55563365

мер, по «Тайной истории монголов» и «Джāми’ ат-тавāрӣх̮» Рашūд ад-Дūна ат̣-Т̣абūба, Тэмучжин назвал То’орила «братом» только потому, что, как он говорит ему, «ты мой раб по наследству», ведь его предок был пленным предка Тэмучжина[ВладимирцовБ.Я.,2002,с.360–361].Такилииначе,по-видимому, имел место принцип знатности, не связанный, прежде всего, с имущественными отношениями, на основе которого формировались разграничения правовых норм для тех или иных членов общества. В определенный период складывалась некоторая привилегированная группа родов, которая, по крайней мере, в восприятии населения не просто могла претендовать на обладание определенными преимуществами в конкретных вопросах экономической, социальной и политической жизни, но монополизировала за собой эти преимущества.

А.М. Хазанов именует их «сословиями» (estate) [Khazanov A.M., 1994, p. 146;

Хазанов А.М., 2002, с. 253–254]. Статус тех или иных групп закреплялся за счет института фиктивных генеалогий, создающего эффективный механизм, позволяющий регулировать модель представлений о положении племен в общей иерархии и подстраивать ее под соответствующие исторические реалии

[KhazanovA.M., 1994, p. 141–142; Хазанов А.М., 2002, с. 247–248].

Отсюда следует необходимость понимания именно роли идеологии в кочевническомобществе.Исследователяминеразотмечалосьвотношениидревнетюркской эпохи значение идеологического фактора для сплочения социумов номадов в рамках одного политического объединения, отраженного в стремлении представителей доминирующей племенной группы монополизировать сакральные функции для создания общей надплеменной идеологии, сконцентрированной на божественном статусе правящего рода [Deér J., 1938, 22– 28. o.; 1954, s. 168–172; László F., 1967, 9–10. o.; Váczy P., 1940, 112–114. o.; Ecsedy H., 1972, p. 254; Kürsat-Ahlers E., 1996, p. 145; Drompp M.R., 2005, p. 108].

С.Г. Кляшторный попытался показать это на примере сужения тюркской племенной генеалогической легенды на до масштабов мифа о происхождении только каганской семьи [Кляшторный С.Г., 2003, с. 249–252; 2006, с. 449–453; 2010, с. 185–187; Кляшторный С.Г., Савинов Д.Г., 2005, с. 77–78].

Дискуссионным вопросом, попытка решения которого предпринята в одномизочерковмонографии,сталапроблемасуществованиядружиныутюрков Центральной Азии. Анализ письменных источников дает возможность лишь говорить о наличии у кочевников некоей стражи и войсковой иерархии, не позволяя конкретизировать природу этих явлений, особенности их формирования и функционирования. Археологические материалы демонстрируют существование нескольких групп памятников тюрков, которые по совокупности показателей могут быть связаны с захоронениями профессиональных воинов­ различного уровня. Сопоставление выделенных групп с конкретными позициями войска номадов, а также однозначное отнесение рассматриваемых комплексов с погребениями дружинников представляется преждевременным.

260

Не менее проблемной остается тема, связанная с выделением слоя служителей культа в социуме тюрков Центральной Азии. Пока лишь можно утверждать, что в письменных источниках фиксируется ряд терминов, используемых для обозначения людей с необычными способностями, которые при этом выполняли определенные функции в обществе, характеризуясь самым широким спектром«компетенций»–лечение,гадание,влияниенапогодуит.д.Материа- лы раскопок археологических памятников также не предоставляют аргументов в пользу тезиса о существовании у тюрков особой устойчивой группы лиц, занимавшихся культовой деятельностью. На данном этапе исследования представляется возможным предположить, что такие функции выполнялись главами родов или старейшинами, которые совмещали их с общей управленческой практикой.

С большей определенностью археологические материалы демонстрируют особенности символики власти в обществе тюрков Центральной Азии. Учитывая фрагментарный характер результатов исследований «элитных» мемориальных памятников, обусловленный редкостью проведения раскопок на таких объектах, основной объем информации об элементах предметного комплекса, отражающих высокое прижизненное положение погребенного человека, получен в ходе анализа «рядовых» погребений. По большей части символы власти были связаны с военным делом, что определялось высокой степенью милитаризации номадов. Среди предметов, обнаруженных в захоронениях и отражающих высокий статус покойного, выделяются клинковое оружие ближнего боя (меч, кинжал), боевой топор, копье, а также защитный доспех. Определенное значение имели также богато оформленные предметы торевтики (прежде всего, наборный пояс), изготовленные с использованием драгоценных металлов. Вероятно, показательными были и некоторые атрибуты элиты, зачастую фиксируемые в результатах раскопок фрагментарно – элементы костюма, а также другие изделия из органических материалов.

Анализ археологических комплексов тюрков, исследованных в различных частях Центрально-Азиатского региона, позволяет наметить основные направления трансформации социальной системы кочевников. Наиболее важными в этом плане представляются материалы, демонстрирующие периоды существования общества номадов, практически не освещенные в письменных источниках. Так, результаты раскопок памятников раннего этапа культуры тюрков (вторая половина V – первая половина VI вв. н.э.) вполне адекватно отражают периодстановлениятрадицийновойобщности,постепеннойконсолидациикочевников и сложения многокомпонентного политического и социального образования. Кроме того, можно говорить о том, что на формирование и трансформацию общества номадов оказали серьезное влияние как традиции кочевников предтюркского времени, так и специфика социально-политического устройства могущественного соседа – Поднебесной империи. «Поздние» комплексы,

261

относящиеся к заключительным этапам истории тюрков (IX–XI вв. н.э.) фиксируют процессы дезинтеграции сохранявшихся элементов социальной системы кочевников на отдельных территориях, размывание общества номадов и влияние на них других объединений номадов.

Дальнейшие целенаправленные исследования, предполагающие комплексный анализ имеющихся материалов, позволят детализировать представленную реконструкциюразличныхэлементовструктурысоциуматюрковЦентральной Азии. Кроме того, нет сомнений, что в ближайшие годы значительный объем новых сведений будет получен в ходе археологических исследований на территории Монголии. Весьма перспективными являются также раскопки наиболее ранних комплексов тюрков, которые позволят наполнить содержанием начальный этап истории общности номадов. Таким образом, выводы и заключения, изложенные в очерках книги, нельзя считать окончательными. Скорее, они фиксируют сложившийся на сегодняшний день уровень понимания комплексного характера критериев, обусловливающих специфику социальной структуры тюрков Центральной Азии, и разноплановости оказывающих влияние на эти критерии факторов, определяя приоритетные направления работ и демонстрируя имеющиеся дискуссионные вопросы касательно не только конкретного общества, но и в отношении других объединений кочевников евразийских степей.

262

SUMMARY

ASocial History of Türks of InnerAsia (2nd half of the 1st millenniumA.D.) Part 1. Essays on Social Structure

(based on Written Sources andArchaeological Data)

The monograph presents the attempt to summarize and systematize a historical data on social structure of society of Türks on 6th – 8th centuries A.D., based the complex approach. Using mostly written and archaeological sources and partly data of linguistics, ethnography and folklore the authors to show one side of the social life of that community.

The main methodological problem of such research consist of difficulty to synthesize the terminology used in different disciplines such as at first turkology and archaeology. To avoid contradictions and ambiguity the authors decided to secure definitions typical for their own specialties. So, it should not to confuse the usage both of terms “drevnetiurkskii” (“Old Turkic”) and “srendevekovyi” (“Medieval”) in relation to alone community.The notion “OldTurkic” is only special for linguistic while the term “Medieval” is applying by archaeologists traditionally. In connection, it needs to be noticed especially also the fact of usage of the definition “tiurki” (“Türk / Türkic”) related to only Inner Asian community called Türk itself in contrast to, for example, ones named Uyγur, Basmïl, Qarluq, Qïrqïz etc. Of course, linguistically all of them were Turkic-speaking having also close customs, writing, social and political terminology, and even material culture, because of which there are foundations for considering them as a single linguo-cultural community calling “drevnie tiurki” (“Early / Old Turks”), as A.D. Grach had proposed. Along with the special terms discussed, in the text also used the definition “tiurkoiazychnyie” (“Turkic-speaking”) accounting for the historical and present time communities are close in language to do differ of the society researched.

In the context, it is necessity of understanding of the fact of usage the term “Medieval” for the corresponding historical period is nor connected with the theoretical views on historical process of the authors absolutely. Similarly, nonusage of the term “state” speaking of the nomadic society is the special way special move to avoid issues discussed not directly related to the matter.

263

It to be noticed especially needs is the applying of the term “Tsentral’naiaAziia” (literally “Central Asia”) that is “Inner Asia” in Western research tradition. In the view of the authors, the region includes territories of Mongolia, Southern Siberia, Trans-Baikal area and also Eastern Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Níngxià Huí Autonomous Region, and Qīnghǎi and Gānsù provinces of the People’s Republic of China. In contrast, the term “Sredniaia Aziia” (literally “Middle Asia”), as analog of traditional for Western scholars “Central Asia”, is understood the area of either modern Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Even researching, as it was noted above, the one side of social life of Türks only the authors far from thinking that it is possible to prepare a complete and comprehensive study. According to their thoughts, the monograph to do reflect the degree of complexity and set a certain stage of researches. The research task is understood as the analysis of the some kinds of criteria for social differentiation and the principles of stratification, the understanding of the correlation of various sections of the structure of society (levels of one’s involvement into power relations, material property stratification as well as gender and age, professional, ethnocultural one, etc.) and the social mobility mechanisms, the identification of social groups of strata and the boundaries are either between the groups and within ones, at the collective and at the individual level. Certainly, some of the problems remained unsolved and also some of ones were only indicated. In part, this is from the reasons why the structure of the book is of essay type.

The stock of historical sources were used are diverse. The prime criteria of classification written sources is of the ethnopolitical and, as a rule, corresponding to it linguistic affiliation of the authors. Firstly, it should be noted the sources of Turkic origin are of primary importance calling internal conditionally. But there is not only text written in Turkic language that are Old Turkic runic writing monuments. Partly Sogdian texts like Bugut Inscription are important too. These texts were the intellectual product of the nomadic culture to show the Turkic society from the inside. Turkic texts of later times are helpful to be considered as Linguistic source only. For researching the social terminology in comparative perspective they are able to analyze.All of the source of bothTurkic and another nomadic origin like epic tradition also reflects the common characteristics of nomadic life and can to be use for comparative analysis of different features of social life of Türks.

Another group of written sources (external) were conditionally distinguished for inclusion of the texts of Chinese, Byzantic, Sogdian, Saka-Khotanese, Bactrian,Tibetan, Syriac, Caucasian,Arab and Persian (Muslim) authors. Contacts of different peoples and cultures with the Türks, which took place in different historical periods and characterized by varied depth and intensity, have been relevantly reflected in these texts. Under different either viewing angles and with various degrees of approximation the texts can to preserve the information on the Türkic society too.

264

Among the archaeological sources the material of funerary complexes is the most informative. The group includes variety of archaeological objects excavated in the Altai-Sayan area. The material of burial complexes from territory of Mongolia being not so numerous was also analyzed as well as of ones from Tian-Shan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. At various stages of the studying work it had been possible to attract partly the materials of cult-memorial monuments being both “ordinary” objects like enclosures, stone figures, balbals etc., and also memorials of elite.Foradditionalevidencewasusedalsopetroglyphsdiscoveredindifferentareas of South-Siberia and Mongolia.

It is impossible to speak that social structure of Türks had yet not became the subject of special researching works. Since the moment of publication of the monograph of soviet scholarA.N. Bernshtam have not appeared the special research of the society of Türks in form of Monograph. Of course, different soviet students and ones of another Marxist schools like China, for example, had paid attention on the Türks, however, their results are methodologically unlike now. There are also much scholars from different countries (Hungary, Germany, France, Great Britain, USA,Turkey, Russia, Japan etc.) whose works based on the original source data like book of A.N. Bernshtam. But, one hardly can to find a comprehensive study of the social structure of Türks. It is possible also to note that all of researchers identified, depending on own methodological view, three or four social strata among the Türks that were ruler (qaγan) and his relatives, nobles (bäg), common (or ordinary) people (qara bodun) and slaves (qul, küŋ), sometimes noticed the group of retainers of nobles.

Unfortunately, it was not the place to analyze the terms evidently connecting to the issues of social organization, not only of social structure. But in the present book the attention was paid to the fact of covering of social structure and social organization among the nomadic societies, in particular, the dependence of the criteria of the first on the latter.

As a result of the summarizing of all diverse data and using the results of predecessors, it had become possible to draw much conclusions related to Türkic society. Firstly, it should be marked that using an original material we can now affirm the presence of different social phenomena and institutions here are typical for nomadic societies. They are classify kinship system of Omaha type, which is patrilineal (as Sh. Baştuğ wrote), family-related group as a low-level community, nuclear or close to extended type of family which is based on one household. That fact, of course, not connects to social structure directly, but determines the criteria of it. Not only Family and close relatives or neighbors influenced on the process of one’s initial socialization, but also the position in the general of society, defined by the norms of human coexistence adopted here, basing of much criteria like gender, age, genealogical position, played important role in defining the status of individual. The type of family, that as nuclear in our case, had determined the status of woman

265

in society intending the due range functions and rights. So, polygamy was caused economic needs first of all. It needs to research especially also factors influenced by the status of woman, that had related to sphere of intercommunity relations. For example, analyzing the system of kinship, the researching of marriage relationship was excluded from the work, as well as the institution of leviratus was considered in the book only from the point of view of the internal structure of the society.

It was the phenomena of age stratification of Türkic society explored. This part of researching work presented the experience of the direct correlation of the archaeological data with the social terminology of Old Turkic runic writing monuments confirming by ethnographic and folklore data, however, only with respect to the male population. As a result, it was possible to identify the following categories: children (oγlï), youngers (oγlan), adult men (är) and elders (qarï). The interesting fact to be study especially is the indirect evidence of the institution of Männer-Brude reflected by polysemy of the term oγlan might to mark also the group of young warriors.

There are is reason not to agree with S.G. Klyashtornyi established the fact of highsocialmobilityinTürkicsociety,dependedonanumberoffactorsfirstofwhich was of personal qualities of a man and, accordingly, the ability to become famous and obtain the wealth to increase one’s social prestige. But an important factor was the position of the tribe to which the man belonged, in the general tribal hierarchy, which in many cases determined the potential of rise of his social status previously. The last occasion guide us to the range of issues related to social organization to study mechanisms of tribal interaction, for which it is not the place in the book.

But it, of course should be noticed the importance of theoretical model of tribal structure known as “superstratification” exposed by Deér József basing fundamental conclusions of W. Radloff, who as well as Vambéry Hermann, had indicated the segmental character of social organization of nomadic society and its flexibility and variability in all of taxonomic levels. It is impossible not to mention the works of Wolfram Eberhard and Omeljan Pritsak showed the fact of involving the social structure as a characteristic of the social organization of nomadic societies of Eurasian steppes.

In connection, the forms of social dependency were also analyzed in the book. The fact that deserves special attention is that there no in OldTurkic lexicon special term to define forms of either personal or collective dependence only.There terms qul and küŋ are both found in Old Turkic runic writing monuments, relating to the male and female populations respectively, had designated any forms of social subordination. The term tat had marked the groups of agricultural population subjected to Türks. Nothing as can be saying about the slavery in classical (“antique”) understanding. All of forms of social dependence had satisfied requirements of the pastoral nomadic economy. In the same time there is an archaeological evidence on the of low-status group among the male population.

266

It was investigate the specific model of subordination in a hierarchy in all of levels of Türkic society in relation both to individuals and communities. The institution of comitatus (warband, retainers) also can to be marked here. At least, the archaeological data does possible to view the burials of the professional warriors of different levels. The basic problem in this case is in understanding of written source data given only indirect evidence of the existence of some group of warriors who can be either a royal escort or a comitatus. Not the least role plays the well-known fact of the total militarization of the nomadic male population. It seems premature now to draw a concrete conclusion about whether there were professionalwarriorsonlyassociatedwithacertainmilitaryunit,orrepresentatives of the male population being in personal dependence on someone and performing military functions mainly.

Equally problematic is the question on the existence of strata of ministers of religion among Türks. In written source is evident the fact of presence of various term to mark minister of religion of some sort, which functions accordingly associated with different sphere like healing, divination, influencing the weather etc., i.e. connecting to the “everyday” level. The archaeological material is also not able to give the adequate evidence of the existence of the stable social group to indicate the ministers of religion only. The most likely correct is the opinion of the concentration of sacred functions in the hands of the representatives of political elite like clan leaders and tribal chiefs, which combined both administrative and religious functions

Featuresofthesymbolsofpoweraredefinitelyillustratedbythearchaeological materials.Despitethefragmentarycharacterofdataon“elite”complex,becauseof insufficient excavation of objects of suitable type, the “ordinary” burials material being used does possible to state the symbols were associated with military affairs predominantly, fact of which reflected the high level of militarization of nomadic society. So, among the objects to be a high-status marker found in the burials are melee weapons (sword, dagger), battle axes, spears, and also body armors. Of some importance were also objects of toreutics made with the use of precious metals and richly decorated (first of all, belts). Probably, were also indicative some material characteristics of the elite-group like, for example, costume elements, as well as other items made of organic materials, had in most of cases detected only fragmentarily.

The analysis of different archaeological complexes known related to Türks also does possible to image the directions of the social system transformation of the nomads. There are materials to do show processes not reflected in written sources. So, one can find in materials of the early stage or archaeological culture ofTürks (2nd half of 5th – 1st half of 6th centuries A.D.) the evidence of the process of the shaping of the new community, integration of different nomadic groups into new multicomponent formation. It is evidential fact the influence of both the traditions of local

267

nomadic societies and features of socio-political systems of China to the process. At the same time, later complexes belonged to the final period of Türkic history (9th–10th centuriesA.D.) reflects the processes of disintegration of the nomadicsocial system elements, kept in local territories, the assimilation of the community into another nomadic societies.

It is thinking the future research work basing the complex data would allow to detail the reconstruction presented of not only some various aspects of the social structure, but also social life of Türks as a whole. Undoubtedly, in the coming years a significant number of new materials will be presented due to archaeological research on the territory of Mongolia.

Are excavations of the earliest complexes of the Türks also very promising to clarifytheearlystagesofthehistoryofthenomadiccommunity.Thus,thepointsand conclusions stated in the book presented should not considered as completed ones noways. There is only the result of attempt of synthesis of complex source data on the different aspects of social structure of Türkic society both to fix certain facts and indicate questions discussed, outside of any theoretical scheme.

268

БИБЛИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ СПИСОК

Абрамзон С.М. Этнографические сюжеты в эпосе «Манас» // Советская этнография. 1947. №2. С. 134–154.

Абрамзон С.М. Формы родоплеменной организации у кочевников Средней Азии // Родовое общество. Этнографические материалы и исследования. М.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1951 (Труды Института этнографии им. Н.Н. МиклухоМаклая, новая серия. Т. XIV). С. 132–156.

Абрамзон С.М. Некоторые вопросы социального строя кочевых обществ // Советская этнография. 1970. №6. С. 61–73.

Абрамзон С.М. Формы семьи у дотюркских и тюркских племен Южной Сибири, Семиречья и Тянь-Шаня в древности и средневековье // Тюркологический сборник. 1972. Памяти П.М. Мелиоранского. М.: Наука, 1973.

С. 287–305.

Абрамзон С.М. О некоторых терминах родства в тюркских языках // Türcologica. К семидесятилетию академика А.Н. Кононова. Л.: Наука, 1976.

С. 204–207.

Абрамзон С.М. Киргизы и их этногенетические и историко-культурные связи. Фрунзе: Кыргызстан, 1990. 480 с.

Абрамзон С.М., Потапов Л.П. Народная этногония как один из источников для изучения этнической и социальной истории (на материале тюркоязычных кочевников) // Советская этнография. 1975. №6. С. 28–41.

Агаджанов С.Г. Очерки истории огузов и туркмен Средней Азии IX– XIII вв. Ашхабад: Ылым, 1969. 296 с.

Агаджанов С.Г. Брачные и свадебные обряды огузов Средней Азии и Казахстана в IX–XIII вв. // Страны и народы Востока. Т. XXII. Средняя и Центральная Азия. География, этнография, история. М.: Наука, 1980. С. 225–238.

Аззаяа Б. Тайхар чулууны руни бичээс //Acta Historica Mongolici. Монгол улсын Боловсролын их сургууль. 2007. T. VIII. Fasc. 8. Тал. 68–75 дугаар тал.

Айдаров Г. Язык орхонского памятника Бильге-кагана. Алма-Ата: Наука, 1966. 94 с.

Айдаров Г. Язык орхонских памятников древнетюркской письменности

VIII века. Алма-Ата: Наука, 1971. 380 с.

Айдын Э. Заметки по поводу названий тюркских племен, встречающихся в енисейских надписях // Эпиграфика Востока. 2011. Вып. XXIX. С. 3–13.

269