home Railing

Kradin N.N. Nomadic empire as a sociopolitical system. Nikolay Petrovich Kradin Where did you work in the last expedition season?

We talk about the last expedition season with corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. historical sciences, Professor, Head of the Center for Political Anthropology of the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of Peoples Far East FEB RAS Nikolai Kradin, reports the press center of the FEB RAS with reference to the newspaper “Far Eastern Scientist”.

- Nikolai Nikolaevich, at the last meeting of the Presidium of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, you gave a scientific report “Nomads of the Middle Ages in world history.” Was there some reason?

This was a summing up of a certain intermediate stage in the study of Mongolia and, accordingly, Central Asia, and an attempt to outline the range of problems that I would like to deal with in the future. Last year marked 10 years since Far Eastern archaeologists conducted excavations in the steppes of Mongolia. As for me personally, I have been studying nomadic civilizations actually since my student days.

- Where did you work during the last expedition season?

Last year we worked in the Trans-Baikal region (near the border with Mongolia), in Mongolia and in Inner Mongolia in China. In Transbaikalia, this is a comprehensive project in which scientists from the Baikal region, Transbaikalia and the Far East take part. It is dedicated to the study of nomadic civilizations of the Transbaikal region over several historical periods. On the one hand, the staff of our institute participated, my right hand there is Svetlana Sarantseva, candidate of historical sciences, students of the Far Eastern Federal University, from whom we hope we will raise good specialists and they will deal with this topic, and colleagues from the Pacific Oceanological Institute of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This is our second year working with this team. In addition, students of the Transbaikal State University, led by a long-time partner and major specialist in nomadic civilizations, Associate Professor Evgeniy Viktorovich Kovychev and my good friend Professor of Irkutsk Technical University Artur Viktorovich Kharinsky. He heads a laboratory there that studies ancient technologies. We have been working with these archaeologists in this region since 2008, continuing the previous project. Previously, we examined part of the shaft in Transbaikalia. It must be said that the Governor of the Trans-Baikal Territory, Konstantin Konstantinovich Ilkovsky, and the Ministry of Culture of the region, headed by Viktor Kirillovich Kolosov, are providing us with great assistance.

- You said that archeology is being equipped with new tools, armed with new methods that you applied in Transbaikalia...

In the practice of field archaeological research, various natural scientific methods are increasingly being used. First of all, this is the use of geomagnetic surveys. In Transbaikalia, together with colleagues from POI FEB RAS (this work is led by Candidate of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences Elena Aleksandrovna Bessonova), we are conducting geomagnetic surveys of all important monuments of the Middle Ages. Geophysical methods make it possible to identify, before excavations, what objects may be located underground. We want to draw up a map that will allow us to understand what is under the soil, where, what buildings, walls, and other structures are in order to better represent the planigraphy of the entire settlement or fortification, which allows archaeologists to better plan excavations. This, to put it more precisely, is not destructive archaeology. It allows you to reconstruct objects located under a layer of earth. And what’s interesting is that you can process the data right on the spot and get preliminary results.

- Have you checked the accuracy of this data?

We decided to complete the survey first, and then begin excavation. These are unique archaeological sites and we want to excavate them using the most modern methods with very high quality, so that later you won’t be ashamed in front of colleagues who work at a high technological level.

- And what did the filming last season in Transbaikalia show? What pictures did you “see”?

Geomagnetic research this year made it possible to “see” what is located on the site of the former Kondui Palace, which belonged to a major Mongol khan, apparently a descendant of Genghis Khan. Thanks to this method, it was possible to find traces of structures that stood inside under the flat surface of the platform. In the 19th century, the palace was first explored by the famous archaeologist and founder of the Chita Regional Museum of Local Lore A.K. Kuznetsov, he wrote about this in the book “The Ruins of the Konduisky Town and Its Surroundings,” published in 1925 in Vladivostok. In the late 1950s, the palace, especially its southern part, where the elite lived, was explored by the outstanding archaeologist, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences Sergei Vladimirovich Kiselev. But around the palace there are many unexcavated hills and a platform on which lie the foundations of columns where granite dragons were once installed. Some of them are in the Chita and Krasnokamensk museums, the rest where is unknown. It is curious that the remains of the Koidun Palace, in particular, stone bases and sculptures of dragons, were used in the construction in the middle of the 19th century Orthodox Church Nativity of the Virgin Mary in the village of Kondui. Now this church is a unique historical and archaeological monument, unfortunately, it is in deplorable condition.

- Nikolai Nikolaevich, your activities in Mongolia last year culminated in the discovery...

We continued our study of the fortification system of the “wall of Genghis Khan”. It passes through the territory of Mongolia, Russia and China and has a length of about seven hundred and fifty kilometers, up to one and a half meters in height and up to fifteen in width. This year we walked most of the Mongolian rampart; we are probably the first to do this throughout Mongolia, Russia and China. And what’s interesting is that more than fifty settlements were discovered along the entire rampart and we are now preparing a report in the form of a small book, where all the information will be summarized. In addition, we are proud that we were able to date this shaft. Chinese scholars have debated for many years whether it is Jurchen or Khitan. So, we managed to find Khitan ceramics at fifteen monuments. Based on these features, it was concluded that the rampart could not have been built by the Jurchens, whose influence did not extend so far into Mongolia. Thus, we have proven that the “wall of Genghis Khan” was built in the Khitan era, and thus put an end to disputes about the time of its construction.

Next we have to find out who, exactly when and for what purpose built this shaft, because this is a very labor-intensive, enormous work, it is an analogue of the Great Wall of China. However, our structure could not stop a large army. The task of new research is to find information about this in written sources, and, in addition, to conduct research on the towns in order to understand what role they played and why in their own way. design features the settlements in the eastern part of the rampart differ from the towns located in the west. There is an assumption that either different architects began to build the shaft on both sides, or later the preferences of the builders changed. I believe that this is a very interesting discovery, and we will soon report this in authoritative foreign journals to show the priority of our Russian science in the study of such large border structures. A study of the borders indicates that these ramparts served not so much as a barrier separating peoples, but rather as a place for contacts between different cultures. The Romans tried to isolate themselves from the barbarians with the so-called limos, but it turned out that this limos became the object of interaction between barbarian and Roman cultures. The same is with China, the Great Wall was built there, but this only intensified trade and cultural contacts between nomads and the Chinese. Apparently, a similar situation existed in Transbaikalia. I think this is the next stage of our research.

- What other plans do you have for the 2014 expedition season? Will there be any obstacles due to the known structural changes in the Russian Academy of Sciences?

I hope that this year in Transbaikalia we will explore the entire western part and study the territory north of the palace. According to A.K. Kuznetsova, there was a settlement in the north ordinary people servicing the palace. I believe that this is important, thereby we will get an idea not only of the life of the elite, but also of ordinary people who lived in that era. This information will make it possible to understand what the towns along the rampart were like: these were border fortresses where border guards of the Khitan period lived, or some kind of trade exchange points... But in order to have a comprehensive picture, you need to explore the entire rampart. In 2013, we received a grant from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation for further study of the shaft, we plan to continue working with geophysicists and hope to obtain interesting results with their help. To solve these problems we need special equipment: our colleagues have some of it, FEFU also helps us, but we need more modern equipment and now in the current situation it is difficult to imagine how this can be done.

Apparently, we will be short on funds in the new field season, although funding for this year is available in the form of an ongoing grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Unfortunately, the weakening of the ruble exchange rate undermines our expedition budget, especially when traveling to Mongolia, when 20 percent of the funds are lost when converting money into foreign currency. And since the food crisis has also affected Mongolia, I have no idea what will happen next. However, research must be continued; it is very important from the point of view of the country’s priorities and for international archeology, because in the study of nomadic civilizations the palm remains with our country. I believe that this is one of our serious achievements, which will be in demand in world archaeological and historical science, and we must under no circumstances give up our positions.

- Nikolai Nikolaevich, how did the story about Genghis Khan’s gene end?

As you remember, last time I told you that we could not find a male burial that would clarify this issue. And this year, at the Okoshki burial ground in the area of the Khirkhirinsky settlement, a group led by Professor Kharinsky found such a burial; it dates back to the 13th–14th centuries. After analyzing the bone material, we will probably have new results regarding the problem associated with the Genghis Khan gene. Then we will be able to say whether the genetic material that was isolated by American anthropologists has anything to do with the ancient Mongols and their spread to the west. If not, then most likely this problem is made up and exaggerated by the media. In any case, the results that we obtain will be interesting from the point of view of the genetics of the ancient Mongolian population, because in this territory, if Genghis Khan was not born, then the population of which he was a member lived there. It is important to clarify this, since the disputes surrounding his birth have a political and territorial aspect - Genghis Khan visited Russia, Mongolia, and China, and each side claims primacy. But he is a nomad and, most likely, rested on the territory of Mongolia, although the place where he was born is called Delyun-Boldok, translated from the Mongolian tract “Spleen”; a valley in Transbaikalia near the Onon River has a similar name. And how various historical heroes and historical concepts influence the real national interests of certain states is already the subject of the theory of nationalism.

- What else did you manage to confirm or refute based on the results of your expeditionary research?

All the years of work in Mongolia have led me more and more to the conclusion that the connections between different parts of the world were much more intense than we previously thought. For example, in Italy several years ago, a burial without grave goods was excavated of a woman, possibly a slave, who, according to the results of genetic research, was from Southern China. Our Mongolian and South Korean colleagues excavated the grave of a warrior (who was originally from Italy) in a Xiongnu-era burial ground in Eastern Mongolia. Perhaps this was the last of the warriors of Crassus' lost legion. Genetic data once again confirms that powerful migrations existed already in ancient times. Partly in this topic there is now such a turn in humanities: in history, anthropology, archeology. In the context of globalization, mass migrations and contacts between different civilizations are considered not so much as a simple movement of human masses, but as a complex social process that plays a significant role in the history of mankind.

Reference

Kradin Nikolai Nikolaevich (born April 17, 1962 in the village of Onokhoy, Zaigraevsky district of the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) - Russian scientist, historian, archaeologist, anthropologist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Head of the Center for Political Anthropology, Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok. Head of the Department of General History, Archeology and Anthropology, FEFU. Member of the editorial board of the journal “Social Evolution and History”. Father - Russian architectural historian, corresponding member of the RAASN Nikolai Petrovich Kradin.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Kradin (April 17, 1962, Onokhoy village, Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) - Russian scientist, historian, archaeologist, anthropologist. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Head of the Center for Political Anthropology, Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok. Member of the editorial boards of the journals “Social Evolution and History”, “Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology”, “Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University. Series: History. Philology”, as well as the editorial boards of the journals “Archaeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia”, “Brief Communications of the Institute of Archeology”, “Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University”, ser. 13 “Oriental Studies, African Studies”, “Archaeological Research in Asia”, etc.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Kradin was born into the family of architectural historian Nikolai Petrovich Kradin. The future scientist spent his childhood in Leningrad, where Nikolai’s father studied at the architectural faculty of the Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. I. E. Repin of the USSR Academy of Arts. In 1970, Nikolai went to school. After his father completed his studies at the Academy of Arts, in the same year he moved with his parents to Khabarovsk, where he graduated in 1979 high school No. 34. In 1980, Kradin entered the full-time department of the history department of Irkutsk State University, from which he graduated in 1985.

Since 1985, Nikolai Kradin has been working at the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1990, a year ahead of schedule before graduating from graduate school, he defended his PhD thesis on the topic “Socio-economic relations among nomads (Current state of the problem and its role in the study of the medieval Far East)” at the specialized council at the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. . Scientific supervisor - Doctor of Historical Sciences E. V. Shavkunov.

In 1999, at the St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nikolai Kradin defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “The Xiongnu Empire (structure of society and power).” In 2001, he was awarded the title of professor in the department of social anthropology. In December 2011, he was elected a corresponding member of the RAS.

Nikolai Kradin began his teaching career in 1994-1995. Professor of the Department of General History of the Ussuri State University. ped. Institute, from 1996 to 2011 he taught at the Far Eastern State Technical University (FEGTU), and from 2000 to 2011. in the Far Eastern state university(FEGU). At FESTU in 1999-2011 he headed the first department of social anthropology in the Far East, and after the merger of these universities into the Far Eastern federal university(FEFU) from 2011 to 2016. N. N. Kradin headed the department of general history, archeology and anthropology. He also lectured at universities in Mongolia, China, the Czech Republic, France and Germany.

Books (13)

Alternative paths to civilization

In a monograph prepared by an international team of authors consisting of prominent scientists from eight countries, specific examples early societies of Eurasia, Tropical Africa, pre-Columbian America and Oceania, alternative historical paths to civilization are considered.

The use of the latest data from social anthropology, ethnography, archeology, and comparative concrete historical research allowed the authors to critically rethink established views on historical development as a relatively uniform process and lay the foundations of a radically new - nonlinear general theory of sociocultural evolution.

For historians, anthropologists, ethnographers, ethologists, archaeologists, philosophers, sociologists, cultural scientists, and representatives of other social sciences. Can be used as teaching aid for students of higher educational institutions in a wide range of social and humanitarian specialties.

Empire of Genghis Khan

The book tells how a small and little-known people, the Mongols, led by Genghis Khan, in a short period of time created a powerful power that crushed several civilizations of the Middle Ages. The phenomenon of Genghis Khan is examined in the monograph on the basis of the latest theoretical discoveries in the field of sociocultural and political anthropology.

The authors reinterpret the main events of Mongolian history and conduct system analysis Mongolian society proper of the 12th-13th centuries, its social structure and social organization, reveal the geopolitical, socio-economic, cultural prerequisites for the formation of the empire, the nature of its relations with the agricultural world.

History of the Khitan Liao Empire (907-1125)

this work is the first generalizing monographic publication in Russian dedicated to the Khitan Liao Empire (907-1125).

The book summarizes the most complete results of research into Khitan society based on the study of written sources, as well as modern achievements of Khitan archeology. The history of the early Khitans, the history of the Liao Empire, archaeological sites of the Khitans, their material culture, economics, territorial and administrative structure, social system.

Nomads of Eurasia

This book includes the most interesting works of the famous Russian nomad scholar N.N. Kradin, published in various publications, as well as read as reports at international conferences in recent years.

The original author's concept shows that nomads were characterized by a special, unique path of social evolution. A number of stories are devoted to the historiography of nomadic studies, other sections are devoted to various aspects of the history, archeology and ethnography of the nomads of Eurasia.

Much attention is paid to theoretical issues of the history of the nomadic world and the origin of statehood, modern theories of the historical process, the specifics of historical and anthropological reading of chronicle sources, and methods of computer analysis of archaeological materials. Chronologically, the book includes sections devoted to nomads of various eras - from antiquity to the present day - the Xiongnu, Mongols, Buryats, etc.

Nomadic societies (problems of formational characteristics)

The monograph gives the state of the debate about the nature of the social structure of nomadic societies. The economic basis of nomadism, its socio-economic structure and forms of sociopolitical organization are analyzed. An unconventional solution to the issue of the formational nature of nomadism is proposed.

For historians, ethnographers, archaeologists, philosophers, as well as anyone interested in the controversial problems of pre-capitalist societies.

Between East and West: the movement of cultures, technologies and empires

The collection includes reports from participants in the III International Congress of Medieval Archeology of the Eurasian Steppes (Vladivostok, May 2-6, 2017).

The reports cover a wide range of issues related to the study of the history and archeology of medieval states and empires of Eurasia, communications and connections between cultures and civilizations, mass migrations and diffusion of cultural and technological impulses. Geographically, the topics of the presented reports include materials from Bulgaria and Crimea to the Far East. The chronological framework is from the Xiongnu and Huns to ethnographic time. Much attention is paid to natural scientific methods in archaeological research.

The book is intended for archaeologists and historians specializing in the field of medieval history and archeology of Eurasia, as well as teachers, graduate students and students of historical specialties.

The Mongol Empire and the nomadic world

The collection is dedicated to the history of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan.

The problems of the typology of nomadic societies, the socio-political organization of Mongolian society, the ideological and legal system of the Mongol Empire are examined against a broad comparative historical background. Much attention is paid to the consideration of the relations of the Mongols with agricultural civilizations. Among the authors of the book are well-known scientists from many countries specializing in the study of nomadic societies.

The book will be useful not only to specialists in the field of history, archeology and ethnography of the nomadic world, but also to a wider range of readers interested in the history of nomadism, Mongolian history and the history of civilizations, including university teachers, graduate students, and undergraduates.

The Mongol Empire and the nomadic world. Book 2

The collection is a continuation of the book of the same name published in 2004, dedicated to the history of the Mongol Empire, and the result of the work of a team of scientists from Russia, Mongolia and other countries who participated in the conference, which took place in September 2004 in Ulan-Ude and was held by the Institute of Mongolian Studies and Buddhist Studies and Tibetology SB RAS.

The discussion continued on the problems of the typology of nomadic societies, the specifics of their socio-political organization, ideology and law. The issues of scientific interpretation of the significance of the Mongol Empire in the past and the revitalization of interest in it in the 20th century are touched upon.

The Mongol Empire and the nomadic world. Book 3

Proceedings of the international scientific conference.

The monograph is dedicated to the history of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan. The problems of the typology of nomadic societies, the socio-political organization of Mongolian society, the ideological and legal system of the Mongol Empire are examined against a broad comparative historical background. Much attention is paid to the consideration of the relations of the Mongols with agricultural civilizations. Among the authors of the book are well-known scientists from many countries specializing in the study of nomadic societies.

Political anthropology

The history of polyanthropological teachings is systematically outlined, and the main modern schools and trends in this area are analyzed.

The sociobiological and cultural foundations of power, forms of social stratification and mobility are examined. The structure of power and the evolution of leadership in different types of societies are examined. Much attention is paid to the phenomenon of the state, the reasons for its emergence, the paths of politogenesis, the types and forms of statehood.

For students of higher educational institutions studying in the specialties of Political Science and Social Anthropology. Can be used in educational process in a wide range of specialties and areas with in-depth training of masters in political science. Of interest to scientists and specialists in the field of political science, cultural studies, sociology, anthropology and other social and humanitarian disciplines.

Social structure of the early nomads of Eurasia

The purpose of the work is to demonstrate the experience of reconstructing the system of statuses and ranks in archaic societies based on archaeological data. This problem is considered by the team of authors using the example of studying the societies of the so-called early nomads of Eurasia. A significant number of sources are introduced into scientific circulation, and their interpretation is proposed. Much attention is paid to methodological and theoretical problems of “social archaeology”, general issues evolution of nomadic pastoralists in Eurasia.

The publication will be useful not only as Toolkit to carry out reconstructions of the social structure based on archaeological materials, but will also serve as an incentive for the further development of the social archeology of nomadism in our country as a whole. It is intended for archaeologists, historians, sociologists, cultural experts, ethnographers and other researchers involved in the study of nomads.

Various theories of the historical process are consistently revealed, starting from ancient times to the most popular theories of the XX-XXI centuries. (Marxism, civilizational approach, modernization theories, world-systems analysis, etc.). The main factors of the historical process (nature, demography, the role of the individual, etc.), the most influential theoretical paradigms (the Annales school, gender history, the history of everyday life, etc.) are examined in detail. Much attention is paid to the historian's tools - various methods social and historical knowledge.

Intended for undergraduates, graduate students and anyone interested in the theory of history.

REVIEWS, INFORMATION

Y. M. SHIKIN

Kradin N. N. Political anthropology: Educational

allowance. M.: Ladomir, 2001.

The proposed textbook is one of the few developments that has the character comprehensive research anthropological theory of politogenesis, born at the intersection of such sciences as political science, history, anthropology, ethnography, social psychology and some others. Practice shows that a scientific discipline that appears at the crossroads of various directions has the best chance of achieving fruitful development, giving rise to new knowledge and understanding of the essence of the problems being studied. It seems that political anthropology is precisely that very frontier science, which in general aims to study “the peoples of the world in order to identify the characteristics of political organization in historical dynamics” (p. 10).

The unifying proposition, a kind of core of this work, is an attempt to consider power and its institutions as a complex sociobiological, cultural-communicative and spiritual phenomenon that can be understood and interpreted as a specific type of social production and reproduction of the whole variety of power relations and the activities of various subjects of power in a rich historical and ethnic context.

An important and valuable thing in the work is its approach to modern times (Chapter V. Political anthropology and modernity, pp. 152-186), an attempt to analyze

the dynamics of political transformations of traditional societies during global modernization processes. It is difficult to disagree with the author in those cases when he is critical of the mechanical copying of political institutions of developed modern democracies and their blind implantation in countries located on the “periphery” of the modern world system. Most often, this kind of borrowing is harmful and slows down rather than accelerates social progress.

The indisputable advantage of the work was that its author was able to show that power has its own existence and, therefore, its own sources, reasons and logic of origin, reproduction and renewal. The uniqueness of the material, psychological and spiritual aspects of the nature of power in their interrelation and historical context most clearly reveals itself in a specific ethnic expression. In political life, the dominance, for example, of the power of violence or brute force, or the power of tradition, or the power of formal law is the action of a specific reason, circumstances that determine the advisability of using one of the techniques as a way of influence and interaction of political subjects. The author significantly expands our understanding of this kind of interaction, introducing readers to different views on the genesis of the state and statehood, and to the evolution of forms of political organization of society. These are precisely the problems that are not discussed in detail either in the course of political science, sociology, or ethnography, but are central in political anthropology.

Prof.'s work N. N. Kradina, if it could be improved, would only be due to compositional and minor editorial changes. Thus, paragraph 4 (history of political anthropology, pp. 24-38), perfect for a monograph or dissertation, is not entirely suitable for a textbook intended for those who

wants to get acquainted with the subject and problems of political anthropology and is not a specialist. The paragraph is overloaded with bibliographic material and names of researchers that the student, and most of the readers will be students, have most likely never heard of.

In our opinion, the subject of political anthropology and its place in the system of modern social sciences requires clarification. “Anthropology” in the understanding of N. N. Kradin is keyword, which defines the essence of the discipline (p. 205: “Political anthropology is a part of anthropological science that studies the formation and development of mechanisms of social control and power”). Meanwhile, the entire structure of the work suggests that we are talking about an integral discipline in which the political aspect is as important as the anthropological one. It seems that recognition of political anthropology as a new independent direction of research would be correct and would honor the author.

Doubtful, from our point of view, is the designation of the author’s negative position towards Marxism and towards the work of F. Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (p. 24). Apparently, this pays tribute to the current general fashion of denying the worldview, which is associated with well-known failures in building a new society. The author, however, actually takes Marxism seriously, as follows from the text of the textbook.

The author's wide erudition sometimes puts the reader in an awkward position - the need to choose an answer to a question that may have many different answers. For a scientist or researcher, this is a reason to think about finding the right solution, this is an impetus for the movement of thought. The student, and we are talking about a textbook, needs an unambiguous answer, which he can accept or reject, but which he must know. Talking about

the origin of the state, for example, and noting the debatable nature of the problem, the author, having shown a good dozen views on the genesis of the state, states that there is no single obligatory reason for its emergence (pp. 137-139). It seems that in such cases he should have outlined his own position.

The last note relates to the language of the manual, which should be taken into account when republishing. While understandable to a specialist, it may be difficult for the average reader to understand, or even not accepted at all. Here is one example from the text: “Summarizing the above, we can define the chiefdom as a form of sociopolitical organization in the late primitive society, which, on the one hand, is characterized as a system that tends toward integration through political centralization, the presence of a single redistributive economy, ideological unity, etc., and on the other hand, as a system that tends toward internal differentiation through specialization of labor (in including managerial), unequal access to resources, removal of direct producers from the management of society, status differentiation of culture” (p. 131-132).

In general, political scientists, anthropologists, and representatives of other social sciences have been waiting for this kind of work for a long time. This is an original work that gives impetus to the development of a new discipline in our country - political anthropology.

Kradin N.N. POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. M., 2004.

Preface

Anthropological theories of politogenesis developed to a certain extent independently of the theory of political science, although any anthropologist familiar with the work of modern political scientists can find a lot in common in the mechanisms of formation of archaic and modern political institutions. If we take, for example, the well-known works of Robert Michels on social democratic parties Western Europe XX century, then upon careful reading you are more and more inclined to think that since the time of the first chiefdoms of Sumer and Egypt, little has changed in the social practice of people. Michels shows that any Political Party or a trade union organization encounters in its activities various problems(organization of political campaigns and elections, printing activities, negotiations, etc.). This activity It is time-consuming and sometimes requires special training. If the organization includes big number members, then additional efforts are needed to coordinate them. A management apparatus is gradually being formed, which is responsible for ensuring the life of the organization, collecting contributions, conducting correspondence, etc. Party functionaries concentrate the organization's infrastructure, press organs and financial resources in their hands. If opposition arises within the organization, then all these levers can be directed against the revisionists. Over time, when the financial situation and status of leaders become stable, their psychology also changes. They are no longer striving not so much to fulfill the program guidelines of their party, but to maintain their own stability. This, according to Michels, is the “iron law of oligarchy.” Replace some variables in the picture drawn by Michels: instead of a trade union or a party cell, place a group of neighboring villages, instead of contributions - gifts and tribute, and instead of a party organizer, a leader - and you will get a typical picture of the development of a chiefdom into an early state. It is difficult to get rid of another obsessive association - why not the “new politogenesis” in post-Soviet Russia and other CIS countries. (3) Perhaps the above may seem too metaphorical to some. However, there is something to think about here. Are the mechanisms for forming power structures so different in archaic and modern societies? Political anthropology helps us understand that modern politics has its roots in the past, and certain forms of sociality can be traced in the communities of higher animals. Political anthropology is also important for understanding political processes in modern societies that are on the path to building a democratic system of government. Failure to take into account the fact that the nature of the institutions of power and political processes in these societies is largely “traditional” (in Max Weber’s terminology) in nature; direct, uncritical borrowing of Western liberal values can lead to opposite and unpredictable results. Multipartyism can result in the formation of party structures on a tribal or confessional basis, and then lead to large-scale interethnic or religious conflicts. The separation of powers can lead to chaos and unrest (since traditional societies, in fact, are not characterized by the principle of separation of powers), and then to the establishment of an open military junta, etc. Political anthropology occupies an important place in Western social science. In our country, political anthropology as an independent discipline is a fairly new direction. In Soviet times, the subject of her research was actually banned, since an unofficial moratorium was imposed on the study of the theory of power. The only exception is the book by L.E. Kubbel “Essays on potestarian-political ethnography” (1988), in which the author, a well-known domestic Africanist, paid main attention to the evolution of archaic and colonial societies (it must be remembered that the Western name of the science “anthropology” is largely synonymous with the domestic term “ethnography”). This work had a great influence on an entire generation of researchers. But more than ten years have passed since the publication of the monograph; it has long become a bibliographic rarity, and a number of its provisions should be revised in the light of data modern science. Only during the heyday of perestroika, and especially after 1991, did it become possible to speak in plain text about the subject and goals of political anthropology in full, about numerous examples of archaic and traditional elements of power in the political culture of the USSR and post-Soviet CIS countries. This discipline is included in the standards for teaching political scientists and sociologists, and future professional socioanthropologists have begun to master it. But there are still few books on political anthropological topics. There are practically no textbooks and manuals for university students. It was this circumstance that prompted me to take up writing this work. However, it turned out that the chosen topic was so vast that I was unable to cover it completely. (4) In a number of cases it was necessary to touch upon problems of other sciences. But this is the fate of most textbooks. The authors of such publications are forced to invade the area of related disciplines, where their competence is not complete enough. Responsibility for all possible errors and inaccuracies lies solely with me. This book is written primarily for those who are not well acquainted with the subject and problems of political anthropology. Inquisitive students who are not satisfied with the material in the textbook have a little surprise in store - an expanded list of references. Due to space limitations, not all works are mentioned in this list. However, they all have a bearing on political anthropology. In addition, on related issues, I provided links to additional publications directly in the text, trying, as far as possible, to take into account all the most important literature. The textbook is based on lecture courses given during 1995-2000. The publication of this work was made possible thanks to a grant from the Federal Targeted Program "Integration" (M422-06), as well as some of my own research, carried out with the support of a number of scientific foundations: Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (97-01-00533), Soros Foundation (1998, No. HAG803), MONF (1998, no. 224). I would like to express my gratitude for the valuable advice and wishes of O.Yu. Artemov, D.M. Bondarenko, L.S. Vasiliev, H.J.M. Klassen, A.V. Korotaev, L. Krader, V.A. Lynshu, Yu.V. Pavlenko, V.A. Popov, A.I. Fursov, A.M. Khazanov.

We have a fail-safe weapon - the basic theory of feudalism,
developed in the quiet of offices and laboratories, on dusty
excavations, in solid discussions. It's just a pity that Don Reba
has no idea about this theory 1 .

Chapter 1

^ SUBJECT OF POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

1. What is anthropology?

Political anthropology has developed as one of the branches of anthropological science. In its broadest sense, anthropology (from Greek. anthropos - man) is a body of scientific knowledge about the nature of man and his activities. Sometimes in modern Russian literature there are statements that anthropology, mainly social and cultural anthropology, is a young science that is at the stage of its formation. However, this is not the case. The first department of social anthropology was created back in 1908 at the University of Liverpool by J. Fraser, although in reality this discipline was formed in the 19th century. Currently, anthropology represents a whole complex of sciences about man and his activities. In the United States alone, anthropology is taught at more than 400 institutions of higher education, graduating 9,000 bachelor's degrees annually. About 11,000 anthropologists are members of the American Anthropological Association, and more than 400 people annually receive Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees in anthropological specialties. Every five years, international congresses of anthropological and ethnographic sciences, which attracts scientists from all over the world. The intellectual predecessor of modern anthropology was the philosophical anthropologism of thinkers of the 18th-19th centuries, according to which, only based on human essence, it is possible to develop a system of ideas about nature, society, knowledge (L. Feuerbach, M. Scheler, F. Nietzsche, N. Chernyshevsky and etc.). However, from the very beginning, anthropology was thought of more broadly than just a philosophical understanding of the problems of human essence. In addition to philosophical anthropology, it included other disciplines and concepts. From the second half of the 19th century. the understanding of anthropology has changed. (6) Accumulation scientific information inevitably led to the differentiation of humanitarian knowledge. Political economy, sociology, psychology, history, philology, etc. gradually emerged as independent sciences. During the same period, anthropology (in the 19th century it was often called ethnology) was formed - a discipline that studies peoples located outside the civilized world. Due to the limited sources on the history of unliterate archaic peoples, as well as due to the peculiarities research work in these cultures, when the anthropologist had to be equally highly trained in the most diverse fields of science, disciplines such as primarily physical anthropology (or natural history of man), ethnography, and archeology could not exist one without the other. This led not so much to their differentiation (although in some countries, including ours, they are still considered independent sciences), but to their integration into a single interdisciplinary complex. At the same time, philosophical and anthropological issues gradually turned out to be taken beyond the scope of anthropology itself. Currently, anthropological science is usually divided into two large parts: physical And cultural(or otherwise social) anthropology. The first studies the physical structure human body and anthropogenesis (i.e., the problem of human origins). The second is a complex of independent disciplines (archaeology, linguistics, folkloristics, ethnography and, finally, cultural or social anthropology itself), which examine the culture of a particular people in its entirety.

In the broadest sense, cultural anthropology studies the economic life, social systems, customs and ideological ideas of archaic peoples. The concepts of “cultural” and “social” anthropology are often considered synonymous (the first term is used mainly in the USA, the second in Western European countries, especially in the UK). However, there are some differences between them. If British anthropologists consider culture as an integral part of human society, then their overseas colleagues, following L. White, believe that sociality is inherent not only in people, but also in higher animals. "It is culture, and not society, that acts as distinctive feature person, Scientific research This feature should be called cultural studies rather than sociology" (White 1949: 116). Historically, anthropologists were primarily engaged in the study and reconstruction of the way of life of unliterate ("prehistoric") peoples. At the same time, anthropology did not break ties with other social sciences. It is no coincidence that many researchers defined social anthropology as “a branch of sociology that studies primitive societies.” However, in the 50-60s of the 20th century. (7) There has been a natural tendency towards some narrowing of the object of research: with the accumulation of knowledge, scientists began to move on to a more in-depth study of certain aspects of culture - technology, social organization, family and marriage relations, beliefs, etc. Concentrating their efforts on a separate area, some anthropologists came to realize the relevance of expanding the time frame of their research, as well as the need for closer cooperation with other sciences - economics, demography, sociology, etc. All this led to the emergence of a number of new interesting subdisciplines of cultural anthropology, such as economic and legal anthropology, complementing classical political economy, as well as the history of state and law; finally, a special discipline bordering on political sciences was formed - political anthropology. In Russian literature, studies of historical structures of power were carried out within the framework of a complex of historical sciences (history itself, archeology and ethnography). For Marxist science, the term “political anthropology” was unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, due to the fact that in Russian science “social anthropology” has traditionally been considered not an independent science, but one of the historical sciences and called “ethnography” ( anthropologists we named only those who were engaged physical anthropology). Secondly, because, according to Marxist theory, politics exists only in a class society, while relations in a primitive society cannot be considered political. Consequently, a completely different term is needed to designate the latter. In the 1970s, domestic ethnographers proposed calling relations in primitive society potestaric (from lat. potestas - power), although the introduction of such a term cannot be considered particularly successful. After all, power relations exist not only in primitive times, but in all stage types of society. In 1979 L.E. Kubbel suggested calling political anthropology the term “potestarian-political ethnography,” and ten years later he wrote the first (and so far, in essence, the only generalizing) book in Russian in this topic(Kubbel 1979; 1988). Despite official neglect, the term “political anthropology” nevertheless gradually entered the lexicon of domestic researchers. Since the mid-1980s, it began to appear more and more often in the works of ethnographers, anthropologists and orientalists. Currently, “political anthropology” is officially included in the list of scientific disciplines in higher educational institutions; it is read to students of anthropological, sociological and political science specialties. History students study similar problems in the course program “History of Primitive Society”, “History ancient world" and "Ethnography".

(8) 2. Political anthropology. The concept of political anthropology

Since anthropologists were mainly engaged in the study of non-European civilizations and cultures, the subject of study of political anthropology became the mechanisms and institutions of power and social control mainly in pre-industrial and post-traditional societies. Most experts agree with this. Thus, J. Balandier believes that the tasks of political anthropology include a comparative study of the political organization of primitive and archaic societies (Balandier 1967: 6-9). L.E. echoes him. Kubbel, according to which the subject of potestar-political ethnography is the relations of power and management of society mainly in pre-industrial eras (Kubbel 1979; 1988). Similar definitions of political anthropology are given in most Western specialized dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books on sociocultural anthropology and political science. In one of these publications, reproduced in the journal "Political Studies" (1993, No. 1), the following definition is given: Political anthropology is the study of governance institutions and related practices among ethnic communities, especially primitive and tribal societies. Political anthropology examines the relationship of political behavior to the broader group culture and examines the ways in which political institutions and practices develop.

M. Abele somewhat expands the subject of political anthropology. He believes that its tasks include "the study of power processes and systems that permeate our structures and the ways in which the roots and forms of political action in our societies appear" (Abele 1998: 30). V.V. Bocharov tries to combine both points of view. In his opinion, initially political anthropology studied systems of power and management relations in traditional societies. At the present time, it should become an applied science aimed at optimizing decisions made in the process of management activities in conditions where the governed are multi-ethnic subjects whose political culture is heavily implicated in the traditional substrate (Bocharov 1998: 141). (9) As a result, we can define the subject of study of this discipline as a set of institutions of control and power in pre-industrial societies: the structure of these institutions and their comparative typology, analysis of the causes and factors of transformation of one form into another, the problem of adaptation, incorporation and transformation of traditional control mechanisms in modern political institutions. Based on this, political anthropology can be defined as anthropological discipline that studies the peoples of the world in order to identify the characteristics of political organization in historical dynamics.