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

II.

Николай Крадин, Татьяна Скрынникова

4/2009

Forum AI
Спор о категориях эволюционистской социальной теории: отвечая Дэвиду Сниту

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта)

SUMMARY:

В своем крайне критическом отзыве на работу Дэвида Снита авторы возвращают ему его же обвинение в интеллектуальном колониализме. Игнорируя работы российских номадологов, Снит, согласно мнению авторов, искаженно представляет российскую и советскую этнографическую науку, примитивизирует взгляды современных номадологов, а также упрощает эволюционистское понимание социально-политической системы незападных обществ. В принципе соглашаясь с антиколониальным и антиэссенциалистским пафосом работы Снита, авторы указывают на ошибочность многих его аргументов (приводя конкретные доказательства) и на его непоследовательность в методологической деконструкции и борьбе против политической ангажированности исследователей.

Доступ

Оформите подписку, чтобы получить полный доступ к текстам

Оформить подписку

Read in English

Сноски

1.Caroline Humphrey, David Sneath (Eds.). Culture and Environment in Inner Asia. Vol. 1-2. Cambridge, 1996; Humphrey, Sneath. The End of Nomadism? Durham, 1999.↩

2.David Sneath. Imperial Statecraft: Arts of Power on the Steppe // Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth-Twentieth Centuries. Bellingham, 2006; Idem. The Headless State in Inner Asia: Reconsidering Kinship Society and the Discourse of Tribalism // Hierarchy Perspectives and Transformation in Social Formations. New York, 2008.↩

3.See, for example, a review by Thomas Barfield in: Comparative Studies in Society and History // 2009. Vol. 51. No 4. Pp. 942 943.↩

4.Timothy Pauketat. Chiefdoms and Others Archaeological Delusions. New York, 2007.↩

5.Anatoly Khazanov. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge, 1984; Thomas Barfield. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Cambridge, 1989; Peter Golden. Nomads and Their Neighbors in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs. Burlington, 2003.↩

6.G. E. Markov. Kochevniki Asii. Moscow, 1976; Idem. Problems of Social Change Among the Asiatic Nomads // The Nomadic Alternative. The Hague, 1978; Idem. Ausbeitung- und Abhangigkeitverhaltnisse bei den Nomades Asiens // Die Nomaden in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin, 1981; N. N. Kradin. Specific Features of Evolution in the Nomadic Societies // Prehistory and Ancient History. Seoul. 1993. Vol. 4. No. 5. Pp. 165-183; Idem. Nomadism, Evolution, and World-Systems: Pastoral Societies in Theories of Historical Development // Journal of World-System Research. 2002. Vol. 8. No. 3. Pp. 368-388; N. N. Kradin, T. D. Skrynnikova. Why Do We Call Chinggis Khan’s Polity “an Empire” // Ab Imperio. 2006. No. 1. Pp. 89-118.↩

7.Long before Sneath, Lev Gumilev wrote about the conspiracy of western medieval intellectuals against Mongols in his book Black Legend and in some other publications. Generally speaking, reference to a “world conspiracy” increases book sales. Just try to calculate how many copies of books by the Russian mathematician and self-proclaimed historian Anatoly Fomenko have been sold so far. The number will have six digits.↩

8.G. da Pian del Carpine. The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars. Boston, 1996. P. 65.↩

9.It is difficult to imagine a term that would describe nomadic empires more poorly than the “headless state.” One can argue (as we do) whether they were states or supercomplex chiefdoms. However, the nomadic empires have never been without heads. The founders of steppe empires (Maotin, Attila, or Chinggis Khan) would be very surprised to learn that they were denied the undivided authority. Most likely, Sneath’s term is an attempt to follow the old British functionalism. Even Evans-Pritchard called the Nuers acephalos. But the imperial confederations of nomads in Inner Asia are not Nuers. Their internal organization differed from systems of both early pastoralists and nomadic societies of modern times.↩

10.It is true that old terms such as “kinship society,” “tribe,” and “chiefdom” do not correspond to the realities of pastoral nomadism. But Sneath’s handling of this problem moves us away from the criteria of scientific analysis. Scholars need a unified system of measurements – the temperatures of two physical bodies cannot be compared if one is taken in Celsius and the other in Fahrenheit.↩

11.On this see Ernest Gellner. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford, 1983. P. 4.↩

12.See N. N. Kradin, T. D. Skrynnikova. Imperiia Chingis-khana. Moscow, 2006. Pp. 497 508; Nikolay N. Kradin. Early State Theory and the Evolution of Pastoral Nomads // Social Evolution & History. 2008. Vol. 7. No. 1. Pp. 107 130. The theory of the stateless nomadic empires is described in more detail in our books: N. N. Kradin. Kochevye obshchestva. Vladivostok, 1992; Idem. Imperiia Hunnu. Vladivostok, 1996; 2nd ed. Moscow, 2002; T. D. Skrynnikova. Kharisma i vlast v epokhu Chingis-khana. Moscow, 1997.↩

13.Skrynnikova. Kharisma i vlast v epokhu Chingis-khana. Pp. 11 55; Idem. Mongolian Nomadic Society of the Imperial Period // Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok, 2000; Kradin, Skrynnikova. Imperiia Chingis-khana. Pp. 80 103.↩

14.E. M. Zalkind. Prisoedinenie Buriatii k Rossii. Ulan-Ude, 1958. P. 279.↩

15.B. E. Petri. Elementy rodovoy sviazi u severnykh buryat // Sibirskaia starina. Vol. 2. Irkutsk, 1924. P. 112.↩

16.Fredrik Barth. Introduction // Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston, 1969.↩

17.Rashid ad-Din. Sbornik letopisey Vol. I. B. 2. Moscow-Leningrad, 1952. Pp. 267 274.↩

18.No information is provided on the remaining cases.↩

19.I. de Rachewiltz. The Secret History of the Mongols. A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Vol. 1-2. Leiden and Boston, 2004. P. 200.↩

20.Ibid. P. 215.↩

21.N. E. Masanov. Kazakhskaia politicheskaia i intellektual’naia elita: klanovaia prinadleznost’ i vnutrietnicheskoe sopernichestvo // Vestnik Eurasii. 1996. No. 1. Pp. 46-61.↩

22.Christopher Atwood. Ulus Emirs, Seals, Marriage, Partners, and Keshig Shifts: The Evolution of a Classic Mongol Institution. Paper presented at the conference Inner Asian Statecraft and Technologies of Governance. Cambridge, UK, March 18-19, 2004.↩

23.It is unlikely that this applies to Gumilev. Despite the fact that the title of Gumilev’s book concerns ethnicity (Ethnogenesis and Biosphere of the Earth [1979; 2nd ed. 1989]), in fact, his concept has no direct relationship to these problems. The son of two great Russian poets, he had an impressive literary talent. This made his works popular among the broad readership. Actually, Gumilev presented a vividly written history of civilizations that strongly resembles Arnold Toynbee’s concept. The difference is that Gumilev has called civilizations “super-ethnoses.” This circumstance has misled many critics of Gumilev. Because Gumilev’s ideas during the post-Soviet period were used to substantiate state nationalisms in Central Asia he is often interpreted as a theorist of ethnicity. In fact, he was a nomadologist and philosopher of history, but not a theorist of nationalism.↩

24.On scientific colonialism see Gustavo Lins Ribeiro. World Anthropologies: Cosmopolitics for a New Global Scenario in Anthropology // Critique of Anthropology. Vol. 26. 2006. No. 4. Pp. 363-386; World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations Within Systems of Power / Ed. by G. L. Ribeiro and A. E. Part. Oxford and New York, 2006.↩

25.T. D. Skrynnikova. Dve Mongolii: osobennosti identifikatsionnoy praktiki // Vestnik Evrasii. 2005. No. 2. Pp. 29-66; Eadem. Kody i urovni identifikatsionnykh praktik srednevekovykh mongolov // Mongolskaia imperiia: etnopoloticheskaia istoriia. Ulan-Ude, 2005; Kradin, Skrynnikova. Imperiia Chingis-khana. Pp. 129 214. On Mongolian identity see also P. Rykin. Sozdanie mongolskoi identichnosti: termin “mongol” v epokhu Chingiskhana // Vestnik Evrasii. 2002. No. 1. Pp. 48 84.↩

26.T. D. Skrynnikova. Power among Mongol Nomads of Chinggis Khan’s Epoch // Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution. Moscow, 2003; Eadem. Boghol, A Category of Submission to the Mongols // Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 2005. Vol. 58. No. 3. Pp. 313-320; Eadem. Relations of Domination and Submission: Political Practice in the Mongol Empire of Chinggis Khan // Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth–Twentieth Centuries. Bellingham, 2006; Eadem. Struggle for Power in the Mongol Ulus at the Turn of the 12th and 13th Centuries // Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations: Ancient and Medieval Cultures. Moscow, 2008; Kradin, Skrynnikova. Why Do We Call Chinggis Khan’s Polity “an Empire”; Kradin, Skrynnikova. Teorema Chingis-khana // Rodina. 2006. No. 9 10. Pp. 47-52.↩

27.N. N. Kradin, V. A. Lynsha (Eds.). Alternative Pathways to Early State. Vladivostok, 1995; N. N. Kradin, A. V. Korotayev et al. (Eds.) Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok, 2000; D. M. Bondarenko, A. V. Korotayev (Eds.). Civilizational Models of Politogenesis. Moscow, 2000; T. Barfield, D. M. Bondarenko, N. N. Kradin (Eds.). Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution. Moscow, 2003; L. E. Grinin, R. Carneiro et al. (Eds.). The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Volgograd, 2004.↩

Примечания

[1]Caroline Humphrey, David Sneath (Eds.). Culture and Environment in Inner Asia. Vol. 1-2. Cambridge, 1996; Humphrey, Sneath. The End of Nomadism? Durham, 1999.

[2]David Sneath. Imperial Statecraft: Arts of Power on the Steppe // Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth-Twentieth Centuries. Bellingham, 2006; Idem. The Headless State in Inner Asia: Reconsidering Kinship Society and the Discourse of Tribalism // Hierarchy Perspectives and Transformation in Social Formations. New York, 2008.

[3]See, for example, a review by Thomas Barfield in: Comparative Studies in Society and History // 2009. Vol. 51. No 4. Pp. 942 943.

[4]Timothy Pauketat. Chiefdoms and Others Archaeological Delusions. New York, 2007.

[5]Anatoly Khazanov. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge, 1984; Thomas Barfield. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Cambridge, 1989; Peter Golden. Nomads and Their Neighbors in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs. Burlington, 2003.

[6]G. E. Markov. Kochevniki Asii. Moscow, 1976; Idem. Problems of Social Change Among the Asiatic Nomads // The Nomadic Alternative. The Hague, 1978; Idem. Ausbeitung- und Abhangigkeitverhaltnisse bei den Nomades Asiens // Die Nomaden in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin, 1981; N. N. Kradin. Specific Features of Evolution in the Nomadic Societies // Prehistory and Ancient History. Seoul. 1993. Vol. 4. No. 5. Pp. 165-183; Idem. Nomadism, Evolution, and World-Systems: Pastoral Societies in Theories of Historical Development // Journal of World-System Research. 2002. Vol. 8. No. 3. Pp. 368-388; N. N. Kradin, T. D. Skrynnikova. Why Do We Call Chinggis Khan’s Polity “an Empire” // Ab Imperio. 2006. No. 1. Pp. 89-118.