The significance of ethnonyms in the structuring of Eurasian 'nomadic empires'

In the present article the problem of the significance of 'clans' ethnonymic names in 'nomadic' societies in Eurasia is discussed based on the analysis of Russian documents of the XVII-XX centuries, Mongolian written sources of the XIII century, ethnographic materials that were collected in Gorny Altai in the XX century. In contrast to settled societies, for nomads the territory was not the basis for reproduction and the further functioning of socio-political institutions. In conditions of mobile cattle-breeding way of life, 'nomadic empires' that replaced one after another and it was accompanied by the moving of human groups, the preservation of ethno-social unity could not be based on the attachment to a specific territory or a single economy. Human groups were the core of state-building. Names of different ethnic groups were unifying principle for these groups. Names of different ethnic groups were perceived as indicators of common origin that based on real or invented kinship. It was reflected in the presence of 'clan' organization and advanced genealogies of all 'steppe peoples', more precisely, of all nomads (from ancient Hebrews to later Kazakhs, Turkmens, Altai people, etc.). According to the Central Asia political tradition, dominant ethnic groups' principle of non-intervention to internal socio-political structure of joined (conquered) peoples was a peculiarity of subordinate ethnic groups' status. The principle of 'non-intervention' began to take shape in Ancient China during Zhou dynasty and especially during Han dynasty, when Huaxia and then Han people were surrounded by barbarians and were compelled to establish peaceful relations with them. In the Mongol Empire the principle of 'non-intervention' was reflected in the presence of specific institution as 'unagan bogol', which indicated conquered (joined) 'other ethnic' group. It led to the accumulation of statehood experience by subordinate people in situation of preserving quite archaic internal relations. This tradition of relations between subordinate and dominant ethnic groups (kin, clans, tribes, patriarchal families etc.) allowed subordinate ethnic groups quickly create their own state or easily became a part of 'other-ethnic' empires in case of dominant ethnic group's fall. The principle of 'nonintervention' is reflected in Russian policy relating to Aboriginal people in Siberia since the XVII century. Later it was recorded in the 'Charter on the management of foreigners' (1822). As a result of this policy the peoples of Siberia preserved ethnonymic names of fiscal and administration institution, which originated from ancient Turkic time, until the beginning of the XX century and they also continued to structure their societies on the basis of 'Central Asian model' but as a part of Russia. For the steppe people of Eurasia the significance of ethnonym and socio-political institutions which ethnonym indicated was in preserving the idea of particular ethnic unity, in spite of territorial 'dispersion', and also was in perception the ethnonym as an important factor in structuring society and state and its further ethno-historical development.

Keywords

Authors

References