Social Complexity, Inner Asia, and Pastoral Nomadism

Abstract

For many years scholars have interpreted the large polities of pastoral nomads of Inner Asia as having different levels of complexity (pre-state, early state, feudal society, nomadic civilization, etc.). The present article discusses the debates of recent decades within the post-Marxist and postmodern approaches as well as the polemics about the relation between internal and external factors, about the hierarchy and heterarchy, periodization and complexity levels. Many important issues give rise to a new wave of debates. However, there is still no consensus on a number of fundamental issues. We call to a new phase in nomadic studies (nomadology) -the transition from the great theories to the middle-range theories. We also give comments on some articles of the present special section. FROM MARXISM TO EMPIRICISMIt can be said that by the end of the Soviet era four main viewpoints on the nature of nomadic social structure had formed in Russian nomadology (see in more detail: Kradin 1992Kradin , 2003Kradin , 2007Kradin , 2014Vasyutin and Dashkovsky 2009): (1) pre-class society among the nomads. At the same time, some researchers believed that nomads could achieve statehood with the establishment of foreign exploitative relations; (2) the early state of the nomads; (3) feudalism among the nomads: a) the orthodox version of the nomadic feudalism theory; b) the saun version of nomadic feudalism; c) power over the nomads as the basis of feudalism; the formation of feudalism in the course of poor nomads sedentarization; and d) opinions about the feudal essence of nomadism without indicating its nature; and (4) a special nomadic or exopolitary mode of production.Unfortunately, theoretical research in nomadology became unpopular in the post-Soviet period. In a broader context, one can state that a wave of empiricism has swept through historical studies, archaeology, and anthropology. A huge number of studies introducing empirical material into scientific circulation is published each year. Sometimes, there are interesting generalizations that can be attributed to the middle-range theories. However, the number of conceptual generalizing studies by the Russianspeaking researchers is exceedingly small. One of the primary reasons might be the disillusionment of scholars in Marxism and, subsequently, their unwillingness to create new idols for themselves. It is possible that this fact can be explained by the general crisis in academic studies, endless reformatting of the structure of research studies, poor funding, and fierce competition for additional resources.One way or another, in the first post-Marxist decade the discussion was rather sluggish and the leadership gradually shifted to foreign researchers. The very focus of discussion also changed. The most relevant issue was the level of complexity the nomadic empires corresponded to. Some authors support the idea of the pre-state nature of nomadic societies

Models for iron age agriculture and pastoralism in Kazakhstan

“…10,17 to provide us with theoretical models for pastoral societies. 18 who has incorporated his archaeological studies of the Xiongnu and other Mongolian pastoralists also provide some important directions for understanding the social evolution of nomadic pastoral societies of Eurasia. In spite of all the tremendous progress in the area of scientific studies, there is still the need for Kazakhstani and international researchers working in Kazakhstan to inventory archaeological sites, conduct careful excavations of settlements and mortuary grounds, and to aid in the preservation of a rich and important world heritage.…”

Origins of the Early Russian State: Anthropological Perspectives

“…I will consider some other factors that are directly related to this issue. According to the cross-cultural data, there is a strong correlation between the type of economy (agriculture), population density and the level of political centralization (Korotayev 1991;Kradin 2006Kradin , 2013. For this reason, the expansion of agriculture, in whatever form and with whatever specific characteristics, may eventually lead to an increase in population.…”

Political Complexity in Nomadic Empires of Inner Asia

“…Political anthropology presents a wide range of concepts to evaluate different power systems -different types of chiefdom and states, analogues and alternatives to chiefdoms and states (Claessen and Skalnik 1981;Claessen and Velde 1987;Claessen 1989Claessen , 1991Claessen , 2010Claessen , 2011Claessen , 2014Carneiro 1981Carneiro , 1992Earle 1987Earle , 1997Earle , 2011Kradin 1995Kradin , 2009Bondarenko 2001Bondarenko , 2005Bondarenko , 2006Bondarenko , 2008Bondarenko , 2011Bondarenko, Grinin, and Korotayev 2006;Grinin , 2008Grinin , 2009Grinin , 2011Grinin and Korotaev 2011;Skalnik 2009Skalnik , 2011, which allows a choice between various theories to evaluate the Turkic Khaganates. Some current researchers rely on multilinearity (nonlinearity) of politogenesis and a variety of political structural forms.…”