Formation of the Hsiung-nu empire

To a problem of origin of the nomadic empires, a great number of different special and popular studies has been devoted. Joseph Fletcher, referring to the works of the Chinese historian Ch'i-ch'ing Hsiao, believes that all theories

[297]

explaining the reason of formation of the nomadic empires and their invasions to China and other agricultural countries can be reduced to the following seven ones: (1) greedy and predatory nature of inhabitants of steppe region; (2) climatic changes; (3) overpopulation of steppe; (4) unwillingness of farmers to trade with nomads; (5) necessity of additional livelihood sources; (6) need in a creation of supertribal unification of nomads; (7) psychology of nomads; aspiration of nomads to feel themselves to be equal to farmers, on the one hand, and a faith of nomads in divine predestination given Heaven Tenggeri, to them by to subjugate the whole World [Fletcher 1986: 32–33].

In the majority of the factors listed there are their own rational aspects. However, an importance of some of them has been overestimated. So, the present paleogeographical data don't conform a strict correlation of global periods of the steppe drying (hunidification with periods of decline) prosperity of nomadic empires [Иванов, Васильев 1995 table 24, 25]. A thesis of 'class struggle' of nomads proved to be erroneous [Марков 1976; Khazanov 1984/1994; Крадин 1992]. A role of demography is not entirely known because an increase of the livestock went on move fast than that of population. An increase of livestock has led to destruction of grasses and crisis of the ecosystem. The nomadic life can, naturally, contribute to development of some military characteristics. But the number of farmers was many times over and they had ecologically complex economy, reliable fortresses and more powerful handicraft-metallurgical base.

As a whole, from the ecological point of view, the nomads have not needed in a state. A specific character of pastoralism assumes a dissipated (disperse) existence mode. A concentration of large herds at the same place has led to overgrazing, excessive trampling down of grass, growth of a danger of a spreading of infections diseases of animals. The cattle can tot be accumulated to infinity, its maximum quantity was determined by the productivity of the steppe landscape. In addition, regardless of a gentlehood of the cattle owner, all his herds could be destroyed by murrian (dzuf), drought or epizootic. Therefore, it was more profitable to give a cattle for pasture to the kinsmen not sufficiently provided for or to distribute as the 'gifts' thereby raising his social status. Thus, all the production activities of the nomads have been carried out within the amily – related and lineage groups using only episodically the labour cooperation of the segments of undertribal and tribal levels [Lattimore 1940; Bacon 1958; Krader 1963; Марков 1976; Khazanov 1984/1994; Масанов 1995а etc.].

This circumstance has led to that the intervention of leaders of the nomadic life has been very insignificant and could not be compared with numerous administrative obligations of the rulers of the settled agricultural societies. By virtue of this fact, the power of the leaders of the steppe societies could not develop to the formalized level on the basis of regular taxation of cattle-breeders

[298]

and the elite was forced to be satisfied with the gifts and irregular presents. Besides, a considerable oppression of mobile nomads on the side of the tribal chief or other person pretending to a personal power could led to mass decampment away him [Lattimore 1940; Марков 1976; Irons 1979; Khazanov 1984/1994; Fletcher 1986; Barfield 1992; Крадин 1992; Kradin 1995; 2000a; Масанов 1995а etc.].

What has, in such a situation, incited the nomads to raids and been a reason to create the 'nomadic empires? The eminent American anthropologist Owen Lattimore, living over prolonged period among the cattle-breeders of Mongolia, has written that a nomad can easily manage with only products received from his herd of animals, but a pure nomad will always remain to be poor [ 1940: 522]. The nomads are in need of foodstuffs of farmers, products of craftsmen, silk, arms and refined adornments for their chiefs, and chiefs' wife's and concubines. All of this could be get by two ways: war and peaceful trade. The nomads have used both ways. When they have felt their superiority or invulnerability, they have mounted their horses and left in a raid. However, a neighbour was the powerful state. The pastoral nomads preferred to carry on with it a peaceful trade. But quite offer the governments of the settled states prevented from such the trade as it got out of hand. And at that time, the nomads had to assert their right to trade using arms.

The complicated hierarchical organization of the power in the form of the 'nomadic empires' and similar political formations has been developed by nomads only in those regions where they have been forced to have the long and active contacts with more highly organized agricultural-urban societies (Scythians and ancient oriental and western states; nomads of Inner Asia and China, Hunns and Roman Empire, Arabs, Khazars, Turks and Byzantia etc.) ILattimore 1940; Хазанов 1975; Khazanov 1984/1994; Barfield 1981; 1992; Fletcher 1986; Крадин 1992; Kradin 1995; 2000a]. In the Khalkha-Mongolia, the first steppe empire – Hsiung-nu – has emerged just as in the Middle China plain after the long period of the internal wars the Chinese national centralized state – the Ch'in empire and afterwards the Han empire [Kradin 2000].

As a whole, a history of the Hsiung-nu power's formation fits in the general picture of origin of the nomadic empires of the Eurasia. Of four possible identified variants of origin of steppe polities: (1) Mongolian way through usurpation of the power; (2) Turkic one – in the process of struggle for independence; (3) Hunnish one – by migration to the territory of the agricultural state; (4) Khazar one – in the course of sedenterization of the great 'world' steppe empire). The Hsiung-nu fit classically into the first and most widespread model of which an appearance among the nomads of a talented or successful leader was characteristic who has been able to consolidate all tribes and khanates 'living behing the felt walls' into the united steppe power. Such a talented political and military leader of the Hsiung-nu was Mao-tun,

[299]

Ssu-ma Ch'ien depicts how was a ruler (Shan-yii) of the Hsiung-nu and captured a throne [Лидай 1958: 15–16], however, in this story, the echos of real historical events and elements of the fancifully mixed up. This story more resembles a fiction than a truth as it contains much incredible: (1) Political revolutions are prepared in secret. In this case, all the preparatory measures have been carried out at great concourse and it is not likely that Shan-yii Touman had no knowledge of them; (2) Why a murder by Мао-tun of the 'loved'(!) wife went unpunished? How did he explained a such cruel action to his father and relatives of wife? Why a custom of'blood feud' did not infringe on him? (3) The number of the 'loved' wife's was very great. There are three ones in a story;

(4) Why did not Shan-yii and his retainers not only stop a terror that wasunleashed by Мао-tun in his district but had no knowledge of repression's?

(5) how did Мао-tun make bold to kill before the father's eyes his 'loved' horse?All know what value has the horse for a nomad and striking a blow to another'srunner implies a striking a blow to its owner; (6) the fact of the fathers murderitself is a very doubletful. In the history of the nomadic world, the events ofmurders in the struggle for the throne were often noted. But I don't know therulers of the nomadic empires of the fathers' killers.

However, the existence of Shan-yii Touman as a real historical person can be called in question. F. Hirth [1910] and K. Shiratori [1902] have noted a consonance of this name with a world 'tuman' meaning 'ten thousand warriors'. Thus, it is possible that Touman is a some collective image but not real father of Mao-tun.

On the whole, a story of advent of Мао-tun to power closely resembles a tale or epic work. A subject has a clear composition structure and is divided into two parts. In the first one, a sequence of events of Мао-tun advent to power is depicted while, in the second, an account of his diplomatic relations with the Tung-hu ruler and war against him gives that comes to a happy end as often happens in the literature works. All of events in both parts run on the principle of chain, and the tension grows gradually until, finally, ends with any action. Such a way of the subject construction called an effect of cumulativity by V.Ya. Propp was widely used in different forms of the folklore works [Пропп 1976].

The second fundamental likeness of a story of Мао-tun rise with the folklore works consists in a principle of triplicity. All events of the chain are repeated three times (as in a tale) but every time with cumulative increase in tension. Initially, Мао-tun shoots at his horse (I omit here a first event of using by Мао-tun the singing arrows), then at the wife and the horse of his father. Only for the third time, he has won the unanimous support on the part of his fighting men. In the second part, he gives up horse, wife and only for the third time mounts a horse and takes the field against Tung-hu.

The third likeness with the folklore works is present in the composition structure. In the folklore, the horse and wife are traditional elements and the

[300]

enemies threaten to capture them from the main hero (see, for example, «Jangar», «Geser» or tales). Twice, Мао-tun was forced to leave the 'loved' wife's and 'loved' runners.

The fourth likeness of a story of Мао-tun rise with the folklore works was in a description of main personages. In the epos and tales, all of main characters are positive, they express, as a rale, the ideas of the ethnic or mass consciousness. Even if a main hero (character) is forced in the course of events to accomplish the actions which are condemned in real situations, it is in no way reflected on his folklore image. In case of Мао-tun, we see an absolute analogy with aforesaid. By logic of the legend, everybody must ferociously hate him. He is an usurper, patricial and tyrant. However, in the legend and reality, Мао-tun don't look as a dictator (here, a certain parallel comes to mind with the literature image of Chinggis Khan and his real role in the history of the Mongol empire).

Thus, a story of Мао-tun advent to power total by Ssu-ma Ch'ien can not consider as a reliable account of events occurring in Mongolia at the border of 3–2 centuries ВС. One can only say conclusively that Мао-tun come to power by a way of usurpation and, thereafter, he defeated Tung-hu and forced them to pay tribute.

Here, new question arise before us and two of them appear to be most important. The first question is related to dating of all events mentioned in the legend. Alas! The time in the folklore works is not consistent with the real time. It obeys the subject and changes in accordance with the events (characters). But the second question is even more complicated: who was a founder of the 'black' legend of Shan-уй Mao-tun? In the main, this question is a key one an and a clue of the problem as a whole depends on the answer to it.