Imperial Character and Balance of Power in Central Asian Turkic Nomadic Peoples

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 5, 1586 - 1606, 03.11.2023

Ayten Akcan

Abstract

When discussing the existence or non-existence of the state in ancient Central Asia, or whether it had the character of an empire, it should be kept in mind that the administrative systems of the Turkic nomadic peoples were too complex and multifaceted to be explained by simple definitions. Since the known features of the political organization among the nomadic empires of Central Asia do not fully meet the accepted criteria of state power (developed legal and judicial system, specialized bureaucracy in the central and provincial administrative apparatus, financial system, etc.), Western researchers have made vague and ambiguous interpretations of the political organization of these communities. The imperial character of the Turkic peoples living in the steppe was in fact a structural crisis that emerged within the nomadic community. In order to overcome this crisis, the steppe Turkic communities became militarized by establishing a military-hierarchical structure. This study aims to draw attention to the multicomponent power structure of nomadic empires and to draw attention to the fact that institutions at different levels in political formations may have been adapted to and interacted with clan and tribal structures, supra-tribal confederations, imperial and/or early state hierarchies to varying degrees in different historical periods. It will also address how the internal differentiation in the administrative activities of the Turkic nomadic empires in Central Asia was reflected in the components of political culture and how a balance of power was established.

Keywords

Central Asia, Ancient Turks, nomadism, state, empire, political organization.

Orta Asya Türk Göçebe Halklarında İmparatorluk Karakteri ve Güç Dengesi

Abstract

Eski Çağ Orta Asya’sında devletin varlığı ya da yokluğu ya da imparatorluk karakterinde olup olmadığı tartışması yapılırken Türk göçebe halklarının yönetim sistemlerinin basit tanımlarla açıklanamayacak kadar karmaşık ve çok yönlü olgular içerdiği unutulmamalıdır. Orta Asya’nın göçebe imparatorlukları arasındaki siyasî örgütlenmenin bilinen özellikleri, devlet iktidarının kabul edilen kriterlerini (gelişmiş hukuk ve yargı sistemi, merkez ve taşra yönetim aygıtında uzmanlaşmış bürokrasi, malî sistem, vb) tam olarak karşılamadığından, batılı araştırmacılar bu toplulukların siyasî teşkilatlanmaları adına muğlak ve belirsiz yorumlarda bulunmuşlardır. Bozkırda yaşayan Türk halklarının imparatorluk karakterine ulaşmaları aslında göçebeler topluluğu içindeki ortaya çıkan yapısal bir krizdir. Bu krizin üstesinden gelmek adına bozkır Türk toplulukları askerî-hiyerarşik bir yapı kurarak militanlaşmaya gitmişlerdir. Bu çalışma göçebe imparatorlukların çok bileşenli güç yapısını da dikkat çekerek, siyasî oluşumlarda, farklı düzeylerdeki kurumlar klan ve kabile yapısına, kabile-üstü konfederasyonlara, imparatorluk ve/veya erken devlet hiyerarşisine farklı tarihsel dönemlerde değişen oranlarda uyarlanmış ve bunlarla etkileşim halinde olarak oluşmuş olabileceği konusuna dikkat çekmek amacını taşımaktadır. Aynı zamanda Orta Asya’daki Türk göçebe imparatorlukların yönetim faaliyetlerindeki içsel farklılaşmaların siyasî kültür bileşenlerine nasıl yansıdığı ve tam anlamıyla bir güç dengesinin nasıl kurulduğu konusuna da değinilecektir.

Keywords

Orta Asya, Eski Türkler, göçebelik, devlet, imparatorluk, siyasî teşkilatlanma.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın, hazırlık, veri toplama, analiz ve bilgilerin sunumu olmak üzere bu aşamalarda bilimsel etik ilke ve kurallarına uyduğumu; çalışmanın özgün olduğunu ayrıca çalışma kapsamında elde edilmeyen tüm veri ve bilgiler için kaynak gösterildiğini ve bu kaynakların kaynakçada yer aldığını; bu verilerde herhangi bir değişiklik yapmadığımı kabul eder, tüm koşullarını riayet ettiğimi beyan ederim. Çalışmayla ilgili yaptığım bu beyana aykırı bir durum saptanırsa, ortaya çıkacak tüm ahlaki ve hukuki sonuçlara razı olduğumu bildiririm.

References

• Bacon, E. (1958). Obok. A Study of Social Structure of Eurasia. Wenner-Gren Foundation.
• Barfield, T. (1981). The Hsiung-nu Imperial. Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy. Journal of Asian Studies, 41 (1), 45-61.
• Barfield, T. (1989). The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Blackwell.
• Barfield, T. (2000). The Shadow Empires: Imperial State Formation along the Chinese Nomad Frontier. In Sinopoli, C., D'Altroy, T., Morrision, K., and Alcock, S. (eds.), Empires (pp. 10-41). Cambridge University Press.
• Barfield, T. (2011). Something New Under the Sun: The Mongol Empire's Innovations in Steppe Political Organisations and Military Strategy. In Enkhtuvshin, B. (eds.), Nomadic Civilizations in Cross Cultural Dialogue (pp. 93-104). Ulaanbaatar: International Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations.
• Berent, M. (2000). The Stateless Polis: The Early State and the Ancient Greek Commu-nity. In Kradin, N. N., Korotayev, A. V., Bondarenko, D. M., de Munck, V., and Wason, P. (eds.), Alternatives of Social Evolution (pp. 225-241). Vladi-vostok: Far-Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
• Bichurin, N. (1950a). Sobranie svedenii o narodakh, obitavshikh v Srednei Asii v drevnie vremena (Eski Zamanlarda İç Asya Halkları Hakkında Toplanan Bilgiler). Cilt 1. SSCB Bilimler Akademisi Yayınları.
• Biran, M. (2015). Nomads as Agent of Cultural Change: The Mongols and Their Eurasian Predecessors. University of Hawai'i Press.
• Bondarenko, D. M. (2001). Pre-Imperial Benin. Formation and Evolution of the System of Social and Political Institutions. Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Centre for Civilisational and Regional Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Original in Russian (Бондаренко, Д. М. Доимперский Бенин. Формирование и эволюция системы социально-политических институтов. Москва: Институт Африки РАН; Центр цивилизационных и региональных исследований РАН).
• Bondarenko, D. M., and Korotayev, A. V. (2003). ‘Early State’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Statistical Re-Analysis of Henri J. M. Claessen's Database. Cross-Cultural Research. The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 37 (1), 105-132.
• Carrier, J. G. (2005). A Handbook of Economic Anthropology. Edwar Elgar.
• Chibnik, M. (2011). Anthropology, Economics and Choice. University of Texas Press.
• Claessen, H. J. M., and Skalník, P. (1978). The Early State. The Hague: Mouton.
• Claessen, H. J. M., and Skalnik, P. (1981). The Study of the State. The Hague: Mouton.
• Claessen, H. J.M. ve Skalnik, P. (1993). Sınırlar: Erken Devletin Başladığı ve Sona Erdiği Noktalar Erken Devlet (Kurumlar,Veriler,Yorumlar). (Çev. Alaeddin Şenel). İmge Kitabevi.
• Çandarlıoğlu, G. (1977). Uygurların Çinlilere Yaptıkları Yardımlar ve Bunların İç Yüzü. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi, 37-46.
• Çandarlıoğlu, G. (1995). Orta Asya’da Timuriler, Çin’de Ming Münasebetleri, Ch’en Ch’eng Elçilik Raporu. Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Di Cosmo, N. (1999). State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History. Journal of World History, 10 (1), 1-40.
• Di Cosmo, N. (2002). Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press.
• Di Cosmo, N. (2011). Ethnogenesis, Coevolution and Political Morphology of the Earliest Steppe Empire: the Xiongnu Question Revisited. In Brosseder, U., and Miller, B. (eds.), Xiongnu Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives of the First Steppe Empire in Inner Asia (pp. 35-48) (Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Vol. 5). Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn.
• Durmuş, İ. (2007). Türkler’de Cumhuriyet Fikrinin Tarihi Temelleri ve Günümüze Yansımaları. Gazi Akademik Bakış, 1 (1), 25-32.
• Earle, T. (1997). How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press.
• Eken, M. ve Tuzcuoğlu, F. (2005). Kötü Yönetimi Tedavi Etmek. Siyasette ve Yönetimde Etik Sempozyumu, 113-125.
• Ekholm, K., and Friedman, J. (1979). Capital Imperialism, and Exploitation in Ancient World Systems. In Larsen, M. T. (eds.), Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient Em-pires (pp. 41-58). Akademisk forlag.
• Ercilasun, A. B. (2016). Türk Kağanlığı ve Türk Bengü Taşlar. Dergah Yayınları.
• Ercilasun, A. B. (2018). Türk Dili Tarihi. Akçağ Yayınları.
• Ergin, M. (2002). Orhun Abideleri- (Bilge Kağan Yazıtı- Doğu Yüzü). Boğaziçi Yayınları.
• Erkoç, H. İ. (2006). Askerî Tarih Açısından Köl Tigin. GÜ Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26 (1), 230-226.
• Escedy, I. (1981). Nomads in History and Historical Research. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 35, 201-227.
• Escedy, I. (1989). On the social and economic structureof nomadic societies. In: F. Tőkei (eds.), PrimitiveSociety and Asiatic Mode of Production (pp. 69-90). Budapest.
• Firth, R. (1972). Methodological Issues in Economic Anthropology. Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 7 (3), 467-475.
• Fletcher, J. (1986). The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 46 (1), 11-50.
• Frazer, J. G. (1890). The Golden Bough. Macmillan.
• Golden, P. B. (1982). Imperial Ideology and the Sources of Political Unity amongst the Pre-Činggisid Nomads of Western Eurasia. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 2, 37-76.
• Golden, P. B. (1992). An Introduction to the History of the Turks Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Otto Harrassowitz.
• Golden, P. B. (2001). Ethnicity and State Formation in Pre-Činggisid Turks Eurasia. Indiana University, Department of Central Eurasian Studies.
• Hann, C. ve Hart, K. (2011). Economic Anthropology History, Ethnography, Critique. Polity Press.
• Herskovits, M. J. (1952). Economic Anthropology- A Study in Comparative Economics. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Jagchid, S. and Symons, V. (1989). Peace, War and Trade along the Great Wall: Nomadic-Chinese Interaction through two Millennia.Indiana University Press.
• Juvaini, M. (1997). Genghis Khan. The History of the World-Conqueror by 'Ala ad-Din 'Ata-Malik Juvaini. Manchester University Press.
• Khazanov, A. M. (1981). The Early State Among the Eurasian nomads. In Cla-essen, H. J. M., and Skalnik, P. (eds.), The Study of the State (pp. 156-173). The Hague, etc.: Mouton.
• Khazanov, A. M. (1984). Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge University Press.
• Kırlı, İ. (2019). Göçebe Çoban Toplumlarda Erken Devlet ve Hukukun Şekillenmesi [Yüksel Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi].
• Klyashtorny, S. G. (2003). History of Central Asia and Runic Inscriptions. Saint-Petersburg: Faculty of Philosophy of Saint-Petersburg State University. Original in Russian (Кляшторный, С. Г. История Центральной Азии и памятники рунического письма. Санкт-Петербург: Филологический факультет Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета).
• Klyashtorny, S. G., and Savinov D. G. (2005). Steppe Empires of Ancient Eurasia. Saint-Petersburg: Faculty of Philosophy of Saint-Petersburg State University. Original in Russian (Кляшторный С. Г., Савинов Д. Г. Степные империи древней Евразии. Санкт-Петербург.: Филологический факультет Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета).
• Klyashtorny, S. G., and Sultanov, T. I. (2009). The States and Nations of Eurasian Steppes from the Ancientry to the Modern Age. Saint-Petersburg: Petersburgskoye vostokovedeniye. In Russian (Кляшторный, С. Г., Султанов, Т. И. Государства и народы евразийских степей от древности к новому времени. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургское востоковедение).
• Klyashtorny, S. G. (2010). Runic Inscriptions of Uyghur Khaganate and History of Eurasian Steppes. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo ‘Petersburgskoye vostokovedeniye’. Original in Russian (Кляшторный, С. Г. Рунические памятники Уйгурского каганата и история евразийских степей. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство «Петербургское востоковедение).
• Korotayev, A. V., Malkov, A. S., and Khalturina, D. A. (2006). Introduction to Social Macrodynamics: Secular Cycles and Millenial Trends. KomKniga.
• Krader, L. (1963). Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads. Mouton.
• Kradin, N. N. (2001). Politicheskaya anthropologia (Political Anthropology). Ladomir.
• Kradin, N. N. (2007). Structure of Power in Nomadic Empires of Inner Asia: Anthropological Approach. In Grinin, L. E., Belyaev D. D., and Korotayev, A. V. (eds.), Hierarchy and Power in the History of Civilizations: Ancient and Medieval Cultures (pp. 98-124). URSS.
• Kradin, N. N. (2010). Structure of Society and Power in the Ancient Inner Asian Nomadic Empires: Xiongnu and Xianbei. In Hamayon, R., Charleux, I., Delaplace, G., and Pearce, S. (eds.), Representing Power in Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission and the Sacred (pp. 307-341). Western Washington University Press.
• Kradin, N. N. (2015). Nomadic Empires in Inner Asia. In Bemmann, J., Schmauder, M., Brosseder, U., Reichert, S., and Stickler, T. (eds.), Complexity of Interaction Along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the First Millennium CE (pp. 11-48) (Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Vol. 7). Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
• Küçükkalay, A. M. (2010). İktisadi Düşünce Tarihi. Beta Basım A.Ş.
• Kürsat-Ahlers, E. (1994). Zur frühen Staatenbildung von Steppenvölkern: Über die Socio- und Psychogenese der eurasischen Momadenreiche am Beispiel der Hsiung-Nu und Göktürken mit einen Exkurs über die Skythen. Duncker en Humbolot (Socialwissenschaftlischen Schriften, Heft 28).
• Lattimore, O. (1940). Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York-London.
• Louis, B. (2000). The Turkish and Mongol peoples of the steppes: pastoral nomadism. History of humanity: scientific and cultural development, v. IV: From the seventh to the sixteenth century, 1139-1149.
• Maсkerras, C. (1990). The Uyghur. In Sinor, D. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 317-342). Cambridge University Press.
• Maсkerras, C. (2000). Uygur-Tang relations, 744–840. Central Asian Survey, 19 (2), 223-234.
• Manghol-un Niuça Tobça’an (1986). Moğolların Gizli Tarihi. (Çev. Ahmet Temir), Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
• Mann, M. (1987). The Sources of Social Power. Vol. 1. A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
• Mauss, M. (1925/1990). The Gift. Routledge.
• Murzaev, E. M. (1952). Mongolskaya Narodnaia Respublika: Fiziko-geograficheskoe opisanie (Mongolian Peoples Republic: Physiographic Description). Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo geograficheskoy literatury.
• Nash, M. (1965). Economic Anthropology. Biennial Reiew of Anthropology, 4, 121-138.
• Nizamülmülk (1987). Siyasetname. Dergâh Yayınları.
• Plattner, S. (1989). Economic Anthropology. Stanford University Press.
• Pant, D. R. ve Alberti, F. (1997). Antropology and Bussiness: Reflections on the Bussiness of Cultural Antropology. Liuc Paperns, 42, 1-25.
• Rogers, D. (2007). The Contingencies of State Formation in Eastern Inner Asia. Asian Perspectives, 46 (2), 249-274.
• Rogers, D. (2011). Inner Asian States and Empires: Theories and Synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20, 205-256.
• Rogers, D. (2018). Strategies of Empire Expansion. In Dürinc, B. S., and Stek, T. D. (eds.), The Archaeology of Imperial Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Empires in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean World (pp. 301-323). Cambridge University Press.
• Sinor, D. (1990). The Establishment and Dissolution of the Türk Empire. In Sinor, D. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (pp. 285-316). Cambridge University Press.
• Skalník, P. (2004). Chiefdom: a Universal Political Formation?. Focaal, 43 (1), 76-98.
• Skalnik, P. (2009). Early State Concept in Anthropological Theory. Social Evolution & History, 8 (1), 5-24.
• Sneath, D. (2009). Tribe, Ethnos, Nation: Rethinking Evolutionist Social Theory and Representations of Nomadic Inner Asia. Ab Imperio, 4, 80-109.
• Staerman, E. M. (1989). K probleme vozniknoveniia gosudarstva v Rime (On the Problem of the Formation of the State in Rome). Vestnik drevnei istorii, 2, 76-94.
• Taneri, A. (1981). Türk Devlet Geleneği. 2. Baskı, Ankara.
• Timothy, E. (2001). Devlete Doğru Şeflikler: İktidar, İktisat, İdeoloji. (Çev. Cahide Sarı), Ütopya Yayınevi.
• Timothy, E. (2003). Şefler Nasıl İktidara Geldiler Tarih Öncesinde Politik Ekonomi. (Çev. Burak Gürel, Demir Demiröz), 1. Baskı, Versus Kitap.
• Tolybekov, S. E. (1971). Kochevoe obshchestvo kazakhov v XVII - nachale XX veka. Politiko-ekonomicheskii analiz (17. yüzyıldan 20. yüzyılın başına kadar Kazakların Göçebe Toplumu. Politik-ekonomik bir analiz). Nauka.
• Trepavlov, V. V. (1995). The Nogay Alternative: from a State to a Chiefdom and backwards. In Kradin, N. N., and Lynsha, V. A. (eds.), Alternative Pathways to Early State (pp. 144-151). Dalnauka.
• TÜSİAD (2005). Devlette Etikten, Etik Devlete: Kamu Yönetiminde Etik, Kavramsal Çerçeve ve Uluslararası Uygulamalar.
• Vladimirtsov, B. Y. (1995). Moğolların İçtimai Teşkilatı. (Çev. Abdülkadir İnan), 3. Baskı, Türk Tarih Kurumu.
• Vasyutin, S. A. (2003). Typology of Pre-States and Statehood System of Nomads. In Kradin, N. N., Bondarenko, D. M., and Barfield, T. (eds.), Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution (pp. 50-62). Center of Civilizational Studies.
• Vasyutin, S. A. (2010). The Main Models of Power Organization in Nomads of Central Asia in the Middle Ages (in Terms of the Multi-linearity Theory). Oriens 4, 20-34. Original in Russian (Васютин, С. А. Основные модели организации власти у кочевников Центральной Азии периода раннего средневековья (в свете теории многолинейности). Восток 4: 20-34).
• Vasyutin, S. A. (2015a). Traditional and Innovative Mechanisms of Governing in Nomadic Societies of Central Asia in the Sixth - the Thirteenth centuries. Part 2. Vestnik Kemerovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 1, (61) vol. 3, 20-26. Original in Russian (Васютин, С. А. Традиционные и инновационные механизмы управления в кочевых обществах Центральной Азии VI–XIII вв. Ч. 2. Вестник Кемеровского государственного университета 1, (61) Т. 3, 20-26.
• Vasyutin, S. А. (2015b). The Model of the Political Transformation of the Dao Liao as an Alternative to the Evolution of the Structures of Authority in the Early Medieval Pastoral Empires of Mongolia. In Bemmann, J., Schmauder M., Brosseder, U., Reichert, S., and Stickler, T. (eds.), Complexity of Interaction Along the Eurasian Steppe Zone in the First Millennium CE (pp. 391-437) (Bonn Contributions to Asian Archaeology, Vol. 7). Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
• Vasyutin, S. А. (2015с). Nomads Towns as a Factor of Social and Political Transformations. In Bazarov, B. V. (eds.), Actual Problems of Archaeology and Ethnology of Central Asia: Materials of the II International conference (UlanUde, 7–8th April, 2015) (pp. 223-231). Irkutsk: ‘Ottisk’. Original in Russian (Васютин, С.А. Города кочевников как фактор социально-политических трансформаций / под ред. Базарова, Б. В. Актуальные вопросы археологии и этнологии Центральной Азии: Материалы Международной научной конференции (Улан-Удэ, 7–8 апреля, 2015) (с. 223-231). Иркутск: «Оттиск»).
• Webb, M. (1975). The Flag Follows the Trade. An Essay on the Necessary Interaction of Military and Commercial Factors in State Formation. In Sabloff, J., and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. (eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade (pp. 155-209). Albuquerque.
• Yunatov, A. A. (1946). Izuchenie rastitelnosti Mongolii za 25 let [The Study of Mongolian Flora during 25 years]. Trudy Komiteta nauk MNR. 2. Ulan-Bato.