EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

J. Daniel Rogers

INTRODUCTION

Across the range of early states and empires there are certain commonalities in the sources ofauthority, technology, and modes of adaptation. In one sense, empires developed out of states,but they are not just large states. Interpreting an empire therefore requires at least a considerationof the state, if not other widely recognized political systems, like chiefdoms. States are essentiallyways of organizing control beyond the level of the local. Under differing circumstances controlmay extend across a variety of political, economic, and cultural activities. The early states andempires of Inner Asia offer important insights for the comparative analysis of how complex so-cieties were constructed and maintained. Over the course of approximately 2,000 years therewere 15 major polities with the characteristics of empires, ten of these existed during the firstMillennium CE (Rogers 2012; Honeychurch 2015). These polities exhibit several aspects that inthe past have not figured prominently in the development of theories about either the rise ormaintenance of social complexity. The objective of this chapter, then, is to highlight the InnerAsian empires in the context of broader theories of social complexity by focusing on four themes:first, how social systems construct order; second, the organization of hierarchies; third, the natureof the political community; and fourth, the trajectory of traditions and their role in structuringevents. Taken together, these elements represent what is referred to here as a “state landscape”.

THEORIES

The terms state, empire, and complex polity are used throughout this chapter. In one sense it isimportant to provide some clarity about these terms, but it is also essential to keep the definitionsbroad, to allow for study of differences and similarities, and not allow the definitions to becomethe explanations. While many authors agree on some characteristics of the state or empire, thevarious definitions include considerable variation1. The idea of defining any entity, such as thestate, presumes that it has characteristics that are relatively uniform and that represent somesort of agreed-upon set of concepts by those who live within the state. The state, then, is an ide-ology designed to make practice and institutional structure predictable to those within and out-side the state. However, in order to capture an understanding of variation the objective should

1 Bondarenko 2007; Mann 1986, 37; Service 1975; Smith2003; Wright 1977.

be to consider actual political practice, rather than a standardized perception of such practice(Abrams 1988). The political systems of a state often incorporate hierarchies of control withcoercive power. Individuals who reside in a state recognize it as politically independent, withspecific leaders and a known territory (Rogers 2007, 250; Trigger 2003, 92). Empires are statesthat expand to encompass multiple ethnicities and geographical zones, in the process incorpo-rating other states and political entities. Through expansion they modify their organization toencompass diversity, through several different strategies described elsewhere (Rogers 2012, 214).Throughout the text another term, complex polity, is used in a more generic sense to refer to asociopolitical system with some or all of the characteristics of a state or empire.

The principal interpretations of how states first originated represent variations on four generalthemes: First, a perceived nearly inevitable progression from simple to complex, as in culturalevolution; second, opportunity and contingency, as in specific leaders with skill and luck; third,resource differentials including environmental opportunities that gave one group resources ver-sus another; and fourth, conflict imperatives that highlight human inclinations to dominate. J.Haas (1995) identified these categories in a similar way when he highlighted two schools ofthought: one oriented to state emergence as a response to the managerial needs to solve societalproblems; and a second orientation focused on resolution of social conflicts arising from in-equalities. These two orientations are expressed through warfare, production, and trade and en-compass the possibilities of initial state formation, but not the formation of empires. On thesteppe, these broad interpretive categories have the same validity as in more sedentary societies.

As N. Kradin (2008, 107) has noted, the general study of state formation tends to derive from,and focus on, pathways to complexity along the track to agriculture and sedentary life, reflectedin numerous studies of the city and the development of urbanism2. The story of how cities de-veloped is an interpretive path that has unquestionably produced important insights. Yet, it hastended to ignore or sideline pastoralist societies, whether in collaboration or opposition to theirmore sedentary neighbors. Several studies have highlighted the important characteristics thatsteppe pastoralists bring to an understanding of general social complexity3. Included in this re-analysis of pastoralist polities are new interpretations of the role of urban centers. The charac-teristics of nomadic polities that offer this alternative pathway to empire center on networks ofinteraction beyond the local, the volatile economics and wealth generating potential of herd an-imals, and the nature of “control hierarchies” that were typically dispersed with minimal bu-reaucratic structure. Different kinds of hierarchies exist that may either rank or partition setsof relationships. Control hierarchies are the particular kind normally seen in political systemsin which there is a paramount leader at the top of a ranked administrative structure (Lane 2006).

The dynamic set of relationships that form the state landscape, include the construction oforder, as discussed by Baines and Yoffee (2000, 14–15). Of particular importance are the elementsof power expressed in the emergence and sustainability of political control hierarchies. Collapseof social systems as a phenomenon of political process is not addressed in this study. Within thedevelopment of complex social systems, there are potentially several alternative managerialstrategies, such as a diverse set of control hierarchies, heterarchies4, constellations of authority(Smith 2003), corporate, and exclusionary structures (Blanton et al. 1996) each of which is anaspect of the political community (Campbell 2009; Honeychurch 2012). Within this cluster of

74 J. DANIEL ROGERS

2 Bairoch 1988; Boyd 1962; Danilov 2004; Nichols/Charlton 1997; Wheatley 1971.

3 Barfield 1989; Honeychurch 2012; Kradin 2011; Ro -gers 2007; 2012.

4 Bondarenko/Nemirovskiy 2007; Crumley 1995; White1995.

contrasting authority modes are shared foundations and commonalities of process that offer in-sights into how certain complex polities came into being. Here the highlighted aspects includethe differentials of wealth and inequality formation, structure and trajectory as dual aspects ofprocess, and the contextual constraints of environment and cultural framing. Together theseform the parameters of a state landscape.

Within a particular context there is a structure to the interaction between cultural traditionsand historical moments. The nature of these structures have been studied in culture contact sit-uations and in regard to the actions of individuals (agency), but may also be extended to applyto other contexts of social and/or political change, as is implied in the original formulation byM. Sahlins (1981). Such a structure has predictability for the participants because of trajectoriesreflected in cultural traditions that limit the range of potentials in both individual and collectiveaction. Other theories of culture change have also captured similar distinctions, such as thecanonical theory proposed by C. Cioffi-Revilla (2005). In the canonical theory, decision makingin response to threats or opportunities is contingent on accrued knowledge, that is, the con-straints of tradition balanced against the development of institutional capacity. The scale andlongevity of any particular polity is the intersection of opportunity, capacity, and knowledge –the structure of events.

INNER ASIAN PASTORALIST CHARACTERISTICS

The opportunities, contingencies, and structures reflected in social theories are conditioned onthe steppe by a specific set of social and economic characteristics related to pastoralism – themanagement of herd animals on natural pasture. Pastoralists have generally been studied throughtheir social organization (Vainshtein 1980), mobility (Simukov 2007), and the dynamic interac-tions (co-domestication) of herds and people (Fijn 2011). To interpret emerging social complex-ities on the steppe it is useful to briefly outline some basic social and economic characteristicsthat link the societies in Inner Asia with other pastoralist societies in the Middle East and Africa.

Multi-resource pastoralism

The herding of animals was and is the economic foundation; however, it was also routinely sup-plemented. In addition to the herding of different proportions of sheep, goats, horses, yaks, andcamels; hunting and the gathering of wild plants was routinely practiced. Formal irrigation agriculture was also practiced to varying degrees. There is substantial archaeological and ethno-graphic evidence for multi-resource pastoralism (e.g., Davydova 1985; Vainshtein 1980).

Demographics

Ethnographic studies conducted over the last 100 years in Mongolia provide some useful in-sights, especially for understanding the organization of the household and larger camp cluster(Simukov 2007). For example, the Khot ail in Mongolia is generally considered to include be-

75EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

tween 2 and 12 households (Bold 1996; Fernández-Giménez 1999). Throughout Inner Asia mostof the ethnographic cases studied by Humphrey and Sneath (1999, 154) included small clustersof related households similar to the local camps noted in Mongolia. All households go througha life cycle (Goody 1971), but generally households were relatively small, with a mean of 5.5people representing a nuclear family. Families tended to raise around four children to adulthood.A review of ethnographic studies from rural areas of Mongolia, Russia, and Kazakhstan revealedconsistently low human population densities for steppe pastoralists ranging from approximately0.05 to 1.8 people per square kilometer5.

Mobility and dispersal

At one extreme, place is conceptually non-existent; at the other it is absolute. Between these ex-tremes are a range of perceptions and practices that hold key insights with far reaching implications.It is often taken for granted, for instance, that distance on the steppe causes problems of commu-nication. That is, logically it is not always predictable to know where a particular family, a camp,or even an entire community may be from one time to the next. In practice, however, communica-tion networks among pastoralists are relatively efficient for three reasons: first, members of thefamily do not simply stay within sight of the camp, but are out tending herds where they routinelycome in contact with herders from other camps; second, pastoralists participate in a wide varietyof economic and social activities that follow well known seasonal schedules; and third, families arefairly predictable in terms of seasonal movements and these patterns are well known to others. Intimes of conflict, communication networks are even more tightly integrated, not less so.

Extra-local interactions

What is most certainly different about pastoralists, in comparison to sedentary populations, isthe actual distance and the social mechanisms needed to share information, even when move-ment/communication technology (the horse) is available. On a routine basis there are a varietyof social and political events that tend to occur seasonally or annually. These same kind of gath-erings occur today and are documented ethnographically (e.g., Vreeland 1957).

Non-fixed property

It may seem an overly obvious statement, but the real key to mobility is the movability of notonly property, but the corollary of accumulated wealth (Borgerhoff Mulder et al. 2010). Forpastoralists, wealth was sometimes marked by the size of herds. The vulnerability of herd-basedwealth is often cited as a fundamental problem for pastoralists engaged in power accumulationand the creation of formal status distinctions. While herds are vulnerable to droughts and ex-treme winter weather, there is extensive ethnographic information, paralleled by results fromcomputer simulations, indicating that wealthy families and their respective lineages tend to main-

76 J. DANIEL ROGERS

5 Allard 2006; Bazargur et al. 1989; Bruun 2006; Jagchid/Hyer 1979; Johnson/Earle 1987; Humphrey/Sneath

1999; Krader 1955; Kradin 2005; Simukov 1934; Vain-shtein 1980; Vreeland 1957; Ykhanbai et al. 2004.

tain their resources over generations in spite of collective challenges, like war or extremeweather6. There are a variety of social mechanisms that account for this, including: differentialaccess to water and grazing, social sharing, more extensive social networks allowing greater mo-bility, and implied decision flexibility (Abramzon 1978).

Pastoralism is a significant economic activity for a wide variety of peoples in different partsof the world, but like agriculture, pastoralism does not result in a singular type of society (Salz-man 2004, 137). People with different traditions may keep animal herds, while also engaged ina variety of other economic activities. The patterns observed in Inner Asia illustrate a relianceon herding, but are best described as multi-resource pastoralism, as noted above. With the emer-gence of the first empires the characteristics outlined above are clearly represented in direct eco-nomic ways, but also in how complex political systems were established and managed.

THE STATE LANDSCAPE

The dynamics of early empires and the processes of how state landscapes functioned played outmultiple times in the first Millennium CE (Fig. 1). While many of the factors described aboveare theorized as applying to all steppe polities, there are also unique combinations revealed inthe articulation of the political community, the structure of events, and specific cultural trajec-tories. These individual qualities are described below for selected polities in order to developan understanding of the range of variation.

Special archaeological attention, in the eastern steppe, has centered on the Xiongnu (Hunnu),in part because it is the first well known major steppe polity. The extent to which changes inthe Bronze Age contributed to the formation of the Xiongnu and other later polities is currentlyunder intense archaeological study7. Kradin’s (2011) recent analysis and identification of theXiongnu as a super complex chiefdom is particularly relevant to this analysis, as well as a hostof other studies (e.g., Brosseder/Miller 2011). Often, the fundamental disagreements over inter-pretation of the Xiongnu are centered on the extent and complexity of political control. Thesemechanisms are difficult to analyze archaeologically and the historical documents require sig-nificant interpretation.

Like other histories of the northern peoples written by Chinese historians, the documentsrelated to the Xiongnu provide an origin narrative centered on the actions of hereditary cen-tralized leaders (Qian Sima/Watson 1961). Archaeologically, the evidence suggests a far morediffuse origin over a period of time in which competing, but related, sub-groups utilized patternsof wealth and inequality already established in the Bronze Age (3000–700 BCE) and early IronAge (700–400 BCE; Honeychurch 2015). Clues to this period of consolidation may be reflectedin the documentary sources by several other groups mentioned as either contemporary or an-tecedent to the Xiongnu (Prušek 1971). The evidence for complex social hierarchies comes fromelaborate elite tombs and from detailed studies of settlement patterns in multiple regions. Indifferent ways, both Honeychurch (2012) and Kradin (2011) have argued for the dispersed and

77EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

6 Batnasan 1972; Cooper 1993; Fernández-Giménez1997; Rogers et al. 2012; Simukov 1936; Vainshtein1980.

7 Fitzhugh 2009; Frohlich et al. 2010; Honeychurch/Amartuvshin 2007; Houle 2009.

not very centralized character of the Xiongnu political community engaged in the constant rene-gotiation of control. Early sources, however, report a hierarchy consisting of 24 regional leadersalong with the kings of the left and right, all of whom answered to a central leader. Together,this system represented a very dispersed political community. While historical sources give theimpression of a well-organized system (Qian Sima/Watson 1961), it is likely that the local leaderswere not on equal footing and undoubtedly exercised varying levels of compliance with man-dates issued by the left, right, or center.

By its geographical extent and survival over the course of more than 350 years the Xiongnupolity was arguably the most successful of all the major steppe polities. Archaeological datapoints to the strength of shared traditions as one explanation for this success, reflected in the

78 J. DANIEL ROGERS

Fig. 1. A chronology of major polities for Inner Asia (after Rogers 2012, 208).

commonalities of cultural practice represented in the material record. Because the Xiongnu werethe first major steppe polity they may also have held an advantage simply because there wereno powerful steppe rivals. While the structure of events includes a dispersed political communitythe particular Xiongnu case is more difficult to analyze since it represents an emergent first ex-ample. The Xiongnu case does, however, set the stage as a cultural trajectory played out repeat-edly in subsequent examples.

Contemporary with much of the Xiongnu Empire, but extending later in time were theWuhuan and Xianbei polities. They are discussed here together because of their similar originsin northeast China and their routine conflicts with the Xiongnu. While there are known archae-ological sites from northeast China, identification of sites in Mongolia or further north hasproven elusive partly because of the relatively short-lived nature of these polities, but also be-cause they did not expand or develop a distinctive material culture, in contrast to the Xiongnu.The Xianbei undoubtedly left a material record, however, thus far it has not been possible todistinguish it from either earlier or later materials. A distinctive material culture in one case andthe absence of such in another is an important clue to the cultural politics of expanding empires.

The documentary sources describe the Wuhuan and Xianbei as lacking a clear centralizedhereditary hierarchy, at least initially. Instead, central control was vested in individuals whocame to the position through merit. Merit alone, however, could not have been the only criterion(Gardiner/de Crespigny 1977, 15). There are prominent leaders mentioned in the histories afterCE 120 and centralized Xianbei leadership after about CE 140. Merit, as a leadership criterion,is not an unusual concept on the steppe, considering how many leaders were “elected” by a cen-tral council or rose to power through conflict. In the Wuhuan case it appears that the politicalcommunity remained dispersed and functioned in a relatively collaborative way when calledupon for collective action.

The core political strategies and actions of the Wuhuan provide a new dimension to the tra-jectory and cultural constraints seen in the Xiongnu polity, although both the Wuhuan and theXianbei utilized the three part division of east, west, and center, as seen earlier. The Wuhuanbrought to the heart of Inner Asia the familiar pastoralist strategies, but also added traditionsmore clearly associated with intensive agriculture and Chinese styles of cultural practice. Inboth the Wuhuan and Xianbei cases the historical sources are essentially reporting protractedperiods of political consolidation that eventually resulted in a clear centralized leadership, ifonly briefly (156–180 CE). For instance, even after a major Wuhuan defeat by the Chinese (Wei),they continue to exist as three separate smaller polities. Xianbei power seems also to have fol-lowed a similarly long period of decline eventually resulting in the breakup of the polity after arelatively short period of centralized control (Gardiner/de Crespigny 1977). The system prac-ticed by the Wuhuan and Xianbei produced a structure that did not fare well in leadership suc-cessions, and defeat in armed conflict by external enemies was the eventual fate of both of thesepolities.

The Jujan (Rouran) polity that followed the Wuhuan and Xianbei emerged with a centralleadership that developed a military registration system and rules of behavior, but not extendingto a written civil code of laws. The Jujan drew on what was now a long standing tradition of athree-part regional organization as first described in the Xiongnu polity. The Jujan continuedto rely heavily on dispersed aristocratic lineages as in the broader political community concept(Kradin 2000; 2005).

Other polities of the first Millennium CE include the Toba Wei, Türk I, Türk II, Uyghur,Khitan Liao, and Tangut Xia. Although these offer additional evidence of continuity and change

79EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

it is not necessary to describe each case. Instead, to complement the early examples describedabove two additional polities are discussed here – Uyghur and Khitan Liao. The Uyghur represent a distinctive contrast to the innovations and patterns established by the Xiongnu andthen followed by the Wuhuan, Xianbei, and Jujan. Perhaps the most obvious aspect is the Uyghuremphasis on establishing a capitol city (Khar Balgas or Ordu Balik). The largest ancient city inMongolia, Khar Balgas, was a product of empire through which the goals of making a managedstate landscape took shape. Under the influence of Sogdian advisors and the Manichaean religionthe Uyghur Empire reached its greatest power around CE 760 (Mackerras 1972, 8). In an in-scription from Khar Balgas the words of the qaghan articulate an objective and strong departurefrom pastoralist practice: “[We will transform]...this country of barbarous customs, full of thefumes of blood, into a land where people live on vegetables; from a land of killing to a landwhere good deeds are fostered” (Moriyasu/Ochir 1999, 143). Such statements are a reflectionof the newly adopted religious tenants. There are many examples of religious conversion phe-nomenon around the world. When it begins at the top, as among the Uyghur, it is often a rapidtransition; although it often remains debatable, as in this case, as to just how complete the con-version was among the populace. Although clearly highly influential, there were also reportsthat more than one religion was widely practiced, not to mention the likelihood that even moretraditional shamanism was common (Mackerras 1990).

Cities, commerce, and agriculture were important in the Uyghur Empire, in sharp contrastto their immediate predecessors, the Türk empires, as well as earlier empires. Added to this wasa strong Uyghur centralized political authority originally represented by a coalition of nine“tribes”. With the founding of the empire less reliance was placed on the authority of a dispersedpolitical community, which was not always the case among the other steppe empires. TheUyghur Empire emphasis on centralized authority and a distinctive urban aspect are a disjuncturein some critical aspects from the cultural constraints and traditions that featured so prominentlypreviously, even though the Uyghur court, for instance, did adopt the administrative titles usedby the former Türk empires. Even with these contrasts it is likely that the economic base re-mained pastoralism (Mackerras 1972, 13; 1990, 323).

The Khitan Liao originating in Manchuria provided an additional compliment and contrastto the other polities. Beginning in the early 10th century the Khitan successfully forged a coali-tion between eight related groups (Franke 1990). From a pastoralist base, the emerging KhitanEmpire had initial success against Chinese communities to the south. As the Khitan expandedinto the broader steppe region they brought connections with Chinese-influenced traditions,including craft production and agriculture. In many cases these specialized skills were practicedby Chinese subjects, including administrative traditions. Like the Uyghurs, the Khitan broughtnew elements to the heart of the steppe. The differences between the two were still significant,perhaps partly because the Uyghurs represented a “home grown” polity of Turkic origins, whilethe Khitan derived from groups at the eastern margin of the steppe, rooted in a mixed economyof pastoralism and agriculture. Even more than the Uyghurs, the Khitan Empire devised a statelandscape that emphasized boundaries and depended on a variety of constructions, includingurban centers, very long boundary walls, garrison posts, frontier settlements, and ceremonialcenters (Rogers 2012).

The initial confederation of groups and the emerging political hierarchy were combined withan administrative bureaucracy partially built on Chinese patterns. In some portions of the em-pire a dual-administration was imposed, in which the pastoralists were under Khitan adminis-tration, while the agricultural Chinese communities were under local Chinese administration.

80 J. DANIEL ROGERS

The extent to which the administrative style of the Khitan Empire was an advantage or disad-vantage is a matter of debate. Their empire was expansive and lasted for over 200 years (907–1125 CE).

DISCUSSION

The pastoralist empires, and their constructed state landscapes are described above along fourdimensions: construction of order, political community, trajectory, and the particular meldingof pattern and event in the structure of events. The construction of order refers to process whilepolitical community represents a particular set of mechanisms and the social context of stateorganizational tools, like control hierarchies. Trajectory refers to dynamic change, especiallyregarding tradition and the implications of social and cultural constraints on action. Finally, thestructure of events is the link between constructing order, political community, and trajectory.Phrased another way, structural conjunctures, contingent decision making, and the constraintsof tradition are realized through core mechanisms like political community (Campbell 2009;Honeychurch 2012). Political community is conceptualized along two major continuums – hier -archy and social network and the dynamic of dispersed versus restricted. Figure 2 presents aheuristic model/tool of how pastoralist and sedentary agricultural polities fall along these twocontinuums. The differences seen in Figure 2 between sedentary and pastoralist polities are pri-marily the result of alternative concepts of movement and mobility, as played out within a par-ticular type of political community. If this is correct, then the nature of political community onthe steppe represents an important new dimension for interpreting the emergence and sustain-ability of empires.

In the original formulation of the political community concept Bailey described the personnelthat were part of a political structure, in the context of game theory. The political communityis the largest group “in which competition for valued ends is controlled. Beyond this point therules do not apply and politics is not so much a competition as a fight.” (Bailey 1969, 23). Withinthe political community the elite were the ones entitled to compete for power. On the steppe,these were the aristocratic lineages found in every named group. As Bailey (1969) notes, theelite may contain many internal grades (administrative and aristocratic titles) and boundariesbetween the elite and commoners were not always precise, thus setting the stage for challengesto authority. Within the political community the elite form themselves into collaborative teamsto exploit networks of potential power. Bailey’s formulation is about how political systems op-erate, distinct from conceptions of the social community as a place of residence and shared af-filiation. Recently, Honeychurch (2012) expanded the political community concept and broughtit to the study of steppe empires. He added the idea of space and elaborated on the qualities ofa community that identifies a particular membership and boundary, implying the sparse andexpansive qualities of steppe polities.

The complex political landscape common to the steppe was composed of dispersed aristocraticlineages which variously collaborated or fought to establish position, each structured by dy-namic cultural trajectories. The early histories provide glimpses into the complexity of thesestruggles, but are generally more concerned with those polities that emerged and were capableof posing a real threat to China. The continually competing lineages understood the rules of the

81EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

game as a combination of collaborative compromise and ruthless self-promotion. On the steppearistocratic lineages with real authority over populations at various scales are well described inthe early documentary sources, often referred to by their military titles, such as leader of “10,000horsemen”, as among the Xiongnu (Qian Sima/Watson 1961, 136).

While these lineages, and the many commoner families connected to them, have the outwardcharacteristics of kin groups, the reality reflected a far more complex political landscape in whichdiverse groups might become part of the same “clan” or “tribe”. Regionally and globally, thereare many examples of how kinship was an outward, but fictive, expression of rewritten historiesof affiliation and allegiance8. The complex chiefdoms of 18th Century Hawaii are an examplethat illustrates this process well. In Hawaii paramount chiefs waged wars, incorporated territo-ries and their populations, and in the process reassigned the clan affiliations of those newly an-nexed (Sahlins 1985). The people in the new region now acknowledged their position within aconical clan with the new chief at the apex. On the steppe it appears that the dispersed politicalcommunity functioned in a similar way (Sneath 2007). The local political hierarchies with theirreal or fictive kin affiliations were the focal points of emerging alliances and the efforts of leadersto garner resources and amass control. These events often took place not as a result of the vi-sionary objectives of a single leader, but as experiment and responses to opportunities based onincomplete information (Wright 2006). The social hierarchies mirror fundamental social andeconomic principles, since they both create and are created by the necessities and advantages ofthe steppe.

The examples of steppe polities discussed above provide ample evidence of the kinds of tra-ditions that played into the development of polities. There was continuity and variation in thetrajectory of all the polities. For instance, the organization of the political elite within a polityrepeatedly included a tripartite left, right, and center administrative geography, with the para-mount at the center. While not universal, this organization was routinely part of those politiesthat originated in the heart of the eastern steppe, primarily Mongolia. Other systems incorpo-rated elements of the steppe traditions along with those derived from eastern Chinese popula-tions and western Sogdian traditions, in the examples described here.

82 J. DANIEL ROGERS

8 Crossley 1990; Elliot 2001; Gailey 1987; Garthwaite1983; Hobsbawn/Ranger 1983.

Fig. 2. The relationship between the scale and dispersion of social networks and control hierarchies in political communities. Sedentary polities contrast

with pastoralist polities along both dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Political community, tradition, and trajectory are structural aspects that play out as a conjunc-ture of particular events. Outcomes are never certain, but the cultural context and traditionsgenerally established the range of possibilities. For the steppe polities, these traditions were es-tablished, at least in a basic sense, during the earlier Bronze Age. Choices made by leaders, in areciprocal sense, create and fulfill expectations. In most cases it is probable that would-be leaderswere unsuccessful in turning the political community to a unified purpose. The range of out-comes is embodied in the traditions, and occasional innovations, of political centralization seenin the examples above. Centralization of a control hierarchy was not a foregone conclusion oran automatic necessity of polity formation. Moreover, centralization turns out to be a poor pre-dictor of success, measured as either longevity or geographical extent of the polity. Figure 1 il-lustrates the generally accepted chronology of the major polities. Within this group, the mostpolitically centralized and hierarchical were arguably the Xiongnu, Uyghurs, and Khitan Liao.Together, these polities were spatially expansive (Cioffi-Revilla et al. 2010), but varied tremen-dously in their longevity – a goal of every polity.

The most enduring themes in the study of early complex polities concern how these politicaland social systems developed and how they declined. Added relatively recently to this dualityis the analysis of how social complexity was maintained and sustained through particularmechanisms. Throughout Inner Asia the first Millennium CE was dominated by a series ofcomplex societies that developed, were sustained, and ultimately declined. The emergence andsustainability of each society involves particular sets of themes. These are described here asthe construction of order as in the politics and alliance building of early leaders, the overallscope of the political community, the constraints of cultural trajectories, and the dynamicsplayed out as the structure of the conjuncture. The patterns revealed in the histories of par-ticular early empires provide the clues and more solid evidence for how the core factors op-erated.

Foundational to any complex political system are the social mechanisms that create andmaintain inequalities (Flannery/Marcus 2012). Steppe pastoralists, and those elsewhere, havebeen viewed as relatively egalitarian in their basic social systems in spite of ethnographic, his-torical, and archaeological evidence to the contrary. In part, this perception of the “egalitariannomad” is based on experiences of the 20th century, in which pastoralists were indeed mar-ginalized politically and economically. Added to this is the perception that herd-based re-sources are too volatile to allow sustained wealth accumulation. However, detailed studies ofhow pastoralists develop inequalities, confirms that wealth is routinely accumulated and main-tained over generations (Asad 1979; Borgerhoff Mulder et al. 2010). Archaeological evidencefrom the Bronze Age throughout Central and Inner Asia further illustrate the time depth andexpansive nature of institutionalized and centralized status distinctions (Frachetti 2008; Kohl2007).

The steppe environment and the economics of pastoralism are the foundations of all the em-pires discussed here. Every empire constructs order and utilizes a political community to builda state landscape. The unique qualities brought to the study of social complexity by the steppepolities center on the dispersed qualities of the political community, which represent the waysmobility was used to master environmental constraints through organizational and technologicalsolutions.

83EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

QIAN SIMA/WATSON 1961Qian Sima, Records of the Grand Historian ofChina, translated from the Shih chi of Ssu-ma

Ch’ien by B. Watson. Vol. 2: The Age of EmperorWu 140 to circa 100 B.C. Records of Civilization65,2 (New York 1961).

Studies

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to many friends and colleagues for their advice and support in preparation ofthis chapter. In particular, I thank Meghan Mulkerin, Margaret Mariani, Marcia Bakry, andWilliam Honeychurch. Aspects of the research described here were supported by a NationalScience Foundation grant (BCS-0527471) within the Human and Social Dynamics initiative.Additional support was provided by the National Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution.

84 J. DANIEL ROGERS

REFERENCES

Sources

ABRAMS 1988Ph. Abrams, Notes on the Difficulty of Studyingthe State. Journal of Historical Sociology 1, 1(March) 1988, 58–89.

ABRAMZON 1978S. M. Abramzon, Family-Group, Family, andIndividual Property Categories among Nomads.In: W. Weissleder (ed.), The Nomadic alternative:modes and models of interaction in the African-Asian deserts and steppes. World Anthropology(The Hague 1978) 179–188.

ALLARD 2006F. Allard, Recent Archaeological Research in theKhanuy River Valley, Central Mongolia. In: D.L. Peterson/L. M. Popova/A. T. Smith (eds), Be-yond the Steppe and the Sown: Proceedings ofthe 2002 University of Chicago Conference onEurasian Archaeology (Leiden 2006) 202–224.

ASAD 1979T. Asad, Equality in nomadic social systems?Notes towards the dissolution of an anthropo-logical category. In: l’Équipe Écologie et An-thropologie des Sociétés Pastorales (ed.), Pastoral

Production and Society. Proceedings of the In-ternational Meeting on Nomadic Pastoralism,Paris 1–3 déc. 1976 = Production pastorale et so-ciété (Cambridge 1979) 419–428.

BAILEY 1969A. G. Bailey, Stratagems and Spoils. A SocialAnthropology of Politics (Toronto 1969).

BAINES/YOFFEE 2000J. E. Baines/N. Yoffee, Order, legitimacy, andwealth: setting the terms. In: J. Richards/M. VanBuren (eds.), Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth inAncient States. New Directions in Archaeology(Cambridge 2000) 13–17.

BAIROCH 1988P. Bairoch, Cities and Economic Development.From the Dawn of History to the Present(Chicago 1988).

BARFIELD 1989Th. J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier. NomadicEmpires and China, 221 BC–AD 1757 (Cam-bridge 1989).

BATNASAN 1972G. Batnasan, Nėgdėlchdiĭn nüüdėl, suur’shikhyn

zarim asuudald. In: C. Badamkhatan (red.)Ėthnographiĭn Sudlal. Ėrkhėlsėn (Ulaanbaatar1972) 111–157. Г. Батнасан, Нэгдэлчдийн нүүдэл,

суурьшихын зарим асуудалд. In: Г. Бадамхатан

(рeд.), Этнографийн судлал. Эрхэлсэн (Улаан-

баатар 1972) 111–157.BAZARGUR et al. 1989

D. Bazargur/S. Chinbat/S. Shiirev-Ad’yaa, Bugdnairamdach mongol ard ulsyn malchdyn nüüdel(Ulaanbaatar 1989). Д. Базагур/С. Чинбат/С. Шии-

рев-Aдьыаа, Бугд наирамдач монгoл ард улсын

малчдын нүүдел (Улаанбаатар 1989).BLANTON et al. 1996

R. E. Blanton/G. M. Feinman/St. A. Kowalewski/P. N. Peregrine, A Dual-Processual Theory forthe Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization.Current Anthropology 37, 1, 1996, 1–14.

BOLD 1996B.-O. Bold, Socio-economic Segmentation –Khot-Ail in Nomadic Livestock Keeping ofMongolia. Nomadic Peoples 39, 1996, 69–86.

BONDARENKO 2007D. M. Bondarenko, Homoarchy as a Principleof Sociopolitical Organization. Anthropos 102, 1,2007, 187–199.

BONDARENKO/NEMIROVSKIY 2007D. M. Bondarenko/A. Nemirovskiy (eds.), Se-lected Papers I. Alternativity in Cultural History:Heterarchy and Homoarchy as Evolutionary Tra-jectories. Third International Conference “Hier-archy and Power in the History of Civilizations”,June 18–21, 2004 Moscow (Moscow 2007).

BORGERHOFF MULDER et al. 2010M. Borgerhoff Mulder/I. Fazzio/W. Irons/R. L.McElreath/S. Bowles/A. Bell/T. Hertz/L. Haz-zah, Pastoralism and Wealth Inequality. Revisit-ing an Old Question. Current Anthropology 51,1, 2010, 35–48.

BOYD 1962A. Boyd, Chinese Architecture and Town Plan-ning 1500 B.C.–A.D. 1911 (London 1962).

BROSSEDER/MILLER 2011U. Brosseder/B. K. Miller (eds.), Xiongnu Ar-chaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of theFirst Steppe Empire in Inner Asia. Bonn Con-tributions to Asian Archaeology 5 (Bonn 2011).

BRUUN 2006O. Bruun, Precious Steppe: Mongolian NomadicPastoralists in Pursuit of the Market (Lanham/MD 2006).

CAMPBELL 2009R. B. Campbell, Toward a Networks and Bound-aries Approach to Early Complex Polities: TheLate Shang Case. Current Anthropology 50, 6,2009, 821–848.

CIOFFI-REVILLA 2005Cl. Cioffi-Revilla, A Canonical Theory of Ori-gins and Development of Social Complexity.Mathematical Sociology 29, 2, 2005, 133–153.

CIOFFI-REVILLA et al. 2010Cl. Cioffi-Revilla/J. D. Rogers/M. Latek, TheMASON HouseholdWorld Model of Pastoral No-mad Societies. In: K. Takadama/Cl. Cioffi-Revilla/G. Deffaunt (eds.), Simulating Interacting Agentsand Social Phenomena. Agent-based Social Systems7 (Tokyo, New York, Berlin 2010) 193–204.

COOPER 1993L. Cooper, Patterns of mutual assistance in theMongolian pastoral economy. Nomadic Peoples33, 1993, 153–162.

CROSSLEY 1990P. K. Crossley, Orphan Warriors: Three ManchuGenerations and the End of the Qing World(Princeton 1990).

CRUMLEY 1995C. L. Crumley, Heterarchy and the Analysisof Complex Societies. In: R. M. Ehrenreigh/C. Crumley/J. E. Levy (eds.), Heterarchy andthe Analysis of Complex Societies. ArcheologicalPapers of the American Anthropological Asso-ciation 6 (Washington D.C. 1995) 1–5.

DANILOV 2004S. V. Danilov, Goroda v Kochevykh Obshchest-vakh Tsentral’noĭ Azii (Ulan-Ude 2004). С. В.

Данилов, Города в кочевых обществах Цен -

тральной Азии (Улан-Удэ 2004).DAVYDOVA 1985

A. V. Davydova, Ivolginskiĭ kompleks (go -rodishche i mogil’nik) – pamiatnik khunnu vZabaĭkal’e (Leningrad 1985). А. В. Давыдова,

Иволгинский комплекс (городище и могильник)

– памятник хунну в Забайкалье (Ленинград 1985).

85EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

ELLIOT 2001M. Elliot, The Manchu Way: The Eight Bannersand Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (Stan-ford 2001).

FERNÁNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ 1997M. E. Fernández-Giménez, Landscapes, Live-stock, and Livelihoods: Social, Ecological, andLand-Use Change among the Nomadic Pastoral-ists of Mongolia. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California, Berkeley 1997.

FERNÁNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ 1999M. E. Fernández-Giménez, Sustaining theSteppes: A Geographical History of PastoralLand Use in Mongolia. Geographical Review 89,3, 1999, 315–342.

FIJN 2011N. Fijn, Living with herds. Human-Animal Co-existence in Mongolia (Cambridge 2011).

FITZHUGH 2009W. Fitzhugh, Pre-Scythian Ceremonialism, DeerStone Art, and Cultural Intensification in North-ern Mongolia. In: B. K. Hanks/K. M. Linduff(eds.), Social Complexity in Prehistoric Eurasia.Monuments, Metals and Mobility (Cambridge,New York 2009) 378–412.

FLANNERY/MARCUS 2012K. V. Flannery/J. Marcus, The Creation of In-equality. How our Prehistoric Ancestors set theStage for Monarchy, Slavery, and Empire (Cam-bridge/MA 2012).

FRACHETTI 2008M. D. Frachetti, Pastoralist Landscapes and socialInteraction in Bronze Age Eurasia (Berkeley/CA2008).

FRANKE 1990H. Franke, The Forest Peoples of Manchuria:Kitans and Jurchens. In: D. Sinor (ed.), The Cam-bridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge1990) 400–423.

FROHLICH et al. 2010B. Frohlich/T. Amgalantugs/J. Littleton/G. Gan-bat/D. Hunt/E. Nittler/S. Karstens/T. Frohlich/E. Batchatar, An overview of theories and hy-pothesis pertaining to Mongolian Bronze Agekhirgisuurs in the Hovsgol Aimag, Mongolia.Studia Archaeologica 29, 2010, 123–143.

GAILEY 1987C. Gailey, Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierar-chy and State Formation in the Tongan Islands.Texas Sourcebooks in Anthropology 14 (Austin/TX 1987).

GARDINER/DE CRESPIGNY 1977K. H. J. Gardiner/R. R. de Crespigny, T’an-Shih-Huai and the Hsien-pi Tribes of the Second Cen-tury A.D. Papers on Far Eastern History 15,1977, 1–44.

GARTHWAITE 1983G. Garthwaite, Tribes, Confederation, and theState: An Historical Overview of the Bakhtiariand Iran. In: R. Tapper (ed.), The Conflict ofTribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan (London1983) 314–330.

GOODY 1971J. Goody, The Developmental Cycle in DomesticGroups. Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropol-ogy 1 (Cambridge 1971).

HAAS 1995J. Haas, The roads to statehood. In: N. N.Kradin/V. A. Lynsha (eds.), Alternative Pathwaysto Early State. International Symposium (Vladi-vostok 1995) 16–18.

HOBSBAWN/RANGER 1983E. Hobsbawn/T. Ranger (eds.), The Inventionof Tradition (Cambridge 1983).

HONEYCHURCH 2012W. Honeychurch, Thinking Political Communi-ties. The State and Social Stratification amongAncient Nomads of Mongolia. In: P. Durren-berger (ed.), The Anthropological Study of Classand Consciousness (Boulder/CO 2012) 29–63.

HONEYCHURCH 2015W. Honeychurch, Inner Asia and the Spatial Poli -tics of Empire. Archaeology, Mobility, and Cul-ture Contact (New York 2015).

HONEYCHURCH/AMARTUVSHIN 2007W. Honeychurch/Ch. Amartuvshin, Hinterlands,Urban Centers, and Mobile Settings: The “New”Old World Archaeology from the EurasianSteppe. Asian Perspectives 46, 1, 2007, 36–64.

HOULE 2009J.-L. Houle, Socially Integrative Facilities’ andthe Emergence of Societal Complexity on the

86 J. DANIEL ROGERS

Mongolian Steppe. In: B. K. Hanks/K. M. Lin-duff (eds.), Social Complexity in PrehistoricEurasia. Monuments, Metals and Mobility (Cam-bridge, New York 2009) 358–377.

HUMPHREY/SNEATH 1999C. Humphrey/D. Sneath, The End of No-madism? Society, State, and the Environment inInner Asia (Durham/NC 1999).

JAGCHID/HYER 1979S. Jagchid/P. Hyer, Mongolia’s Culture and So-ciety (Boulder/CO 1979).

JOHNSON/EARLE 1987A. W. Johnson/T. Earle, The Evolution of Hu-man Societies: From Foraging Group to AgrarianState (Stanford/CA 1987).

KOHL 2007Ph. L. Kohl, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia.Cambridge World Archaeology (Cambridge2007).

KRADER 1955L. Krader, Ecology of Central Asian Pastoralism.Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11, 1955,301–326.

KRADIN 2000N. N. Kradin, Obshchestvenn’iĭ Stroĭ Zhu -shan’skogo Kaganata. In: N. N. Kradin et al.(red.), Istoriia i Archaeologiia Dal’nego Vostoka.K 70-Letiiu Ė. V. Shavkunova (Vladivostok 2000)80–94. Н. Н. Крадин, Oбщественньий Строй Жу-

цаньского Каганата. In: Н. Н. Крадин (peд.), Ис-

тория и Aрхеология Дальнего Востока. К 70- летию Э. В. Шавкунова (Владивосток 2000)80–94.

KRADIN 2005N. N. Kradin, From Tribal Confederation toEmpire. The Evolution of the Rouran Society.Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hun-gariae 58, 2005, 149–169.

KRADIN 2008N. N. Kradin, Structure of Power in NomadicEmpires of Inner Asia. Anthropological Ap-proach. In: L. E. Grinin/D. D. Beliaev/A. V. Ko-rotayev (eds.), Hierarchy and Power in the His-tory of Civilizations. Ancient and MedievalCultures. Social Evolution and History Mono-graphs (Moscow 2008) 98–124.

KRADIN 2011N. N. Kradin, Stateless Empire: The Structureof the Xiongnu Nomadic Super-Complex Chief-dom. In: Brosseder/Miller 2011, 77–96.

LANE 2006D. Lane, Hierarchy, Complexity, Society. In: D.Pumain (ed.), Hierarchy in Natural and SocialSciences. Methodos Series 3 (Dordrecht 2006)81–119.

MACKERRAS 1972C. Mackerras, The Uighur Empire according tothe T’ang Dynastic Histories. A Study in Sino-Uighur Relations 744–840. Asian PublicationsSeries 2 (Canberra 1972).

MACKERRAS 1990C. Mackerras, The Uighurs. In: D. Sinor (ed.),The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia(Cambridge 1990) 317–342.

MANN 1986M. Mann, The sources of social power. I. A his-tory of power from the beginning to A.D. 1760.(Cambridge 1986).

MORIYASU/OCHIR 1999T. Moriyasu/A. Ochir (eds.), Mongoru koku gen-zon iseki. Hibun chōsa kenkyū hōkoku 森安孝夫/オチル,モンゴル国現存遺蹟・碑文調査研

究報告 = Provisional Report of Researches onHistorical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongoliafrom 1996 to 1998. Society of Central EurasianStudies (Tokyo 1999).

NICHOLS/CHARLTON 1997D. L. Nichols/Th. H. Charlton (eds.), The Ar-chaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Ap-proaches. Smithsonian Series in ArchaeologicalInquiry (Washington, London 1997).

PRUŠEK 1971J. Prušek, Chinese Statelets and the NorthernBarbarians in the Period 1400–300 B.C. (Dor-drecht 1971).

ROGERS 1990J. D. Rogers, Objects of Change: The Archaeol-ogy and History of Arikara Contact with Euro-peans. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological In-quiry (Washington D.C. 1990).

ROGERS 2007J. D. Rogers, The Contingencies of State forma-

87EMPIRE DYNAMICS AND INNER ASIA

tion in Eastern Inner Asia. Asian Perspectives46, 2, 2007, 249–274.

ROGERS 2012J. D. Rogers, Inner Asian States and Empires:Theories and Synthesis. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Research 20, 2012, 205–256.

ROGERS et al. 2012J. D. Rogers/T. Nichols/Th. Emmerich/M. La -tek/Cl. Cioffi-Revilla, Modeling scale and vari-ability in human-environmental interactions inInner Asia. Ecological Modelling 241, 2012, 5–14.

SAHLINS 1981M. Sahlins, Historical Metaphors and MythicalRealities: Structure in the Early History of theSandwich Islands Kingdom. Association for So-cial Anthropology in Oceania, Special Publica-tions 1 (Ann Arbor/MI 1981).

SAHLINS 1985M. Sahlins, Islands of History (Chicago 1985).

SAHLINS 2004M. Sahlins, Apologies to Thucydides. Under-standing history as culture and vice versa(Chicago 2004).

SALZMAN 2004P. C. Salzman, Pastoralists. Equality, Hierarchy,and the State (Boulder/CO 2004).

SERVICE 1975E. R. Service, Origins of the State and Civiliza-tion. The Process of Cultural Evolution (NewYork 1975).

SIMUKOV 1934A. D. Simukov, Mongol’skie Kochevki. Sovre-mennaia Mongoliia 7, 4, 1934, 40–46. A. Д. Си-

муков, Монгольские кочевки. Современная Мон-

голия 7, 4, 1934, 40–46.SIMUKOV 1936

A. D. Simukov, Materialy po Kochevomu bytuNaseleniia MNR. Sovremennaia Mongoliia 15,2, 1936, 49–57. А. Д. Симуков, Материалы по

кочевому быту населения МНР. Современная

Монголия 15, 2, 1936, 49–56.SIMUKOV 2007

A. D. Simukov, Trudy o Mongolii i dlia Mongolii.In: A. D. Simukov (ed.), Senri Ethnological Re-ports 67, Vol. 2 (Osaka 2007). А. Д. Симуков,

Труды о Монголии и для Монголии. In: A. D.

Simukov (ed.), Senri Ethnological Reports 67,Vol. 2 (Osaka 2007).

SMITH 2003A. T. Smith, The Political Landscape. Constella-tions of Authority in Early Complex Polities.(Berkeley 2003).

SNEATH 2007D. Sneath, The Headless State. Aristocratic Or-ders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations ofNomadic Inner Asia (New York 2007).

TRIGGER 2003B. G. Trigger, Understanding Early Civilizations.A comparative Study (Cambridge 2003).

VAINSHTEIN 1980S. Vainshtein, Nomads of South Siberia. The Pas-toral Economies of Tuva. Cambridge Studies inSocial Anthropology 25 (Cambridge 1980).

VREELAND 1957H. H. Vreeland, Mongol Community and Kin-ship Structure. 2nd ed. (New Haven 1957).

WHEATLEY 1971P. Wheatley, The Pivot of the Four Quarters. APreliminary Enquiry into the Origins and Char-acter of the Ancient Chinese City (Chicago 1971).

WHITE 1995J. C. White, Incorporating Heterarchy into The-ory on Socio-Political Development: the Casefrom Southeast Asia. In: R. M. Ehrenreigh/C. L.Crumley/J. E. Levy (eds.), Heterarchy and theAnalysis of Complex Societies. ArcheologicalPapers of the American Anthropological Asso-ciation 6 (Washington D.C. 1995) 101–123.

WRIGHT 1977H. T. Wright, Recent Research on the Origin ofthe State. Annual Review of Anthropology 6,1977, 379–397.

WRIGHT 2006H. T. Wright, Early State Dynamics as PoliticalExperiment. Journal of Anthropological Re-search 62, 3, 2006, 305–319.

YKHANBAI et al. 2004H. Ykhanbai/E. Bulgan/U. Beket/R. Vernooy/J. Graham, Reversing Grassland Degradation andImproving Herders’ Livelihoods in the AltaiMountains of Mongolia. Mountain Research andDevelopment 24, 2, 2004, 96–100.

88 J. DANIEL ROGERS

COMPLEXITY OF INTERACTION ALONG THE EURASIAN STEPPE ZONE

IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM CE

Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology

Volume 7

Edited by

Jan Bemmann

COMPLEXITY OF INTER ACTIONALONG THE EURASIAN STEPPE ZONE

IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM CE

Edited byJan Bemmann, Michael Schmauder

2015Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

708 pages, 176 figures, 12 tables

The conference and the publication were generously financed byGerda Henkel Stiftung

Landschaftsverband Rheinland mit LVR-Landesmuseum Bonn

The conference was co-organized and the book is co-edited by Ursula Brosseder, Susanne Reichert, and Timo Stickler

Ein Titelsatz ist bei der Deutschen Bibliothek erhältlich(http://www.ddb.de)

Desktop Publishing and Design: Matthias WeisTranslations: Authors, Daniel C. Waugh

English language editors: Alicia Ventresca Miller, Susanne ReichertImage editing: Gisela Höhn, Matthias WeisFinal editing: Ute Arents, Güde Bemmann

Printing and binding: DDD DigitalDruck Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG – Aalen

Printed in Germany

Cover illustration: Martin Pütz

ISBN 978-3-936490-14-7Copyright 2015 by vfgarch.press uni-bonn

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

NOMADIC EMPIRES – MODES OF ANALYSIS

NIKOLAI N. KRADIN

Nomadic Empires in Inner Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

NICOLA DI COSMO

China-Steppe Relations in Historical Perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

J. DANIEL ROGERS

Empire Dynamics and Inner Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

CLAUDIO CIOFFI-REVILLA, WILLIAM HONEYCHURCH, J. DANIEL ROGERS

MASON Hierarchies: A Long-range Agent Model of Power, Conflict, and Environment in Inner Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

PAVEL E. TARASOV, MAYKE WAGNER

Environmental Aspects of Chinese Antiquity: Problems of Interpretation and Chronological Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

XIONGNU, THE HAN EMPIRE, AND THE ORIENTAL KOINE

BRYAN K. MILLER

The Southern Xiongnu in Northern China: Navigating and Negotiating the Middle Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

URSULA B. BROSSEDER

A Study on the Complexity and Dynamics of Interaction and Exchange in Late Iron Age Eurasia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

MAREK JAN OLBRYCHT

Arsacid Iran and the Nomads of Central Asia – Ways of Cultural Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

INNER AND CENTRAL ASIA FROM THE TÜRKS TO THE MONGOLS

SERGEY A. VASYUTIN

The Model of the Political Transformation of the Da Liao as an Alternative to the Evolution of the Structures of Authority in the Early Medieval Pastoral Empires of Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

CONTENTS

MICHAEL R. DROMPP

Strategies of Cohesion and Control in the Türk and Uyghur Empires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

ÉTIENNE DE LA VAISSIÈRE

Away from the Ötüken: A Geopolitical Approach to the seventh Century Eastern Türks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

SÖREN STARK

Luxurious Necessities: Some Observations on Foreign Commodities and Nomadic Polities in Central Asia in the sixth to ninth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463

PETER B. GOLDEN

The Turkic World in Maḥmûd al-Kâshgharî . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

THOMAS O. HÖLLMANN

On the Road again – Diplomacy and Trade from a Chinese Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557

MICHAL BIRAN

The Qarakhanids’ Eastern Exchange: Preliminary Notes on the Silk Roads in the eleventh and twelfth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

JÜRGEN PAUL

Forces and Resources. Remarks on the Failing Regional State of Sulṭānšāh b. Il Arslan Ḫwārazmšāh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597

TATIANA SKRYNNIKOVA

Old-Turkish Roots of Chinggis Khan’s “Golden Clan”. Continuity of Genesis. Typology of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623

NOMADIC INTERACTION WITH THE ROMAN AND BYZANTINE WEST

MISCHA MEIER

Dealing with Non-State Societies: The failed Assassination Attempt against Attila (449 CE) and Eastern Roman Hunnic Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

TIMO STICKLER

The Gupta Empire in the Face of the Hunnic Threat. Parallels to the Late Roman Empire? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659

MICHAEL SCHMAUDER

Huns, Avars, Hungarians – Reflections on the Interaction between Steppe Empires in Southeast Europe and the Late Roman to Early Byzantine Empires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671

WALTER POHL

Huns, Avars, Hungarians – Comparative Perspectives based on Written Evidence . . . . . . . . . 693

INDEX OF AUTHORS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703

6

PREFACE

This volume combines contributions to a conference of the same title which was held February9 to 11, 2012, in Bonn. Idea and format of the meeting had been developed through a processof intensive discussions among the editors in close cooperation with Dieter Quast, RGZMMainz. Our original intention was to organize a conference with a focus on archaeology, bearingin mind questions concerning mobility and communication or – stated differently – exchangepatterns in Eurasia. After having recognized that research in Eurasia is still dominated by sitecentric approaches which makes vast overviews as we imagined them somewhat cumbersomewe deviated from our first outline.

As a consequence, we broadened the field for two further aspects which had been nearly neg-lected thus far. First, there are West–East ranging communications in the Eurasian steppe zonewhich lie beyond the overarching term “Silk Roads”. As written sources rarely throw light oninteractions among steppe polities, these interactions are markedly less frequently subject toscientific discussions. This question is best approached via archaeological analyses with a widefocus in geographical terms. North–South contacts are by far more commonly discussed thanWest–East communications, as they encompass interactions between states with foremost seden-tary population and nomads who live north of these territories. As a rule, it is the sedentaryviewpoint which is being told, as these cultures opposed to the nomads left numerous writtenaccounts1. At the same time we wanted to encourage comparative perspectives. Characteristicsoften assumed to be typical of the relations between sedentary people and nomads are also truein comparable measures of those between Rome/Byzantium and their “barbaric” neighbors.What they all have in common is at least a distinct mobility in space, even though to varyingforms and degrees. Furthermore, questions and themes long discussed in European archaeologyand history entered the research of Inner Asia and Central Asia only recently, as, for example,identity, the emergence of new ethnic groups, frontiers, frontier societies, contact zones, elites,economies of prestige goods. We therefore wanted to invite colleagues of different disciplinesand regions to join in a scientific dispute. Lively discussions during the conference and positivefeedback by attendees show that this idea was appreciated.

The second aspect to be included can be summarized under the term “complexity”, which inthis context should not be understood as a concept from the social sciences but metaphorically.Over long periods of time simple explanations of cultural phenomena were favored, be it state-ments on pure and poor nomads, the dependency theory or the bad habit of explaining everycultural change with large-scale migrations. “Complexity” is meant as a signal and reminderthat the simplest explanations are not always the best, which is reflected by the contributions inthis volume.1 Numerous projects within the framework of the Col-

laborative Research Center (Sonderforschungsbereich)586 “Difference and Integration” at the UniversityLeipzig and the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wit-tenberg dealt intensively with interactions between

nomads and settled people, a good overview of publi-cations thus far is given by the center’s websitehttp://nomadsed.de/home/.

We consciously limited the temporal scope of the papers to the time after the Scyths and be-fore the Mongols, somewhat clumsily described as the “first millennium CE”, because thesetwo eras have been traditionally paid enormous attention to and are represented in a correspon-ding flood of publications2. At the same time interactions in the steppe zone witnessed onlyduring the centuries around the turn of the era a hitherto unknown rise in intensity and dy-namics.

Not all of the works presented at the conference are included in this volume as they were al-ready noted for publications elsewhere. This applies to the presentations given by Enno Giele,Valentina Mordvintseva, and Matthias Pfisterer. However, other colleagues who could not attendthe conference were invited to hand in manuscripts. All contributions were revised and partlyexpanded, which to our delight resulted in this comprehensive volume. We would have lovedto have included a paper on the consequences of climate change and meteorological events onthe polities of the Eurasian steppe as such conditions win more and more popularity as explanansof significant changes3, but it did not work out. To our dismay and because of different reasonsthe western steppes and Central Asia are less represented than we wished for.

We subdivided the contributions into four parts: “Nomadic Empires – Modes of Analysis”encompasses highly different approaches to interpretations and analyses of nomadic empires,ranging from computational agent-based models, over anthropological to historical methodol-ogy. Better than any perfect introduction this multi-facetted research shows how exciting it isto deal with this area much neglected in World History. Although the section “Xiongnu, theHan Empire and the Oriental Koine” assembles merely three contributions, it covers more than260 pages. If nothing else, this certainly echoes the boom of Xiongnu archaeology of the pastdecades. By taking into account enormous amounts of archaeological, art historical, and writtensources the authors surmount traditional and often too static schemes of interpretation. Thesenew analyses detect an astonishing variety of interactions during the centuries around the turnof the era, which broadens our understanding of this epoch and provides new avenues for otherregions and periods at the same time. In the third section, “Inner and Central Asia from theTürks to the Mongols”, nine contributions exemplify a multicolored and almost continuouslychanging picture of languages, ethnicities, and political affinities for Inner and Central Asia fromthe sixth to the twelfth centuries. Political affinities, however, were changing so quickly due tosituational demands as to almost refute all efforts to retrace them within the archaeologicalrecord. Decision makers were astonishingly well informed about even distant regions and theyacted accordingly over vast distances. The studies at hand analyze exchange processes on varying

8 PREFACE

2 See for the Scyths for example W. Menghin/H. Par -zinger/A. Nagler/M. Nawroth (eds.), Im Zeichen desgoldenen Greifen. Königsgräber der Skythen. Begleit-band zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung: Berlin, Martin-Gropius-Bau, 6. Juli – 1. Oktober 2007; München,Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, 26. Oktober2007 – 20. Januar 2008; Hamburg, Museum für Kunstund Gewerbe Hamburg, 15. Februar – 25. Mai 2008(München, Berlin 2007); H. Parzinger, Die Skythen.3rd ed. (München 2009); J. Aruz (ed.), The GoldenDeer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasuresfrom the Russian Steppes (New York, New Haven2000); J. Aruz/A. Farkas/A. Alekseev/E. Korolkova(eds.), The Golden Deer of Eurasia. Perspectives on theSteppe Nomads of the Ancient World. The Metropol-itan Museum of Art Symposia (New Haven 2006). See

for the Mongol period Dschingis Khan und seineErben. Das Weltreich der Mongolen (2005); W. W.Fitzhugh/M. Rossabi/W. Honeychurch (eds.), GenghisKhan and the Mongol Empire (Seattle 2009); see alsothe website of the European Research Council Grant“Mobility, Empire and Cross Cultural Contacts inMongol Eurasia” http://mongol.huji.ac.il/, which pro-vides an extensive bibliography.

3 N. Pederson/A. Hessl/N. Baatarbileg/K. Anchukaitis/N. Di Cosmo, Pluvials, Droughts, the Mongol Empire,and Modern Mongolia. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 111, 2014, 4375–4379; J. Fei/J. Zhou/Y. Hou, Circa A.D. 626 Volcanic Eruption,Climatic Cooling, and the Collapse of the Eastern Tur-kic Empire. Climatic Change 81, 2007, 469–475.

levels – from language to embassies – as well as aspects of mobility, from the integration of for-eign symbols of power to large-scale migrations, or methods of state-building to the strategicdestruction of complex states. The last section combines papers that focus on “Nomadic Inter-action with the Roman and Byzantine West” traversing the Eurasian steppe zone from east towest. These case studies, either already comparative or suitable for further comparisons, givereason to assume that although there are certain encompassing communalities every conquestand struggle with the empires of the West is historically unique. At the same time it becomesapparent that the knowledge base of the decision makers in the Roman Empire had been greaterthan hitherto thought.

The variety of studies assembled in this volume leaves no doubt as to how dynamically anddiversely the interactions, processes, and transformations developed in the Eurasian steppe zone.These changes cannot be studied under common schemes of interpretation which are more oftenthan not inseparable from overcome clichés.

Chinese names and terms have been transliterated according to the Pinyin system, Russiannames and references according to the system of the Library of Congress. Arabic, Persian,and Turkic names and terms appear in the form chosen by the authors of the individual chap-ters.

Acknowledgements

The conference had been jointly prepared and organized together with Ursula Brosseder andTimo Stickler. We thank both of them for their cordial and companionable collaboration. Susanne Reichert engaged to such an extent in the editing work of the papers that it was a delightfor us to include her as co-editor. The edition of this volume in addition to ongoing obligationsand projects could only be managed as a team.

Our heartfelt thanks also goes to Daniel Waugh, Seattle, who has helped us now repeatedlywith translations and language editing. Without his honorary efforts we would never have beenable to integrate Sergey Vasyutin’s thoughts in this book. Thanks to his enormous overview andlanguage knowledge Peter Golden saved us from mistakes concerning the correct transliterationof names in the contributions of Tatiana Skrynnikova and Sergey Vasyutin. Image editing layin Gisela Höhn’s sterling hands. She also promoted to create – as far as possible – a unified mapbasis for all contributions as to facilitate visualizing the different regions. Editing work wasdone by the proven team Ute Arents and Güde Bemmann, substantially supported by SusanneReichert. We owe Alicia Ventresca Miller, Kiel, as a native speaker many suggestions for im-provement and stimuli. All authors and editors highly appreciate their painstaking efforts. Fordesktop publishing, which in the face of a multitude of different scripts demands unconventionalsolutions, we were able to win Matthias Weis. If not stated otherwise, images were provided bythe authors and merely serve to illustrate.

The conference was made possible by the generous financial support from the Gerda HenkelFoundation. As always, it was our delight to collaborate with the foundation, a cooperationcharacterized by mutual trust. The meeting took place in the LVR-LandesMuseum Bonn, whichduring the same time displayed the exhibition “Steppe Warriors – Nomads on Horseback ofMongolia from the 7th to 14th centuries” (“Steppenkrieger – Reiternomaden des 7.–14. Jahrhun-derts aus der Mongolei”). Thus the participants had the opportunity to get insight into an on-

9PREFACE

going cooperation between the Institute of Archaeology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences,the Department of Prehistory and Early Historical Archaeology of the University of Bonn, andthe LVR-LandesMuseum Bonn. We thank the State Association of the Rhineland (Land-schaftverband Rheinland) for the use of rooms and technical equipment of the museum and thefinancial support in printing this volume.

Our sincere thanks is owed to everyone who contributed to the success of the conference andthe resulting book. With great joy we remember the inspiring and cordial atmosphere duringthe meeting.

Jan Bemmann, Michael Schmauder March 2015

10 PREFACE

Prof. Dr. Jan BemmannPrehistory and Early Historical ArchaeologyUniversity of BonnRegina-Pacis-Weg 753113 Bonn, GermanyE-Mail: jan.bemmann@uni-bonn.de

Prof. Dr. Michal BiranInstitute of Asian and African StudiesThe Louis Frieberg Center for East AsianStudiesThe Hebrew University of JerusalemMt. ScopusJerusalem, 91905, IsraelE-Mail: biranm@mail.huji.ac.il

Dr. Ursula B. BrossederPrehistory and Early Historical ArchaeologyUniversity of BonnRegina-Pacis-Weg 753113 Bonn, GermanyE-Mail: ursula.brosseder@uni-bonn.de

Prof. Dr. Claudio Cioffi-RevillaKrasnow Institute for Advanced StudyComputational Social Science, Center for Social ComplexityGeorge Mason UniversityResearch-1 Bldg MS 6B2, 4400 University DriveFairfax, VA 22030, USAE-Mail: ccioffi@gmu.edu

Prof. Dr. Nicola Di CosmoHenry Luce Foundation Professor ofEast Asian StudiesSchool of Historical StudiesInstitute for Advanced StudyEinstein DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540, USAE-Mail: ndc@ias.edu

Prof. Dr. Michael R. DromppDepartment of HistoryRhodes College2000 North ParkwayMemphis, TN 38112, USAE-Mail: drompp@rhodes.edu

Prof. Dr. Peter B. GoldenCenter for Middle Eastern StudiesRutgers UniversityLucy Stone Hall B-31654 Joyce Kilmer AvenuePiscataway, NJ 08854, USAE-Mail: pgolden@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Prof. Dr. Thomas O. HöllmannInstitute for Chinese StudiesLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichKaulbachstr. 51a80539 München, GermanyE-Mail: thomas.hoellmann@lrz.uni-muenchen.de

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Ass. Prof. Dr. William HoneychurchDepartment of AnthropologyYale University51 Hillhouse AvenueNew Haven, CN 06511, USAE-Mail: william.honeychurch@yale.edu

Prof. Dr. Nikolai N. KradinRussian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern BranchInstitute of History, Archaeology andEthnographyPushkinskaia Ul. 10Vladivostok, 690950, RussiaE-Mail: kradin@mail.ru

Prof. Dr. Étienne de la VaissièreÉcole des hautes études en sciences sociales(EHESS)Centre d’Études Turques, Ottomanes, Balka-niques et Centrasiatiques (CETOBaC)190–198, Avenue de France75244 Paris Cedex 13, FranceE-Mail: vaissier@ens.fr

Prof. Dr. Mischa MeierDepartment of HistoryUniversity of TübingenWilhelmstr. 3672074 Tübingen, GermanyE-Mail: mischa.meier@uni-tuebingen.de

Dr. Bryan K. MillerFaculty of HistoryUniversity of OxfordGeorge StreetOxford OX1 2RL, United KingdomE-Mail: millerbryank@gmail.com

Prof. Dr. Marek Jan OlbrychtInstitute of HistoryUniversity of RzeszówUl. Rejtana 16c35-959 Rzeszów, PolandE-Mail: marekolbrycht@wp.pl

Prof. Dr. Jürgen PaulInstitute for Oriental StudiesMartin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergMühlweg 1506114 Halle/Saale, GermanyE-Mail: juergen.paul@orientphil.uni-halle.de

Prof. Dr. Walter PohlInstitute for Medieval ResearchAustrian Academy of SciencesWohllebengasse 12-141040 Wien, AustriaE-Mail: walter.pohl@oeaw.ac.at

Dr. J. Daniel RogersSmithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural HistoryDepartment of Anthropology, NHB 112PO Box 37012Washington, DC 20013, USAE-Mail: rogersd@si.edu

Prof. Dr. Michael SchmauderLVR-LandesMuseum BonnColmantstr. 14-1653115 Bonn, GermanyE-Mail: michael.schmauder@lvr.de

Prof. Dr. Tatiana Skrynnikova The Department of Central Asian and SouthAsian StudiesInstitute of Oriental ManuscriptsRussian Academy of SciencesDvortsovaya Emb. 18Sankt-Petersburg 191186, RussiaE-Mail: skryta999@mail.ru

Ass. Prof. Dr. Sören StarkInstitute for the Study of the Ancient WorldNew York University15 East 84th St.New York City, NY 10028, USAE-Mail: soeren.stark@nyu.edu

704 INDEX OF AUTHORS

Prof. Dr. Timo SticklerDepartment of Ancient StudiesFriedrich Schiller University JenaFürstengraben 107743 Jena, GermanyE-Mail: timo.stickler@uni-jena.de

Prof. Dr. Pavel E. TarasovInstitute of Geological Sciences, PalaeontologyFreie Universität BerlinMalteserstr. 74-100, Haus D12249 Berlin, GermanyE-Mail: ptarasov@zedat.fu-berlin.de

Dr. Sergey Aleksandrovich VasyutinDepartment of the History of Civilizationsand Socio-Cultural Communications Kemerovo State UniversityKrasnya 6650043 Kemerovo, RussiaE-Mail: vasutin2012@list.ru

Prof. Dr. Mayke WagnerBranch office of the Eurasia Department inBeijingGerman Archaeological InstituteIm Dol 2-6, Haus II14195 Berlin, GermanyE-Mail: mwa@zedat.fu-berlin.de;mw@eurasien.dainst.de

705INDEX OF AUTHORS

BONN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ASIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Edited by Jan Bemmann

1. H. Roth/U. Erdenebat/E. Nagel/E. Pohl (eds.),Qara Qorum City (Mongolei) 1.Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 1 (Bonn 2002).Out of print – ISBN 3-936490-01-5

2. J. Bemmann/U. Erdenebat/E. Pohl (eds.),Mongolian-German Karakorum-Expedition, Volume 1.Excavations in the Craftsmen-Quarter at the Main Road.Forschungen zur Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen 8 = Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 2 (Wiesbaden 2009).€ 98,00 – ISBN 978-3-89500-697-5

3. P. B. Konovalov,The Burial Vault of a Xiongnu Prince at Sudzha (Il’movaia pad’, Transbaikalia).Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 3 (Bonn 2008).€ 13,90 – ISBN 3-936490-29-5

4. J. Bemmann/H. Parzinger/E. Pohl/D. Tseveendorzh (eds.),Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia. Papers from the First International Conference on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia”, held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19th–23rd, 2007.Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 4 (Bonn 2009).€ 74,00 – ISBN 978-3-936490-31-2

5. Ursula Brosseder/Bryan K. Miller (eds.),Xiongnu Archaeology. Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia.Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 5 (Bonn 2011).€ 80,00 – ISBN 978-3-936490-14-7

6. Catrin Kost,The practice of imagery in the northern Chinese steppe (5th – 1st centuries BCE).Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 6 (Bonn 2014).€ 98,00 – ISBN 978-3-936490-32-9

7. J. Bemmann/M. Schmauder (eds.),Complexity of Interaction along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the first Millennium CEBonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Volume 7 (Bonn 2015).€ 111,00 – ISBN 978-3-936490-14-7

Orders and information: sekretariat.vfgarch@uni-bonn.de (1, 3–7), info@reichert-verlag.de (2)