The Xiongnu and the Comparative Study of Empire

Scheidel, Walter

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1663558

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their use in nomadology has already yielded certain results (Koryakova 1996;Kradin, Bondarenko, and Barfield 2003;Bazarov, Kradin, andSkrynnikova 2004-2008;Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007;Vasyutin and Dashkovsky 2009;Vasyutin 2010Vasyutin , 2011aVasyutin , 2017Vdovichenkov 2016Vdovichenkov , 2018Petrov 2016, etc.). Foreign researchers joined the discussion of such definitions as nomadic empire (Kradin 1996(Kradin , 2000Vasyutin 2010;Pikov 2010;Rogers 2012) and super-complex chiefdom (Maekawa 2006;Scheidel 2010Scheidel , 2011Di Cosmo 2011;Shiraishi 2015;Kim 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Complexity, Inner Asia, and Pastoral Nomadism

Kradin¹

2019

seh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Complexity, Inner Asia, and Pastoral Nomadism

Kradin¹

2019

seh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issues concerning the characteristics of political regimes of medieval nomadic empires have provoked fierce debates among researchers and have become especially important during the last decade. The question of statehood among nomads and its specificity is still the most polemical issue (Khazanov 1981(Khazanov , 1984(Khazanov , 2010Golden 1982Golden , 1992Golden , 2001Barfield 1989Barfield , 2000Barfield , 2011Kradin 1992Kradin , 2002Kradin , 2008Kradin , 2010Kradin , 2011aKradin , 2011bKradin , 2011cKradin , 2014Kradin , 2015Kradin and Ivliev 2014;Kradin and Skrynnikova 2006;Maсkerras 1990Maсkerras , 2000Maсkerras , 2004Sinor 1990;Di Cosmo 1999, 2002Klyashtorny 2003Klyashtorny , 2010Klyashtorny and Savinov 2005;Klyashtorny and Sultanov 2009;Rogers 2007Rogers , 2011Rogers , 2018Sneath 2007Sneath , 2009Legrand 2011;Scheidel 2011;and others).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Complexity in Nomadic Empires of Inner Asia

Vasyutin¹

2019

seh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nomadic empires of Inner Asia are a unique historical phenomenon. Large mountain and steppe territories allowed hundreds of thousands of nomadic families to pursue their economic activities, creating the conditions that led to their integration into big imperial communities. The long border in the South with empire-civilization and world-system center China was one of the major 'challenges' for steppe people, the 'answer' to which was often the creation of semi-peripheral imperial polities, as only the common military capacity of the Inner Asia stockbreeders guaranteed them at least temporary military and political equality and even supremacy during periods of weakening of the Middle Kingdom. The established opinion on the similarity of the nomadic empires in this region is mostly the result of a long period of research on nomadic economies, social and political structures, and the relations between nomads and China (evolutionism, positivism, Marxism). In the last few decades, the concept of multi-linearity (non-linearity) of sociogenesis and politogenesis has been applied to this field of study, allowing us to focus on the peculiarities of the Inner Asia nomadic empires, creating a solution to the old issues surrounding the nature of the power systems among nomads, the existence or absence of statehood, and the typology of imperial structures according to their level of complexity.

show abstract

The Xiongnu and the Comparative Study of Empire

Cited by 2 publications

References 19 publications

Social Complexity, Inner Asia, and Pastoral Nomadism

Social Complexity, Inner Asia, and Pastoral Nomadism

Political Complexity in Nomadic Empires of Inner Asia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About