Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:08:16.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Order in Pre-Modern Eurasia: Imperial Incorporation and the Hereditary Divisional System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2016

LHAMSUREN MUNKH-ERDENE
LHAMSUREN MUNKH-ERDENE*
Affiliation:
National University of Mongolialmunkherdene@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparing the Liao, the Chinggisid and the Qing successive incorporations of Inner Asia, this article is prepared to argue that the hereditary divisional system that these Inner Asian empires employed to incorporate and administer their nomadic population was the engine that generated what scholars see either as ‘tribes’ or ‘aristocratic order’. This divisional system, because of its hereditary membership and rulership, invariably tended to produce autonomous lordships with distinct names and identities unless the central government took measures to curb the tendency. Whenever the central power waned, these divisions emerged as independent powers in themselves and their lords as contenders for the central power. The Chinggisid power structure did not destroy any tribal order; instead, it destroyed and incorporated a variety of former Liao politico-administrative divisions into its own decimally organized minqans and transformed the former Liao divisions into quasi-political named categories of populace, the irgens, stripping them of their own politico-administrative structures. In turn, the Qing, in incorporating Mongolia, divided the remains of the Chinggisid divisions, the tümens and otogs, into khoshuu and transformed them into quasi-political ayimaqs. Thus, it was the logic of the imperial incorporation and the hereditary divisional system that produced multiple politico-administrative divisions and quasi-political identity categories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 633 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Kradin, N. and Skrynnikova, T., “Stateless head: notes on revisionism in the studies of nomadic societies”, Ab Imperio, IV (2009), pp. 117–128 Google Scholar.

3 See for example Barfield, T. J., The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 bc to ad 1757, (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar, and Togan, I., Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations: The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan (Leiden, 1998)Google Scholar.

4 Sneath, D., The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and the Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia (New York, 2007). pp. 1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Ibid ., p. 197.

6 Lindner, R. P., “What was a nomadic tribe?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, XXIV, 4 (1982) pp. 689–711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rudi Lindner extended or rather elaborated Morton Fried's concept of ‘secondary tribe’ into the world of ‘nomads’. In fact, Fried himself ‘found’ his ‘secondary tribes’ among Eurasian nomads during much of their history, starting from Xiongnu down to the Qing Empire. See Fried, M., The Notion of Tribe. (Menlo Park, 1975). p. 72 Google Scholar.

7 Allsen, T., “The Rise of the Mongolian Empire and Mongolian Rule in North China” in The Cambridge History of China: Alien Regimes and Border States 907–1368, VI, (ed.) Franke, H. and Twitchett, D. (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 321–413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Golden, P., “A review of The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia by David Sneath”, Journal of Asian Studies LXVIII (2009), pp. 293–296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Barfield, T. J., 2009. “A review of The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia by David Sneath”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, LI, 4, pp. 942–943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Golden, “A review of The Headless State.” p. 296.

11 Ibid .

12 Barfield. “A review of The Headless State.” p. 943.

13 Barfield. The Perilious Frontier. pp. 24–28.

14 Ibid ., p. 8.

15 See for example Ibid ., pp. 26–27 and Allsen, “The Rise of the Mongolian Empire”, p. 321.

16 Golden, “A review of The Headless State.” p. 295.

17 It should be noted that the comparison is merely structural and focuses only on ‘tribal’ or ‘aristocratic’, or minqan or khoshuu-level structures.

18 Latham provides a lengthy chapter on The Mongolians citing prominent orientalists of the time such as Julius Klaproth (1783–1835) and Isaak Jacob Schmidt (1779–1847) and makes heavy use of the English translation of Egor Timkowsky's (1790–1875) celebrated work. See Latham, R., Descriptive Ethnology: Eastern and Northern Asia-Europe, Volume 1, (London, 1859). pp. 289–340 Google Scholar.

19 Latham's words echo Rashid al-Din who wrote “There is not one among them who does not know his tribe and lineage. Nations other than the Mongols do not have such a custom – except for the Arabs, who also keep their genealogy.” See Fazlullah, Rashiduddin, Jami‘u't-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles, A history of the Mongols. Part I. Trans. W. M. Thackston, (Cambridge, MA, 1998). p. 116 Google Scholar.

20 Latham, Descriptive Ethnology, p. 290.

21 Fried, The Notion of Tribe, p. 72.

22 The conventional rendering of the terms gadagadu (tulergi, and wai) and dotogadu (dorgi and nei) as –‘outer’ and ‘inner’ is inaccurate. It not only occludes the nature of the relations that the Manchu and the Mongol principalities had but also misdirects our attention. When (some parts of) the Inner (öbür) Khalkha and some other minor Mongol nobles submitted to the Manchu with their subjects, they were integrated into the Manchu eight banners making them subjects of the Manchu state. They were thus accordingly called ‘internal (dotagadu, dorgi and nei) Mongols’ and were always listed along with the Manchus and Heavy Troops as ‘internal Mongols’. See for example Mongqol dangsa ebhemel-ün emhithel, III (Öbür Mongqol-un arad-un heblel-ün horyi-a, 2003) p. 215. In contrast with the ‘internal Mongols’, the Manchus designated all other Mongols’ such as Khorchin, Kharachin and others’ as ‘external (gadagadu or tulergi) Mongols’. See Weiers, M., “Die Historische Dimension Des Jade-Siegels Zur Zeit Des Mandschuherrschers Hongtaiji”, Zentral-Asiatische Studien, XXIV (1994), pp.119–145 Google Scholar. However, in bilateral relations with the Manchu ulus these intra-Mongol named categories were referred to as Khorchin ulus, Kharachin ulus and so on, suggesting a status equal to the Manchu ulus. Thus ‘internal’ indicated a subservient relationship with the Manchu state, while the designation ‘external’ suggested the opposite. Indeed, the ‘external Mongols’ or Khorchin, Kharachin and the other Mongol uluses were the treaty allies to the Manchu ulus. They were by no means subject to the Manchu state. See Munkh-Erdene, L., “The 1640 Great Code: an Inner Asian parallel to the Treaty of Westphalia”, Central Asian Survey, XXIX, 3 (2010) pp. 269–288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “The Qing transformation of Mongolia: structural ethnicization and tribalization”, A paper presented at the international workshop “Administrative and Colonial Practices in Qing Ruled China: Lifanyuan and Libu Revisited”, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, 7–8 April, 2011. Therefore, the letter, using ‘external Mongol ulus’, not only adopts Manchu terminology but also signifies the status of those uluses as being external to the Manchu state. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, External Mongolia (gadagadu mongqol) roughly embraced both Inner (öbör) and Outer (ar) Mongolia.

23 According to Iletgel Shastir, there were six Khalkha ayimaqs. See Zarligaar togtooson Mongol, Khoton aimgiin wan güngüüdiin iletgel shastir, (ed.) A. Ochir, Vol.1 (Ulaanbaatar, 2007).

24 See Serruys, H., Sino-Mongol Relations during the Ming II, The Tribute System and Diplomatic Missions (1400-1600), (Brussels, 1967)Google Scholar, and Pokotilov, D., History of the Eastern Mongols during the Ming Dynasty from 1368 to 1634, translated by Rudolf Loewenthal (Arlington, VA, 1976)Google Scholar.

25 Munkh-Erdene, “The 1640 Great Code”.

26 See Atwood, C., “Banner Otog, thousand: appanage communities as the basic unit of traditional Mongolian society, Mongolian Studies, XXXIV (2012), pp. 1–76 Google Scholar and Atwood, C., Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York, 2004.), pp. 430–431 Google Scholar, 505.

27 Munkh-Erdene, “The 1640 Great Code”.

28 Ibid .

29 Elverskog, J., The Jewel Translucent Sutra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden, 2003), pp. 242 Google Scholar, 253, 277, 278.

30 Munkh-Erdene, L., “Where did the Mongol Empire come from? Medieval Mongol ideas of people, state and empire, Inner Asia, XIII, 2, (2011) pp. 211–237 Google Scholar.

31 Munkh-Erdene, “The Qing transformation of Mongolia”.

32 Atwood, C., “How the Mongols got a word for tribe—and what it means”, Studia Historica Mongolica, Tomus X (2010) pp. 63–89 Google Scholar.

33 Munkh-Erdene, “The 1640 Great Code”.

34 See Dayiching ulus-un magad hauli (Qing veritable records), II (Öbür Mongqol-un soyol-un heblel-ün horyi-a, Hayilar hota, 1990), p. 772; Munkh-Erdene “The Qing transformation of Mongolia”.

35 Munkh-Erdene, “The Qing transformation of Mongolia”.

36 Note that all the new terminology, such as ‘External Mongolia’ (gadagadu mongqol), external princely domains (gadagadu ayimaq or muji, tulergi golo or wai-fan) displace Mongolia or Mongolian uluses from their independent or self-contained positions and reduce them to that of dependence on, subordination to and subdivision of, periphery to and inferior to the Qing Empire and emperor.

37 See Munkh-Erdene, “The Qing transformation of Mongolia”. The expressions ‘mongqol-ud’ and ‘mongqolchud’, that is, the Mongols, seem to have been terms of Manchu invention. These expressions do not appear in any of pre-Qing Mongol sources or the Mongol chronicles of the seventeenth century. The 1652 Qing veritable records is the earliest source to employ both ‘mongqol-ud’ and ‘mongqolchud’. See Dayiching ulus-un magad hauli, II, pp. 359, 545, 591. Subsequently, ‘mongqolchud’ appear in the eighteenth-century Mongol chronicles starting with Lomi's 1732 work. See Lomi, Mongol borjigid owgiin tüükh, (Ulaanbaatar, 2006), pp. 14–16. While Mongol ulus was too political and competing with the Dayiching ulus (literally Great Qing Ulus), irgen became a designation for the Chinese. However, the main reason seems to have been that Mongolia no longer presented a political category or state. In fact, the declaration of the Qing Empire was the final effectuating stroke of the end of Mongolia as a state (ulus). With it, Mongolia was relegated to the realm of the quasi-political. Indeed, the designation ‘Mongol ulus’ (mongqol ulus) or ‘external Mongol ulus’ (gadagadu mongqol ulus) that appear quite often in the seventeenth-century Qing documents, including the Mongol Code, printed in 1696, disappear from the Qing documents in the eighteenth century. See Tsaadjin bichig (Mongol'skoe ulojenie) Tsinskoe zakonodatel'sto dlya mongolov 1627–1694 gg, (ed.) and translated by S. D. Dylykov, (Moskva, 1998), pp. 16–17. Thus, the designation does not appear in Khuul’ züilyn bichig enacted in 1789 and 1816 at all. Instead, expressions like ‘external Mongols’ (gadaad mongolchuud), or ‘inner and outer Mongols’ (dotood, gadaad mongolchuud) or ‘many Mongol aimags’ are used. See B. Bayarsaikhan, (ed.), Mongolyn tör, erkh züin tüükh (deej bichig), volume 4. part 1, Zarligaar togtooson Gadaad Mongolyn töriig zasakh yavdlyn yamny khuul’ züiliin bichig, part 1, (Ulaanbaatar, 2008), pp. 39, 43.

38 Though not exhaustive, an examination of the sources shows that the inhabitants of these ayimaqs were generally known as the Mongols. Princely families, however, were clearly identified by these ayimaqs, such as the Prince of Khorchin, to cite one example. Thus, these ayimaqs appear as domains of princely houses rather than population groups.

39 Munkh-Erdene, “The Qing transformation of Mongolia”.

40 Munkh-Erdene, L., “The Mongolian Nationality Lexicon: From the Chinggisid Lineage to Mongolian Nationality (From the seventeenth to the early twentieth century)”, Inner Asia, VIII, (2006) pp. 51–98 Google Scholar.

41 Iletgel shastir, pp. 138, 166.

42 Ibid., p. 138. If the Qing did not uniformly categorise Mongolia's population as the Mongols, in most probability, we would be reading of Khorchins, Kharachins, Tümeds or Ordoses as discrete human groups descended from different ancestors, such as Khorchins descending from Khasar.

43 Munkh-Erdene, “Where did the Mongol Empire come from?”, pp. 213–215.

44 Munkh-Erdene, “Where did the Mongol Empire come from?”

45 Ibid ., pp. 215–222.

46 Besides its cultural and kinship descriptions, irgen was also a category distinct from, and subordinate to, rulers or sovereigns, that is, subjects, an object of governance.

47 Munkh-Erdene, “Where did the Mongol Empire come from?”, pp. 222–225.

48 Ibid ., pp. 222–225.

49 Ibid ., pp. 215–225.

50 These quasi-political identity categories (or remains of defunct polities) are usually treated as tribes in modern scholarship. Interestingly, no modern scholarship has ever treated Mongolian khoshuus (or Chinggisid minqans) as tribes; but most modern scholarship treats pre-Qing Mongolian tümens and otogs (later turned into uluses and ayimaqs) as tribes. For instance, Tsakhar, Khalkha or Khorchin, pre-Qing Mongolian tümens, powerful emergent kingdoms and regional powers, are treated as tribes, while their subdivisions, the Qing khoshuus, are treated as banners or principalities. On the other hand, Jalaid, Dörbed, Naiman and Keshigten are treated as tribes as pre-Qing Mongolian otogs but as banners or principalities as Qing khoshuus, even when these Mongolian otogs each formed single Qing khoshuus under the same ruling noble families. In fact, these victims of imperial incorporations seem to have been doubly victimised when modern scholarship reduced them to tribes.

51 ashã’ir (clans), qabã’il (tribes), and aqwãm (people or nation).

52 What the Chinggisid sources describe as ‘Ong Khan of Kereyid’ might have been a belittlement of the last legitimate ruler of the collapsed power as was the case with the last Great Khan of Mongolia who was mocked as the ‘Ligdan Khan of Chakhar’. See Munkh-Erdene, “The 1640 Great Code”.

53 See Munkh-Erdene, “Where did the Mongol Empire come from?”.

54 See Rachnevsky, P., Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy, T. Haining translator and (ed.) (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar, and Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, pp. 295–296.

55 Rachnevsky, Genghis Khan, pp. 78–83.

56 de Rachewiltz, I., Index to the Secret History of the Mongols (Bloomington, IN., 1972), p. 61 Google Scholar.

57 Actually, Sangun or senggüm in the SHM seems to have been a title or an office he held while his name was Nilqa as he is addressed several times as Nilqa-senggüm. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 77–79. In fact, senggüm or xiangwen (Chinese xianggong, lord chancellor) is a Khitan title or office of the administrator of ‘tribes’ or divisions. See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 317.

58 Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, p. 175.

59 Ibid ., p. 69. After Inancha-khan drove out Ong Khan to Qara-Kitai, the Naiman kingdom seems to have achieved a considerable prominence, and Tayang Khan's title is an obvious reflection of that prominence.

60 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 57, and Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, p. 165.

61 The Compendum of Chronicles has it as ‘On the earth how can there be two monarchs in one Kingdom?’. See Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, p. 201.

62 “ötögü yeke erten-ü ong-qan-ni qor-iyar-iyan ayu'ulju ükü’ülba edö’e mün qan bolsu ke'en aqun-u . . .qajar de'ere qoyar qat ker bolqu”. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 98.

63 Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, p. 181. See also de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 50, 139–40 for Jamuqa and Qasar respectively. Alag Udur does not appear in the SHM at all.

64 Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, p. 190.

65 If the Tibetan word Sogpo for Mongolia is derived from Tsu-pu (or Zubu) or Tsu-p'u, Zubu seems to have been the name of the kingdom or country. If that is the case, Kereyid must have been the name of its divisions (or ruling house) just like Chakhar, a sort of Chinggisid belittlement of Ong Khan. If that was the case, Mongol must have displaced Zubu as the name of the state and realm. It should be noted that Zhao Hong, a Song envoy, who visited Muqali's headquarters around 1221 reported that ‘Mongols’ knew themselves only as Tatars and they call their state da menggu guo (大蒙古國) after a long-collapsed empire. See Munkuev, N., Men-da bei-lu, Polnoe opisanie Mongolo-Tatar [A complete description of the Mongol-Tatars] (Moscow, 1975) pp. 53 Google Scholar, 249.

66 Rashiduddin, Jami‘u't-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles, pp. 62–63.

67 See Wittfogel, A. K. and Chia-Shêng, Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao (907–1125) (Philadelphia, 1949) pp. 101–102 Google Scholar, 317, 593. The native title of the ruler of Zubu was, obviously, khan.

68 See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, pp. 295–297.

69 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 97. Although defeated by the Liao founder Abaoji in 924, Zubu checked the Liao expansion westwards by constantly warring with the Liao. Thus, Zubu must have been a considerable power to have been able to deter the Liao power. Furthermore, according to Abu'l Faraj, by 1007 when the Kereyid ruler converted to Christianity, he had 200,000 followers See Togan, Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations, pp. 60–61, and Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 296.

70 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 99–100, and Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 297.

71 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 81–82.

72 Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 297.

73 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 81–82.

74 “möngke tenggeri-de ihe'ekdejü kereyit irge doraida'ulju ündür-ün oron-tur gürba-je”. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 96.

75 See Golden, P., “Imperial ideology and the sources of political unity amongst the pre-Chinggisid nomads of Western Eurasia”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, II (1982), pp. 37–77 Google Scholar; “Nomads and their sedentary neighbors in pre-Cinggisid Eurasia”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, VII (1991), pp. 43–44, and di Cosmo, N., Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History (Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar, and Cöckenjan, H., “Zur Stammesstruktur und Heeresorganisation Altaischer Völker Das Dezimalsystem“ in Europa Slavica – Europa Orientalis: Festschrift für Herbert Ludat zum 70 Geburtstag, (eds) Grothusen, Klaus-Detlev and Zernack, Klaus (Berlin, 1980), pp. 51–86 Google Scholar. Interestingly, Cöckenjan also reveals certain correlations between the number of the ‘tribes’ and the number of the larger decimal units such as ‘ten thousand’ in several occasions, including Oghuz's 24 tribes and 24 ten thousand’, Bulgar-Turkish On-Ogur's ‘ten tribes’ and ‘ten arrows’ and so on (Cöckenjan, 1980), pp. 56–59.

76 Biran, M., The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World, (Cambridge, 2005), p. 27 Google Scholar, and Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, p. 46. Zhenzhou is found in modern Chintolgoi ruins in Dashinchilen sum, Bulgan province and Hedong is found in modern Züünkherem ruins in Mörön sum, Khentii province in eastern Mongolia. See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 317.

77 Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, p. 453.

78 Most of the scholars are positive about Uriangkhan and Merkit; they are less certain about Ongirat, Jajirat, and Naiman. See Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, pp. 87–100.

79 See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 317.

80 We also find other Khitan titles such as taishi, tekin, and tarqan in pre-Chinggisid Mongolia. See Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, pp. 442–445 for these Khitan titles. We find Nekün-taisi, Qada'an-taisi (both Mongol), and Alin-taisi, Qori-silemün-taisi and Tai-temür-taisi (all Kereyid) in the SHM. Tai-temür was Ong-Khan's slain brother. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 21–22, 71, 82–83, 87.

81 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 21, 91.

82 Ibid ., p. 22.

83 Whether the Mongol ordo developed from Khitan ordo directly, or ‘were both variants of an earlier common form’, it is hard to prove that Mongol ordo was immune to that of the Khitan when the greater part of geographical Mongolia with its demography was part of the Liao while the remaining part of Mongolia was under Liao hegemony. See Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, pp. 21, 55.

84 Ibid ., pp. 46–48, 85–86.

85 Ibid ., p. 48.

86 Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, pp. 46–48.

87 Ibid ., p. 47.

88 Ibid ., p. 46.

89 Ibid ., pp. 444-445.

90 Mote, F., Imperial China 900–1800 (Cambridge, MA,1999), p. 57 Google Scholar.

91 Wittfogel and Fêng, History of Chinese Society Liao, pp. 362, 518, 593-594.

92 See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 317, and Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai, pp. 26-33.

93 Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai, pp. 26–33.

94 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 42–48, 57–58, 61–63, 74. If we follow the order of the events of the SHM, Chinggis Khan's own military achievement was quite modest. He suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Jamuqa at Dalan Baljut. See Ibid., p. 54. The only significant victory that he achieved was over Tatar. See Ibid., pp. 71–72. It is true that he beheaded Jürkin leaders and defeated Taichiut. See Ibid., pp. 58–59, 62–63. However, Jürkin leaders did not give battle, whereas Tayichi'ut was in retreat after they were defeated by Ong Khan's force. Furthermore, Jürkin and Taichiut were only minor forces.

95 See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 94–95.

96 Kereyid, Naiman and Tatar rulers held the title of buyuruq, Merkid and Oyirad beki. While others held the title of bahadur and tekin, Temüjin himself bore the title of ja'ut quri. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, and Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles. All of these titles are of a military nature or have military associations and none was subsequently used as a title for a sovereign ruler.

97 See Bisson, T., The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government, (Princeton and Oxford, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar for lordship, and see Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, pp. 37–78 for Rashid al-Din's description of pre-Chinggisid polities.

98 Reynolds, S., Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300, Second Edition (Oxford, 1997), p. 221 Google Scholar.

99 I use ‘hereditary divisional system’ to embrace decimal and non-decimal numerical divisions as well as princely appanages too. While numerical divisions were evolving into lordships, the princely appanages were basically hereditary lordships. See McChesney, R. D., “The Chinggisid restoration in Central Asia: 1500–1785”, in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, (eds.) Di Cosmo, Nicola, Frank, Allen J. and Golden, Peter B. (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 277–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for later Chinggisid princely appanages.

100 See for example Hsiao, C., The Military Establishment of the Yuan Dynasty (Cambridge, MA, 1978), pp. 9–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Sneath, The Headless State, pp. 113–116.

102 Ibid ., p. 113.

103 Because of space limitation and the focus of this article, I have limited my analysis here to minqan. However, Atwood offers a much comprehensive analysis not only minqan but also of banner and otog. See Atwood, C., “Banner Otog, thousand: appanage communities as the basic unit of traditional Mongolian society, Mongolian Studies, XXXIV (2012), pp. 1–76 Google Scholar.

104 Chinggis Khan apportioned nearly 45 thousand (minqan) subjects (irge) to his mother, brothers and sons, and at least 17 noyans of minqan were explicitly assigned to serve under them. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 138–139, and Hsiao, The Military Establishment, pp. 9–17. Thus, in addition to a decimal system, Chinggis Khan also established princely appanages.

105 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 114. See also Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, pp. 26–27. With the expansion of the empire, more people were integrated into this system and, consequently, the number of minqans and tümens grew. Thus, for example, while Rashid al-Din numbers 126 minqans under Chinggis Khan, ‘Peng Daya, a Chinese envoy, mentions eight myriarchs under Ögedei Khan’. See Rashiduddin, Compendium of Chronicles, pp. 273–281; Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 139; Hsiao, The Military Establishment, pp. 9–17. During the conquest period, Chinggisid successors constantly reorganised minqans and tümens. The reorganisation continued even after the conquest. For example, Kebeg (1318–1326) reorganised and systematised the tümens of the Ulus Chaghatayi. See Manz, B., The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 9 Google Scholar, 24.

106 Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, pp. 27–28. According to the SHM, tümens, at least initially, seem to have been territorial divisions as they were designated as ‘the right wing tümen at Altai’, ‘the left wing tümen at Qara-un-jidun’, ‘central (tüb-ün) tümen,’ and ‘the tümen on Erdis-qudus’. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 117–118, 127.

107 Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 139.

108 It should be noted that Chinggis Khan had a much larger force of tümen kesikten (10,000 guards of superior troops) that included the sons of the noyans minqan, za'un and har'ban. The kesikten enjoyed a superior status over the ‘outer minqans’ (qadanadus minqad). See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 127–133.

109 See di Cosmo, N., N., Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 181–183 Google Scholar for militarisation in nomadic societies.

110 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 114.

111 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 171. The office was created during the reign of Ögedei Khan (1229–1241). Apportioning territories to minqans and enforcing these must have been a mammoth task. Disputes over territories seem to have been recurring incidents. See Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, pp. 28–30.

112 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 99–100, 114–120, 131; and Hsiao, The Military Establishment, pp. 9–73.

113 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 171–172.

114 While “all males between fifteen and seventy years of age” were registered, the yasa prescribed that “No man may depart to another unit than the hundred, thousand, or ten to which he has been assigned, nor may he seek refuge elsewhere. And if this order be transgressed, the man who transferred is executed in the presence of the troops, while he that received him is severely punished”. See ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini, The Genghis Khan: The History of the World-Conqueror, translated by J. Boyle, (Manchester, 1997), p. 32, and Hsiao, The Military Establishment for hereditary membership. These prohibitions effectively made the membership in the minqan hereditary. Perhaps, registering the members of the decimal units in the ‘blue book’ (köke debter) was an early practice. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 115–116. However, the prohibition of abandoning one's assigned units might have been instituted at later point to prevent quarrels over subjects and to curb concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the noyans. At any rate, there was a very consequential incident over subjects involving the powerful shaman Kököcü Teb Tengri and Temüge otcigin, Chinggis Khan's youngest brother, where some of Temüge's subjects abandoned him in favour of Teb Tenggeri, who refused to return them to Temüge. This Teb Tenggeri is reported in the SHM as accumulating power and influence even at the expense of Chinggis Khan himself. Eventually, this quarrel led to Teb Tenggeri's demise. See Ibid., pp. 139–144.

115 Granting hereditary rulership was the principal means of securing the allegiance and loyalty of the noyans. See Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, pp. 35–36. Even during the Yuan, when centralisation of power was much stronger, these offices were invariably hereditary. See Hsiao, The Military Establishment, pp. 9–32. Thus, Yuan-shi reports that “If a wan-hu [myriarch] or a ch'ien-hu [chiliarch] died in a battle, [one of] his descendants would inherit his title. In case he died of disease, [the inherited title] would be lowered one rank. . . Later, all offices, whether high or low, were to be inherited indiscriminately. Only when one was removed for crimes was this not the case”. See Ibid., p. 73. Certainly, the Grand Khans were aware of the dangers of the fragmentation. Therefore, for example, Möngke Khan even purged noyans with questionable loyalty en masse. See Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, p. 363. In the Yuan, they even made all the civilian offices and Chinese military commanders non-hereditary. However, the hereditary rights of the Mongol noyans were kept intact. See Hsiao, The Military Establishment, pp. 25–26.

116 Atwood identifies minqan, otog and khoshuu as “fiefs or appanages” and notes that he uses appanage or fief “to refer to designated shares of land and people held by nobles in Mongolia and elsewhere”. See Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, pp. 2, 29. Though there are some similiraties, neither minqan nor otog nor khoshuu was a share; they were units of local governance, whereas a fief was a unit of property. See Reynolds, S., Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994), p. 48 Google Scholar. On the other hand, Chinggis Khan gave shares or qubi to his mother, sons and brothers, which can veritably be identified as appanages. See de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 138–139. Perhaps, those Carolingian counties that acquired hereditary rulership, although very different, might serve as a better notion of a minqan as an institution of local governance. See Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals.

117 It is true that the domains of Jochi, Chaghatay, Ögödei and later Hülegü actually encompassed their respective domains. However, these power centres depleted the imperial power and accelerated the fragmentation of the empire. In fact, imperial ruling elites were acutely aware of this tendency and to halt the fragmentation they tried a number of techniques, such as appointing imperial overseers, reshuffling the army and enmeshing princely shares throughout the empire. See for instance Hsiao, The Military Establishment.

118 See Jackson, P., “From Ulus to Khanate: the making of the Mongol states c.1220–c. 1290” in The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy, (eds.) Amitai-Preiss, Reuven and Morgan, David (Leiden, 1999), pp. 12–38 Google Scholar.

119 Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, p. 28.

120 See Smith, A. D., The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar for mythomoteur.

121 Atwood, “Banner Otog, thousand”, p. 32. In fact, describing the putative ancestors of the rulers as the ancestors of the divisions was a common practice. See Munkh-Erdene, “The Mongolian Nationality Lexicon”.

122 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, pp. 20–21.

123 For instance, in Ulus Chaghatay, while Barulas, Suldus, Arlat, Jalayir were former Chinggisid minqans, Qar'unas, Negüderi, Yasa'uri, Apardï, Khuttãlãnï, Borolday and so on were tümens of later periods. See Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, pp. 22–36.

124 Fried, The Notion of Tribe, p. 65.

125 It should be noted that the situation was no different in medieval Europe. See Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, and Bisson, The Crisis of the Twelfth Century.

126 See Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, and Bisson, The Crisis of the Twelfth Century.

127 de Rachewiltz, Index to the Secret History, p. 150.