Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:31:51.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Thomas J. Barfield
Get access

Abstract

Nomadic states in Inner Asia were generated by external relations with state societies. Because the Hsiung-nu state could not have supported itself by exploiting the relatively undifferentiated and extensive pastoral economy, the state hierarchy was financed by exploiting the resources available from outside of the steppe. The nomads on the steppe were organized into a powerful military force that was used to systematically exploit the Chinese economy. The Hsiung-nu raided the frontier directly and then used the disruptions they caused as a tool to extort trade and subsidies from the Han court, thus maintaining a monopoly on this flow of Han goods to the steppe, which gave it great economic power and stability. The imperial level of Hsiung-nu government was therefore primarily concerned with conducting foreign affairs, organizing military campaigns, and maintaining unity on the steppe, while it ceded power in domestic affairs to indigenous tribal leaders. This created an imperial confederacy that acted as an autocratically ruled state in its dealings with China but that remained federally structured internally. This form of organization proved remarkably stable and provided the model for later empires established by nomads on the steppe.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , November 1981 , pp. 45 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1981

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

List of References

Barthold, V. V. 1935. Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens [Twelve lectures about the history of Turkish Central Asia]. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Islamkunde.Google Scholar
Burnham, Philip. 1979. “Spatial Mobility and Political Centralization in Pastoral Societies.” In Pastoral Production and Society, L'Equipe écologie et anthropologie des sociétés pastorales. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Namio, Egami. 1948. Yūrashia kodai hoppō bunka, Kyōdo bunka ronkō [A study of Hsiung-nu culture, an ancient northern culture in Eurasia]. Kyoto: Zenkoku Shobō.Google Scholar
Namio, Egami. 1956. “Kyōdo no keizai katsudō” [The economic activities of the Hsiung-nu]. Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 9: 23–63.Google Scholar
Han shu (HS). See Pan Ku.Google Scholar
Harmatta, J. 1952. “The Dissolution of the Hun Empire.” Acta Archaeologica 2: 277–304.Google Scholar
Hulsewé, A. F. P. 1979. China in Central Asia, The Early Stage: 125 B.C.–A.D. 23. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irons, William. 1979. “Political Stratification Among Pastoral Nomads.” In Pastoral Production and Society, L'Équipe écologie et anthropologie des sociétés pastorales. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jagchid, Sechin. 1977. “Patterns of Trade and Conflict Between China and the Nomads of Mongolia.” Zentralasiatische Studien 11: 177–204.Google Scholar
Krader, Lawrence, 1979. “The Origin of the State Among Nomads.” In Pastoral Production and Society, L'Equipe écologie et anthropologie des sociétés pastorales. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lattimore, Owen. 1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York: American Geographical Society.Google Scholar
Loewe, M. A. N. 1967. Records of the Han Administration. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loewe, M. A. N. 1974. “The Campaigns of Han Wu-ti.” In Chinese Ways in Warfare, eds. Kierman, Frank and Fairbank, John. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Masao, Mori. 1971. “Kita-Ajia: Kodai Yūboku-kokka no Kōzō” [The structure of ancient nomadic states in north Asia]. Iwanami Koza Sekai Rekishi. Vol. 6: Kodai. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Pan Ku. Han shu (HS). Po-na pen erh shih ssu shih ed.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1954. “Die 24 Ta-ch'en: Studie zur Geschichte des Verwaltungsaufbaus der Hsiung-nu Reiche” [The 24 Ta-ch'en: A historical study of the administrative structure of the Hsiung-nu empires]. Oriens Extremus 1: 178–202.Google Scholar
Radloff, Wilhelm. 1893. Aus Sibirien [Out of Siberia]. 2 vols. Leipzig: Weigel Nachfolger.Google Scholar
al-Din, Rashid. 1971. The Successors of Genghis Khan. Translated by Boyle, J. A.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rudenko, S. I. 1969. Die Kultur der Hsiung-nu und die Hügelgräber von Noin Ula [The culture of the Hsiung-nu and the gravemounds of Noin Ula.] Bonn: Rudolph Habelt Verlag.Google Scholar
Shih chi (SC). See Ssu-ma Ch'ien.Google Scholar
Smith, John. 1967. “Mongol and Nomadic Taxation.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 30: 46–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ssu-ma Ch'ien. Shih chi (SC). Po na pen erh shih ssu shih, Ssu pu ts'ung k'an.Google Scholar
Thomsen, V. 1896. Inscriptions de l'Orkhon. Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpu, Uchida. 1953. Kyōdo-shi kenkyū [A study of the history of the Hsiung-nu]. Osaka: Sōgen-sha.Google Scholar
Watson, Burton. 1961. Records of the Grand Historian of China. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1874. “History of the Hiung-noo and Their Relation to China.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 3: 401–451.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1875. “History of the Hiung-noo and Their Relation to China (continued).” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5: 42–80.Google Scholar
Yü, Ying-shih. 1967. Trade and Expansion in Han China. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar