Империя Хунну

However, from the viewpoint of neither conflict nor integrating approaches, the Hsiung-nu nomadic empires can not be unambiguously interpreted as a chiefdom or state. A similarity of the Hsiung-nu empire to the state clearly manifests itself the relations with the outer world only (military-hierarchical structure of the nomadic society to confiscate prestigious product from neighbours as well as to surpress the external pressure; international sovereignty, specific ceremonial in the foreign-policy relations).

At the same time, as to internal relations, the 'state-like' empires of nomads (except some quite explainable cases) were based on non-forcible (consensual and gift-exchange) relations and they existed at the expense of the external sources without establishment of the cattle-breeders taxation. Finally, in the Hsiung-nu empire the main sign of statehood was absent. According to many present theories of the state, the main dissimilarity of the statehood from pre-state forms lies in the fact that the chiefdom's ruler has only consensual power i.e., in essence authority whereas, in the state, the government can apply sanctions with the use of legitimated force [Service 1975: 16, 296–307; Claessen and Skalnik 1978: 21–22, 630, 639–640 etc.]. The power character of the rulers of the steppe empires is more consensual and prevented from monopoly of legal organs. Shan-yii, is primarily redistributor and its power is provided by personal abilities and know-how to get from the outside of he society prestigious goods and to redistribute them between subjects.

For such societies which are more numerous and structurally developed that complex chiefdoms and which are at the same time no states (even 'inchoate' early state), a term supercomplex chiefdom has been proposed [Крадин 1992: 152; Kradin 2000a]. This term has been accepted by the colleagues-nomadologists [Трепавлов 1995: 202; Скрынникова 1997: 49] although, at that time, clear logical criteria allowing to distinguish between supercomplex and complex chiefdoms have not be defined.

The critical structural difference between complex and supercomplex chiefdoms was stated by professor Robert Carneiro in the special paper [1992; 2000]. True Carneiro prefers to call they 'compound' and 'consolidated' chiefdoms respectively. In his opinion, a difference of simple chiefdoms from compound ones is a pure quantitative by a nature. The compound chiefdoms consist of several simple ones and over the subchiefs of districts (i.e. simple chiefdoms), the supreme chief, ruler of the whole polity, is. However, Robert Carneiro pointed out that the compound chiefdoms when they unite in the greater polities prove rarely to be capable to overcome a separatism of subchiefs and such structures disintegrate quickly. A mechanism of the struggle against the structural division was traced by him by the example of one of the great Indian chiefdoms inhabited in XVII century on the territory of present-day American state of Virginia. The supreme chief of this polity by Powhatan name, in order to cope with centrifugal aspirations of the segments chiefs, began to replace them with his supporters who were usually his near relations. This imparted the important structural impulse to the following political integration.

The similar structural principles have been by Thomas Barfield in the Hsiung-nu history [1981:49; 1992: 38–39]. The Hsiung-nu power has consisted of multi-ethnic conglomeration of chiefdoms and tribes including in the 'imperial confederation'. The tribal chiefs and elders have been incorporated in the all-imperial decimal hierarchy. However, their power was to certain degree independent from the centre policy and based on the support on the side of fellow-tribesmen. In the relations with the tribes being members of the imperial confederation. The Hsiung-nu Shan-yii has relied up on support of his nearest relations and companions-in-arms bearing titles of 'ten thousand commander'.

They were put at the head of the special supertribal subdivisions integrating the subordinate or allied tribes into 'rumens' numbering approximately 5–10 thousand of warriors. These persons should be a support for the metropolis' policy in the provinces.

Other nomadic empires in Eurasia were similarly organized. The system of uluses which are often named by Celtic term of tanistty [Fletcher 1986], has existed in all the multi-polities of nomads of the Eurasian steppes: Wu-sun [Бичурин 1950b: 191], European Huns [Хазанов 1975: 190, 197], Turkish [Бичурин 1950a: 270] and Uighur [Bariield 1992: 155] Khaganates, Mongolian Empire [Владимирцов 1934: 98–110].