Nikolai Nikolaevich Kradin. “The dispute over the birthplace of Genghis Khan has a political aspect,” Professor Nikolai Kradin Proceedings of the international scientific conference

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

Preface

Anthropological theories of politogenesis developed to a certain extent independently of

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

Robert Michels, dedicated to 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

The chiefdoms of Sumer and Egypt, little changed in the social practices of the people. Michels

shows that any Political Party or a trade union organization is faced with

its activities with various problems (organization of political campaigns and

elections, printing activities, negotiations, etc.). This activity takes away

time consuming and sometimes requires special training. If the organization includes a large

number of members, additional efforts are needed to coordinate them. Gradually formed

management apparatus, which is responsible for ensuring the functioning of the organization,

collects contributions, conducts correspondence, etc. Party functionaries concentrate in their

hands on the organization's infrastructure, press organs and financial resources. If inside

organization, opposition arises, then all these levers can be directed against

revisionists. Over time, as the financial situation and status of leaders become

stable, their psychology also changes. They no longer strive so much to fulfill

program guidelines of his party, as much as to the preservation of his own stability. In that,

according to Michels, lies the “iron law of oligarchy.” Replace in drawn by Michels

some variables in the picture: instead of a trade union or party cell, place a group of neighboring

villages, instead of contributions - gifts and tribute, and instead of a party organizer - a leader - and you get a typical

a picture of the development of a chiefdom into an early state. It's hard to get rid of another one

obsessive association - why not “new politogenesis” in post-Soviet Russia and others

CIS countries. (3) The above may seem a bit much to some.

mechanisms for the formation of power structures in archaic and modern societies?

Political anthropology helps us understand that modern politics has its roots

becomes a thing of the past, and certain forms of sociality can be traced in communities

higher animals. Political anthropology also has great importance for understanding

political processes in modern societies that are on the path of building

democratic system of government. Underestimation of the fact that the nature of the institutions of power and

political processes in these societies are largely “traditional” (in

terminology of Max Weber) character, direct, uncritical borrowing of Western

liberal values ​​can lead to opposite and unpredictable results.

Multi-party system can result in the formation of party structures based on tribal

or confessional basis, and then lead to large-scale interethnic or

religious conflicts. Separation of powers can lead to chaos and unrest (as

for traditional societies, in fact, the principle of separation of powers is not characteristic), and then to

the establishment of an open military junta, etc. In the Western social science political

anthropology occupies an important place. In our country, polyanthropology is like

An independent discipline is a fairly new direction. In Soviet times, its subject

research was actually banned, since the study of the theory of power was prohibited

An unofficial moratorium has been imposed. The only exception is the book by L.E. Kubbel "Essays"

potestarno-political ethnography" (1988), in which the author is a famous Russian

Africanist - focused on the evolution of archaic and colonial societies

(it must be remembered that the Western name for the science "anthropology" is largely synonymous with

the domestic term "ethnography"). This work had a great influence on the whole

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

in the light of modern science data. Only during the heyday of perestroika, and especially after

1991, it became possible to speak directly 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

the discipline is included in the standards for teaching political scientists and sociologists, it has become

to master future professional socioanthropologists. But books on polyanthropological

There are still few 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

fully. (4) In a number of cases it was necessary to touch upon problems of other sciences. But that's fate

related disciplines where their competence is not complete enough. For all possible mistakes and

Inaccuracies are the responsibility of me alone. This book was written in the first

queue for those who are not well acquainted with the subject and problems of political

anthropology. For inquisitive students who are not satisfied with the textbook material,

A little surprise has been prepared - an extended list of references. On this list for a reason

Due to lack of space, not all works are mentioned. However, they all relate to

political anthropology. In addition, on related issues, links to additional

I gave publications directly in the text, trying, if possible, to take into account all the most important

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, supported by

a number of scientific foundations: RGNF (97-01-00533), Soros Foundation (1998, No. HAG803), MOSF (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. Kreder, V.A. Linshu,

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.

SUBJECT OF POLITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

1. What is anthropology?

Political anthropology has developed as one of the branches of anthropological science. IN

in the broadest sense, anthropology (from the Greek anthropos - man) is a set of scientific

knowledge about human nature and his activities. Sometimes in modern domestic

literature there are statements that anthropology, mainly social and

Cultural anthropology is a young science at the stage of its formation. However

University of Liverpool by J. Fraser, although in reality this discipline was formed

back 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 in more than 400 higher education institutions.

educational institutions that annually graduate 9,000 bachelors. About 11,000

anthropologists are members of the American Anthropological Association, more than 400

people annually receive a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in anthropology

specialties. Every five years, international congresses of anthropological and

ethnographic sciences, which attract scientists from all over the world. Intellectual

the predecessor of modern anthropology was the philosophical anthropologism of thinkers

XVIII-XIX centuries, according to which, only based on human essence, it is possible to develop

system of ideas about nature, society, knowledge (L. Feuerbach, M. Scheler, F. Nietzsche, N.

Chernyshevsky and others). However, from the very beginning anthropology was thought of as broader than just

philosophical understanding of the problems of human essence. Beyond philosophical anthropology

it included other disciplines and concepts. From the second half of the 19th century.

the understanding of anthropology has changed. (6) The accumulation of scientific information inevitably led to

differentiation of humanitarian knowledge. Gradually became independent sciences

political economy, sociology, psychology, history, philology, etc. During the same period

Anthropology also formed (in the 19th century it was often called ethnology) - a discipline

studying peoples outside the civilized world. Due to limited

sources on the history of unliterate archaic peoples, and also due to the peculiarities

research work in these cultures, when the anthropologist had to be in the same

degree to have highly trained in various fields of science, such disciplines as

primarily physical anthropology (or natural history of man), ethnography,

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 rather to integrate them into a single interdisciplinary complex.

At the same time, gradually philosophical and anthropological problems turned out to be

beyond the scope of anthropology proper. Currently, anthropological science

are usually divided into two large parts: physical and cultural (or otherwise

social ) anthropology. The first studies the physical structure of the human body and

anthropogenesis (i.e. the problem of human origins). The second is a complex

independent disciplines (archaeology, linguistics, folkloristics, ethnography and,

finally, cultural or social anthropology proper), which considers

integrity of the culture of a particular people.

In the broadest sense, cultural anthropology studies economic life, social

systems, customs and ideological ideas of archaic peoples. Often concepts

"cultural" and "social" anthropology are considered synonymous (the first term

used mainly in the USA, the second - in Western European countries, especially in

Great Britain). 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 a distinctive feature

person, Scientific research this feature should be named rather

cultural studies, not sociology" (White 1949: 116). Historically,

anthropologists were primarily concerned with the study and reconstruction of lifestyles

unliterate ("prehistoric") peoples. At the same time, anthropology did not break ties with

other social sciences. It is no coincidence that many researchers have defined social

anthropology as "the branch of sociology that studies primitive societies." However, in the 50s and 60s

years of the 20th century in anthropology (7) there has been a natural tendency towards some narrowing

object of research: with the accumulation of knowledge, scientists began to move on to more in-depth

studying certain aspects of culture - technology, social organization, family

marriage relations, beliefs, etc. Concentrating your efforts on a specific

direction, some anthropologists have come to realize the relevance of expanding

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

The discipline bordering on political science is political anthropology. IN

domestic literature, research into historical structures of power was carried out in

within the 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” is traditionally

"ethnography" (we called anthropologists only those who were engaged in physical

anthropology ). Secondly, because according to Marxist theory, politics exists

only in a class society, whereas relations in a primitive society cannot

another term. In the 1970s, domestic ethnographers proposed to call

relations in primitive society are potestar (from Lat. potestas - power), although the introduction

such a term cannot be considered particularly successful. After all, power relations do not exist

only in primitiveness, but in all stage types of society. In 1979 L.E. Kubbel

proposed to call political anthropology the term “potestar-political”

ethnography", and ten years later he wrote the first (and so far, in essence, the only

generalizing) book in Russian on this topic (Kubbel 1979; 1988). Despite

official neglect, the term "political anthropology" nevertheless gradually

entered the lexicon of domestic researchers. Since the mid-1980s, he has increasingly

began to be found in the works of ethnographers, anthropologists and orientalists. Currently

"political anthropology" was officially included in the list scientific disciplines in higher

educational institutions, it is read to students of anthropological, sociological and

political science specialties. History students study similar problems in

(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 in

The tasks of political anthropology include the comparative study of political organization

primitive and archaic societies (Balandier 1967: 6-9). L.E. echoes him. Kubbel, according to

in which the subject of potestar-political ethnography is 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

special dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books on sociocultural anthropology and

political science. In one of these publications, reproduced in the magazine "Political

research" (1993, No. 1), the following definition is given: Political anthropology -

studying governance institutions and related practices among ethnic communities, in

features in primitive societies and in societies with a tribal system. Political

anthropology explores the relationship between political behavior and the broader group culture

and explores the ways in which political institutions and practices develop.

M. Abele somewhat expands the subject of political anthropology. He believes that in her

objectives include "exploring the power processes and systems that permeate our structures, and

ways in which the roots and forms of political action appear in our societies"

(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 present, it should become applied

science aimed at optimizing decisions taken in the process of management activities

decisions in conditions where multi-ethnic subjects act as governed,

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

institutions of control and power in pre-industrial societies: the structure of these institutions and

their comparative typology, analysis of the reasons and factors for the transformation of one form into another,

the problem of adaptation, incorporation and transformation of traditional control mechanisms into

modern political institutions. Based on this, political anthropology can be

define as anthropological discipline that studies the peoples of the world with the aim of

identifying the features of political organization in historical dynamics.

Anthropology and history

If we translate the above into what is familiar to representatives of domestic

social sciences language, then we can say that political anthropology is, in a well-known

degree history of power: the history of the transformation of some forms and mechanisms of social

control in others. Within the framework of Russian tradition, such a definition carries a special

meaning, since anthropology was not distinguished as an independent science in the USSR, and the discipline

and their subsections specializing in the history of power structures (history of primitive

society, history ancient world, ethnography, history of the East, etc.) we have always had

It is customary to include it in the complex of historical sciences. Specialists in these fields were trained

mainly in history departments. They were awarded academic degrees

and doctors of historical sciences. History in the USSR was considered a synthetic science, which

included both archeology and ethnography (anthropology), studying at the same time how

spatiotemporal diversity historical events, and identifying generalizing

patterns of chronological processes. It is impossible not to notice that the sources and

The methodological methods of working with them among historians, archaeologists and ethnographers are very different.

A historian works with written documents. He must install them externally

authenticity, try to understand what meaning is hidden behind the signs contained on

document under study. An archaeologist examines material fragments of a long-vanished

culture. He has the most thankless task of trying to compose complete picture about

society from a limited number of puzzle pieces. Unlike an archaeologist, an ethnographer

(anthropologist) has the opportunity to observe both entire material objects and

relationships between people and their spiritual world. But he must be able to understand what deep

mechanisms are hidden behind the external manifestation of certain forms of behavior. From this point

There is a significant difference between anthropology and history. Political

anthropology is not history in the full sense of the word. History in the "narrow sense" (from

English word story - story, tale, short story) is the science of events reconstructed

(10) according to written sources. The main goal of the historian in the “narrow sense” is chronologically

connect accomplished events (facts) by recreating their general course. Task

a political anthropologist is somewhat different; he is not interested in events in themselves, but in structures and

social political systems. Therefore, if we count according to the widespread in

domestic science tradition of political anthropology to the historical sciences, then this is not

not history at all, but rather what is called “social history” or “historical

anthropology" (Gurevich 1993). On the closeness between political and historical

anthropology was indicated by J. Le Goff in the preface to the modern edition of Kings

Miracle Workers" by M. Blok - a classic book on Western European political anthropology

Middle Ages. According to Le Goff, this is even a single discipline - political

historical anthropology (Block 1998: 57). At the same time, political anthropology is also

not really ethnography. Ethnographers deal with living informants, and the subject of study

political anthropology are often not only modern archaic and

traditional cultures (especially since there are practically none left at present), but also

more ancient peoples and the problems of their social and power structure, known from

written and archaeological data. From this point of view, a political anthropologist can be

not only an ethnologist-anthropologist, but also, if necessary, a historian and even an archaeologist.

Anthropology, political science and sociology

The above does not mean that the political anthropologist should focus his attention on

archaic, traditional and post-traditional domination and cannot study

systems of power in modern developed societies. Moreover, there are a number of objective

circumstances due to which political anthropologists are increasingly turning to actual

problems of our days. First of all, this is the disappearance from the ethnic map of the world of the

object of traditional anthropological research: by the end of the 20th century. on the globe

there are practically no places left, with the exception, perhaps, of the most remote corners of the Amazon and

Africa, where cultures that were not influenced by

modernizing Western civilization. Secondly, the problem of the evolution of institutions

power in the primitive system and the study of the processes of the emergence of the state more and more

become more of a purely academic problem. Almost all written and

ethnographic sources have already been introduced into scientific circulation. Often the main questions

seem to be resolved, which repels many researchers from them. The problem is still

consists only of creating comparative, generalizing cross-cultural studies.

(11)Thirdly, most scientific foundations prioritize research funding

knowledge and efforts of anthropologists. Contrary to the fears of a number of reputable anthropologists of the past

(A. Kroeber, K. Kluckhohn, M. Mead) that their discipline is doomed to become “inconvenient scientific

crypt", ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, the Caucasus and in a number of other "hot" spots of the world,

collapse of the socialist system and restoration in many post-traditional countries

in demand by the modern world community. Therefore, political

anthropology is a discipline that borders not only history, but also sociology, and

political science. It is important to identify the relationship between them. Sociologists and political scientists

analyze mainly conscious (conscious) forms of human behavior. Strictly

speaking, society is the subject of sociology; political institutions and power -

subject of political science. Based on the fact that power is the subject of research as

political science and political anthropology, there is a temptation to define political

anthropology as a branch of political science specializing in the study of “primitive” (i.e.

primitive) societies. At the same time, in a number of countries anthropology was considered

department of sociology, which studies primitive and traditional societies (partly

understanding is also characteristic of modern Russian sociology). Even where

anthropology recognizes its independent status, emphasizing its genetic relationship with

sociology. Determining, in particular, the place of anthropology among the humanities,

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) emphasized that the subject of its study is mainly

social structures, symbols and processes "in relation to their cultural conditions", in

features in relation to the “simplest” social systems (Parsons 1998). In such

there are certain grounds for interpretation. Indeed, the subject of research

political scientists and sociologists are modern political systems. Relevant

structures and institutions of the past are studied by historians, archaeologists and anthropologists

(ethnologists). However, this is not the only difference between anthropology and sociology and political science.

The object of study of anthropologists is not only pre-industrial and

post-traditional institutions and processes, but also ideal symbolic systems (rituals,

stereotypes, signs). This is due to the fact that in ordinary objects of anthropological

research (primitive and traditional structures) is absent (in the usual

terminology) division of society into “base” and “superstructure”, into economy and culture,

social system and politics. The anthropologist tries to discover behind the conscious

actions are the deep archeotypical layers of collective mentality. Latest like

As a rule, they are unconscious and expressed in symbolic (12) (primarily verbal) form.

Hence, political anthropology examines structures and mechanisms of control

as some integral, undivided symbolic systems . At the same time if

sociologist and political scientist consider the subject of their research within the framework of the conceptual

apparatus developed on the basis of the study of Western society, then the anthropologist deals with

comparison of mainly non-Western societies and attempts to comprehend and interpret

the phenomenon being studied, including from the position of the object of study (C. Lévi-Strauss). Important

differences between anthropology, on the one hand, and sociology and political science, on the other,

are available in the research methods. Methods of sociology and political science are mostly

parts behaviouristic, descriptive or empirical, quantitative

(questionnaires, surveys, statistical reports, etc.). They are mainly aimed at

analysis impersonal formal institutions, behavioral processes of individuals and groups, and

also political relations (such as power, political system, etc.). Methods

political anthropology (observation, participant observation, conversation) are

using ethnographic methods (and similar to ethological methods). The anthropologist records more oral and

non-verbal information (speech, gestures, facial expressions, images). Unlike others

social sciences (economics, sociology, political science), working primarily with

statistical material, the anthropologist receives most of his information as a result

personal contacts with informants (interviewing, informal conversations, observation).

It is a widely held view that social anthropology focuses on

the study of "small", "simple" communities, while sociology is focused

mainly for the study of large and complex communities. This is what the famous person writes

American sociologist Neil Smelser: Anthropology uses many methods

characteristic of sociology, but anthropologists study mainly small,

non-Western tribal societies, while sociologists study mainly large

modern societies of Europe and North America(Smelser 1998: 20-21). However this is not

quite right. A modern political anthropologist deals not only with such

traditional topics such as the study of political institutions of "primitive" communities

or problems of the origin of the state, but can also successfully turn to the study

mechanisms of power and control in modern industrial societies. The difference between it

and a sociologist lies partly in research methods (but not only in them, since

modern sociologists often use classical field ethnographic methods),

however, to a greater extent in theoretical and methodological (13) settings (more than

in 50% of cases, anthropologists and sociologists refer only to the works of representatives of their

science), and also often in conclusions. Let us illustrate this with one illustrative example.

Considering various theories of stratification, the same Smelser refers to a number of publications,

in which the issue of prestige of certain professions is considered. In the study,

conducted in 1956, residents of various countries (from the USA to New Zealand) were offered

assess the prestige of different professions. Very similar conclusions were obtained...

The researchers concluded that in countries where the industrial system has developed

production, there is a demand for the same professions: engineers, mechanics,

accountants, etc. These professions and the people who master them enjoy approximately the same

prestige throughout the world... Since 1925, there have been no significant changes in assessments in the United States

professional prestige - doctors and other specialists remain at the top of the pyramid,

shoe shiners and prostitutes still occupy a place at its base (Smelser 1998:

285). For an anthropologist, such an interpretation will not seem exhaustive. He immediately

Please note that the sample only mentions Western countries(not even speaking about,

that in pre-industrial eras completely different values ​​were prestigious!). If we take, for example,

The Soviet Union during the period of so-called developed socialism, then there were professions of engineers,

accountants and doctors were not super prestigious. The anthropologist always aims to use

comparative data.

Anthropology and modernity

Let's summarize some results. Under pressure from modern Western institutions, traditional

norms and values, economic modes of production and forms of social organization,

customs and patterns of family life, religious beliefs, etc., if not disappearing, then greatly

are transformed. For this reason it would seem that as the primitive

and the traditional way of life disappears and the subject of anthropology research disappears. However this is not

So. In many post-colonial and developing societies, as well as in vast

spaces of the post-socialist world, traditional social ones (for example, patron-

client relationships continue to play a big role; understanding economic,

social and political processes in these societies must necessarily take into account

the presence of these relationships. At the same time, anthropological approaches have great

perspectives in the study of modernity. Their application in (14) in relation to modern

societies has shown its effectiveness. This is where such specialized

disciplines such as anthropology of childhood, feminist anthropology, anthropology

national minorities, etc. From this point of view, the subject of political anthropology

could be much wider. A polyanthropologist, using anthropological (ethnological,

ethnographic) methods, can productively study the mechanisms of power and control not

only in pre-industrial, but also in modern societies. Its special value

research is given by the widespread use of the comparative historical method and

the opportunity to understand non-Western political systems from the inside, without imposing on them

political science and sociological terminology developed on the example of civilization

West. Experience shows that the intrusion of anthropologists into the sphere of interests of political scientists and

sociologists can lead to a revision of existing stereotypical ideas, identify

new aspects of the phenomena under consideration. An example is research

French anthropologist Marc Abele, devoted to the analysis of political rituals and

ceremonial symbols in modern political culture of France and Europe. So

Thus, based on all of the above, one can define political anthropology

as a discipline that studies political behavior, power and institutions

control in their historical dynamics using anthropological (ethnographic) methods.

Political anthropology is the anthropological discipline that studies political

behavior, political and government institutions using ethnographic methods.

(15) 3. Methods and methodological approaches. Methods

The main methods of a polyanthropologist (as well as any anthropologist, ethnologist, ethnographer)

are: 1) observation, 2) survey, 3) extracting information from other categories of sources

Observation is based on direct visual fixation of a particular phenomenon of interest.

researcher. Such an observation is usually called simple. Reflection accuracy depends on

duration of field research. Ideally, the duration of a field study should be

be somewhat more than one calendar year (two to three months are needed to adapt to

environment) so that the anthropologist can record the characteristics of the life activity of the person being studied

ethnic group in all seasons of the year. (15) In addition to the simple, there is an included

observation, when a scientist settles among the group being studied and, using the method of deep

immersion to become involved in the life of the culture being studied for a long time

records the most important aspects of her life. This method considered the most

effective method of ethnographic research. One of the classics

evolutionism Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) long time lived and communicated among

Iroquois and was even accepted by them as full members of the Seneca tribe. Some years

The oldest Russian ethnologist N.N. lived among the Papuans of New Guinea. Miklukho Maclay

(1846-1888). Another prominent foreign researcher is the British anthropologist

Bronislaw Malinowski (1844-1942) during the First World War, being then a subject

enemy power (Austria-Hungary), got the opportunity to live for a long time and

work in New Guinea. The field material obtained over the years formed the basis of many books.

Malinovsky, which have become classics in various fields of anthropological science.

A brilliant example of polyanthropological research should be called the book by M.

Voslensky's "Nomenklatura", which brilliantly, with knowledge of the matter, shows the structure from the inside

institutions of management and power of Soviet society. The Ecumenical One does not know the “system”

from hearsay - he himself worked for some time in government, and then, while working at the Academy of Sciences

USSR, had constant business contacts with representatives of the nomenklatura. By analogy with

famous work by A.I. Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" Voslensky writes

paragraph "One day of Denis Ivanovich", which describes a typical day of the Soviet

party nomenklatura. In this expressive image, the Soviet party bureaucrat appears not

“a knight without fear and reproach,” but a living person, not without passions and weaknesses,

inherent in other mortals. “By nature he is by no means an ascetic. He drinks willingly and a lot,

mainly expensive Armenian cognac; eats with pleasure and well: caviar, stellate sturgeon,

beluga side - what was obtained in the canteen or buffet of the Central Committee. If there is no threat of scandal, he

will quickly start a very non-platonic romance." But Voslensky does not overload his

a portrait of the nuances that he understands so well. It shows that, in fact,

party nomenklatura - a fanatic of power. "His joy, his only passion, is to

sit at the table with the government “turntable”, endorse draft decisions that, through

a few days will become laws; leisurely decide other people's destinies or come to

meeting of their wards: venerable scientists or prominent public figures with high-profile

names, sit modestly aside - and calmly, with deep hidden pleasure

watch as venerable and prominent people run to him from the presidium to ask for instructions"

(Voslensky 1991: 115). Similar, equally apt observations of the morals prevailing in

American Congress, were made by the anthropologist J. Weserdorf, (16) who

worked for some time in the apparatus of the highest legislative body of the United States (Weatherford

1981). Another important ethnographic method is survey. The survey is usually carried out in

form of an individual conversation with an informant. There are various variations of the survey:

according to a pre-developed plan (formalized survey) or without it (in the form of a free

conversations); during interviews or indirectly, through questionnaires; selective detailed

interviewing individual respondents or a continuous survey using a compiled questionnaire

for subsequent statistical processing on a computer. Anthropologists can also

use methods of mass surveys, questionnaires, interviews and their methods

statistical processing used in sociology and political sciences. For more

For in-depth acquaintance with these methods, it makes sense to turn to educational and educational

methodological literature on sociology and political science. Extracting information from others

myths, sayings or anecdotes, you must be familiar with folklore. When working with

source study will help with written documents - a special discipline

historical science. The general methodology of anthropological research is based on

functional, structural, comparative-historical and typological methods.

Functionalism

The name of this method comes from the Latin word functio - execution and means

Kradin N.N. Nomadic empire as a sociopolitical system // Problems of archeology of the Scythian-Siberian world (social structure and social relations): abstracts of the All-Union archaeological conference. Part I. Kemerovo State. univ. - Kemerovo: KemSU, 1989. P. 19-23.

A sufficiently convincing theoretically argued concept of the social system of nomadic peoples has not yet been created. This is clearly demonstrated by the paradoxes and problems that nomadic scholars face at the current stage. It seems that few people doubt that agriculture has incomparably greater potential for development than nomadic or semi-nomadic cattle breeding. But how then can we explain the fact that nomadic empires covered territories disproportionately larger than even the greatest of agricultural states? Moreover, these agricultural states, which had a highly developed economy and a huge population, were often forced to pay tribute. Even less explainable is the fact that among the nomads, with early ownership of the means of production (livestock) and social stratification, an early class structure, with the exception of perhaps one or two cases, never developed.

This set of paradoxes, first formulated by the English historian-orientalist E. Gelyaner, was solved in Russian literature in two ways: either by overestimating the level of the “base”, or by underestimating the level of development of the “superstructure”. The first path was taken by supporters of the theory of “nomadic feudalism”, and not so much by its founder B.Ya. Vladimirtsev, how many are his followers? They significantly overestimated the degree of development of the nomadic societies being studied and distorted the facts in search of non-existent classes, private property and the state. G.E. took the second path. Markov. He was the first to break out of the vicious circle of the paradigm of “nomadic feudalism” and criticize it. However, it is hardly legitimate for him to reduce all the highest forms of social organization of nomads only to “military democracy.” Meanwhile, most of the societies that G.E. studied. Markov, had a hierarchical nature (mostly chiefdoms), and some, perhaps, of an early class character.

It seems that the solution to most of these paradoxes is possible by shifting the angle of view. It is necessary to look at nomads not through the eyes of farmers (they are barbarians, and everything about them is underdeveloped), but “from the inside,” from the point of view of the nomads themselves and, accordingly, based on the conditions of their existence, to try to explain the phenomenon of sociopolitical structure. The conditions of existence here mean the widest range of factors: the natural and ecological environment, mediated by climate fluctuations; and the extensive economy of the nomads, which pushed them to establish trade contacts with farmers, and in case of refusal, forced them to take up arms; and many external and internal political reasons (pressure from agricultural civilizations, internecine wars for livestock and pastures, etc.); and finally, ethno-integrating impulses (partly in the understanding proposed by L.N. Gumilyov) - ultimately, all this, to a greater or lesser extent, contributed to the formation of a largely unique form of sociopolitical organization of nomads - a nomadic empire.

What, then, is meant by the latter? A nomadic empire is a complex social system occupying a relatively large space, consisting of a nomadic “core”, which has the form of a hierarchical (military-hierarchical) pyramidal structure with relatively undeveloped internal exploitation (from the point of view of the theory of the evolution of forms of potestar-political organization, this is probably there could be both a chiefdom and an early state) and dependent, exploited, as a rule, through tributary territory, which could include both agricultural and other peoples.

The nomadic “core”, or, in other words, the nomadic subsystem of the empire, is characterized by a multi-stage, hierarchical social organization, in which the lower levels are based on real economic ties, consanguinity, and the principles of labor cooperation, and higher levels are characterized by fictitious genealogical kinship, military -political and other connections; triadic (in rare cases - dual) principle of social organization at its highest level; military-hierarchical nature of social organization, as a rule, according to the “decimal” principle (using the terminology of G.E. Markov and V. Koenig “military-nomadic aggregate state”).

Based on the nature of the relations developing between the nomadic and agricultural subsystems, three types of nomadic empires can be distinguished. It should only be noted that similar work on the typology of nomadic societies was carried out by other researchers, especially S.A. Pletneva and A.M. Khazanov. The monograph “Nomads of the Middle Ages” by the first author requires special consideration, and the positions formulated in the books of A.M. Khazanov, largely served as the basis for the scheme proposed below.

In the first case, nomads and farmers did not form a single interconnected economic system, much less a single political body. Obtaining the surplus product necessary for the existence of the “core” occurred through “remote exploitation” (the term of A.I. Fursov). It should be noted here that in this case the terms “dependent” and “subsystem” can be applied rather conditionally to many agricultural societies, but from the point of view of the organization of the system this is justified. Farmers acted as an additional energy source for nomads, i.e. in this sense, as part of their system and, it seems, that without this source, the possibilities for creating large associations in the steppe would have been more limited. As an example of empires of this type, we can name most of the powers of Eurasia: the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turks, Uyghurs, etc.

Nomadic empires of the second type are characterized by the fact that the nomadic and sedentary subsystems constitute a single political organism, but there is no close connection between their economic systems. Classic options are the Yuan Empire and the Golden Horde. Three options are possible in the evolution of empires of this type: 1) separation of the agricultural subsystem, desolation of cities, nomadization of the population, transition of empires of the second type into empires of the first type, or collapse altogether; 2) further sedenterization and transformation into a complex agricultural-pastoral state, the further development of which is determined by the laws characteristic of sedentary societies. This variant of evolution is possible only in zones favorable for both agriculture and cattle breeding; 3) migration of nomads to the territory of an agricultural state and transformation into an empire of the third type.

Nomadic empires of the third type were created after nomads conquered agricultural societies and moved into their territory. Accordingly, the nomadic “core” and the agricultural-urban population were part of one social organism. The expansion of nomads, as a rule, had a negative impact on the economic and social development of society as a whole. Only an agricultural economy and cities, which were centers of trade and craft, could become the foundation on the basis of which further development seemed possible. But for this it was necessary to sacrifice a nomadic way of life. “Although (you) received the Celestial Empire while sitting on a horse, you cannot rule (it) while sitting on a horse,” - this is how Yelu Chu-tsai formulated this thought, addressing the Mongolian Great Khan. Empires of this type include the Ilkhan state in Iran, Toba Wei in China, many of the “barbarian kingdoms” of Europe, etc.

It should be noted that the identified types should be considered not as “types” in the historical and archaeological understanding of this term, but as possible “moments” (freeze frames) in the variable lines of the evolution of nomadic societies. For example, the Mongol Empire created by Genghis Khan was initially an empire of the first type. In the process of conquest, it turned into an empire of the second type (Yuan), and after the defeat in China it again transformed into an empire of the first type. Or Scythia - went through a long evolution from the first type to the third. At the same time, the possibility of the transition of empires from one state to another was determined to a greater extent by the state of affairs in the agricultural states. Neither the Xiongnu nor the Turks were able to conquer China. Only with the fall of the Han Empire was the state of Toba Wei created.

Most often, the “primary” empires were of the first type, although the result of migration and the conquest of an agricultural state by a tribal confederation is theoretically variable. In addition, empires of the third type, in cases where nomads and farmers initially occupied the same ecological zone, as was the case in the African Interlake Region (however, here it is more accurate to talk about pastoralists, semi-sedentary or semi-nomadic), could be formed immediately, bypassing the phase of the first type.

Empires of the second type were a kind of transitional model, but they could exist for a long time and were quite different from the empires of the first and third types. They were distinguished from the first by the more regular nature of exploitation and its consequences: urbanization in the steppe as a possible option for intensifying the exploitation of simple nomads, the formation of a bureaucratic apparatus to manage conquered sedentary urban societies. They were distinguished from others by political instability and pathological doom for failure. Ultimately, their fall was a matter of time (time from the point of view of the individual and from the point of view of Clio are ambiguous concepts). Only an orientation towards the third model could lead to social development.

Chief Researcher of the Department of History of Architecture and Urban Planning of Modern Times, Doctor of Architecture, Professor, Corresponding Member. RAASN, Honored Architect of Russia, Honorary Architect of Yakutia.

Born in 1938 in Khabarovsk. In 1960 he graduated from the art and graphic department of the Birobidzhan Pedagogical School. He worked as a drawing and drawing teacher in a secondary school in Buryatia. In 1961-1964. served in the Trans-Baikal Military District. In 1964 he entered the Faculty of Architecture of IZhSA named after. I.E. Repin in Leningrad. He studied in the workshop of the People's Architect of the USSR S.B. Speransky. After graduating from the institute in 1970, he was sent to work at the Far Eastern branch of the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Technical Aesthetics (Khabarovsk) as the chief architect of the interior department. Since 1973 he has been teaching at the Pacific state university(formerly Khabarovsk Polytechnic Institute) at the Faculty of Architecture and Design. Professor of the Department of Architecture and Urbanism.

In 1979, without postgraduate studies, he defended his candidate’s dissertation at the Moscow Architectural Institute on the topic “Fortified wooden architecture of Siberia in the 17th – 18th centuries.” In 2003, he defended his doctoral dissertation at NIITAG in the form of a scientific report on the topic “Russian architecture of the Far East in the 17th – early 20th centuries.”

Author and co-author of 30 books and about 600 articles. Author of the reconstruction of the Church of St. Innocent in Khabarovsk, the Church of St. Nicholas and the Iveron Chapel in Harbin; took an active part in the creation of the Russian cultural park “VOLGA Estate” in Harbin; co-author of the Russian Street project in Dalian, as well as the “Russian Culture Quarter” project in the city of Jimo, a suburb of Qingdao (PRC), etc.

Area of ​​scientific interests: Russian architecture, history of urban architecture Eastern Siberia, Transbaikalia and the Far East, creative activity of architects in eastern Russia, Russian architectural heritage in China, folk architecture of Siberia and Transbaikalia.

Selected Awards:

• Medal of the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland, II degree"
• Medal "Veteran of Labor"
• Four-time Governor's Award winner Khabarovsk Territory
• Honorary badge “Recognition and Honor” of the Khabarovsk City Hall
• Memorial sign Governor of the Khabarovsk Territory “150 years of the Aigun Treaty. For merit"
• Gold medal of the RAASN named after. A.V. Ikonnikov "For success in architectural science"
• Diploma of the Far Eastern Fair "Book Yard" for the book "Album of Creativity: Scientific and design work"(Khabarovsk, 2015)
• Diploma and Golden medal Far Eastern festival "Architecture - 2016" for the implementation of expeditions "To the places of Stalin's camps: from Yakutsk to Magadan"
• Big gold medal of the Khabarovsk International Fair (2010, 2013, 2014, 2016) for published books, projects, leadership of expeditions “To the places of Stalin’s camps: from Yakutsk to Magadan” (2012, 2013, 2015, 2016)

Publications

List of works

Selected publications:

Monographs

1. Russian wooden defense architecture. – M.: Publishing House “Iskusstvo”, 1988. – 192 p.

2. Architectural monuments of Khabarovsk. – Khabarovsk: Ethnos-DV, 1997. – 252 p.

3. Architects of Khabarovsk. – Khabarovsk: Magellan, 1998. – 140 p.

4. Old Khabarovsk: Portrait of a city in wood and stone (1858-1938). Khabarovsk book publishing house, 1999. – 304 p.

5. Protected by the state. Architectural and sculpture monuments of all-Russian significance in Khabarovsk. – Khabarovsk: “Private Collection”, 1999. –192 p.

6. Notes of local historians. – Khabarovsk: Magellan Publishing House. – Khabarovsk, 2000. – 336 p. (Co-author Vezhnovets A.F.).

7. Harbin - Russian Atlantis: essays. – Khabarovsk: KSUE “Khabarovsk Regional Printing House”, 2001. – 368 p.

8. Architecture and architects of Khabarovsk. – Khabarovsk: Book publishing house, 2003. – 160 p., ill.

9. Notes of local historians. 2nd edition. - Khabarovsk. Publisher Khvorov A.Yu. 2004 (Co-author Vezhnovets A.F.). – 336 p.

10. Old Khabarovsk: Portrait of a city in wood and stone (1858-2013). – Khabarovsk regional printing house, 2003. – 448 p.

11. Russian architecture of the Far East of the 17th–early 20th centuries. / Dissertation in the form of a scientific report for the degree of Doctor of Architecture. – Khabarovsk, 2003. – 82 p.

12. Harbin - Russian Atlantis (in Chinese). – Harbin, 2007. – 326 p.

13. Harbin - Russian Atlantis (in Chinese). – Harbin, 2007. – 290 p.

14. Old Khabarovsk: Portrait of a city in wood and stone (1858-2008). – Khabarovsk: RIOTIP Publishing House, 2008. – 448 p.

15. Artists of the Far East (XIX - mid-XX centuries): Biographical illustrated dictionary. – Khabarovsk: Book publishing house “Riotip”, 2009. – 176 p.

16. Harbin - Russian Atlantis: essays. – Khabarovsk: KSUE “Khabarovsk Regional Printing House”. 2010. – 368 p.

17. Urban planning of Siberia. – St. Petersburg,: Publishing house KOLO, 2011. – 784 p. (co-author)

18. Russian wooden architecture. Works of folk craftsmen and centuries-old traditions. – M.: Northern Pilgrim, 2012. – 668 p. (co-author).

19. Architects of Khabarovsk (1858-2013). – Khabarovsk: KSUE “Khabarovsk Regional Printing House”, 2013. – 448 p.

Articles

1. Unknown towers of the Kazym fortress // Problems of synthesis of arts and architecture. IZHSA named after. I.E. Repina. Issue 4. – L., 1974.

2. The first Russian settlements on the banks Pacific Ocean// History of the cities of Siberia (XVII - early XX centuries). "The science". Novosibirsk, 1977.

3. On the issue of reconstruction of the city of Mangazeya // Cities of Siberia. "The science". Novosibirsk, 1978.

4. On the foundation of the Kazym (Yuilsky) fort // Historical and Architectural Open Air Museum. "The science". Novosibirsk, 1980.

5. Wooden architecture of Khabarovsk // Monuments of the Fatherland. “Soviet Russia”. No. 1. M., 1980. – P.148-153.

6. Wooden city // Far East. No. 9. 1982.

7. Nerchinsk // Monuments of the Fatherland. “Soviet Russia”. M., 1984, No. 1(9). – P. 50-57.

8. Architectural monuments of Nerchinsk XVII-early XX centuries. // Architectural Heritage, No. 33, Stroyizdat. M., 1985. – P.78-88.

9. Wooden fortresses of Siberia and the Far East // Architecture and urban planning in the Far East. Sat. scientific works KhPI, Khabarovsk, 1985.

10. Folk architecture of the Khanty // Architectural heritage. No. 35. Stroyizdat. M., 1988. – P.73-85.

11. Reflections on Khabarovsk // Monuments of the Fatherland. “Soviet Russia”. – M., 1988. – P.106-116.

12. Folk architecture of the Yakuts // Architectural heritage. No. 37. Stroyizdat. – M., 1990.

13. Old Yakutsk // Monuments of the Fatherland. “Soviet Russia”. M., 1990. No. 2. – pp. 93-109.

14. Albazin fortress. Defense construction in the northeast of the Russian state in the 17th century // Russia and the Asia-Pacific region. Vladivostok, 1992, No. 1. – P.67-79.

15. Russian forts on the Amur // Far East, 1997, No. 2.

16. Russian Orthodox churches in China // Russia and the Asia-Pacific region. Vladivostok. 1998, no. 1. – P.26-32.

17. Historical Khabarovsk // Far East, 1998, No. 5-6. – P.118-162.

18. On traditions and influences in the folk architecture of the Yakuts // Archeology and ethnology of the Far East and Central Asia. – Vladivostok, 1998. – P.197-211.

19. Russian architects and Harbin // III Readings named after. Danilovsky. Khabarovsk. KhSTU. 1999. – P.40-48.

20. Yakut defense barns // Architectural heritage. No. 43. M., 1999. – P.196-207.

21. Yakut wooden fortress of the 17th century. // Taltsy. Irkutsk, 1999. – P.3-10.

22. Primorye architects in the Harbin emigration // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – Vladivostok, 2001, No. 4. – P.112-124.

23. Yakut defense barns // Architectural heritage. No. 44. – M.: NIITAG RAASN. 2001. – P.81-90.

24. Transbaikal fortifications // Archeology and cultural anthropology of the Far East and Central Asia. – Vladivostok: FEB RAS. 2002. – P.305-323.

25. Russian architectural heritage of Harbin // Russia and the Asia-Pacific region. - Vladivostok. 2003. No. 1. – P.79-88.

26.Khabarovsk: Capital of the Far East // Project Russia. – M., 2001, No. 22. – P.65-80.

27. Dalniy (Dalian) - a European-type city in the east of Asia // Architectural Heritage. – M.: URSS. 2003, No. 45. – P.162-173.

28. Orthodox churches in China // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – Vladivostok, 2002. No. 6. – P.97-107.

29. Historical cities of Yakutia // Architecture of Eastern Siberia and the Far East. Issue 1. Russian cities in the Far East. – Khabarovsk, 2002. – P.10-39, 193-199.

30. Architectural monuments of Konduy // Archeology and cultural anthropology of the Far East. – Vladivostok: DVA RAS, 2002. – P.233-244.

31. Russian cities in China // Architecture of Eastern Siberia and the Far East. Issue 1. Russian cities in the Far East. – Khabarovsk, 2002. – P.109-142, 208-222.

32. Folk architecture of eunuchs in Yakutia // Traditional culture of East Asia. Collection scientific works AmSU. – Blagoveshchensk, 2002. – P.334-346.

33. Rassushin in Harbin // Irkutsk Land. 2003. – No. 1 (21). – P.18-21.

34. Nikiforov N.V. – publisher of an architectural magazine in Harbin // Russia and China at the Far Eastern Frontiers. Issue 5. – Blagoveshchensk: AmSU Publishing House. 2003. – P.268-274.

35. The first temples of the Amur region // Archives at the turn of the century, their role in historical science and the practice of social management. – Khabarovsk: Private collection. 2003. – P.79-87.

36. Architectural monuments of the Art Nouveau era in Transbaikalia // Scientific support of technical and social development Far Eastern region. - Khabarovsk. KhSTU. 2004.

37. Daurian forts // Far East: Problems of development of the architectural and construction complex. Scientific readings in memory of Professor M.P. Danilovsky. Issue 4. – Khabarovsk: KhSTU, 2003. – P.103-113.

38. Orthodox churches in the cities of China // Christian architecture / New materials and research. – M.: Editorial-URSS. 2004. – P.703-730.

39. Far Eastern Library in Khabarovsk: from the history of the construction of its buildings // Bulletin of the Far Eastern State scientific library. - Khabarovsk. 2004. - No. 3 (24). – P.9-21, 137-139 (ill.).

40. Russian fortresses and settlements in the Far East (XVII-XVIII centuries) // Russian Far East in antiquity and the Middle Ages: discoveries, problems, hypotheses. – Vladivostok: Dalnauka. 2005. – P.636-658.

41. Dynasties of Russian architects in China // News of the Union of Architects of Russia. – M., 2005. – No. 1 (23). – P.46-51.

42. Architect Nikitin // Project Baikal. – 2005. – No. 6. – P.27-31.

43. Horse mills // Architectural heritage. – M.: URSS, 2005. – No. 46. – P.136-149.

44. The first architect of Transbaikalia // Project-Baikal. – Irkutsk, 2006. – No. 7. – P.36-38; No. 8. – P.30-32.

45. Russian architects in China: the first half of the 20th century. // Sino-Russian summit forum on the topic of architectural styles and city design. Meeting data. – Harbin, 2006. – P.95-100.

46. ​​Harbin - a new metropolis of China // Project-Baikal. – Irkutsk, 2006. – No. 9. – P.29-35.

47. Modern architecture in China // News of the Union of Architects of Russia. – M., 2006. - No. 3 (29). – P.48-53.

48. N.L. Koshchevsky and S.M. Shirokogorov: friendship and cooperation in Chinese emigration // Ethnographic Review. – 2007. No. 6. – P.5-13.

49. The contribution of Russian architects to the architecture of Harbin // Architecture. Construction. Design. – M., 2007. – No. 4 (49). – P.32-38.

50. Professional and creative organizations of Russian emigrant engineers in China // Architectural Heritage of the Russian Abroad. Second half of the 19th – first half of the 20th century. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2008. – P.110-130.

51. Trading companies “Kunst and Albers” and “I.Ya. Churin and Co” in the Far East // Project Baikal. – 2008. – No. 15. – P.134-137.

52. Amur Exhibition // Project Baikal. – 2008. – No. 15. – P.134-137.

53. Constructivist architecture in the Far East // Project Baikal. – 2008. – No. 16. – P.102-107.

54. Modernism in the architecture of Russian cities of Manchuria // Cultural exchange between the countries of North-East Asia and the Russian Far East. - Harbin. – 2008. – P.510-516.

55. Cult and architecture // Project Baikal. – 2008. – No. 18. – P.64-67.

56. Russian emigrant artists in China // Fine arts, architecture and art history of the Russian Abroad. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2008. – P.45-52.

57. In the footsteps of the Russian Atlantis // Far East: problems of development of the architectural and construction complex: materials of the regional scientific and practical conference. – Khabarovsk: TOGU, 2010. – Issue 11. – P.78-83.

58. Irkutsk merchant I.Ya. Churin and his trading activities in China and the Far East // Irkutsk: the role of the city in the political and cultural life of Russia. To the 350th anniversary of its founding. 1661-2011: Collection of materials of the scientific and practical conference. – M., 2011. – P.261-273.

59. Dallag in Yakutia: an expedition to the sites of Stalin’s camps // My University. - No. 1(13). – 2013. – P.102-109.

60. Military engineer Malinovsky // History and culture of the Amur region. – 2012, No. 2 (12). – P.137-147.

61. Old Yakutsk // Almanac Tobolsk and all Siberia: Yakutsk. XIX volume. – Tobolsk, 2012. – P.82-102.

62. Russian architects and engineers - teachers of the Harbin Polytechnic Institute // Science, education and experimental design-2013. – M.: MARCHI, 2013. – P.44-51.

63. Ilimsky fort in the museum of wooden architecture “Taltsy” near Irkutsk // Project-Baikal. – Irkutsk, 2013. – No. 37-38. – P.44-53.

64. Architecture of Stalin’s camps in Yakutia // Project-Baikal. Irkutsk, 2014. – No. 42. – P.154-162.

65. Vladivostok architectural school: formation, development and features // Far East: problems of development of the architectural, construction and road transport complex: materials of the international scientific and practical conference. - Khabarovsk: Pacific Publishing House. state University, 2014. – Issue 14. – P.113-117.

66. The image of the city as a result of the activities of leading architects // Academia. Architecture and construction. M.: RAASN. – 2015. – No. 3. P.5-12

67. From the history of the military church in honor of the Iveron Mother of God // Balandin Readings - 2015. Novosibirsk, 2015.

68. From the history of the development of the Khabarovsk architectural school // Basic Research RAASN on scientific support for the development of architecture and the construction industry of the Russian Federation in 2014: collection. scientific tr. RAASN / Southwestern State University, edited by A.V. Kuzmina and others - Kursk: Publishing House “Business Printing”, 2015. T.1. – P.16-21.

69. St. Nicholas Cathedral in Harbin as a symbol of Russian Orthodox culture // Ryabinin readings: Materials of a scientific conference. – Petrozavodsk, 2015.

70. Periodicals as a source of materials about Russian emigration in China // Fifth Readings named after V.I. Chernysheva: materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference “Cultural and historical heritage of the Far East: preservation, use, popularization.” – Khabarovsk: JSC “Khabarovsk Regional Printing House”, 2015. – P.165-170.

71. Kradin N.P., Kradin N.N. Kondui antiquities // Questions of history. – M., 2016 (actual 2017). – No. 12. – P. 133-138.

The total number of publications is more than 560, including 30 books.

We are talking about the past expedition season with Nikolai Kradin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Center for Political Anthropology of the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, reports the press center of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 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, employees of our institute participated, there was my right hand– Candidate of Historical Sciences Svetlana Sarantseva, FEFU students, from whom we hope we will grow good specialists and they will work on 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 do the entire survey first, and then start excavation. These are unique archaeological sites and we want to excavate them using the most modern methods with very high quality, so that later we will not be ashamed in front of our 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. At the end of the 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 of the Orthodox Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in the village of Kondui in the mid-19th century. 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 succeed 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 shaft 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 examine all western part and explore the area north of the palace. According to A.K. Kuznetsov, in the north there was a settlement of ordinary people serving 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 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. In part, there is now such a turn in this topic in the 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 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 from high school No. 34 in 1979. 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 Ph.D. thesis on the topic “Socio-economic relations among nomads ( Current state problems and its role in the study of the medieval Far East). 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. at Far Eastern State University (FESU). 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 prominent scholars from eight countries, using specific examples of early Eurasian societies, 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, conduct a systematic analysis of Mongolian society proper in 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, the archaeological monuments of the Khitans, their material culture, economy, territorial and administrative structure, and social system are consistently examined.

Nomads of Eurasia

IN 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 history Mongol Empire 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.

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.

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 the educational process in a wide range of specialties and areas for in-depth training of masters in the field of 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” and general issues of the evolution of nomadic pastoralists in Eurasia.

The publication will be useful not only as a methodological guide for reconstructing 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 of social and historical knowledge.

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