4/2009 From Homo Imperii to Civitas: Projects of Imagined Imperial Communities

Племя, этнос, нация: переосмысление эволюционистской социальной теории и репрезентации кочевых обществ Внутренней Азии

Дэвид Снит

4/2009

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

Настоящая статья Дэвида Снита представляет в концентрированном изложении аргумент, подробно развернутый в его книге The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, & Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007). Cнит ставит вопрос о категориях аналитического языка, с помощью которого антропологи и историки изучают кочевые сообщества внутренней Азии. В своем анализе Снит отталкивается от традиции эпистемологической критики родо-племенной парадигмы, которая подчеркивает тесную взаимосвязь между режимами колониальных империй и антропологическим эволюционизмом. В рамках эволюционистской схемы незападные общества описывались с помощью идиомы примитивизма, несущими элементами которой являлись понятия “племя” и “род”, а также представление об отсутствии у незападных народов полноценной государственной традиции. Такая идиома, указывает Снит, не позволяла осмыслить сложный социальный и политический опыт колониальной периферии и помещала ее народы в догосударственную стадию исторического времени, оправдывая тем самым имперское правление “исторических” и “государственных” европейских народов. Постколониальная критика несколько изменила эту ситуацию, указав на ограничения нормативного западного понятия государства. Тем не менее вопрос о применимости этого понятия для осмысления истории незападных народов поставлен не был. Снит считает, что в современных антропологических исследованиях кочевых обществ основными объяснительными концепциями по-прежнему остаются примитивизм и родовой строй, которые прописаны в категориях (род, племя, генеалогический характер социальных объединений), используемых учеными. Благодаря этой структурной ситуации кочевые сообщества продолжают являть собой архетипические случаи догосударственного уклада, что прекрасно сочетается с этнонационализмом постсоветских государств Центральной Азии, использующих органицистский язык для утверждения собственной легитимности. Сочетая лингвистический и исторический анализ, Снит развивает собственный подход к оценке исторического (политического и социального) опыта кочевых сообществ. Свою модель он прилагает к реконструкции политического строя империи Чингисхана. Снит приходит к выводу, что наиболее адекватным языком описания ее политического опыта является не идиома модерного суверенного и территориального государства, а метафора феодализма и аристократии.

1.David Sneath. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Inner Asia. New York, 2007.↩

2.Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London, 1991 (1983).↩

3.Maurice Godelier. Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Cambridge, 1977.↩

4.Morton Fried. The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park, 1975.↩

5.Leroy Vail (Ed.). The Creation of Tribalism in Southern Africa. London, 1989.↩

6.Lewis H. Morgan. Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. New York, 1964↩

7.. Pp. 13-14.↩

8.Ibid. P. 66.↩

9.Chester G. Starr. The Origins of Greek Civilisation 1100-650 BC. London, 1961. P. 134. Similarly, Victor Ehrenberg notes: “It is doubtful whether in early times we should think of the clan (genos, patra); there is much to be said for regarding it as a product only of settled conditions.” Victor Ehrenberg. The Greek State. Oxford, 1960. P. 13.↩

10.Starr (Ibid. P. 125) notes that “The demos (people) was organized in subdivisions, tribes and phratries above all, for military purposes, for the preservation of law and order.” There is not much data on what the phylon (“tribes”) were like before they became administrative units of state, but the idea that they were self-formed units of common descent is implausible since they appear after the Doric migrations in which an incoming elite was superimposed on local populations with whom they could not have shared descent. So Starr (Ibid. P. 135) notes “If the tribes were institutions of the invaders, the natives must somehow have been absorbed; in historic times no one seems to have stood outside these units.”↩

11.Jack Goody. The European Family: An Historico-Anthropological Essay. Oxford, 2000. P. 18.↩

12.Tim Cornell. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–246 BC). London and New York, 1995. P. 85.↩

13.Adam Kuper. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London and New York, 1988. Pp. 239-240.↩

14.Terence Ranger. The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa // Eric Hobsbawm, Terence Ranger (Eds.). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, 1983. P. 250.↩

15.Fortes and Evans-Pritchard used the term “primitive state” for the evolutionary step after the chiefdom, a category into which they placed the majority of pre-colonial African polities (Meyer Fortes, Edward E. Evans-Pritchard (Eds.). African Political Systems. Oxford, 1940). The working definition of this sort of state was a polity in which “a ruler who is recognised as supreme makes his authority effective through territorial agents chosen by himself… [and t]he collection of tribute… is characteristic of all states” (Lucy Mair. African Kingdoms. Oxford, 1977. P. 124). This test of statehood is a hard one to pass for most early modern European states, in which the powerful aristocracies that controlled much of the territory can hardly be said to have been chosen by the ruler.↩

16.Elizabeth Colson. Political Organization in Tribal Societies: A Cross-cultural Comparison // American Indian Quarterly. 1986. Vol. 10. No. 1. Pp. 5-6.↩

17.Edmund Leach. Pul Eliya: A Village in Ceylon; a Study of Land Tenure and Kinship. Cambridge, 1961. P. 302.↩

18.Kathleen Gough. Nuer Kinship: A Reexamination // T. Beidelman (Ed.). The Translation of Culture: Essays to E. E. Evans-Pritchard. London, 1971; Michel Verdon. The Abutia Ewe of West Africa: A Chiefdom That Never Was. Berlin, 1983; Aidan Southall. The Segmentary State in Africa and Asia // Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1988. Vol. 30. No. 1. Pp. 52-82; Susan McKinnon. Domestic Exceptions: Evans-Pritchard and the Creation of Nuer Patrilineality and Equality // Cultural Anthropology. 2000. Vol. 15. No. 1. Pp. 35-83.↩

19.Adam Kuper. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion. London and New York, 1988. Pp. 190-209.↩

20.Michael Jackson. Paths Toward a Clearing: Radical Empiricism and Ethnographical Inquiry. Bloomington, 1989. Pp. 10-11; Alma Gottlieb. Under the Kapok Tree: Identity and Difference in Beng Thought. Bloomington, 1992. Pp. 46-71.↩

21.Edward Even Evans-Pritchard. The Nuer: Tribe and Clan // Sudan Notes and Records. 1933. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 28.↩

22.Meyer Fortes. The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi. Oxford, 1949. Pp. 9-10.↩

23.Adam Kuper. Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect // R. Parkin, L. Stone (Eds.). Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader. Oxford, 2004. P. 93 (rept. From: Annual Review of Anthropology. 1982. No. 11. Pp. 71-95).↩

24.Max Weber. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology // Trans., ed. and with an intro. by Hans H. Girth, C. Wright. London, 1948. P. 78.↩

25.Elman E. Service. Origins of the State and Civilization: the Process of Cultural Evolution. New York and London, 1975. P. 82.↩

26.Ibid. P. 137.↩

27.Boris Vladimirtsov. Le Régime social des Mongols: le féodalisme nomade // Trans. from the Russian by Michel Carsow. Paris, 1948↩

28..↩

29.L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. The Spread of Agriculture and Nomadic Pastoralism: Insights from Genetics, Linguistics, and Archaeology // D. Harris (Ed.). The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. London, 1996. Pp. 54-64.↩

30.Arnold J. Toynbee. A Study of History. Abridgement of Volumes 1-4 by D. C. Somervell. Oxford, 1946. P. 193.↩

31.William Irons. Political Stratification among Pastoral Nomads // L’ Equipe Ecologie at Anthropologie des Sociétés Pastorales (Eds.). Pastoral Production and Society: Production Pastorale et Société. Cambridge, 1979. P. 362.↩

32.For example, Gudrun Dahl. Ecology and Equality: The Boran Case // Ibid. Pp. 261-281.↩

33.For example, Philip Burnham. Spatial Mobility and Political Centralisation in Pastoral Societies // Ibid. Pp. 349-360.↩

34.Talal Asad. The Kababish Arabs: Power, Authority and Consent in a Nomadic Tribe. London, 1970.↩

35.Brian Spooner. The Cultural Ecology of Pastoral Nomads. Reading, MA, 1973. P. 3.↩

36.R. Dyson-Hudson, N. Dyson-Hudson. Nomadic Pastoralism // Annual Review of Anthropology. 1980. No. 9. P. 55.↩

37.My translation – D.S. See also Christopher Dawson. The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth centuries. London and New York, 1955. P. 28; C. Raymond Beazley (Ed.). The Texts and Versions of John De Plano Carpini and William De Rubruquis as Printed for the First Time by Hakluyt in 1598, Together with Some Shorter Pieces. London, 1903. P. 59.↩

38.See Beazley (Ed.). The Texts and Versions of John De Plano Carpini. Pp. 121, 159.↩

39.William Rockhill (Trans. and Ed.). The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253-1255: As Narrated by Himself, with Two Accounts of the Earlier Journey of John of Pian de Carpine. London, 1900.↩

40.Christopher Dawson. The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth centuries. London and New York, 1955.↩

41.Carpini writes of a Dux by the name of Correnza (Beazley. The Texts and Versions of John De Plano Carpini. P. 94), for example, but Rockhill (Rockhill. The Journey of William of Rubruck. P. 6) in his translation calls him a “chief,” while Carpini’s Dux Wasilco (Beazley. The Texts and Versions of John De Plano Carpini. P. 92) is translated (along with all the other European nobles) as a Duke (Rockhill. The Journey of William of Rubruck. P. 3).↩

42.Paul G. Geiss. Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia: Communal Commitment and Political Order in Change. London, 2003. P. 29.↩

43.Ibid. P. 46. Geiss has his own version of the Morgan-Engels model of evolution. Society starts with stage (a), which he calls “acephalous tribalism,” and then moves on to (b) “cephalous tribalism,” and so on to (c) “tribal confederacies,” (d) “agricultural states,” (e) “mercantile states,” (f) “industrial state,” and finally (g) the “constitutional state.” He cites Barfield in justifying the view that “nomadic empires are more similar to tribal confederacies than states.” Ibid. P. 11.↩

44.Thomas J. Barfield. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China. Cambridge, MA and Oxford, 1989. P. 8.↩

45.Svat Soucek. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge, 2000. P. 298.↩

46.Anatoly M. Khazanov. Nomads and the Outside World // Trans. Julia Crookenden. Cambridge, 1983. P. 152.↩

47.Barfield. The Perilous Frontier. Pp. 24-26.↩

48.Ibid. P. 26.↩

49.Slawoj Szynkiewicz. Kinship Groups in Modern Mongolia // Ethnologia Polona. 1977. No. 3. P. 31.↩

50.Barfield. The Perilous Frontier. P. 189.↩

51.These were clearly separated. There is recorded the lament and wretched confession of a commoner who cohabited with a captured noblewoman and was filled with guilt at his own presumption: “I, Chilger, ... touched the Lady, the qatun, ... Ignoble and bad Chilger, his own black (i.e., common) head will receive (a blow).” Urgunge Onon. The History and the Life of Chinggis Khan: The Secret History of the Mongols. Leiden, 1990. P. 40.↩

52.Francis W. Cleaves (Trans. and Ed.). The Secret History of the Mongols. Cambridge, MA, 1982. P. 245.↩

53.Igor de Rachewiltz (Trans. and Ed.). The Secret History of the Mongols. 2 vols. Leiden and Boston, 2004. P. 289.↩

54.Onon. The History and the Life of Chinggis Khan. P. 56; Cleaves. The Secret History of the Mongols. Pp. 66-67.↩

55.See the Secret History: “Then Chinggis Qaghan plundered the Tayichiut. The people of Tayichiut bones (lineages/houses) – Auchu-baatur, Qoton-orcheng, Quduudar and others of the Tayichiut, from their seed to their seed – he killed.... The people of their ulus (nation/people) he brought (with him)” (Onon. The History and the Life of Chinggis Khan. P. 63; Cleaves. The Secret History of the Mongols. P. 76). Clearly, the people of the Tayichi’ud ulus were not members of the Tayici’ud bones.↩

56.Rachewiltz (The Secret History of the Mongols. P. 3. §15) provides a typical example in a passage describing a meeting of two men on the steppe: “Dobun Mergen asked him ‘To which clan do you belong?’ The man said ‘I am a man of the Ma’aliq Baya’ut, and I am in desperate straits.”’ However, in the reconstructed Mongol text the question actually reads “ya’un gü’ün chi kä’än?” (Pelliot’s transliteration), and the answer “bï Malig Baya’udäi” (Paul Pelliot. Histoire Secret des Mongols: Restitution du texte Mongol et traduction Francaise des chapiters I a VI. Paris, 1949. P. 6). Cleaves translated this as “What [manner of] person art thou?” (Cleaves. The Secret History of the Mongols. P. 3), but literally this means “of what you (addressed as familiar/junior) where?”; this could as well mean “what work unit are you a member of?” as anything else. The reply is “I with/of Malig Baya’ut.” No actual kin term is used at all.↩

57.The great wrestler, Büri Bökü, was a nephew of Ökin Barqag, not his son or grandson. He is written of as a member of the Jürkin in §131, and later (§140) we are told that he had decided to join them (see Cleaves. The Secret History of the Mongols. Pp. 61, 68).↩

58.Zhou Qingshu 周淸澍. Yuan Meng shi zha 元蒙史札 [Collected papers on the Yuan and Mongols]. Hohhot, 2001. P. 1.↩

59.Yi Rincin. Monggul Sudulul-un Ügülel-ün Tegübüri [Collected Papers on Mongolian Studies]. Hohhot, 2001↩

60.. Pp. 57-58.↩

61.Paul Ratchnevsky. Genghis Khan: His Life and His Legacy. Oxford, 1991. P. 12.↩

62.Pavel Rykin. The Social Group and its Designation in Middle Mongolian: The Concepts of irgen and oboq // Forum for Anthropology and Culture 1. St. Petersburg, 2004. Pp. 196-197.↩

63.Martina Deuchler. The Confucian Transformation of Korea: A Study of Society and Ideology. Cambridge, MA and London, 1992. P. 290. She goes on to note that “In both societies primogeniture was unknown, and no common ritual or economic actions are discernable.” Ibid. P. 291.↩

64.The term also matches Lévi-Strauss’s notion of “house societies” (sociétés à maison). Lévi-Strauss coined the term to describe the principle grouping of the Kwakiutl – which Boas had found fitted none of the classical kinship categories of gens, sept, clan or sib – and those of the Californian Yurok studied by Kroeber (Claude Lévi-Strauss. The Way of the Masks // Trans. Sylvia Modelski. London, 1983. Pp. 163-170). He compared these to European noble houses. This concept is particularly helpful in the light of Schneider’s 1984 critique of classical kinship theory, in which he shows that in the Yap case the “house” (tabinau) is a fundamental social institution of relatedness, one that he originally misrepresented as a patrilineage. It also sits well with Bourdieu’s (1977) treatment of Kabyle society, in which the house is the fundamental institution in the constitution of the social order, and his rejection of structuralist and structural functionalist treatments of kinship on the grounds that practice should not be seen as the expression of abstract norms, but the results of strategizing behavior of households seeking to pass on symbolic capital.↩

65.Anthropologically, the clan is classically distinguished from the lineage in that clan members cannot trace precise descent from the founding ancestor, while members of a lineage can. It is possible that at this time common Mongol subjects did not have extended clans and that oboγ identities were introduced later by the Qing as an administrative device (see David Sneath. Changing Inner Mongolia: Pastoral Mongolian Society and the Chinese State. Oxford, 2000. Pp. 201-208). In the Kitan case, “originally there existed no clan groups within the tribes.… The Chinese exogamous clan-system was adopted under the Liao only for the ruling Yeh-lü clan and the Hsiao clan of the imperial consorts; as a consequence the Kitan commoners and tribesmen had no family names.” Herbert Franke. The Forest Peoples of Manchuria: Kitans and Jurchens // Denis Sinor (Ed.). Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge, 1990. Pp. 403-405.↩

66.Geiss. Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia. P. 29.↩

67.The terms “Kazakh” and “Kyrgyz” were used rather interchangeably in early accounts. Levchine writing in the 1830s, for example, describes the Kyrgyz-Kazakh Khanate. Later, the term “Kirghiz” (“Kyrgyz”) was used to describe the subjects of the Khokand Khanate, while Kazakhs referred to those who had been subject to the “Kyrgyz-Kazakh Khanate” before tsarist control of the region.↩

68.René Grousset. L’Epopée des croisades. Paris, 2002. P. 479.↩

69.Eugene Schuyler. Turkistan: Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja. 3rd ed. New York, 1885. P. 30.The celebrated Tauka Khan ruled ten or eleven towns or forts (gorodki) before his defeat by Galdan Khan in 1681. Audrey Burton. The Bukharans: A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History 1550-1702. Richmond, 1997. P. 337.↩

70.Lawrence Krader. Formation of the State. London, 1968. P. 101.↩

71.Geoffrey Wheeler. The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia. London, 1964. P. 33.↩

72.Soucek. A History of Inner Asia. P. 195. The Khanate was divided into three divisions known as Jüz, meaning “hundred” (widely used as an administrative division in the Turkic tradition of statecraft) – the Greater, Middle, and Lesser Jüz (Ulu Jüz, Orta Jüz, and Kishi Jüz).↩

73.Aleksei I. de Levchine. Description des Hordes et des Steppes des Kirghiz-Kazaks ou Kirghiz-Kaissaks. Paris, 1840. P. 301.↩

74.Since this sort of anarchy does not fit with the social equilibrium of the tribal model, Geiss (Geiss. Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia. P. 2) applies the usual conceptual apartheid between state and tribal societies. Levchine must have been mistaken in describing such anarchy. “Political order of tribal and non-tribal societies might be of a different kind. What seems to be chaos and anarchy from the perspective of centralised state power, might have referred to quite ordered patterns of tribal authority relations.”↩

75.Ibid. P. 398.↩

76.Soucek. A History of Inner Asia. P. 172.↩

77.The smallest administrative unit, the aul had 50 to 70 households with an aksakal theoretically elected; the volost included 10 to 12 auls, ruled by a bii and a sultan (this office remained hereditary) confirmed in office by the governor-general of Omsk. The okrug contained 20–40 volosti ruled by a senior sultan elected by the volost sultans and confirmed by the governor. Geiss. Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia. P. 179.↩

78.“… although the chefs of the Kirghiz have the right to require from their subjects a kind of tribute in livestock or other objects this tribute is paid without any fixed rule, and almost always is only done in the case that the need for protection is felt. As for the fixed tax, the Kirghiz just do not pay; it is in vain that the most wise chefs of the tribes try to preach to their people the Koranic chapter on the zekate [Islamic concept of tithing and alms], confirmed by the most ancient law of the Kirghiz; but only the absolute necessity of force will remind them of this obligation.” Levchine. Description des Hordes et des Steppes. Pp. 393-394.↩

79.Ibid. P. 401. The French version of the text reads “Toute homme en état de porter les armes doit payer chaque année au khan at aux chefs de la nation un tribut de un vingtieme de ses biens.” Ibid. Virginia Martin notes the existence of two other institutions, the sibagha was the portion of meat given in spring to the sultans and biis, and the soghim livestock slaughtered in winter and given by each family to the sultan. But in line with the kinship-society model she describes these as “tokens of respect for kinship group leaders.” Virginia Martin. Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century. Richmond, 2001. Pp. 175 and 24.↩

80.Martha Brill Olcott. The Kazakhs. Stanford, 1995. P. 14. The Kazakh law codes are almost certainly derived from the Chinggisid Mongol laws, and Riasanovsky notes the similarities between the law attributed to the Tauka Khan and the Mongol-Oirat code of 1640 and the Khalkha Jirum (see (Valentin A. Riasanovsky. Fundamental Principles of Mongol Law. The Hague, 1965↩

81.. Pp. 311-312).↩

82.N. I. Grodekov. Kirgizy i kirakirgizy Syr-Dar’inskoi oblasti. Iuridicheskii byt. Vol. I. Tashkent, 1889. P. 12.↩

83.Khazanov. Nomads and the Outside World. P. 143.↩

84.Privratsky notes that when Hudson traveled to Almaty in the 1930s, he found no one who could remember the names of the forefathers back to the seventh generation, as they were supposed to, and had “variable understandings of kinship”; he concluded that the kinship system must have been in decline and various disruptions prevented “cultural content” from being transmitted. Bruce G. Privratsky. Muslim Turkistan. Kazak Religion and Collective Memory. Richmond, 2001. Pp. 116-117.↩

85.Geiss. Pre-Tsarist and Tsarist Central Asia. P. 40.↩

86.Martin notes that “The clan was not a fixed group, but a flexible affiliation that combined genealogy with ties formed by allocation of land and grazing rights.” Virginia Martin. Law and Custom in the Steppe. P. 22.↩

87.Lidiia Dobrova-Iadrintseva. Tuzemtsy Turukhanskogo kraia. Novonikolaevsk, 1925. P. 30.↩

88.Nikolai V. Ssorin-Chaikov. The Social Life of the State in Subarctic Siberia. Stanford, 2003. P. 54.↩

89.Ibid.↩

90.Ernest Renan. What Is a Nation?↩

91.// H. Bhabha (Ed.). Nation and Narration. London and New York, 1990. P. 9.↩

92.Martin Thom. Tribes Within Nations: The Ancient Germans and the History of Modern France // Ibid. P. 28.↩

93.As Hobsbawm (Eric Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, 1990. Pp. 18-19) notes, the concept of the nation is historically very young, and emerged during the age of revolution in which new political elites, particularly in France and America, began to articulate a new political vocabulary to express the common interest of members of the state in opposition to monarchical identification of the state with the monarch of the ancien régime. “The ‘nation’ so considered, was a body of citizens whose collective sovereignty constituted them as a state which was their political expression.”↩

94.“A nation is a large-scale solidarity” writes Renan (Renan. What Is a Nation? P. 19), “A large aggregate of men… creates a kind of moral conscience which we call a nation” (Ibid. P. 20). Similarly, Durkheim writes, “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms… the collective or common conscience.” Emile Durkheim. The Division of Labour in Society. New York, 1964↩

95.. P. 79.↩

96.Assuming some more or less homogeneous cultural and social entity as its object of study, (an ethnos) classical ethnology reflected ethnonational historical thought, concerned with internal cohesion and “peoples” as cultural wholes.↩

97.Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism since 1780.↩

98.Ibid. Pp. 53-54.↩

99.For example, Norman Davies. Europe: A History. London, 1997. P. 215.↩

100.Barbara Yorke. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England [1997 reprint]. London and New York, 1990.↩

101.Davies. Europe: A History. P. 217↩

102.Ibid.↩

103.Hobsbawm also notes the suspect nature of claims to have discovered popular protonationalism in the past. He notes, for example, that terms such as the eighteenth-century Estonian term saks, which has been read to mean a member of “the German volk,” at the time probably just meant lord or master (Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Pp. 48-49).↩

104.Herwig Wolfram. History of the Goths. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1988. P. 5. As Wolfram notes, these leading families formed the “nuclei of tradition” of rulership about which “tribes” took shape. Ibid. P. 6.↩

105.Ibid. P. 8.↩

106.The key process described as the Völkerwanderung was not a mass movement of populations, although this sometimes happened (Robert Browning. Byzantium and Bulgaria: A Comparative Study across the Early Medieval Frontier. London, 1975. P. 36), but the movement of the zones of control of the ruling Germanic families. Similarly, in Inner Asia, ruling elites were frequently more mobile than their subjects. Historical accounts that might be interpreted as the migration of an entire “people” often refer to the movement of rulers and their entourages. In 105 CE, for example, the northern Xiongnu were defeated and apparently “displaced” by the Xianbe who “occupied all the old territories of the Hsiung-nu [Xiongnu].” (Hou Han shu, chapter 90, cited in Sechin Jagchid, Van Jay Symons. Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall: Nomadic-Chinese Interaction through Two Millennia. Bloomington, 1989. P. 35). However, the Chinese sources add “The remainder of the Hsiung-nu [Xiongnu] who did not go with him still numbered over 100,000 tents and all styled themselves Hsien-pi [Xianbe].” (Hou han-shu, chapter 90, cited in Barfield. The Perilous Frontier. P. 87). The Xianbe as a political entity had come to occupy all the old territories of the Xiongnu, but if there ever was anything like a Xiongnu volk (people) it was not displaced by another such body.↩

107.Anderson. Imagined Communities. P. 19.↩

108.Edmund Leach. Social Anthropology. Fontana, 1983. P. 41.↩

109.Ernest Gellner. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford, 1983. P. 55.↩

110.Lev N. Gumilev. Etnogenez i biosfera Zemli. Leningrad, 1989.↩

111.Yu. Bromley. The Object and the Subject-Matter of Ethnography // E. Gellner (Ed.). Soviet and Western Anthropology. London, 1980.↩

112.Sneath. The Headless State.↩

113.Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene. The Mongolian Nationality Lexicon: From the Chinggisid Lineage to Mongolian Nationality (From the Seventeenth to the Early Twentieth Century) // Inner Asia. 2006. Vol. 8. No. 1. Pp. 61.↩

114.For example, Edward Shils. Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties // British Journal of Sociology. 1957. No. VIII. Pp. 130-145; Pierre Van den Berghe. Does Race Matter? // J. Hutchinson, A. Smith (Eds.). Ethnicity. Oxford and New York, 1996.↩

115.For example, Eric Hobsbawm, Terence Ranger (Eds). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, 1983; Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities; Ernest Gellner. Nations and Nationalism.↩

116.As Gellner (Nations and Nationalism. P. 55) puts it, for example, “Nations can be defined only in terms of the age of nationalism, rather than, as you might expect, the other way round.” Hobsbawm notes “Nations do not make states and nationalism but the other way round” (Nations and Nationalism since 1780. P. 10).↩

117.Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. P. 64.↩

118.Anthony Smith. Myths and Memories of the Nation. New York, 2000. P. 12.↩

119.Anatoly Khazanov. The Ethnic Situation in the Soviet Union as Reflected in Soviet Anthropology // Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique. 1990. Vol. XXXI. No. 2-3. P. 220.↩

120.Valery Tishkov. Post-Soviet Ethnography: Not a Crisis but Something More Serious // Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia. 1994. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 88.↩

121.Gumilev. Etnogenez i biosfera Zemli. P. 481. See also Viktor Shnirelman, Sergey Panarin. Lev Gumilev: His Pretensions as Founder of Ethnology and his Eurasian Theories // Inner Asia. 2001. Vol. 3. No. 1. Pp. 1-18.↩

122.David Gullette. Kinship, State and “Tribalism”: The Genealogical Construction of the Kyrgyz Republic / Ph.D. thesis; Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge, 2006.↩

123.For example, O. Ismagulov. Ethnogenesis of the Kazak People // A. K. Akhmetov, M. K. Kozybaev (Eds.). History of Kazakhstan. Almaty, 1998. Pp. 43-61. Ismagulov writes, for example, that the “peculiar cultural-historical community, typical of the Kazaks” developed over thousands of years.↩

124.Bromley, for example, defines the term ethnos (Russian etnos) in the mould of Stalin’s formulation of the dominant notion of nationality. Thus, Stalin wrote “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” (Joseph Stalin. Marxism and the National Question // Selections from Lenin and Stalin: A National Colonial Question. Calcutta, 1970. P. 69.) Bromley’s ethnos is “an historically formed aggregate of people who share relatively stable specific features of culture (including culture) and psychology, an awareness of their unity and their differences from other similar groups, and an ethnonym which they have given themselves” (Bromley. The Object and the Subject-Matter of Ethnography. P. 155). Much of the Soviet-era work on ethnogenesis concentrated on identifying a core ethnos with recognizable elements of Stalin’s notion of nationality (see Theodor Shanin. Ethnicity in the Soviet Union: Analytical Perceptions and Political Strategies // Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1989. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 10. See Francine Hirsch. The Soviet Union as a Work-in-Progress: Ethnographers and the Category of Nationality in the 1926, 1937, and 1939 Censuses // Slavic Review. 1997. Vol. 56. No. 2. Pp. 267 for the evolutionist scheme of narodnost’ and natsional’nost’.↩

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

Племя, этнос, нация: переосмысление эволюционистской социальной теории и репрезентации кочевых обществ Внутренней Азии

Примечания