization. The tribes that made up the empire were united by subservience to appointed governors, often members of the imperial family. Imperial governors solved regional problems, organized the recruitment of troops and suppressed opposition generated by local tribal leaders. The nomadic headquarters monopolized foreign affairs and the war, negotiating with other forces from the empire as a whole.

The stability of this structure was maintained by the extraction of resources from outside the steppe to finance the state. Booty from raids, trade rights and tribute were received for the nomads by the imperial government. Although local tribal leaders lost their autonomy, they received in return material benefits from the imperial system, benefits that individual tribes could not obtain for themselves due to their insufficient power. Tribal organization never disappeared at the local level, but its role during periods of centralization was limited to internal affairs. When the system collapsed and the leaders of the local tribes became independent, the steppe returned to anarchy.

Cycles of power

The imperial confederation was the most stable form of nomadic state. First used by the Xiongnu between 200 BC. and 150 AD, it was a model later adopted by the Rourans (5th century), the Turks and Uyghurs (VI-IX centuries), the Oirats, the Eastern Mongols and the Dzungars (XVII-XVIII centuries). The Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan (13th-14th centuries) was based on a much more centralized organization, which destroyed existing tribal ties and made all leaders imperial appointees. The short-lived Xianbei Empire in the second half of the 2nd century. AD was simply a confederation that disintegrated after the death of its leaders. In other periods, in particular between 200 and 400, and 900 and 1200. the steppe tribes were not under centralized rule.

Nomadic imperial confederations arose only during periods when it was possible to connect with the Chinese economy. The nomads used extortion strategies to obtain trade rights and subsidies from China. They raided the border areas and then negotiated a peace treaty with the Chinese court. Local dynasties in China willingly paid nomads because it was cheaper than fighting a war with a people who could avoid retribution by moving out of reach. During these periods the entire northern frontier was divided between the two powers.

Extortion required a very different strategy than conquest. Although the generally accepted view was that the nomads of Mongolia roamed like wolves behind the Great Wall of China, waiting for China to weaken so that they could conquer it, there is evidence that nomads from the central steppe avoided conquering Chinese territory. The wealth from trade with the Chinese and from gifts stabilized the imperial government in the steppe, and they did not want to destroy this source. The Uyghurs, for example, were so dependent on this income that they even sent troops to quell internal revolts in China and keep a compliant dynasty in power. With the exception of the Mongols, "nomadic conquests" took place only after the collapse of the central government in China, when there was no government to extort. Powerful nomadic empires rose and entered into tandem with local dynasties in China. The Han and Xiongnu empires emerged within the same decade, while the Turkic empire emerged just as China was reunified under the Sui/Tang dynasties. Likewise, both the steppe and China entered periods of anarchy within decades of one another. When unrest and economic decline began in China, it was no longer possible to maintain this connection, and the steppe fell apart into component tribes, unable to unite until order was restored in Northern China.

The conquest of China by foreign dynasties was the work of the Manchu peoples - either nomads or forest tribes from the Liaohe River regions. The simultaneous political collapse of centralized rule in both China and Mongolia freed these border peoples from the dominance of any strong authority. Unlike the tribes of the central steppe, they had an egalitarian political structure and close contact with sedentary regions within Manchuria. During times of division, they created small kingdoms along the border that combined both Chinese and tribal traditions under one administration. Islands of stability, they waited while short-term dynasties created by Chinese warlords or steppe tribal leaders destroyed each other in Northern China. When these dynasties failed, the Manchu peoples were encouraged to conquer first a small part of Northern China, and then, during the era of the second Manchu dynasty (i.e., the Qing), even conquer all of China. While the unification of Northern China under foreign rule created favorable economic conditions for the rise of a nomadic state in Mongolia, such states rarely emerged as dynasties from Manchuria adopted extremely different border policies than local Chinese administrations. The Manchu dynasties (the author means Liao, Jin and Qing - editor's note) practiced a policy of political and military rupture, and they waged an active campaign against the nomads to prevent their unification. The nomads from the central steppe, with the exception of the Mongols under Genghis Khan, never had the opportunity to create powerful empires when their "cousins" from Manchuria ruled in China.

There was a cyclical structure to this relationship that repeated itself three times over two thousand years. Working from a different perspective, Ledyard, in his study of the connections between Manchuria, Korea and China, observed a similar three-cycle structure in international relations, which he divided into yin and yang phases based on whether China was expansive (yang) or defensive (yin). ). Its yang phases correspond to our local dynasties ruling all of China, and its yin phases correspond to the rule of conquering dynasties. Interestingly, he also found that the Mongol Yuan dynasty was anomalous, although his analysis excluded the role of other nomadic empires in Mongolia (Ledyard 1983). However, his observations do not explain how or why such connections developed.

To understand how such a cyclical structure could emerge, we must focus our analysis on the changing nature of the border political environment over long periods of time. A type of political ecology developed in which one type of dynasty followed another quite predictably because, under one set of conditions, a particular sociopolitical organization had significant advantages over competitors whose structures were based on different principles. Yet, as conditions changed, the very advantages that led to the dynasty's political success laid the foundations for its own replacement.

The process was similar to ecological succession following a fire in an old forest. In such a forest, a small number of large, established trees dominate the landscape, to the exclusion of other species that have been unable to withstand their natural herbicides and shade. When destroyed by fire or other disaster, dead trees are quickly replaced by a succession of more variable but unstable species that take over the conflagration. Fast-growing, short-lived weeds and shrubs with high rates of reproduction initially establish themselves, creating new soil cover, until they are, in turn, replaced by more resistant species of fast-growing trees. Ultimately, these trees form a mixed forest that exists for many decades, until one or two tree species will not become completely dominant again, will push other species out of the area and return the forest to a stably disequilibrium state, completing the full cycle.

The bipolar world of a united China and a united steppe, which was divided by the border between them, was characterized by such a state of stable disequilibrium.

No alternative political structures could arise while it existed. The disruption of order both in China and in the steppe gave rise to instability. The dynasties that arose during this period were numerous, poorly organized, unstable and short-lived - a good target for attack by any rising warlord or tribal leader who could muster a large army. They were replaced by better organized dynasties, which restored order and successfully ruled large regions. Local dynasties in the south and foreign dynasties in the northeast and northwest divided Chinese territory among themselves. During the Wars of Unification, which destroyed foreign dynasties and led to a united China under the rule of a local dynasty, the steppe unified again unopposed, bringing the cycle full circle. The time lag between the fall of the major local dynasty and the restoration of order under stable foreign rule decreased with each cycle: centuries of instability followed the fall of the Han Empire, decades after the fall of the Tang, and almost no break after the overthrow of the Ming Dynasty. The duration of foreign dynasties revealed a similar structure - least in the first cycle and greatest in the third.

Essentially, my contention is that the steppe tribes of Mongolia played a key role in frontier politics without becoming conquerors of China, and that Manchuria, for political and environmental reasons, was a nursery for foreign dynasties when local Chinese dynasties collapsed as a result of internal uprisings. This framework departs significantly from a number of previous theories proposed to explain the connection between China and its northern neighbors.

Wittfogel's influential study of "conqueror dynasties" in Chinese history ignored the importance of steppe empires like those of the Xiongnu, Turks, and Uyghurs—dividing foreign dynasties into subcategories of pastoral nomads and agricultural tribes, both of which were hostile to typically Chinese dynasties. This emphasis on economic rather than political organization obscured the remarkable fact that, with the exception of the Mongol Yuan dynasty, all the conquering Wittfogel dynasties were of Manchu origin. He also did not distinguish between the nomads of Mongolia, who established steppe empires that successfully ruled the frontier in tandem with China for centuries, and the nomads from Manchuria, who established dynasties in China but never formed powerful empires on the steppe (Wittfogel, Feng 1949 : 521-523).

Perhaps the most significant work on the connection between China and the tribal peoples of the north is O. Lattimore's classic The Frontiers of China in Inner Asia. His personal acquaintance with Mongolia, Manchuria and Turkestan gave his analysis a richness not to be found anywhere else. and 50 years later it still remains a landmark in research on these issues.Particularly influential was his "geographical approach" (which today we might more likely call cultural ecology), which divided inner Asia into key regions, each with its own dynamics of cultural development. Lattimore's main interest was the emergence of steppe pastoralism on the Chinese frontier, and he devoted only a short paragraph to the development of frontier relations during the imperial period. Although the present analysis is largely based on the tradition emanating from Lattimore, we cannot agree with a number of Lattimore's hypotheses related to cycles of nomadic rule and the establishment of conquering dynasties.

Lattimore described a cycle of nomadic rule in which he stated that nomadic states lasted only three or four generations, citing the Xiongnu as an example. At first the polity included only nomads, then it expanded during a second stage in which nomadic warriors supported a mixed state receiving tribute from their sedentary subjects. This mixed state produced a third stage, during which the settled garrison troops of nomadic origins ultimately received the lion's share of income at the expense of their less sophisticated compatriots who remained on the steppe. Such conditions led to the last, fourth stage and caused the collapse of states, since

the difference between real wealth and nominal power, on the one hand, and real or potential power and relative poverty, on the other hand, became intolerable, [causing] the collapse of the composite state and a "return to nomadism" - politically - among distant nomads (Lattimore 1940: 521-523).

In reality, the Xiongnu Empire exhibits no such structure. The Xiongnu leaders established their rule over the other nomads and then remained in the steppe without conquering settled regions that required garrisons. It was a state whose ruling dynasty remained undisturbed not for four generations, but for 400 years. When, after the fall of the Han dynasty, the Xiongnu ruler established a short-lived dynasty along the Chinese border, the outlying nomads did not return to the steppe; when they felt cheated of the revenue, they instead seized the state for themselves.

In terms of a "conquest dynasty," Lattimore recognized that there was a difference between the nomadic peoples of the open steppe and the marginal frontier zones occupied by peoples of mixed cultures. He noted that there was a marginal zone that was the source of the conquering dynasty, not the open steppe (Lattimore 1940: 542-552). However, like Wittfogel, he failed to note that the vast majority of conquering dynasties arose in the Manchu marginal zone rather than elsewhere. Also, by including Genghis Khan as the primary example of such a frontier leader, he ignored his own proposed distinction between open steppe societies and mixed-culture frontier societies, since Genghis Khan was as far from the frontier as any frontier leader. the Xiongnu or Turks who preceded him in Mongolia. The reason for this apparent geographical contradiction was that the very definition of the border changed radically depending on whether a local or foreign dynasty ruled in Northern China. Southern Mongolia became part of the "mixed border zone" only when foreign dynasties implemented policies to fragment the political organization of the steppe nomads. When local dynasties and steppe empires shared the border between themselves, politically independent mixed societies did not exist.

These criticisms demonstrate both the complexity of trends in Inner Asia and the need to examine them as a consequence of changing connections over time. The Mongolian steppe, Northern China and Manchuria must be analyzed as parts of a single historical system. A comparative description of the main local and foreign dynasties and steppe empires begins to provide such a model (Table 1.1.). It provides a rough representation of three cycles of dynasty replacement (with only the Mongols appearing out of phase) that set the parameters for border connections.

The Han and Xiongnu were closely linked as part of a bipolar front that developed in the late third century BC. When the Xiongnu Empire lost its hegemony in the steppe around 150 AD, it was replaced by the Xianbei dynasty; who maintained a loosely structured empire with constant raids on China until the death of their leader in 180, the same year that a powerful rebellion occurred in China. For 20 years, the Later Han dynasty existed in name only, with both its population and its economy in steep decline. It should be noted that it was not the nomads, but the Chinese rebels who destroyed the Han Dynasty. Over the next century and a half, as warlords of all types fought China, the Manchu descendants of the Xianbei created small states. Of these, the Mujun state proved to be the most enduring, and it established control over the northeast in the mid-fourth century. They created the basis that was later adopted by the Tuoba Wei, who overthrew the Yan Dynasty and unified all of Northern China. Only after the unification of Northern China, the nomads in Mongolia again created a centralized state under the leadership of the Rourans. However, the Rourans never controlled the steppe, as the Toba maintained huge garrisons along the border and invaded Mongolia with the goal of capturing as many prisoners and livestock as possible. They were so successful in this that the Rouran were unable to threaten China until the end of the dynasty's history, when the Toba became Sinicized and began to use appeasement policies similar to those used by the Han.

Internal rebellion brought down the Wei dynasty and began a period of reunification of China under the Western Wei and Sui dynasties at the end of the sixth century. The Rourans were overthrown by their vassals the Turks, who were so feared by the leaders of China that they paid them large gifts of silks to keep the peace. The border became bipolar again, and the Turks began a policy of extortion similar to that practiced by the Xiongnu. During the fall of the Sui and the rise of the Tang, the Turks made no attempt to conquer China, but instead supported Chinese claimants to the throne. As the Tang dynasty declined, it became dependent on the nomads to curb internal revolts, calling upon the Uighurs for help, which proved decisive in suppressing the An Lushan rebellion in the mid-eighth century. This probably prolonged the life of this dynasty for the next century. After the Uighurs fell victim to a Kyrgyz attack in 840, the central steppe entered a period of anarchy. The Tang Dynasty was overthrown by the next major uprising in China

The fall of the Tang dynasty provided an opportunity for the development of mixed states in Manchuria. The most important of these was the Liao dynasty, which was established by the Khitan nomads. They collected the debris from the fall of a series of short-lived Tang dynasties in the mid-tenth century. The Tangut kingdom arose in Gansu, while the rest of China was in the hands of the local Song dynasty. Like the Yan state of the Murongs several centuries earlier, the Liao used dual administration to accommodate both Chinese and tribal organization. Like the Yan state, Liao also fell prey to another Manchu group, the Jurchens, the forest peoples who overthrew the Liao in the early 12th century to establish the Qing dynasty and proceeded to conquer all of Northern China, limiting the Song to the south. Essentially, the first two cycles were essentially similar in structure, but the rise of the Mongols led to major destruction that had profound consequences not only for China, but for the world.

A nomadic state never emerged in Mongolia during periods when Northern China was torn apart by warlord infighting after the collapse of a long-lived dynasty. The restoration of order by foreign dynasties from Manchuria strengthened the frontier and provided a single target, favoring the creation of centralized states on the steppe. These foreign dynasties recognized the danger posed by Mongolia and played out tribal politics to break them apart, using divide and rule strategies, carrying out massive invasions that removed large numbers of people and animals from the steppe, and maintaining a system of alliances through the use of mutual marriages, to bind some tribes to themselves. The strategy worked quite well: the Rouran were never able to effectively interact with Tuoba Wei, and during the Liao and Qing dynasties, the tribes in Mongolia failed to unite at all before Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan's later success should not obscure for us the difficulties he faced in unifying the steppe against Jurchen opposition - he spent most of his adult life coming very close to failure on a number of occasions. His state was unlike any other. Highly centralized and with a disciplined army, it destroyed the power of autonomous tribal chiefs. However, like previous unifiers from Mongolia, Genghis Khan's goal was initially extortion rather than conquest of China. Although highly sinicized from a cultural point of view, the Jurchen court rejected appeasement and refused to curtail its dealings with the Mongols. Subsequent wars over the next three decades destroyed much of northern China and left it to the Mongols. Their lack of interest and preparation to rule (rather than extort) was reflected in their reluctance to declare a dynastic family name or establish a regular administration until the reign of Kublai Khan, Genghis's eldest son.

Genghis Khan's victory demonstrates that the model we have presented is probabilistic, not deterministic. In troubled times, there were always tribal leaders like Genghis Khan, but their chances of uniting the steppe against the Manchu states, which drew on the wealth of China, were low. Thus, while the Juron were particularly unsuccessful, the Turks who followed them created an empire larger than that of the Xiongnu, not because the Turks were necessarily more talented, but because they were able to exploit the new Chinese states that generously they paid not to be destroyed. Genghis Khan overcame massive blows - the Jurchens were powerful. Mongolia had not been unified since the fall of the Uighurs more than three centuries ago, and the Mongols were one of the weaker tribes on the steppe. The clash between a powerful nomadic state and a strong foreign dynasty was peculiar and highly destructive. The Mongols used the traditional strategy of brutal attacks to induce a profitable peace, but it failed when the Jurchens rejected the treaty method and forced the Mongols to increase their pressure until the sacrifice was destroyed.

The Mongols were the only nomads from the central steppe to conquer China, but this experience changed Chinese attitudes toward nomads for many years to come. The series of political sequences described earlier would have predicted the emergence of a steppe empire when the Jurchens succumbed to internal rebellion and China was unified under a dynasty similar to the Ming. During the Ming, such empires arose, led first by the Oirats and later by the Eastern Mongols, but they were unstable because the nomads were not able to create a system of regular trade and gifts from China until the mid-17th century. When the memory of the Mongol invasion was still fresh, the Ming dynasty ignored the precedents of the Han and Tang states and adopted a policy of having no ties, fearing that the nomads wanted to replace the Ming in China. The nomads responded with continuous raids on the border, exposing the Ming to more attacks than any other Chinese dynasty. When the Ming Dynasty finally changed its tactics to accommodate the nomads, the attacks largely ceased and peace remained on the border. After the Ming dynasty was overthrown by Chinese rebellions in the mid-17th century, the Manchus, not the Mongols, were the ones who conquered China and established the Qing dynasty. Like earlier Manchu rulers, the Qing used a dual administrative structure and effectively prevented political unification of the steppe by co-opting Mongol leaders and dividing their tribes into small elements under Manchu control. The cycle of traditional ties between China and Inner Asia ended when modern weapons, transportation systems, and new forms of international political relations disrupted the order of the Sinocentric world of East Asia.

Table 1.1. Cycles of Government: Major Dynasties in China and Steppe Empires in Mongolia Chinese dynasties Steppe empires Foreign Qin and Han (221 BC -220 AD) HUNNU (209 BC - 155 AD) Chinese dynasties during the period of collapse (220-581) Toba Wei (386-556) and other dynasties Sui and Tang (581-907) FIRST Turkic (552-630) SECOND TURKIC (683-734) UIGUR Khaganates Liao (Khitan) (907-1125) Jin (Jurchen) (1115-1234) ' Yuan-------------- MONGOLS (Mongols) Eastern Mongols Qing (Manchus) (1616-1912) Dzungars

LITERATURE

Aberle, D. 1953. The Kinship of the Kalmuk Mongols. Albuquerque.

Andrews, P.A. 1973. The white house of Khurasan: the felt tents of the Iranian Yomut and Goklen.

Journal of British Institute of Iranian Studies 11: 93-110.

Bacon, E. Types of pastoral nomadism in Central and Southwestern Asia. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10: 44-68.

Barth, F. 1960. The land use patterns of migratory tribes of South Persia a. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 17: 1-11.

Barthold, V.V. 1935. ZwdlfVorlesungen fiber die Geschichte der Turken Mittelasiens. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Islamkunde.

Bulliet, R. 1975. The Camel and the Wheel. Cambridge, Mass.

Burnham, P. 1979. Spatial Mobility and Political Centralization in Pastoral Societies. Pastoral Production and Society. New York.

Cleaves, F. 1982 (trans.). The Secret History of the Mongols. Cambridge, Mass.

Eberhardt, W. 1970. Conquerors and Rulers. Leiden.

Harmatta, J. 1952. The Dissolution of the Hun Empire. Acta Archaeologica 2: 277-304.

Irons, W. 1979. Political Stratification Among Pastoral Nomads. Pastoral Production and Society.

New York: Cambridge University Press: 361-374.

Khazanov, A.M. 1984. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge

Krader, L. 1955. The ecology off central Asian pastoralism. Bacon, E. Types of pastoral nomadism in Central and Southwestern Asia. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11: 301-326

Krader, L. 1963. Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkish Pastoral Nomads. The Hague.

Krader, L. 1979. The Origin of the State Among Nomads. Pastoral Production and Society. New York: 221-234.

Lattimore, O. 1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York.

Ledyard, G. 1983. Yun and Yang in the China-Manchuria-Korea Triangle. China among Equals. Ed. by M. Rossabi. Berkeley, CA.

Lindhom, Ch. 1986. Kinship structure and political authority: the Middle East and Central Asia. Journal of Comparative History and Society 28: 334-355.

Mostaert, A. 1953. Stir quelques oassages de I"Histore secrete ds Mongols. Cambridge, Mass.

Murzaev, E. 1954. Die Mongolische Volksrepublik, physisch-geographische. Cotha.

Radloff, W.W. 1893ab. Ag/s Sibirien. 2 vols. Leipzig.

Sahlins, M. 1960. The segmentary lineage: an organization for predatory expansion. American Anthropologist 63: 322-345.

Spuler, B. 1972. History of the Mongols: Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Berkeley, CA.

Stenning, D. 1953. Savannah Nomads. Oxford.

Tapper, R. 1990. Your tribe or mine? Anthropologists, historians and tribes people on tribe and state formation in the Middle East. Tribe and State in the Middle East. Ed. by J. Kostiner and P. Khoury. Princeton, NJ: 48-73.

Vainstein, S.I. 1980. Nomads of Souts Siberia: The Pastoral Economies of Tuva. Cambridge.

Vladimirtsov, B.Ya. 1948. Le regime social des Mongols: le feodalisme nomade. Paris.

Wittfogel, K.A. and Feng Chiasheng 1949. History of Chinese Society Liao (907-1125). Philadelphia.