jwsr-v8n3- 368 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems: Pastoral Societies in Theories of Historical Development Nikolay N. Kradin Nikolay N. Kradin Department of Mediaeval Archaeology Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladivostok, RUSSIA kradin@mail.primorye.ru http://ihae.febras.ru/ journal of world-systems research, viii, 1ii, fall 2002, 368–388 http://jwsr.ucr.edu issn 1076–156x © 2002 Nikolay N. Kradin I N T RODUC TION In the modern social sciences and history, there are four groups of theories that variously explain basic principles of origin, further change and, sometimes, collapse of complex human social systems. Th e fi rst of these groups is the vari- ous unilinear theories of development or evolution (Marxism, neoevolutionism, modernization theories etc.). Th ey show how humanity has evolved from local groups of primitive hunters to the modern post-industrial world society. Th e second ones are theories of civilizations. Th e proponents of these theories argue that there is no unifi ed world history. Rather there are separate clusters of cul- tural activity that constitute qualitatively diff erent civilizations. Th e civilizations, like living organisms, are born, live and die (Spengler 1918; Toynbee 1934 etc.). Th e world-systems perspective and multilinear theories of social evolution are intermediate between these poles. Th e world-system approach (Wallerstein 1974 etc.; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; Sanderson 1999 etc.), like unilinear theo- ries of development distinguish three models of society: mini-systems, world- empires and world-economies. But they are considered in space rather than in time. Th is makes the conceptualisation of history more complete. Th e modern multilinear theories (Bondarenko and Korotayev 2000; Korotaev, Kradin, de Munk, Lynsha 2000 etc.) suppose that there are several possible paths of socio-political transformation. Some of these can lead to complexity, e.g. from a chiefdom to a true state; while others suppose the existence of the supercomplex community without a bureaucracy (e.g. Greek polises); while a third group pre- serves the tribal system under particular ecological conditions. I propose to call this school multievolutionism. Th is article discusses the problem of categorizing the polities and social formations of steppe pastoral nomads in Central Asia in comparative and civilizational perspective and placing complex pastoral society within a general scheme of cultural evolution. It also dis- cusses the role that these societies played in the emergence of a larger Eurasian world-system. abstract mailto:kradin@mail.primorye.ru http://ihae.febras.ru/ http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ Nikolay N. Kradin369 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 370 In this paper I will consider the prospects of various methodologies in study- ing the nomadic societies. I begin with the theories of historical stages. SO CI A L EVOLU T ION Social evolution among pastoral nomads has not been well conceptualised. In general essays on cultural evolution nomads are only touched upon indirectly. Th e emphasis in these books is on the evolution of agrarian cultures and civiliza- tions (Sahlins 1968; Service 1971; Adams 1975; Johnson and Earle 1987; Earle 1997 etc.). Some attention to this problem has been given by Marxist anthropologists (see details on this discussion in: Khazanov 1975; 1984; Markov 1976; Kogan 1980; Halil Ismail 1983; Gellner 1988; Bonte 1990; Kradin 1992; Masanov 1995 etc.). Th e prolonged debate about the essence of nomadic societies (including the concept of “nomadic feudalism”) did not lead to the emergence of a generally accepted theory. But some theories have been discarded, especially the orthodox Marxist scheme of fi ve formations. Other viewpoints (e.g. pre-class society of nomads, early state, diff erent interpretations of feudalism among nomads, con- ceptions of nomadic mode of production) continue to contend up to present (see Kradin 1992). For years in anthropology there has been a tradition of following Herbert Spencer in his understanding of social evolution as “change from a rela- tively indefi nite, incoherent homogeneity to a relatively defi nite, coherent hetero- geneity, through successive diff erentiation and integrations” (Carneiro 1973: 90). As H.J.M. Claessen (2000) showed in his brilliant review of neoevolutionism, the current concepts of social evolution are much more fl exible. It is apparent that social evolution has no single line of development. Many channels of evolu- tion do not lead to the development of complexity. Th e obstacles in the way of increasing complexity are vast, and stagnation, decline and even collapse are just as typical of the evolutionary process as any progressive increase in complexity or structural diff erentiation. One can agree with Claessen’s characterization of social evolution as a qualitative reorganization of society from one structural state into another. Nomadic societies are a good confi rmation of these ideas. A cyclical move- ment among pastoral cultures has predominated over the development of com- plexity (but this is a feature not only of nomadic societies [see Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; Hall 2001]). Nomads have many times united into large political formations and created great empires that have subsequently disintegrated. Th e “xenocratic” empires of nomads (based on conquest or extraction of surplus from agrarian societies) represent the upper limits of complexity reached by pastoral societies (Barfi eld 1991; 1992; Hall 1998). Central Asian steppe nomads did not independently evolve beyond this stage of integration. Th ere was an insuperable barrier determined by the rigid ecological conditions of the arid steppe environ- ment. Th is view of nomadic societies is shared by the majority of nomadologists of diff erent countries (Lattimore 1940; Bacon 1958; Krader 1963; Khazanov 1975; 1984; Markov 1976; Kradin 1992; Masanov 1995 etc.). Regarding the problem of general evolution, I think that three levels of cul- tural integration of pastoral nomads are revealed, falling into an order of increas- ing political complexity as follows: 1. acephalous segmentary clan and tribal formations; 2. ‘secondary’ tribe and chiefdom; 3. nomadic empires and ‘quasi-imperial’ pastoral polities of smaller sizes. A changeover from one level to another could occur in either direction (Kradin 1994; 1996b). It is the critical peculiarity of nomadic social evolution that transformation of the political systems did not correlate with other criteria of social complexity. Th e political system of nomads could easily evolve from the acephalous level to more complicated organizations of power and vice versa, but such formal indicators as increase in population density, complex technologies, increase in structural diff erentiation and functional specialization did not occur. When transforming from tribal pastoral systems to nomadic empires only a growth in the total population (due to the addition of conquered populations) takes place. Th e political system becomes more complex and the total number of hierarchical levels increases. From the viewpoint of anthropological theories of social evolution, the key problem is whether or not the nomads could create their own statehood? How should the nomadic empires be classifi ed in anthropological theories of evolu- tion? Th ese questions are currently discussed by researchers of diff erent coun- tries and, especially, by Marxist anthropologists. It should be noted that for the Marxist theory of historical progress, nomadism has become a stumbling block similar to the ‘Asiatic mode of production.’ How could unchanging or cyclical nomadic societies be interpreted within a framework of the common march of the production modes? A unilinear Marxist theory of social progress assumed, primordially, changes from lowest economical forms to the highest ones. However, the economic ‘basis’ of pastoral societies has remained unchanged: the similarities among the modern Masai and Arabs with the ancient Hsiung-nu is very great. Th us, nomadism drops out of a unilinear Marxist dialectic of his- tory. On the other hand, if the economic ‘basis’ of society did not change, then the ‘superstructure’ should be unchanged. But the ‘superstructure’ of the pastoral nomads varied greatly. Th e nomads created giant steppe empires, which later disintegrated to separate Khanates or acephalous lineage societies and all of this Nikolay N. Kradin371 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 372 cal structure of the nomadic society to confi scate prestigious goods from adjacent societies and international sovereignty. With respect to internal relations the ‘state-like’ empires of nomads (apart from some quite explainable exceptions) were based on non-forcible (consen- sual and gift-exchange) relations and they existed at the expense of the external sources without establishment of taxation on the live stockbreeders. All basic economic processes in the stockbreeding society were realized within the limits of individual households. For this reason, there was no need for specialized bureaucratic machinery engaged in the administration-distribution activities. On the other hand, all social contradictions were solved within the framework of traditional institutions of maintenance of internal political stability. A strong pressure upon nomads could cause a decampment or use of retaliatory violence because each free nomad was a warrior at the same time. Finally, in the nomadic empires, the main sign of statehood was absent. According to many current theories of the state, the main distinction between statehood and pre-state forms lies in the fact that a chiefdom’s ruler has only consensual power i.e., in essence authority, whereas, in the state, the government can apply sanctions with the use of legitimated force (Service 1975:16, 296–307; Claessen and Skalnik 1978:21–22, 630, 639–40 etc.). Th e power character of the rulers of the steppe empires was mainly consensual and prevented a monopoly of legal organs. Th e Shan-yu, Khan or Khagan was primarily a redistributor, and his power was provided by personal abilities and ability to obtain prestige goods from the outside and to redistribute them among subjects. It is beyond question that this political system cannot be considered as a true state. However, this is not to say that the nomadic administration structure was primitive. Th e complex societies that Gordon Childe called civilization could appear without the bureaucratic organization of administration. Th e extensive investigations by specialists in the fi eld of ancient history show that the Greek polis was not a true state. Statehood, with its intrinsic bureaucracy, appears fairly late - in the epoch of post-Alexandrian Hellenistic states and in the Roman Empire (Staerman 1989; Berent 2000). However, what term should be used to describe the polities of nomads? Considering their non-state features I prefer to characterize the nomadic polities as “supercomplex chiefdoms” (Kradin 1992; 2000; Trepavlov 1995; Skrynnikova 1997; 2000). Th e nomadic empires, as supercomplex chiefdoms, provide a real prototype of a particular kind of early state. Th e population of typical complex chiefdoms is usually estimated in tens of thousands of people (see, for example: Johnson and Earle 1987: 314) and they are typically ethnically homogenous. But the popula- tion of a multi-national supercomplex chiefdom of nomads may have hundreds contradicts the principles of a unilinear Marxist theory of historical evolution (Gellner 1988:93–97, 114). Th e advocates of the concept of nomadic feudalism and the Engels/Stalin scheme of fi ve modes of production emphasized the diff erence in economical and cultural development between nomads and agrarian civilizations, thereby overestimating the level of the economic ‘basis’ of pastoralism. In these theoreti- cal schemes, many facts were falsifi ed and fi tted to the Procrustean bed of the dogmatic Marxism of the Soviet Union. So, the erroneous division into ‘early’ (pre-feudal and slave-owning societies in ancient Eurasia) and ‘late’ (medieval feudal) nomads has arisen. Advocates of the concept of the pre-class development of nomads sub- jected the concept of ‘nomad feudalism’ to criticism (Markov 1976 etc.). As ‘true’ Marxists, they concentrated on the development level of the economic ‘basis’ of pastoralists. If the ‘basis’ of ancient nomads was not a class one, then the ‘basis’ of the later pastoralists must not be based on class either. On the other hand, primi- tive ‘superstructure’ should be adjusted to primitive ‘basis’. Th erefore, nomads in this approach to social evolution have only approached the late primitive (pre- class, pre-feudal etc.) stage. Th is development in the discussions of Russian nomadologists was already obvious. For example, analysis of the samples from the Ethnographic Atlas of George Murdock (1967) indicates that almost all ethnohistorical known nomads have not approached the state level and nor have they had class stratifi cation (see Korotayev 1991:157, table XI). But the conclusion relative to the pre-state nature of all nomads led to underestimating the development level of the ‘superstructure’ for a number of pastoral societies – the great steppe empires. Th ese empires were also declared pre-state, but were their political organizations really of the same type as that of the Nuer, Hottentots or Kazaks and Kalmyks? At present there are two popular groups of theories explaining the origin and essence of the early state. Th e confl ict or control theories show the origin of state- hood and its internal nature in the context of the relations between exploitation, class struggle, war and interethnic predominance. Th e integrative theories were largely oriented to explaining the phenomenon of the state as a higher stage of economic and public integration (Fried 1967; Service 1975; Claessen and Skalnik 1978; 1981; Cohen and Service 1978; Haas 1982; 1995; Gailey and Patterson 1988; Pavlenko 1989 etc.). However the majority of nomadic empires cannot be unambiguously inter- preted as either chiefdoms or states from the viewpoint of either the confl ict or the integrationist approaches. Th e similarity of the steppe empires to true states clearly manifests itself in relations with the outer world only (military-hierarchi- Nikolay N. Kradin373 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 374 of thousands of people, or more. Some of the nomadic confederacies of Central Asia have had as many as one and half million pastoral nomads. And their terri- tory was several orders greater than areas needed for simple and complex chief- doms. Nomads need a great area of land for pastures! From the viewpoint of neighboring agricultural civilizations (developed preindustrial states), such nomadic societies have sometimes been perceived as independent subjects of international political relations and, quite often, as equal in status to the agrarian empires. Th ese chiefdoms had a complex system of titles of chiefs and functionaries, held diplomatic correspondence with neighboring countries, contracted dynastic marriages with agricultural states, neighboring nomadic empires and ‘quasi-imperial’ polities of nomads. With regard to their settlement systems and urban constructions the nomadic societies had more than temporary camps. Already the Hsiung-nu began to erect fortifi ed settlements, while the ‘headquarters’ of the empires of the Uighur and the Mongols were true towns. Th e construction of splendid burial-vaults and funeral temples for representatives of the steppe elite (e.g. the Pazyryksky burial mounds at al Altai, the Scythian burial mounds in Northern Black Sea Area, the burials located in Mongolian Noin-Ula, the burial mounds of the Saks time in Kazakhstan, the statues of Turkish and Uighur Khagans in Mongolia etc.) were monumental achievements. In several supercomplex chiefdoms the elite attempted to introduce written records (e.g. Hsiung-nu and Turks), while there is a temptation to call some of the nomadic empires (espe- cially the Mongolian Ulus of the fi rst decades of thirteenth century) true states. Th is is supported by the existence of a system of laws (Yasa, the so-called Blue Book - Koko Defter Bichik), as well as legal organs of power, written clerical work and eff orts to introduce taxation under Ogodei (Kradin 1995b). NOM A DIC E M PI R E S A N D M U LTI LI N E A R EVOLU TION Th e empire is one of the forms of the state. Specifi c signs of empires are: (1) the presence of large territories; and (2) the presence of a “metropolis” of the empire and peripheral subsystems dependent on the metropolis (Eisenstadt 1963; Th apar 1981; Kradin 1992; Barfi eld 2000). Th e fundamental diff erence between the nomadic empires was that their “centers” were highly developed only in the military aspect, while they were less developed than the exploited or conquered territories in socio-economic complexity and other attributes of civi- lization. Th ey were actually “peripheries” in themselves. In this case, the nomadic empire can be defi ned as nomadic society organized on the military-hierarchical principle, occupying a quite large space and exploiting the nearby territories, as a rule, by external forms of exploitation (robbery, war and indemnity, extortion of “presents,” non-equivalent trade and tribute). One can identify the following attributes of nomadic empires: (1) multistage hierarchical character of the social organization penetrated at all levels by tribal and super-tribal genealogical ties; (2) dualistic organization (into ‘wings’) or triadic organization (into the ‘wings’ and center) as the principle of administrative division of the empire; (3) military- hierarchical character of the social organization of the center of the empire, more often, on the ‘decimal principle’; (4) coachman service (yam) as a specifi c way of organizing the administrative infrastructure; (5) a specifi c system of power inheritance (empire as the property of the whole khan clan, the institution of co-government—‘kuriltai’); and (6) specifi c character of relations with the agri- cultural world (Kradin 1992; 1995a; 1996a; 2000). It is necessary to distinguish the classical steppe nomadic empires from (1) the similarly mixed agricultural/ pastoral empires in which the nomadic ele- ment played a great role (the Arabian caliphates, the states of Seljuks, Dunai and Volga Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire) and (2) the ‘quasi-imperial’ nomadic state formations which were smaller than empires (European Huns, Avars, Hungarians, Priazov Bulgaria, Kara-kitans, and the Tatar khanates after the col- lapse of the Golden Horde). Nomadic empires were organized in the form of ‘imperial confederations’ (Barfi eld 1981; 1991; 1992; 2000). Th e confederations had an autocratic and state- like look from the outside. Th ey were created to bring the surplus products of agrarian peasants to the steppe nomads. Th eir inner structure was consultative and tribal in form. Th e stability of steppe empires directly depended on the abil- ity of the imperial confederation to extract silk, agricultural products, handicraft articles and delicate jewels from the settled territories. As these products could not be produced under conditions of a stockbreeding economy, obtaining them by use of force and extortion was the priority task of the ruler of nomadic society. By becoming the sole intermediary between China and the Steppe, the ruler of a nomadic society endeavored to control the redistribution of plunder obtained from China and, thereby to strengthen his own power. Th is organized accumu- lation allowed him to maintain the existence of an empire that could not have existed on the basis of the extensive pastoral economy. Th e chiefs of the tribes that made up a steppe empire were incorporated into a military hierarchy of the ‘hundreds’ and ‘thousands.’ However, their inter- nal policy was to a certain degree independent of the policy of the center. Th is peculiarity has been thoroughly analyzed by Th omas Barfi eld using the example of the Hsiung-nu Empire (1981, 1991; 1992: 32–84). A certain degree of autonomy of the pastoral tribes was promoted by the following factors: (1) economic inde- pendence made them potentially independent of the center; (2) basic sources of power (predatory wars, redistribution of tribute and other external subsidies, Nikolay N. Kradin375 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 376 external trade) were quite unstable and involved relations outside the steppe world; (3) general armament restricted the possibility of political pressure upon tribes; (4) for the tribal groupings displeased by a policy of a Khan, the opportu- nity of moving to new places, desertion under the protection of the agricultural civilization or revolt with the aim of overthrowing the disagreeable ruler were feasible alternatives. A mechanism connecting the ‘government’ of the steppe empire and pas- toral tribes was the institution of the gift economy. By manipulating gifts and distributing them among comrades-in-arms and tribal chiefs, the ruler of the steppe empire strengthened his potential infl uence and prestige as the ‘generous khan’. Simultaneously, he bound the persons receiving gifts by the ‘liability’ of the return gift. Tribal chiefs receiving gifts might, on the one hand, satisfy their personal appetites and might on the other hand, strengthen their intratribal status by a distribution of gifts to fellow tribesmen or by organizing ceremonial feasts. In addition to receiving a gift from the ruler, the tribal chief felt as if he also received some part of the ruler’s supernatural charisma and that contributed additionally to rise of his own prestige. Th e integration of tribes into the impe- rial confederation was also achieved by inclusion in the genealogical kindred of diff erent stockbreeding groups, diverse collective arrangements and ceremonies (seasonal meetings of chiefs and festivals, battles, erection of monumental funeral structures etc.). A certain role in the institutionalization of the power of the rulers of nomadic societies was played by their performance of the functions of a sacred intermediary between the society and Heaven (Tenggeri). Subject to the religious conceptions of nomads, a ruler of a steppe society (Shan-yu, Khaghan, Khan) personifi ed the society’s center and, in virtue of his divine abilities, performed rituals that were thought to provide prosperity and stability to the society. Th ese functions were deemed to be of colossal importance for the society. Th erefore, in the case of natural stress or disease and loss of livestock, an unlucky Khan could weaken or lose his charisma. Th e unlucky Khan or chief could be replaced in some nomadic societies or even killed. But ideology was never a predominant variable in power among the nomads. Th e life of the steppe society was fi lled with real alarms and dangers that required quick action from the leader. Th e power of rulers of the steppe empires of Central Asia was mainly based on their ability to extract external surplus product (Kradin 1992, 1996a). Th e most interesting and novel feature of the steppe empires was their dual structure. From outside they appeared to be despotic aggressive state-like societ- ies because they were formed to extract surplus product from outside the steppe. But from within the nomadic empires remained based on the tribal relations without the establishment of taxation and exploitation of the stockbreeders. Th e force of power of the steppe society’s ruler was, as a rule, based on his ability to redistribute earnings of trade, tribute and raids from neighboring countries. From the viewpoint of multilinear evolution the steppe empires were rather diff erent from other early states as well as from most complex chiefdoms. Th is observation provides justifi cation for telling the story of the particular indepen- dent way of evolution of pastoral nomads. NOM A DIC C I V I LIZATION I refer now to the comparative civilizations approach developed by Sorokin, Toynbee and others. In 1934 Toynbee suggested that pastoral nomads could con- stitute a special form of solidifi ed civilization. It is beyond question that pastoral nomadism is a special world that stands in opposition to the world of agrarian civilizations. But nomadic civilization is a metaphor rather than a scientifi c defi ni- tion. If the culture of nomads is defi ned as a civilization then why not also the “civilizations” of hunter-gatherers or horticulturalists? In other words, all types of human cultures could be characterized as civilizations. Can the attributes specifi c to pastoral nomadic civilization be identifi ed? Th e majority of similar attributes (specifi c relation to time and space, hospitality custom, developed system of fi ctive kin relationships, modest needs, unpreten- tiousness, powers of endurance, militarization of society etc.) can also be found in other types of societies. Perhaps, only the special cult relation to the live- stock, main source of subsistence of nomads, distinguishes them from all other societies. In the thinking of Toynbee each civilization is based on a particular psycho-cultural unity and goes through the stages of growth, prosperity and col- lapse. Nomadism is something other than civilization. Its prosperity occurred during the very long period from the First millennium BCE to the middle of the Second millennium CE. During this period a number of settled-agricultural civilizations appeared and collapsed. Th e same fate was met for many nomadic societies during the period of nomadic steppe empires. It is not likely that the nomads thought of themselves as a unifi ed cultural group standing in opposition to other nations and civilizations. Hyksos and Hsiung-nu, medieval Arabian and Mongolian Kereyid, Nuer from Sudan and reindeer-breeder from Arctic have been assigned not only to diff erent ethnic groups, but belonged to diff erent cul- tural communities. Of course some pastoral nomadic societies could contribute to the core of an emergent civilization (e.g. Arabians), while others could play the role of “barbarian” periphery of an agrarian civilization (Hyksos before the conquest of Egypt) while others could appear beyond the civilizational process prior to the beginning of modern Western colonialism (e.g. Nuers, Chukchi). It is more accurate to tell about the separate large nomadic patterns rather Nikolay N. Kradin377 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 378 than to try to erect a large general category based on the notion of pastoral nomadic civilization. Th e Russian historian Lev Gumilev (1989) has associated the processes of the origin and development of civilization with particular geo- graphical zones. From this viewpoint, the Arabian Peninsula was such an area where in seventh century CE the Arabian civilization emerged. Inner Asia was also a specifi c geographical zone. In opinion of a number of authors, the unifi ed steppe civilization has been here in existence beginning with the Hsiung-nu time (or even earlier) (Perlee 1978; Urbanaeva 1994 etc.). Th ese scientists identifi ed the following characteristic signs of the civilization under consideration: admin- istrative division into wings, decimal numeration, ideas of power, enthroniza- tion ceremonies, love for horse and camel races, a particular world outlook, etc. It is easy to note that many of these signs are among the attributes of pastoral nomadic empires mentioned above. Nevertheless, of all versions of the civiliza- tion approach, only this is worthy of notice as applied to the history of nomadic stockbreeders. A further popular idea is the theory of the nomadic mode of production (Markov 1967; Bonte 1990). Th is discourse has emerged in Marxist anthropol- ogy. Th e nomadic mode of production is conceived as a technological mode of production rather than a social one. It is thus compared with hunting, fi shing, and agriculture rather than with primitive, Asiatic, feudal and other social modes of production. On the basis of one technological mode of production, diff erent social modes of production could exist. Th e model of the nomadic mode of pro- duction is a too generalized pattern. All possible political formations of nomadic societies fall into the framework of this unifi ed model. But African Nuers live in the separate lineages and are only united by very complicated genealogical ties. Th e same social organization was probably characteristic of ancient Ukhians roaming from place to place on the Inner Mongolia steppe. Tuaregs, Kalmyks and Kazakhs had a developed inner property and social stratifi cation. Th ey were consolidated in tribal confederations that included several tens of thousands of people. Hsiung-nu, Turks, and Mongols organized steppe empires that included many hundreds of thousands (even up to million and more) nomads (Barfi eld, 1992; Kradin, 1996a etc.). Th e diff erences in the complexity of social political system between Nuers and Ukhuans, on the one hand, and Hsiung-nu and Mongols, on the other, are considerable. For this reason, I reject the use of the notion of a nomadic mode of production. Russian social science has, in recent decades, devoted a lot of attention to producing a synthesis between the theories of social stages and civilizational approaches. It is fundamentally impossible to do this completely on the basis of orthodox Marxism. At the same time, another powerful theoretical line has emerged—the world-systems approach. Within this framework the meth- odological synthesis between the evolutionary approach to history (from the lineage reciprocity mini-systems to the capitalist world-system based on the commodity-money relations) and the perspective of history as a totality of dif- ferent large regional systems (e.g. world-empires, world-economies) has been successfully combined. NOM A DIC SO C I ETI E S A N D WOR LD E M PI R E DY NA M IC S In accordance with the world-systems approach, the main unit of develop- ment is a great system which includes groups of polities rather than a single coun- try. In this group, the ‘center’ (core) is identifi ed, which exploits a ‘periphery’. Th e core has a higher level of technology and production and more complex internal structure and gets maximum profi t. Th e core societies pump out the resources of the periphery, organize fi nancial and trade fl ows, and arrange the economic space of the system (Wallerstein 1974; 1980; 1984; Ekholm and Friedman 1979; Santley and Alexander 1982; Rowlands, Larsen, and Kristiansen 1987 etc.; Frank, Gills 1994; Hall 1996; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; 2000; Chase-Dunn 1998; Sanderson 1999 etc.). I. Wallerstein identifi es three modes of production: (1) mini-systems based on reciprocation, (2) redistributive world-empires, (3) capitalist world-system (world-economy) based on the commodity and money relations (1984: 160ff ). Th e world-empires exist to exact tributes and taxes from provinces and captured colonies that are redistributed by the bureaucratic government. Th e distinctive feature of world-empires is administrative centralization and the pre- dominance of the polity over the economy, according to Wallerstein. However, such an approach to the evolution of preindustrial systems is incomplete. It is necessary to note two important circumstances. First, in addi- tion to the hierarchical world-empires, there were also peer-polity systems (Frank 1992; Frank, Gills 1994; Chase-Dunn, Hall 1997). Ancient Greece and medieval Europe served as examples of the coexistence of multi-polity systems (see Renfrew and Cherry 1986). Andrey Korotayev has shown that the West was no exception. In ancient Arabia, several centers and peripheral systems have coexisted in what he calls a ‘multipolity’ (Korotayev 1995; 1996). Th erefore, in the preindustrial period, a division of labor between separate elements of regional systems could be performed on the basis of diff erent models of interaction. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify how many such models and preindustrial modes of production (I use here this term so as it is understood by Wallerstein) there could, in principle, be? Th is question was formulated by Andrey Fursov who moved an emphasis from the traditional Marxist problem ‘how many modes of production have existed in history’ to another plane (1989:298). Nikolay N. Kradin379 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 380 Two models of interaction are known: redistributive “World-empires” and polycentric “World-economies” (Chase-Dunn 1988; Frank, Gills 1994). As to the modes of production, it is more complex. Fursov has created a solid social philo- sophical theory in which all the main present-day theories were synthesized. In this opinion, living labor manifests itself in two forms—individual and collective. Th e more developed is production, the more independent is collective labor. In preindustrial systems, a relationship of collective (C) and individual (I) is fi xed in the social organization (Gemeinwesen). Only three types of relationship are possible: C > I, C = I, C < I. Th ey correspond to the ‘Asiatic’, ‘Ancient’, and Germanic’ forms of Gemeinwesen identifi ed by Marx. I would like to add something to Fursov’s classifi cation. His classifi cation lacks an important type: C > C, when one collective exploits another one. Th e pastoral nomadic empires occupy this place. Th ey were also redistributive societies. But they diff ered from the agrarian empires and the ‘Asiatic’ mode of production (where a government levied a tribute and taxes on its subjects) On the steppes the pastoral economy of nomads was carried out within the family-related and lineage groups and based on mutual aid and reciprocation. Redistribution only aff ected the external sources of the empire’s income: plunder, tribute, trading duties and gifts. Th e nomads, in a given situation, took the part of ‘class-society’ and ‘state-society’, rising as a building over the settled-agrarian foundation. For this, the nomad elite performed the functions of bureaucracy and commanders, while the ordinary pastoralists were the soldiers of expansion and repressions. Such a society might be called xenocratic (Kradin 1992; 1993; 1995a; 1996a; 1996b; 2000). Th ere is some similarity between the xenocratic pastoral polity and ‘African’ mode of production of K. Coquery-Vidrovitch (1969) as well ‘tribute-paying’ formation S. Amin (1976:13–19; 1991). Th ey are made similar by a dependence of the government on the external sources of subsistence as well as by the semiperipheral position in the international division of labor. Th e concept of semiperiphery was introduced by Wallerstein to designate the intermediate zone between the center and periphery. Th e semiperiphery is exploited by the core but itself exploits a periphery as well as being an important stabilizing element in the world division of labor. I. Wallerstein argues that the three tiered structure is characteristic of many organizations. Th e intermediate tier provides fl exibility and elasticity of the whole system (e.g. centrist parties, middle classes, etc.). Th e concept of the semiperiphery was developed mainly to describe pro- cesses in the present-day capitalist world-system. In the preindustrial period, some functions of the semiperiphery could be performed by the trading city- states of ancient times and the middle ages (Tyre, Carthage, Venice, Genoa, Malacca). Marcher states that conquered core regions to form larger empires were often also originally located in semiperipheral regions (e.g. Akkad in Mesopotamia, Macedonia, Rome) (Chase-Dunn 1988; Chase-Dunn, Hall 1997). Th e Central Asian steppe empires of nomads were also the militarist “satellites” of agrarian civilizations as this process was fi guratively pictured by O. Lattimore (1962)—“barbarism is a result of civilization.” However, the nomads also per- formed important intermediary functions between distant core regions. Similar to seafarers, they provided the connections for fl ows of goods, fi nances, techno- logical and cultural information and epidemic diseases between the islands of the settled economy and urban civilization. However, it would be an error to consider the nomadic empires as repre- senting the semiperiphery. Th e semiperiphery is often exploited by the core, whereas the nomadic empires were never exploited by agrarian civilizations. Any society of the semiperiphery aspires to technological and production growth. Th e mobile mode of life of pastoral nomads did not provide the opportunity to make great accumulations (livestock could be accumulated but the quantities were limited by the productivity of the pastures and this natural ‘bank’ could at any instant go bankrupt due to drought or snowstorm) and their society was based on the gift economy. All plunder was distributed by the rulers of the steppe empires between the tribal chiefs and stockbreeders and consumed during mass festive occasions. Th e nomadic societies were doomed to remain peripheral. Only conquest of the core allowed them to become a ‘center’. But for this purpose it was necessary to cease to be a nomad. Th e Great Yeh-lu Ch’u-ts’ai realized this: “Although you inherited the Chinese Empire on horseback, you cannot rule it from that position.” Th ere is a close temporal relationship between the prosperity of the agrar- ian core state and the power of the nomadic empires. It was most usually the case that the steppe empires arose and were sustained during periods in which the imperial agrarian state was also strong and prosperous. In Inner Asia this correlation is especially clear for here there are many areas of pasture that made possible the formation of a large steppe empire from tribes and chiefdoms. Th e Han dynasty and Hsiung-nu Empire arose during the same decade. Th e Turkish Khaganate arose just as China was united under the power of the dynasties of Sui and, later, T’ang. And, in contrast, the periods of crisis in the fourth, fi fth and tenth centuries in China led to political entropy in the steppe areas. Th is phenomenon gave ground to the Japanese historian J. Tamura’s iden- tifi cation of two long cycles in the history of Northern Eurasia: (1) the cycle of ancient nomadic empires within the arid zone of Inner Asia (second century BCE – ninth century CE): Hsiung-nu, Hsien-pi, Jou-jan, Turks, Uighurs; (2) the cycle of the medieval conquest dynasties coming from the forest ( Jurchen, Nikolay N. Kradin381 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 382 parts. Th e Second Khaganate of the Turks and Uighurs was unable to restore unity in Eurasia. As a result of the next confl ict in China and drought on the Mongolian steppes, the peoples of Manchuria - Khitans and Jurchen - began to play the leading part. Th e Mongolian storm of the thirteenth century coincided with a new period of moistening in Mongolia and the steppes of Eastern Europe (Ivanov and Vasiljev 1995: 205 table 25) and with a demographic and economic upturn in all parts of the Old World. Th is brought the culmination of the history of preindustrial empires. Th e Mongols merged a chain of international trade into the united complex of land and sea routes. For the fi rst time, all the great regional cores (Europe, Muslim area, India, China, Golden Horde) proved to be united in the fi rst Eurasian-wide empire (Abu-Lughod 1989; Barfi eld 1991; Hall 1996; Wilkinson 1996; Chase-Dunn, Hall 1997). On the steppe, similar to fantastic mirages, there arose gigantic cities—centers of political power, transit trade, multinational culture and ideology (Karakorum, Sarai-Batu, Sarai-Berke). From this time, political and economical changes in some parts of the world began to play a much greater part in the history of distant other parts of the world. Th e existence of the fi rst Eurasian-wide empire did not last long. Th e plague, the ejection of the Mongols from China and the decline of the Golden Horde became the most important links of the chain of events that conditioned its downfall. Demographers mark the serious crisis in all its main sub-centers in the period of 1350–1450 (Biraben 1979). At the beginning of fi fteenth century, the fi rst Eurasia-wide empire disintegrated. Tamerlane’s desperate eff orts to restore the transcontinental trade met, in the end, with failure. Th e Ming resumed the traditional policy of opposing the nomads that resulted in the regeneration of an older policy of the Mongols to remotely exploit China (Pokotilov 1976). In the emerging Europe-centered capitalist world-system, the nomads were allotted quite another position. Machine technology, fi rearms and new sources of energy changed the balance of power to their disadvantage. Since that time, the steppe hinterland has ceased to play an important role in the dynamics of world-system processes. CONC LUSION In closing, one can draw several conclusions. More than two and half centuries ago, Montesquieu in L’Espirit des lois worked out the law of ‘political gravitation’. He argued that democracy is a characteristic of small societies; monarchy—of middle-size ones, while the despotic empire is typical of large societies. I think we can apply this law to describe pastoral nomads. If the neighbors of pastoral- ists were acephalous segmentary societies (as Nuers in Africa and Ukhuans in Manchurians) or steppe (Khitans, Mongols) zones (tenth century - beginning twentieth century): Liao, Chin, Yuan, Ch’ing. Th e societies of the fi rst cycle inter- acted with China at a distance whereas the states of the second conquered the agricultural South and established symbiotic state structures with dual manage- ment systems and new forms of culture and ideology (1974). Th e concept of T. Barfi eld is more complex. He not only established a syn- chrony between the growth and decline of the nomadic empires and similar processes in China, but noted also that the conquest of China was, as a rule, a business of the Manchurian people. Th e breakdown of centralized power in China and on the steppes released the forest-dwelling tribes in Manchuria from pressure from both of these adjacent powers. Manchuria’s people estab- lished their state formations and conquered the agricultural areas on the South when both of their neighboring competitors were weak. Th e Khitan, Jurchen, and Manchu succeeded in conquest. In Barfi eld’s opinion, a cyclical process of synchronous state formation among the peoples of China and Central Asia was repeated three times over a period of two thousand years (Barfi eld 1991; 1992:13 table 1.1). Th e theories of Tamura and Barfi eld complement each other. Th e relations among migrations and crises of agrarian empires and the activities of nomads is evident. In this paper, I pointed out already that the formation of early nomadic empires (Scythia, Parthia, Hsiung-nu etc.) fell within the fi nal period of the axial age when the powerful agrarian empires (Ch’in and Han in China, Persia and Hellenistic states in Asia Minor etc.) were established. Th e fi rst global demographic crisis of our millennium (third through fi fth centuries) occurred at nearly the same time in diff erent parts of Eurasia (Biraben 1979: 13–24). It was not only a coincidence that this was also the epoch of the ‘great migration of peoples’. Contrary to popular opinion the nomads did not at all desire to conquer the agrarian territories. In order to rule an agrarian society, the nomads would necessarily have to give up their nomadism and their horses. Th is they were ill disposed to do. It was only during periods of crisis and collapse of the settled societies that the steppe nomads were forced to enter into closer relations with the farmers and townspeople. As R.Grousset (1939) has vividly written, “vacuum has sucked in them inside the agrarian society.” Th e Sui and, subsequently, T’ang successes caused a new joining up of all tribes and chiefdoms of Inner Asia in the imperial confederation of Turks. It is possible that a particular eff ect on this process was exerted by regular periods of a moister climate on the Mongolian steppes (Ivanov and Vasiljev 1995: 205 table 25). Th e First Khaganate of the Turks became the fi rst true Eurasian-wide empire. It connected, through trade routes, China, Byzantium and the Muslim World. But this unity was fragile. It quickly collapsed into western and eastern Nikolay N. Kradin383 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 384 Manchuria in the last centuries BCE) then the pastoralists themselves were at the level of tribal formations. In each local regional zone, the political structura- tion of the nomadic periphery was in direct proportion to the size of the core. Th at is the reason why, in order to trade with oases town or to attack them, the nomads of North Africa and the Near East have united into ‘tribal confedera- tions’ of chiefdoms, nomads of the East European steppes living on the margins of the Ancient Rus established ‘quasi-imperial’ state-like structures, while in Inner Asia the ‘nomadic empire’ became such an important mode of adaptation. Th e imperial and ‘quasi-imperial’ organization of the nomads in Eurasia devel- oped after the ending of the ‘axial age’ ( Jaspers 1949), from the middle of the fi rst millennium BCE at the time of the mighty agricultural empires (Ch’in in China, Mauryan in India, Hellenistic states in Asia Minor, Roman Empire in Europe). Th e nomadic empire is a distinctive xenocratic form of mode of production. Inside, it was a supercomplex chiefdom. It was based on the redistribution by the khan (chief ) of profi ts from war, extortion, and international trade. On the outside, it was a militaristic collective exploiter of agrarian states and civiliza- tions. I think it is not only a special mode of production but also a unique path of cultural evolution. On can agree with Th omas Barfi eld (2000) who referred to the steppe poli- ties as “shadow empires.” A.G. Frank has considered Eurasia as a common space that has long related the West to the East (1992) and a similar approach was developed in the works of the Russian Eurasianists of the 1920s. As the world became a single system the steppe was a ‘pipe’ between the ‘vessels’ that were the agrarian civilizations. R E F E R E NC E S Abu-Lughod, J. . Before European Hegemony: Th e World-System A.D. –. New York: Oxford University Press. Adams, R. . Energy and Structure. A Th eory of Social Power. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. Amin, S. . Unequal Development. New York and London: Harvester Press. Amin, S. . “Th e Ancient World-system Versus Modern World-System.” Review , No . Barfi eld, T. . “Th e Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy.” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. XLI, No : –. Barfi eld, T. . “Inner Asia and Cycles of Power in China’s Imperial Dynastic History.” Pp. – in G. Seaman and D. Marks (eds.) Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation on the Eurasian Periphery. Los Angeles, CA Barfi eld, T. . Th e Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China,  bc to ad . Cambridge: Blackwell (First published in ). Barfi eld, T. . “Th e Shadow Empires: Imperial State Formation along the Chinese- Nomad Frontier..” in C. Sinopoli, T. D’Altroy, K. Morrision and S. Alcock.(eds.) Empires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berent, M. . “Th e Stateless Polis: the Early State in the Ancient Greek Community.” In D.M. Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason. N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev (eds.) Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok: –. Biraben, J. N. . “Essai sur l’évolution du nombre des hommes.” Population  (): –. Bondarenko, D.M. and A.V. Korotayev (eds.) . Civilizational models of politogenesis. Moscow. Bonte, P. . “French Marxist Perspectives on Nomadic Societies.” Pp. – in C. Salzman and J.G. Galaty (eds.). Nomads in a Changing World. Naples. Carneiro, R. . “Th e Four Faces of Evolution.” Pp. – in J.J. Honigman (ed.) Handbook of social and cultural anthropology. Chicago. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. . “Comparing world-systems: toward a theory of semiperipheral development.” Comparative Civilizations Review : –. Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Th omas D. Hall. . Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press. Chase-Dunn, Christopher, Th omas Hall, and Susan Manning. . “Rise and Fall: East-West Synchronicity and Indic Exceptionalism Reexamined” Social Science History. ,: –(Winter) . Claessen H.J.M. . Structural Change: Evolution and Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University. Claessen, H.J.M. and P. Skalnik.  (eds.). Th e Early State. Th e Hague: Mouton. Claessen, H.J.M. and P. Skalnik.  (eds.). Th e Study of the State. Th e Hague etc. Cohen, R. and E. Service  (eds.). Th e Origin of the State. Philadelphia. Copans, J. . “Mode de production: formation sociale, ou ethnic?: Les leçons d’un long silence de l’anthropologie marxiste française.” Canadian Journal of African Studies  (): –. Coquery-Vidrovitch, K. . “Recherches sur un mode de la production africaine.” La Pansee No . Earle, T. . How Chiefs Come to Power: Th e Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford (Cal.): Stanford Univ. Press. Eisenstadt, S. . Th e Political Systems of Empires. London: Collier-Macmillan. Ekholm, K. and J. Friedman . ‘Capital,’ imperialism, and exploitation in ancient world systems. Power and propaganda. A symposium on ancient empires. Ed,. by M.T. Larsen. Copenhagen: –. Frank, A.G. . Th e Centrality of Central Asia. Amsterdam: VU University Press. Center for Asian Studies, Comparative Asian Studies No. . Frank, A.G. and B. Gills. . Th e World System:  or  Years? London: Routledge. Fried, M. . Th e Evolution of Political Society: an essay in political anthropology. N.Y.: Columbia Univ. Press. Nikolay N. Kradin385 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 386 Fursov, A.V. . Revolutsiia kak immanentnaia forma razvitiia evropeiskogo istoricheskogo subjekta [Revolution as the immanent form of the development of the European historical subject]. Annuaire d’etudes francaises . Moscow: –. Fursov, A.V. . “Vostok, Zapad, kapitalism [Orient, West, Capitalism].” Kapitalism na Vostoke vo vtoroi polovine XX veka. Ed. by V.G. Rastiannikov. Moscow: –. Gailey, C. and T. Patterson (eds.) . Power Relations and State Formation. Washington. Gellner, E. . State and Society in Soviet Th ought. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Grousset, R. . L’empire des steppes. Attila, Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan. Paris. Gumilev, L.N. . Etnogenes i biosfera zemi [Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth]. nd ed. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. Gumilev, L.N. . Ritmy Evrasii [Th e Cycles of Eurasia]. Moscow: Ekopros. Haas, J. . Th e Evolution of the Prehistoric State. New York: Columbia Univ. press. Haas, J. (ed.). . “Th e Roads to Statehood.” Pp. – in N.N. Kradin and V.A. Lynsha (eds.) Alternative Pathways to Early State. Vladivostok Halil, Ismail. . “Issledovanie hosiaistva i obshchestven-nykh otnoshenii kochevnikov Asii (vkliuchaia Juzhnuiu Sibir’) v sovetskoi literature – [Th e Study of economic and social relations among the nomads of Asia (including South Siberia) in Soviet anthropology of the s-s].” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Moscow, Moscow University, Ethnology. Hall, T.D. . “Civilizational change and role of nomads.” Comparative Civilizations Review : –. Hall, Th omas .D. . “World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal.” Journal of World-Systems Research (): –. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/. Hall, Th omas D. . “Chiefdoms, States, Cycling, and World-Systems Evolution: A Review Essay.” Journal of World-systems Research  (): –. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/. Ivanov, I.V. and I. V. Vasiljev. . Chelovek, priroda i pochvy Ryn-peskov Volgo- Uralskogo meshdurechya v golocene [Ryn-Sands country during the Holocene: man and nature]. Moscow: Intellect. Jaspers, K. . Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. Zurich. Johnson, A.W. and T. Earle. . Th e Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Groups to Agrarian State. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press. Khazanov, A.M. . Sotsial’naia istoriia skifov [Th e Social history of Scythians]. Moscow: Nauka. Khazanov, A.M. . Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kogan, L.S. . Problemy sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo stroia kochevykh obshchestv v istoriko-ekonomicheskoi literature [Th e Problems of socio-economic organization of nomadic societies in historical and economic thought]. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Alma-Ata, Institute of economy. Korotayev, A.V. . “Nekotorye economicheskie predposylki klassoobrasavaniia i politogenesa [Some economic preconditions of the origins of the state and classes].“Arkhaicheskoe obshchestvo: Uslovye problem sociologii rasvitiia. Ed. by A.V. Korotaev, V.V. Chubarov. Moscow: –. Korotayev, A.V. . Ancient Yemen: Some General Trends of Evolution of the Sabaic Language and Sabaean Culture. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Korotayev, A.V. . Pre-Islamic Yemen: Socio-Political Organization of the Sabaean Cultural Area in the nd and rd Centuries A.D. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. Korotayev, A.V., N.N.Kradin, V. de Munck, and V.A.Lynsha. . “Alternativity of Social Evolution: Introductory Notes.” Pp. – in N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, D.M. Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason. (eds.) Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok. Kradin, N.N. . Kochevye obshchestva [Nomadic Societies]. Vladivostok: Dalnauka. Kradin, N.N. . “Specifi c Features of Evolution in the Nomadic Societies.” Prehistory and Ancient History  (). Seoul: –. Kradin, N.N. . “ Tribe, chiefdom and Empire in Pastoral Societies.” Bridges of the Science between North Americas and the Russian Far East. Abstracts. B. . Vladivostok: –. Kradin, N.N. a. “Th e Origins of the State Among the Pastoral Nomads.” Etnohistorische Wege und Lehrjahre eines Philosophen. Festschrift fur Lawerence Krader zun . Geburstag. Hrsg. D.Schorkowitz. Frankfurt am Main: –. Kradin, N.N. b. “Th e Transformation of Political Systems from Chiefdom to State: Mongolian Example, (?)–.” Alternative Pathways to Early State. Ed. By N.N. Kradin and V.A. Lynsha. Vladivostok: –. Kradin, N.N. a. Imperiia Hunnu [Th e Hsiung-nu Empire]. Vladivostok: Dalnauka. Kradin, N.N. b. “Social Evolution among the Pastoral Nomads.” XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Science. Section . Th e Prehistory of Asia and Oceania. Colloquium XXXI. Th e Evolution of Nomadic Herding Civilizations in the Northern European Steppes: the Tools of Archaeology and History Compared. Forli: –. Kradin, N.N. . “Nomadic Empires in Evolutionary Perspective.” Alternatives of Social Evolution. Ed. by N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, D.M. Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, : –. Lattimore, O. . Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York and London. Lattimore, O. . “Civilization, mére de barbarie?” Annales, No : –. Markov, G.E. . Kochevniki Asii [Th e Nomads of Asia]. Moscow, Moscow Univ. Press. Masanov, N.E. . Kochevaia civilizatsiia kazakhov [Th e Nomadic Civilization of the Kazaks]. Moscow & Almaty. Murdock, G.P. . Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh: Th e University of Pittsburgh Press. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ Nikolay N. Kradin387 Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems 388 Wallerstein, I. . Th e Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy –. New York: Academic Press. Wallerstein, I. . Th e Politics of the World-Economy. Paris: Maison de Science de l’Homme. Wilkinson, D. . “World-Economic Th eories and Problems: Quigley vs. Wallerstein vs Central Civilization.” Journal of World-Systems Research, :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/. Pavlenko, Yu.V. . Ranneklassovye obshchestva: genesis i puti rasvitiia [Th e Early Class Societies: the origins and the ways of development]. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Perlee Kh. . Nokotorye voprosy istorii kochevoy civilizatsii drevnikh mongolov [Some questions of the history of the nomadic civilization of ancient Mongols]. Unpublished Dr. Sc. Dissertation. Ulanbaatar. Pokotilov, D.  []. History of the eastern Mongols During the Ming Dynasty from  to . Philadelphia: Porcupine Press. Renfrew, C. and J. Cherry  (eds.). Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. press. Rowlands, M., M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen  (eds.). Center and periphery in the ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sahlins, M. . Tribesmen. Englewood Cliff s: Prentice-Hall. Sanderson, S.K. (ed.)  Civilizations and World Systems. Walnut Creek, CA.: Altamira Press. Sanderson, S.K. . Social Transformations: A General Th eory of Historical Development, expanded edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld [orig. , Blackwell]. Santley, R.S. and R.T. Alexander . “Th e Political Economy of Core-Periphery Systems.” Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction. Ed. by E.M. Schortman and P.A. Urban. New York: –. Service, E. . Primitive Social Organization. nd. ed. New York: Radmon House. Service, E. . Origins of the State and Civilization. New York: Norton. Skrynnikova, T.D. . Kharisma i vlast’ v epokhu Chinggis-khana [Charisma and Power During the Epoch of Chinggis Khan]. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura. Skrynnikova, T.D. . “Mongolian nomadic society of the empire period.” Pp. – in N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotayev, D.M. Bondarenko, V. de Munck, and P.K. Wason (eds.) Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Spengler O. . Decline of the West. New York: Knopf. Staerman E.M. . “K probleme vozniknoveniia gosudarstva v Rime [On the problem of the formation of the state in the Rome].” Vestnik drevnei istorii, No : –. Tamura, J. . Chugoku seituko oche-no kenkyu [Study of Conquest Dynasties in China]. Vol.–. Kyoto. Th apar, R. . “Th e State as Empire.” Pp. – in H.J.M. Claessen and P. Skalnik. (eds.) Th e Study of the State. Th e Hague. Toynbee, A. . A Study of History. Vol.III. London: Oxford University Press. Trepavlov, V.V. . “Th e Nogay alternative: from a state to a chiefdom and backwards.” Pp. – in N.N.Kradin, V.A.Lynsha.(eds.) Alternative Pathways To Early State. Vladivostok. Urbanaeva I.S. . Chelovek u Baikala I mir Centralnoy Asii [Man at the Baikal and the World of the Central Asia]. Ulan-Ude. Wallerstein, I. . Th e Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origin of the European World-economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. Kradin