Крадин Н. Империя Хунну
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Matsuda Hisao 1967. Yuboku seikatsu to oashisu noko [Nomadic Life and Oasis
Agriculture] // Rekishi kyoiku. Vol. 15, No. 9/10: 1-14.
[293]
McGovern W. 1939. The Early Empires of Central Asia: A Study of the Scythians and –le
Huns and –le Part they Played in World History. Chapel Hill: University of North California Press.
Miniaev S.S. 1989. Neuers zur Archaologie der Xiongnu // Das Altertum / Bd. 35. No. 2:
118-125.
Miniaev S.S. 1996. Archeeologie des Xiongnu en Basse: Nouvelles decouvertes
problemes // Arts Asia~ca. 51: 5–12.
Mori Masao 1950. A Preliminary Study of the State of 'Hsiungnu' // Shigaku Zasshi. LIX-
5: 1-21 (in Japanese).
Mori Masao 1950a. Chugoku kodai ni okeru yuboku kokka to noko kokka [Nomadic
States and Agricultural States in Ancient China] // Rekishigaku kenkyu. 147: 1–13 (in Japanese).
Mori Masao 1971. On «Die 24 Ta-ch'en» of Prof. O. Pritsak // Shigaku-Zasshi. LXXX-1:
43-60 (in Japanese).
Mori Masao 1973. Reconsidera€on of the Hsiung-nu state – a response to
Professor O. Pritsak's cri€cism // Acta Asia~ca. 24: 20–34.
Onuki Shizuo 1996. The Development of the hea€ng system and above ground dwelling
in the North east Asia // The First Interna~onal Symposium of Bohai Culture. Vladivostok: 55–
59.
Parker E. H. 1892/1893. The Turko-Scythian Tribes// China Review. Vol. 20, No. 1: 1-24;
No. 2: 109-125.
Parker E.H. 1894/1895. The Turko-Scythian Tribes // China Review. Vol. 21, No. 3: 100-
19; No. 5: 129-137; No. 7: 253-267.
Parker E.H. 1895. A Thousand Years of the Tartars // Shanghai and Honkong.
Pla„ner S. 1989 (ed). Economic Anthropology. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press. 489 p.
Polanyi K. 1968. Primi~ve, archaic and modern Economics /Ed. by G. Dalton. New York:
Anchor.
Poper D.C. 1979. The Method and Theory of Site Catchment Analysis: a review //
Advances in archaeological method and theory /Ed. by M. Sni•er. N.Y.: 120-140.
Pritsak O. 1954. Die 24 Ta-ch'en: Studie zur Geschichte des Verwaltungsau¥aus der
Hsiung-nu Reiche // Oriens Extremus. 1: 178–202.
Pulleyblank E.G. 1962. The Hsiung-nu Language //Asia Maior. New Series. Vol. IX. Pt. 2:
239-265.
Renfrew C. 1972. The Emergence of Civiliza~on: —e Cyclades and Aegean in the third
millennium В. С London.
Rowlands M. 1987. Centre and periphery: a review of a concept // Centre and periphery
in the ancient world / Ed. by M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, К Kris€ansen. Cambridge: 1–11.
Rudenko S.I. 1969. Die Kultur der Hsiung-nu und die Hugelgraber von Noin Via. Bonn:
Rudolf Habelt Ferlag.
Saint-Mar€n V. 1849. Les Huns blancsou Ephtalites des historiens busan~ns. Paris.
Sahlins M. 1968. Tribesmen. Englewood Cli•s.
Samolin W. 1957. Hsiung-nu, Hun, Turk// Central Asia~c Journal. III. No. 2: 143-150.
Service E. 1971. Primi~ve Social Organiza~on. 2
nd
ed. New York: Radmon House.
Service E. 1975. Origins of the State and Civiliza~on. N.Y.: Norton.
[294]
Shiratori К. 1902. Ubcr die Sprache der Hiungnu und der Tunghu – Stam-me // Изв.
Имп. Акад. наук. Т. XVII, № 2.
Smith J. 1967. Mongol and Nomadic Taxa€on // Harvard Journal of Asia~c Studies.
30: 46-85.
Southal A. 1991. The Segmentaiy State: From the Imaginary to the Matherial Means
of Produc€on // Early State Economics / Ed. by H.J.M. Claessen, P. van de Velde. New
Brunswick, London: 75–96.
Suzuki Chusei 1968. China's rela€ons with Inner Asia: the Hsiungnu, Tibet // The
Chinese World Order: Tradi~onal China's Foreign Rela~ons / Ed. by 1С Fairbank. Cambridge
(Mass.): 178–196.
Szynkiewicz S. 1989. Interac€ons between the nomadic cultures of central Asia and
China in the Middle Ages // Centre and Periphery: Compara~ve studies in archaeology / Ed.
By T. Champion. London etc.: 151–158.
Tezuka Takayoshi 1955. Kyodo no yokaku ni tsuide [The Fortresses of the Hsiung-
nu] // Shien. Vol. 16. No. 1: 25-43.
Thapar R. 1981. The state as Empire //The Study of the State/ Ed. by H.J.M. Claessen
and P. Skalnik. The Hague: 409–426.
Thompson E.A. 1948. A history of A‰la and the Huns. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tserendash S. 2000. Pasture resource – u€liza€on and management in Mongolia //
Interna~onal symposium on «Nomads and use of Pastures today». Ulanbaatar 141-143.
Uchida Ginupu 1953. Kyodo-shi kenkyu [A Study of the history of the Hsiung-nu].
Osaka: Sogen-sha.
Uchida Ginupu 1955/1975. Kodai yuboku minzoku no noko kokka shinnyu no shin'in
Kiga to shinnyu to no kankei ni tsuite no sai-kento [The Real Reason why Ancient Nomads
Invaded Agricultural States: A Reexamina€on of the Rela€onship between Starva€on and
Invasion] // Kita-Ajiashi kenkyu: Kyodo-hen [Studies on the History of Northern Asia: Hsiung-
nu Volume]. Kyoto: 1-27.
Umehara Sueji 1960. Moko Noin-ura hakken no ibutsu [Studies ofNoin-UIa –nds in
Northern Mongolia]. Tokyo.
Wallerstein I. 1984. The poli~c of the world-economy. Paris: Maisonde Science de I'
Homme.
Watson B. (trans.) 1961ab. Records of the Grand Historian of China from the Shih Chi
of Ssu-ma Ch'en. Vols. 1–2. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Watson B. (trans.) 1969. Records of the Historian. Chapters from the Shih Chi of Ssu-
ma Ch'ien. New York etc.: Columbia Univ. Press.
Watson B. (trans.) 1974. Cour~erand Commander in Ancient China. Selec~ons from
the History of the Former Han by Ban Ku. New York etc.: Columbia Univ. Press.
Watson W. 1971. Cultural fron~ers in ancient East Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.
Press.
Watson W. 1972. The Chinese contribu€ons to eastern nomad culture in the pre-Han
and early Han periods // World Archaeology. 4: 139–149.
Wen-Yen Tsao n. d. The Hsiung-nu Menace and the Han Expansionism // Chinese
History. Vol. II: Middle Ages / Ed. by С Kung and others: 41–92.
[295]
Wi£ogel K. A., Feng Chia-Sheng 1949. History ofChinese Society. Liao (907–1125).
Philadelphia (Transac€ons of the American Philosophical Society, new series, 36).
Wyile A. (trans.) 1874. History of the Heung-noo in their rela€ons with China // Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Ins~tute. 3 (3): 396–451.
Wyile A. (trans.) 1875. History of the Heung-noo in their rela€ons with China // Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Ins~tute. 5 (1): 41–80.
Yamada Nobuo 1982. Forma€on of the Hsiung-nu nomadic state // Acta Orientalia
Hungaricae. T. XXXVI, F. 1–3: 575–582.
Yang Lien-sheng 1968. The Chinese World Order: Varia€ons on a Theme // The Chinese
World Order: Tradi~onal China's Foreign Rela~ons. Cambridge (Mass.).
Yu Ying-shih 1967. Trade and Expansion in Han China. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Yu Ying-shih 1986. Han foreign rela€ons// The Cambridge History of China. Vol I. The Ch In and
Han Empires, 221 ВС –AD 200 / Ed. by D. Twitche„ and M. Loewe. Cambridge etc.: 377–462.
Yu Ying-shih 1990. The Hsiung-nu // The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia I Ed. by D.
Sinor. Cambridge: 118–149.
von Zach E. 1924. Einige Ferbesserungen zu De Groot, Die Hunnen der vorchristlishen
Zeit // Asia Maior. I (1): 125–133.
[296]
SUMMARY
Kradin, Nikolay N. Imperiia Hunnu [The Hsiung-nu
Empire]. Moscow, 2001
This study was supported by Giants of Soros Founda€on # Z16000/542 and # H2B741,
RGNF # 93-06-10313, RFFI # 97-06-96759 and # 99-06-99512, and the Russian Federal Program
«Integra€on»* M422-06.
Introduclon
The Hsiung-nu history is one of the most interes€ng pages of the history of the Eurasia
steppe's people in the ancient epoch. On the boundary between III and II centuries ВС. the
Hsiung-nu have established the ‰rst steppe empire which has consolidated many ethnoses of
the Inner Asia. Over a period of 250 years, a drama€c confronta€on between Hsiung-nu and
southern neighbour – Chinese dynasty Han. At the end of the ‰rst century AD, the Hsiung-nu
era in the Inner Asia was over but from this point a new stage of their history – the Hun
invasion to the West and their devasta€ng conquests in the Old World begins.
Basic sources on the Hsiung-nu history [Лидай 1958] are data of the which was made
into basic languages [Бичурин 1950/1851; Groot 1921; Watsin 1961; Материалы 1968, 1973],
as well as materials of archaeological excava€ons on the territories of Mongolia, Russia and
China [Доржсурэн 1961; Unehara 1960; Rudenko 1969; Коновалов 1976; Давыдова 1995;
1996; Миняев 1998 etc.]. At present, there are several great papers [Egami 1948; Бернштам
1951; Гумилев 1960; Ma Чаншоу 1962; Давыдова 1985; Сухбаатар 1980 etc.], in which
di•erent aspects of the history and culture of the Hsiung-nu society are elucidated. However,
many ques€ons remain as before unsolved and debatable. This book will consider some of
these problems.
1. Formalon of the Hsiung-nu empire
To a problem of origin of the nomadic empires, a great number of di•erent special and
popular studies has been devoted. Joseph Fletcher, referring to the works of the Chinese
historian Ch'i-ch'ing Hsiao, believes that all theories
[297]
explaining the reason of forma€on of the nomadic empires and their invasions to China and
other agricultural countries can be reduced to the following seven ones: (1) greedy and
predatory nature of inhabitants of steppe region; (2) clima€c changes; (3) overpopula€on of
steppe; (4) unwillingness of farmers to trade with nomads; (5) necessity of addi€onal livelihood
sources; (6) need in a crea€on of supertribal uni‰ca€on of nomads; (7) psychology of nomads;
aspira€on of nomads to feel themselves to be equal to farmers, on the one hand, and a faith of
nomads in divine predes€na€on given Heaven Tenggeri, to them by to subjugate the whole
World [Fletcher 1986: 32–33].
In the majority of the factors listed there are their own ra€onal aspects. However, an
importance of some of them has been overes€mated. So, the present paleogeographical data
don't conform a strict correla€on of global periods of the steppe drying (hunidi‰ca€on with
periods of decline) prosperity of nomadic empires [Иванов, Васильев 1995 table 24, 25]. A
thesis of 'class struggle' of nomads proved to be erroneous [Марков 1976; Khazanov
1984/1994; Крадин 1992]. A role of demography is not en€rely known because an increase of
the livestock went on move fast than that of popula€on. An increase of livestock has led to
destruc€on of grasses and crisis of the ecosystem. The nomadic life can, naturally, contribute to
development of some military characteris€cs. But the number of farmers was many €mes over
and they had ecologically complex economy, reliable fortresses and more powerful handicra¦-
metallurgical base.
As a whole, from the ecological point of view, the nomads have not needed in a state. A
speci‰c character of pastoralism assumes a dissipated (disperse) existence mode. A
concentra€on of large herds at the same place has led to overgrazing, excessive trampling
down of grass, growth of a danger of a spreading of infec€ons diseases of animals. The ca„le
can tot be accumulated to in‰nity, its maximum quan€ty was determined by the produc€vity of
the steppe landscape. In addi€on, regardless of a gentlehood of the ca„le owner, all his herds
could be destroyed by murrian (dzuf), drought or epizoo€c. Therefore, it was more pro‰table to
give a ca„le for pasture to the kinsmen not su§ciently provided for or to distribute as the 'gi¦s'
thereby raising his social status. Thus, all the produc€on ac€vi€es of the nomads have been
carried out within the amily – related and lineage groups using only episodically the labour
coopera€on of the segments of undertribal and tribal levels [Laˆmore 1940; Bacon 1958;
Krader 1963; Марков 1976; Khazanov 1984/1994; Масанов 1995а etc.].
This circumstance has led to that the interven€on of leaders of the nomadic life has
been very insigni‰cant and could not be compared with numerous administra€ve obliga€ons of
the rulers of the se„led agricultural socie€es. By virtue of this fact, the power of the leaders of
the steppe socie€es could not develop to the formalized level on the basis of regular taxa€on of
ca„le-breeders
[298]
and the elite was forced to be sa€s‰ed with the gi¦s and irregular presents. Besides, a
considerable oppression of mobile nomads on the side of the tribal chief or other person
pretending to a personal power could led to mass decampment away him [Laˆmore 1940;
Марков 1976; Irons 1979; Khazanov 1984/1994; Fletcher 1986; Bar‰eld 1992; Крадин 1992;
Kradin 1995; 2000a; Масанов 1995а etc.].
What has, in such a situa€on, incited the nomads to raids and been a reason to create
the 'nomadic empires? The eminent American anthropologist Owen Laˆmore, living over
prolonged period among the ca„le-breeders of Mongolia, has wri„en that a nomad can easily
manage with only products received from his herd of animals, but a pure nomad will always
remain to be poor [ 1940: 522]. The nomads are in need of foodstu•s of farmers, products of
cra¦smen, silk, arms and re‰ned adornments for their chiefs, and chiefs' wife's and concubines.
All of this could be get by two ways: war and peaceful trade. The nomads have used both ways.
When they have felt their superiority or invulnerability, they have mounted their horses and
le¦ in a raid. However, a neighbour was the powerful state. The pastoral nomads preferred to
carry on with it a peaceful trade. But quite o•er the governments of the se„led states
prevented from such the trade as it got out of hand. And at that €me, the nomads had to assert
their right to trade using arms.
The complicated hierarchical organiza€on of the power in the form of the 'nomadic
empires' and similar poli€cal forma€ons has been developed by nomads only in those regions
where they have been forced to have the long and ac€ve contacts with more highly organized
agricultural-urban socie€es (Scythians and ancient oriental and western states; nomads of
Inner Asia and China, Hunns and Roman Empire, Arabs, Khazars, Turks and Byzan€a etc.)
ILaˆmore 1940; Хазанов 1975; Khazanov 1984/1994; Bar‰eld 1981; 1992; Fletcher 1986;
Крадин 1992; Kradin 1995; 2000a]. In the Khalkha-Mongolia, the ‰rst steppe empire – Hsiung-
nu – has emerged just as in the Middle China plain a¦er the long period of the internal wars the
Chinese na€onal centralized state – the Ch'in empire and a¦erwards the Han empire [Kradin
2000].
As a whole, a history of the Hsiung-nu power's forma€on ‰ts in the general picture of
origin of the nomadic empires of the Eurasia. Of four possible iden€‰ed variants of origin of
steppe poli€es: (1) Mongolian way through usurpa€on of the power; (2) Turkic one – in the
process of struggle for independence; (3) Hunnish one – by migra€on to the territory of the
agricultural state; (4) Khazar one – in the course of sedenteriza€on of the great 'world' steppe
empire). The Hsiung-nu ‰t classically into the ‰rst and most widespread model of which an
appearance among the nomads of a talented or successful leader was characteris€c who has
been able to consolidate all tribes and khanates 'living behing the felt walls' into the united
steppe power. Such a talented poli€cal and military leader of the Hsiung-nu was Mao-tun,
[299]
Ssu-ma Ch'ien depicts how was a ruler (Shan-yii) of the Hsiung-nu and captured a throne
[Лидай 1958: 15–16], however, in this story, the echos of real historical events and elements of
the fancifully mixed up. This story more resembles a ‰c€on than a truth as it contains much
incredible: (1) Poli€cal revolu€ons are prepared in secret. In this case, all the preparatory
measures have been carried out at great concourse and it is not likely that Shan-yii Touman had
no knowledge of them; (2) Why a murder by Мао-tun of the 'loved'(!) wife went unpunished?
How did he explained a such cruel ac€on to his father and rela€ves of wife? Why a custom
of'blood feud' did not infringe on him? (3) The number of the 'loved' wife's was very great.
There are three ones in a story;
(4) Why did not Shan-yii and his retainers not only stop a terror that wasunleashed
by Мао-tun in his district but had no knowledge of repression's?
(5) how did Мао-tun make bold to kill before the father's eyes his 'loved' horse?All
know what value has the horse for a nomad and striking a blow to another'srunner implies a
striking a blow to its owner; (6) the fact of the fathers murderitself is a very double¨ul. In the
history of the nomadic world, the events ofmurders in the struggle for the throne were o¦en
noted. But I don't know therulers of the nomadic empires of the fathers' killers.
However, the existence of Shan-yii Touman as a real historical person can be called in
ques€on. F. Hirth [1910] and K. Shiratori [1902] have noted a consonance of this name with a
world 'tuman' meaning 'ten thousand warriors'. Thus, it is possible that Touman is a some
collec€ve image but not real father of Mao-tun.
On the whole, a story of advent of Мао-tun to power closely resembles a tale or epic
work. A subject has a clear composi€on structure and is divided into two parts. In the ‰rst one,
a sequence of events of Мао-tun advent to power is depicted while, in the second, an account
of his diploma€c rela€ons with the Tung-hu ruler and war against him gives that comes to a
happy end as o¦en happens in the literature works. All of events in both parts run on the
principle of chain, and the tension grows gradually un€l, ‰nally, ends with any ac€on. Such a
way of the subject construc€on called an e•ect of cumula€vity by V.Ya. Propp was widely used
in di•erent forms of the folklore works [Пропп 1976].
The second fundamental likeness of a story of Мао-tun rise with the folklore works
consists in a principle of triplicity. All events of the chain are repeated three €mes (as in a tale)
but every €me with cumula€ve increase in tension. Ini€ally, Мао-tun shoots at his horse (I omit
here a ‰rst event of using by Мао-tun the singing arrows), then at the wife and the horse of his
father. Only for the third €me, he has won the unanimous support on the part of his ‰gh€ng
men. In the second part, he gives up horse, wife and only for the third €me mounts a horse and
takes the ‰eld against Tung-hu.
The third likeness with the folklore works is present in the composi€on structure. In the
folklore, the horse and wife are tradi€onal elements and the
[300]