Eternal war would turn men into wild beasts, and eternal peace into beasts of burden.

David Hume

It is generally accepted that the military organization of the state, the people (in the early history - the union of tribes) reflects the features of the state, administrative, political structure, management system, military-technical means, which are determined by the level of economic development, the social structure of the population, historically formed social relations and geographical conditions. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, it was mainly natural habitat conditions, the organization of economic life and the accompanying occupation that formed the economic structure of society and determined the determinant of social development.

The whole complex of available materials on the natural, geographical and ecological conditions of habitat and the system of material production of nomads of Central Asia indicates a close interaction between the development of nomadic cattle breeding and hunting both at the stage of formation and in the process of further evolution of nomadism.

Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in hunting and hunting culture all over the world. At the end of the 19th century, a fundamental 4-volume book was published by Major General N. I. Kutepov, head of the economic part of the imperial hunt in tsarist Russia, covering the period from antiquity to modern times (Kutepov, 2005). It systematically covers the development of hunting, describes the special subtleties of dog and bird hunting, tells about hunting life, equipment, beliefs and spells, breeds of dogs and horses, hunting grounds, the composition of the ranks and servants of the royal hunt, its utilitarian and political significance. The recently published book by Professor T. T. Allsen comprehensively analyzes the royal hunt from the first information about it to the 19th century, which was an indispensable component of the political cultures of the Middle East, India, Central Asia and China. The royal hunts functioned as an inspection tour and imperial promotion, as a means of asserting royal authority over the surrounding area. In establishing interstate relations, large hunts were used both as a means of demonstrating military power and as a certain way of transmitting diplomatic signals. Wars sometimes began as hunts and ended as holiday pursuits. Large hunts were often understood as a kind of secret training of the armed forces.

page 15
The Royal Hunt was subject to the same strict discipline that was practiced in military affairs, it also served as a testing ground for innovations in military organization and tactics.

Hunting parks were centers of botanical exchange, and military depots were located in them. Hunting was used by the ruling elite as a diplomatic tool to establish partnership relations with other state entities, and within their own-to form an elite close to the top, strengthen its influence on it and increase its political loyalty [Allsen, 2006]. Thus, hunting has been an important part of the social life of society since ancient times.

B. Y. Vladimirtsov, who prepared a comprehensive study of the social system of the Mongols, constantly reminded that the Mongolian nomadic tribes are divided into two groups according to their way of life and farming: forest (hunting) (hoyin irgen) and steppe (pastoral) (keeriin irgen). "In some cases," individual tribes may have belonged to both, so that "it is quite difficult to distinguish between "forest" hunters and "steppe" pastoralists: there were tribes that were at a transitional stage, there were tribes or branches of tribes, branching clans and families that then conducted cattle farming, they were fishing." For a long time, the main occupations of the Mongols of the XI-XIII centuries. there were both cattle breeding and hunting. These two forms of life support were so closely intertwined that this served as a sufficient reason for the author to consider the medieval Mongols simultaneously as "nomad hunters" (Vladimirtsov, 1934, pp. 33-36, 41, 58-59). The Mongols, according to eyewitnesses of this period, "live only by hunting, shooting [the beast] with a bow" (Meng-da bei-lu, 1975, p. 45).

According to the Buryat researcher S. G. Zhambalova, " the ideal option for nomadic settlements, especially winter and autumn ones, was represented in the synthesis of pastures convenient for cattle breeding and rich hunting grounds. The reasons for migrations were the search for a combination that was favorable for complex farming " [Zhambalova, 1991, p. 25]. For example, the Huns tried to plan their nomadic routes so that they passed through the territory suitable for hunting, including round-up. These fertile lands were of strategic importance to the Nomads, which was no secret to their opponents. One of the Chinese officials, He Ying, who was a staunch enemy of the nomads, wrote in his report to the emperor's inquiry:: "Along the northern border to Liao tung lies a range called Yin Shan, extending from east to west for more than 1,000 li. These mountains are rich in forest and grass, abound in birds and animals. Mode Shanyu, having established themselves in these mountains, prepared bows and arrows and raided from here. It was his menagerie" (Bichurin, 1950, p. 94). In the eyes of nomads, the best pastures are lands with abundant grass and a variety of game, because of which there were fierce wars within the nomadic world, long migrations were made.

Among the Mongolian-speaking ethnic groups, the historical traditions and features of collective hunting of Buryats, their types, forms, structure, technique, technology, weapons, equipment, from the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century attracted the attention of serious researchers, such as M. N. Khangalov, D. A. Klements. Despite the fact that the importance of hunting in the Buryat economy declined during the XIX century. [Zalkind, 1970, p. 59-66], the hunting industry until the beginning of the XX century occupied a certain specific weight in their economy, as evidenced by historical and ethnographic materials. A substantial ethnographic database on the Buryat round-up hunt provides abundant and generally reliable information and necessary factual material on this problem.

There are various names for round-up collective hunts. So, in the Buryat language, they are transmitted in the following terms:: зэгэтэ аба, аба хайдак (хайгта аба), ху-

page 16
shuuta aba, galshata aba. The second word common to all these concepts is aba, which translates as "round-up". In the Old Turkic glossary, the word ab is hunting in general [Old Turkic Dictionary, 1969, p. 1]. There is a temptation to believe that the Russian word "raid" is derived from the same root - ab(a). It is possible that the word "raid" consists of two root designations: ob, (ab?) (hence "tax", "tax") + lava, i.e. a certain group order of people being built. In V. I. Dahl's description of a round-up, oblov, or oblovlya, "round - ups (beaters) lined up in lava or in a semicircle, who expose the beast from the forest, from the reeds to shooters or to the trap in large numbers" (Dahl, 2006, pp. 179-180). Therefore, "round up" means "embrace", "surround". In Juvaini's colorful retelling of the Mongol Khan hunt, the word nerge is repeatedly mentioned - "line", "system" (Juvaini..., 2007). Marco Polo, describing the battle of Nogai and Tokta, writes that "two kings came together on the plain of Nergi" (Marco Polo, 1990, pp. 215-216). It is quite likely that nerge, or sockeye, - in the Persian language, eventually began to mean a raid. This term was used to define the organizational location of the Mongol army on the battlefield. Rashid ad-Din, describing the circumstances of Genghis Khan's meeting with the leaders of the Juryat tribe, gives the Mongolian name of the round-up hunt: "Once they all went hunting together. On a hill called Ochal-Jalmak and located in the middle of the great steppe, they organized a raid [jarge]; utu Genghis Khan, i.e. the center of [kalb] hunting, added to this, brought together [the chain of] raids " [Rashid ad-Din, 1952, pp. 88-89]. A. K. Akishev believes that the grandiose raids of the zhirga (from the Mongolian qurq - "encircle", "encircle") are directly related to the Kazakh laws of Khan Tauke - "Zhety Zhargy", the name of which comes from this word [Akishev, 2001, p.34]. Summing up briefly, we can say that nerge (nerke) and jarge ( zhirga) are terms of the same row, and they convey a certain (in our case, functional) meaning: line - formation - chain, surrounding(s), covering(s) something on the ground.

The names of Buryat raids are associated with the number of people participating in them. For example, if 300 people gather for hunting, then this is zeg(e) te aba, with the presence of 500-khushuut aba, and more than 1000 - galshat aba [Zhambalova, 1991, p. 87; Zhargalov, 1996, p.147, 162].

There is a need to dwell on each of the listed types of Buryat raids in detail. Most likely, in addition to external (numerical) explanations, the names of roundups are directly related to the features of the structure, internal organization, and characteristic developed methods (a sequence of techniques) that make up the fundamental characteristic of a particular type of hunting.

So, in particular, a specific feature of zegete aba is that the hunting area was specially fenced with stuck stakes with hair ropes stretched between them, to which bright colored pieces of felt and fabric were attached, so that the animals would not slip through the barrier line. In the "Brief information about the Black Tatars" this type of hunting is described as follows: "When their ruler arranges a round-up hunt, large masses of people always gather. [They] dig holes and stick stakes in them. [The latter] are connected to each other by hair ropes, and [scraps] of felt and bird feathers are tied to the ropes. [It's] like catching hares with a net from the Chinese. [Ropes] extend [in a circle] up to 100-200 li. As the feathers [and bits of felt] are waving in the wind, the terrified animals do not dare to run across. After that, [people] surround [the fenced area, gradually] pressing [the animals to the middle of the circle], catch and beat [them]" [Lin Kyung-yi, 1960, pp. 139-140]. According to S. G. Zhambalova, zegete aba (zegte aba) from the moment of its appearance denoted circular hunting with a chain using "hair ropes and flags" (Zhambalova, 1991, p. 4). 90; for a discussion of this term, see Zhargalov, 1996, pp. 148-150]. Under Kaan Ogedei, a lover of hunting shows and amusements, were built

page 17
round-up fences - pens that are dozens (hundreds?) long kilometers. This is reported by Rashid ad-Din: "He (i.e. Ogedei. - A. K.) ordered that a two-day-long fence should be built from stakes and clay at the Ong-hin winter camp. They made passages in it and named it chikhik. During the hunt, the surrounding troops were continuously informed that all of them, forming up in a circle, would go to the fence and drive the beast there. Prudently notifying [the population in the district] for a month's journey, they drove the prey to chikhik. The troops were drawn up in a ring, standing closely shoulder to shoulder. At first, the kaan rode in with the crowd and enjoyed himself for an hour and beat the beast, and when he got bored, he rode to a high place in the middle of the cordon. Princes and emirs entered in order, then ordinary soldiers and beat the beast. Then some were released for wiring. Bakauli ["ambushers"? - A. K.] divided the spoils fairly among all ranks of princes, emirs and soldiers and did not deprive anyone. The whole society performed the rite of kissing the ashes and offering gifts, and after a ten-day festival, each clan returned to their yurts and dwellings" [Rashid ad-Din, 1960, vol.II, pp. 41-42].

If you compare the two descriptions above, the common place in them is the "round-up chain", but the latter refers to the fence that served as a border for the rut of animals. The remains of these structures are still preserved on the territory of Mongolia. In the Aral Sea region near Ustyurt, similar stone structures in the form of giant arrows stretching for 50 km have been found, which taper at the end and, according to a number of conclusions, go back to the Scythian era [Zhargalov, 1996, p.64, 98-107; Akishev, 2001, p. 34]. Small animals that were driven into a circle were hit with arrows, large ones with spears, and the wounded were finished off with knives. Such hunting was very effective, as can be judged by the amount of game obtained in this way.

Aba Haidak, which involved a relatively small group of hunters - up to 300 people-was significantly different from the hunt discussed above. Apparently, its main purpose was to scout the area and find large herds of animals before the main raid, since it was carried out immediately before it and lasted relatively short (from 15 days to two months). [Zhambalova, 1991, p. 91]. Thus, aba haidak can be described as a tracking, preliminary reconnaissance hunt for the upcoming major raid.

The next known type of round-up hunting was khushuuta aba. Compared to those discussed earlier, it had a complex and well-established structure: an advanced detachment (tub) was moved forward, resembling an advance guard in a military formation, and behind it were the right and left flanks. This construction was shaped like a triangle with the vertex pointing forward. And the very word khushuut (literally, "ledge") in Mongolian meant khoshuurakh ("move in a wedge"), khoshuud - "building an army with a wedge, or muzzle". It is not without reason that under zegete aba, the center had a rearguard (rear) position in relation to the wings, and under khushuuta aba - on the contrary [Zhambalova, 1991, p.90]. It is possible that in the latter case, the tub could be absent altogether (for example, if there were fewer hunters than necessary) or pulled back strongly. These two organizational structures indicate that in the first variant (zegete aba), the center was of primary importance, because when the ring of animals closed, it completed the roundup, and in the second variant, the extended wings, having docked at a certain distance, completed the encirclement.

The construction of the khushuut(d) type is noted in the Turkic-speaking nomads of Central Asia. Medieval nomadic Uyghurs "do not form up in ranks in battles; they break off with their heads (i.e., with a sharp wedge) and make an onslaught; they suddenly move out, suddenly retreat; they cannot fight constantly" (Bichurin, 1950, p.215). This form of battle formation was very mobile on the principle of "forward-backward" and allowed on the move to be rebuilt depending on the situation. I dare say that in a real battle, these are so-

page 18
technical and technical operations were difficult to perform. There were also incidents in the form of the inability to dock the wings with a mistake of the leaders, when one of the flanks did not have time to reach the junction point or insurmountable obstacles were encountered on the way. Surprises and accidents that led to the breakdown of the raid, could be many. At the same time, the fundamental principle of the raid remained unchanged - the action of wings, which could be more than two, three or four.

The largest raid, both in terms of the number of hunters and the scale of coverage of the territory, was galshata aba. This name was associated with the word galsha, or galshin, - "leader"," leader","shaman". Among the Buryats, Galsha is the head of the tribal or tribal fire. As S. G. Zhambalova states, "this suggests the existence of a shamanic roundup, i.e. a roundup under the leadership of a shaman, which, in all probability, was widespread in the early history of the Buryats" (Zhambalova, 1991, p. 91). Continuing this idea, it is logical to assume the presence of such a round-up in the early stages of other nomadic peoples. So, according to archaeologists, in the first half of the first century BC, a series of rich male burials with rods appeared on the territory of the north-western Caucasus. This is explained by the fact that the society is undergoing a process of rapprochement between spiritual and secular power, based on a new principle, according to which the male leader is both a warrior and a shaman, which fully corresponded to the requirements of the organization of society with the achieved dynamic way of life and social structure of nomads. Therefore, shamanism in nomadic communities gradually became the dominant religion in the Middle Ages [Shevchenko, 2006, p. 152; on shamans-baksy among the Kazakhs, see: Zhuzbasov, 2007, p. 19, etc.]. Although only men participated in the Buryat hunt, it is possible that earlier (actively or passively) other people also participated in it. women.
As part of the Buryat round-ups, there were several hierarchical floors: 1) the entire ordinary mass of hunters was called abyn zon, it was divided into groups of 20 people and was subordinate to malgai; 2) higher in position were zahuls, who were responsible for the order of the round-up line and maintaining a certain distance within the hunting chain; 3) gar baryaasha were at the head of the round-up wings; 4) tobsha (tubuchi) was in the center.5) the entire round-up hunt was led and managed by the chief administrator - a galsha, or shaman ("during religious rites, he is the high priest, in military operations-the chief commander" [Zhambalova, 1991, p. 92]).

The average level of the hierarchical ladder of the round-up hunt, consisting of zahuls, was directly related to the rank and file of participants. In each wing there were two zahuls: one was located in front of the flank, the other closed the line of the raid. It is interesting that the word "zahul" (zahul, zahul, zasul), S. G. Zhambalova emphasizes, appears here in the meaning of "manager", "organizer", "sentry", "officer" [Zhambalova, 1991, pp. 95-96]. The ending of this word - -ul-indicates first of all its military purpose. Variants of this word in the Turkic languages - yasaul, zhasauyl, yasaul, esaul-denote an official who was responsible for the deployment of troops in battle, at reviews, dignitaries at feasts and receptions. In V. I. Dahl, "yasaul, esaul, M. R. (Tatar, "assistant") - a senior military assistant, right hand, in the kind of adjutant" [Dahl, 1999, p. 681]. The origin of this word is connected with the Turkic concept of Jasa - "build", "make", "arrange" [Old Turkic Dictionary, 1969, p.245]. There is a high probability that the word zahul, zahuul (Mong. languages) and yasaul, zhasauyl, yasaul, esaul (Turk, languages) originally had the meaning of "arrangement, discretion, disposal" in hunting practice, and then it was transformed into the meaning of a military term due to the change in its functions (military activity). Among the Turkic and Mongolian nomads, special persons - yasauli-were responsible for the movement of marching military columns and their placement on the battlefield.

page 19
The next step in the internal structure of the raid is Gar baryaasha (wing leaders). The term gar is well known and translates from Mongolian as "hand", "wing". According to the established tradition, among nomadic peoples (Mongols, Oirats), the concept of gar is included in the terminology of military affairs. For example, zu (u)n gar is the left wing, baru (u)n gar is the right wing; on gar is the right flank, sol gar is the left flank of the army-in the Turkic languages [Zhambalova, 1991, p. 94]. Naturally, the question arises: what are the primary organizational units of traditional round-up hunting or the wing system of nomadic armies? Perhaps everything is so "intertwined" here that it is difficult to answer this question unambiguously at this stage of our knowledge. It seems to me that the established division into flanking wings in its origin was connected with the structure of the institute of round-up, and later passed into the category of the main combat formation and military-organizational units of the nomadic army. We must not forget, however, that the original nomad military system was constantly being improved. And already at a higher evolutionary stage, it could, in turn, have an impact both on the social development of the nomadic community as a whole, and on round-up hunting in particular.

At the head of the entire organizational structure of the round-up hunt was, as already indicated, the main leader-tobsha, galsha. The word tob (tub) means "center"," central " and reflects the main characteristic of this actor, who is in the center of the raid [Zhambalova, 1991, p. 94]. The main task of the hunting center was to close and complete the round-up ring. Tobsha thus played the role of coordinator, regulator of the" mechanism " of the raid, giving direct orders and orders to his subordinates. Galsha, the guardian of the sacred Fire, was located behind the round-up line. His importance in society has always increased, as he combined three functions at once-shaman, leader, and military leader. M. N. Khangalov wrote that "all the participants of the" zagete aba " obeyed him implicitly. When the raid was over, Galsha remained the manager of everyday life in summer camps" (Khangalov, 1958, p. 15). Galsha was elected at tribal meetings, and personal qualities played an important role in his appointment.: intelligence, strength, endurance, the ability to accurately shoot arrows and navigate the terrain, communication with the other world of spirits. Here you can recall the great influence of the shaman ("bigman") Kekchu (Teb-Tengri) on the surrounding area at the elevation of Genghis Khan. "The chief shaman had full authority over the hunt. It is essential that in the war he played the role of a commander" [Kuhn, 1947, p. 20-21].

The power of such elected leaders extended mainly for the period of round-up hunting, but in some extreme cases even for a longer period. B. Ya. Vladimirtsov determined that among the medieval Mongols, the khan was also elected only for waging wars and organizing round-ups, and his power depended on the power and strength of the clan that nominated him. The ritual formula with the mention of the raid, pronounced by Genghis Khan's relatives, when he was elected, confirms this [The Hidden Legend, 1990, p. 43-46]. Round-up hunts were of stimulating importance (as a factor that accelerates centrifugal tendencies) in the process of the emergence of nomadic military-potestar associations, perhaps, as a well-known Mongol scholar emphasized, even more than wars [Vladimirtsov, 1934, p.79, 82]. B. Y. Vladimirtsov's views on the social system of the Mongols also influenced the conclusions of modern researchers. "The khan was elected at the council of equal heads of communities to organize round-up hunts and conduct military operations, which was stipulated when Temujin was elected Khan in 1201," according to N. N. Kradin and T. D. Skrynnikova [Kradin and Skrynnikova, 2006, p. 103; Skrynnikova, 1992, p.58-59]. Schematically, the formation of the institution of Khan power among nomads can be represented as follows: hunter → warrior → shaman → commander → khan (kaan).

page 20
In the system of round-up hunts, the place and functions of participants were related to the position and status of a particular genus, tribe in the social structure of genealogical kinship, and a particular individual in society. In the disposition of round-up hunting, the most respected and honorable (privileged) places were considered to be located in the center, at the ends of the wings and in ambush. Despite the" national " nature of round-up hunting, property and social inequality in nomadic society were also reflected in its organization. In the Mongol Empire, in particular in the Golden Horde, "the heavy duty of the nomadic population was the need to send a large number of people to be rounded up during the khan's hunt" [Fedorov-Davydov, 1973, pp. 40-41]. In addition, the Mongols had other duties related to hunting. "[I, Xu] Ting saw on the way that the Tatars consider [for themselves] the extraction of hair ropes and felt quite heavy. Most of the station horses that [I, Xu] Ting rode had their manes cut off. When [I] asked the Tatars [about the reason for this], [they] replied that [they] made ropes out of them and handed them over to volito 1 for use in hunting " [Lin Kyung-yi, 1960, p. 140]. Only those members of the nomadic community who had a horse and appropriate equipment could participate in the round-up hunt. Horseless poor people (i.e., the insolvent) did not have the right to participate in the raid and performed auxiliary, auxiliary work (carrying carcasses, butchering meat). "The ze-geth-raider who had a horse, had the right to vote in affairs, took part in animal raids and various military operations, and received his share (kub) from the general section" (Khangalov, 1958, pp. 180-181). It is natural that the very economic and cultural type (hereinafter-CCT) of nomadic pastoralists, which provides for such a form of hunting and the dominance of cavalry in the structure of the armed forces, led to the appearance and high rank of the equestrian hunter and warrior-rider.

The right to participate in the round-up hunt belonged mainly to men who had reached the appropriate age. Among nomads, a full-fledged hunter became approximately from the age of 12-14, i.e. from the age when a young person entered the military field. Rashid al-Din recorded in his chronicle an ancient Mongolian custom associated with the initiation rite of young hunters who first caught game. This happened within Mongolia. When Genghis Khan returned from the western campaign, " Kubilai-kaan, who was eleven years old, and Hulagu Khan, who was nine years old, came out to meet him. By chance, at that time Kubilai-kaan killed a hare and Hulagu-khan a wild goat in the area of Aiman-khoi, on the border of the Naiman country, near Imil-Kuchin on the other side of the Khile River [?], near the Uyghur area. The Mongol custom is that the first time boys hunt, their thumb is lubricated, i.e. it is rubbed with meat and fat. Genghis Khan himself greased their fingers. Kubilai-kaan took Genghis Khan's thumb lightly, and Hulagu-khan gripped it firmly. Genghis Khan said: "That bastard killed my finger!" " [Rashid al-Din, 1952, vol. 1, book 2, pp. 229-230].

Special attention was paid to the selection and training of a hunting horse. At the same time, they were guided by certain requirements for the horse's qualities. She had to be strong to easily withstand a long rut, she had to have a soft and wide step, the so-called perestup [Zhambalova, 1991, p.69]. Two or three horses were taken on large-scale raids.

The hunt was strictly disciplined and orderly. This is evidenced by ethnographic data on Buryat hunting: "Those who were late were tied to the bridle by the secret organs of the body and led around the crowd" (Zhambalova, 1991, p. 102).

1 In the commentaries, the translators note that this word is a Chinese transcription of the Mongolian ordu, or ordo, meaning "camp" or"palace". Most likely, this term was borrowed by the Mongols from the ancient Turkic language.

page 21
According to Juvaini, " if an animal suddenly jumps out of the circle, they immediately conduct a thorough investigation and, finding the cause and the culprit, beat thousands, centurions and foremen with sticks and often kill them to death. And if (for example) anyone who does not observe the system (which they call the nerge) and takes a step out of it or retreats, is severely punished and is not allowed to descend" [Juvaini..., 2007, p. 14; see also: Haradavan, 1992, p. 94].

The most detailed rules for conducting round-up hunts and, at the same time, military affairs were drawn up during the reign of Nurhaci, the founder of the Manchu Qing dynasty (Tyuryumina, 1990, p.94-95). In the Mongolian-Oirat legal monument of the XVII century-the "Great Code" (Their Caaz) - there are a number of articles concerning the violation of the order of round-up hunting. "If during the roundup of antelopes someone is killed (from someone's unintentional, accidental shot), then take (from the shot) half of the fine due for killing a person"; "whoever violates (the rules) of round-up hunting-stand next to and walk next to-take five horses from that";"whoever (during the roundup) jumps out (ahead) at a distance of three shots (from a bow), from that take a horse; two shots-a sheep, one shot-five arrows " [Ikh Tsaaz, 1981, p. 21, 27; see also: Zhargalov, 1996, p. 129-131]. Such strict rules of discipline and maintaining the order of the roundup (according to Juvaini) make us think that their rigor was equated with the unshakable provisions of the military charter and the immutability of its implementation during military operations.

When comparing the obtained sample data on the organization of round-up hunts among the" nomadic hunters " of Central Asia with the data on hunting among other peoples, in particular, on bison hunting of the Indians-horse breeders of North America of the XVIII-XIX centuries, who lived in the prairies, a number of significant parallels are found: 1) mass (all-male) character; 2) the identical principle of building groups of beaters ("As the hunters approached the herd, they were divided into two wings that covered the herd from both sides. Each wing was headed by two or three leaders (akatsits). If one wing advanced too quickly and thus scared off the herd before the circle was completed, the leaders of this wing were punished by the leaders of the other wing. According to the rules of hunting, no arrow should be fired before both wings were connected. When the circle is closed, then the akatsites gave a sign to attack and the hunters began to shoot their arrows at the bison" (Averkieva, 1970, pp. 29-31, 35-37). Only those who had specially trained fast-footed hunting horses could participate in the raid; 4) strict observance of equally strict rules and established order [Averkieva, 1974, pp. 259-260, 262].

Round-up hunts, having passed the way from ancient times to the present, preserved the main organizational principles of former hunts [Okhota..., 1976, pp. 29-31, 35-37; Markov, 1992, pp. 236-237]. The similarity of round-up hunts among different peoples separated geographically, but with similar types of economy, and the stability of their main characteristics over time allow us to conclude that this phenomenon was universal in the past.

Almost all researchers who have raised the question of round-up hunting to one degree or another have consistently pointed out its great role in the formation of the military organization of nomads [Vladimirtsov, 1934, p. 33, 82; Kun, 1947, p. 19-29; Grekov and Yakubovsky, 1950, p. 98; Gumilev, 1993, p. 69-70, 139 257-262; Akhinzhanov, 1989, p. 255; Pletneva, 1990, p. 137; Gordeev, 1992, p. 38-39, 75; Goncharov, 1986, p. 28; Egorov, 1990, p. 36-37; Grousset, 1939; Phillips, 1969; Saunders, 1971; Chambers, 1979; de Hartog, 1979 Benson, 1995, Allsen, 2006, etc.]. There are works devoted to Mongol military operations in the "round-up style" [Sinor, 1975; Sinor, 1999, p. 1-44]. In most cases, the researchers considered conducting regular round-up hunts by nomads

page 22
only from the perspective of military maneuvers (preparing for combat operations, practicing tactical combat techniques, etc.), which is completely justified. If we compare the organization and forms of functioning of the institute of round-up hunting with the military organization and military-administrative system of nomadic communities of antiquity and the Middle Ages, their similarity is striking. There are also parallels that suggest their close, "related" origin. The core connecting element here is a two-or three-membered structure (right and left wings, center). Its traditional (permanent) presence in almost all the imperial military-political formations of Eurasia is beyond doubt, and not only among nomadic, but also among sedentary and agricultural peoples.

The largest ancient and medieval nomadic societies of Central Asia have a number of common features: 1) the multi-stage hierarchical nature of social organization; 2) the triadic (in rare cases dual) principle of social organization at its highest levels; 3) the military-hierarchical nature of social organization, as a rule, according to the "decimal" principle" [Kradin, 1992, p.138]. The triad structure of the division of troops and people is found among the Scythians and Xiongnu, recorded among the Xianbis, ancient Turks, medieval Mongols, in Central Asia and Kazakhstan among the Dzungars, Kirghizs, and many others [Khazanov, 1975, p. 122, 128; Murzin, 1990, p. 74; Materials..., 1968, p. 11-12; MIGD, 1984, p. 36, 311; Kuehner, 1961, p. 192; Bernstam, 1946, p. 101; The Hidden Legend, 1990, p. 111-115; MIKH, 1969, p. 73,76, 88, 104, 142, 146, 153-154, 156-157, 161, 166, 165, 175; Yakubovsky, 1992, p. 40-41; Moiseev, 1990, p. 77; Abramzon, 1945, p. 169]. For more details on the triad institute among the nomadic peoples of Central Asia, see [Kychanov, 1997].Yu. A. Zuev, considering the remnants of the triad organization among the nomadic peoples of Central Asia, suggested that the Kazakh zhuzs also arose on a triad basis [Zuev, 1981, pp. 65-78].

In the special literature devoted to this problem, a convincing conclusion is made about the initially dual organization of society, corresponding to the division of the nomad army into right and left flanks, and about its development into a three-term system - "center", right and left "wings" [Stratanovich, 1974; Murzin, 1990, p. 74; Kradin, 1992 Trepavlov, 1993, etc.]. However, T. A. Zhdanko suggested that the division of tribes into two parts is a natural phenomenon and that the primary division was precisely the division of tribes and their territories caused by "some features of the social system", and the secondary one was the reflection in the literature of the division of troops into two parts [Zhdanko, 1950, p. 38]. It seems to me that this point of view, even if it is not supported by strong arguments and concrete examples, deserves attention, since the military structure (of a people, tribe) is still a reflection of the social one. Nevertheless, history also knows cases when a military organization imposed from above (especially during conquests) changed the social system.

In the scientific literature, there are various explanations for the causes of dual and triad structures among nomads. G. G. Stratanovich devoted a separate work to this topic and came to the conclusion that the emergence of a three-member military organization can be interpreted by constant armed conflicts, which gradually "...led to the accumulation of experience in military formation" [Stratanovich, 1974, p.230]. "The classification of social organizations according to the paired organs of the human or animal body is universal [cf.: the right hand and left hand correspond respectively to the right and left wings of the army, etc., or the meaning of the sacred cap with four arrows in Cheyenne (America)] "[Akishev, 1984, p. 107]. This is the simplest explanation that has a real basis. N. N. Kradin, trying to explain the development of a dual organization into a trial one, writes that this "...is connected with the strengthening of the power of the supreme leader, with his desire to form his own power structure that can compete with traditional bodies and with the aristocracy " [Kradin, 1992, p. 139].

page 23
In my opinion, V. N. Kuhn approached this issue most convincingly and reasonably: "This order (i.e., a three-link military-tactical design - A. K.) has been used from time immemorial and was developed by round-up hunting" [Kuhn, 1947, p. 29]. Indeed, information on the structure and organization of round-up hunts confirms this point of view. The same conclusion was reached by Yu. A. Zuev, who believed that the appearance of such a structure among most nomadic peoples "was dictated by the need for economical and at the same time most effective coordination of actions in war and round-up hunting. In ancient times, hunting was a nationwide event. According to eyewitnesses, the entire active mass was divided into three tactical units: left wing - center - right wing" [Zuev, 1981, p.65; Zuev, 1998, p. 50-51].

Thus, the origins of this phenomenon should be seen in the collective round-up hunt. Quite conventionally, the whole process of transition from "hunting to war organization" among nomadic peoples looks like this: hunting → raid → two -, three-winged model → three-member military organization → three-part military-administrative system (right and left wings with or without a center).

In the military organization of many nomadic peoples since ancient times there was a tenfold principle of dividing the army and the population (10, 100, 1000, 10000). This military-hierarchical principle was characteristic of many nomads: the Xiongnu, Zhuzhans, ancient Turks, Uyghurs, Yenisei Kyrgyz, Khitans, Mongols, Uzbeks of the XVI century, Manchus, Jun-Gars, Kirghizs, and Kazakhs of the XIX-XX centuries [MIGD, 1969, p. 269; Bichurin, 1950, p. 232, 235 250; Barfield, p. 48-49; Malov, 1959, p. 33, 41; Khudyakov, 1980; ony, 1991, p. 92; The Hidden Legend, 1990, p. 100-101, 111-115; Plano Carpini, 1957, p. 49 and others; Ruzbikhan, 1976, p. 90; Kuznetsov, 1990, p. 52; Kychanov, 1992, p. 52, 65; Moiseev, 1991, p. 34; Abramzon, 1945, p. 169; Bekmakhanov, 1992, p. 186, 194; Nurkamysov, 1986, p. 132]. For more information on the decimal system in Central Asia, see [Kychanov, 1997; Zuev, 1998, pp. 50-51]. This system of counting and accounting was inherent in both sedentary and nomadic people, i.e. it was a universal phenomenon. So, out of 307 primitive peoples, 146 used the decimal system, as it was the most optimal and convenient. There is no doubt that the decimal number system of the army was very conditional, because in the upper echelons of the military organization in ancient times, at the level of the "tumen", it denoted not the actual number of soldiers, but the title (rank) of the military commander and confirmed his status [Kradin, 1992, p.140; Dalai, 1983, p. 57].

B. Ya. Vladimirtsov thought that it was connected with the division of tribes into smaller clans, clans, and villages, which were supposed to display tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.of soldiers at the same time, respectively (Vladimirtsov, 1934, p. 104). Other researchers see its origin in the unification of tribes, clans and clans on a military basis, when such an army structure as the tenfold system gathered, organized and ordered this mass of people. Those structures that were integrated into hierarchical systems were in a much better position militarily. Nomad military structures, organized according to the hierarchical principle, were more mobile, efficient, and ultimately were a stronger military-organizational tool than nomad detachments assembled on the principle of simply "hordes" (Kradin, 1992, p.141-143). The tenfold principle is a rigid social and regulatory mechanism that established a single (universal) horizontal-vertical (end-to-end) military-organizational order both in the armed forces and among the civilian population of nomadic empires and became, one might say, the pinnacle of their managerial management. Any cohesive (large or small) group community of people requires a mechanism that forms small-group divisions in order to be systematic, systematic and coherent.-

page 24
specific actions. The tenfold principle of military organization has undoubtedly become such a regulatory mechanism.

If we again refer to the materials of the Buryat round-up hunt, we can see that the detachments in it, in addition to the above-mentioned large units, are divided into smaller groups of 20 or 50 people [Zhambalova, 1991, p.97]. Such small-group fragmentation was associated with the system of organizing a round-up, since hunters had to evenly cover the territorial space of hunting, strictly observing a certain distance between themselves. At the same time, this division was also determined by the management mechanism and overall coordination of actions in the middle and lower levels of hunting. There is no direct information in the sources about the presence of a decimal structure in late round-up hunts. Nevertheless, M. N. Khangalov points out that the Buryats hunt "one horse out of every ten" (Khangalov, 1958, p.100; see also: Zhargalov, 1996, p. 150). In the Ordos steppes of southern Mongolia, hunters who gather in a group of up to a thousand people are divided into groups of ten, and in the wings they are already divided into twenty people (Zhargalov, 1996, p. 132), which can serve as an indirect argument confirming its presence during the period of the origin of the raid as such. However, this can also be seen as the reverse effect of a military organization on the structure of collective hunting. It is interesting to note that modern round-up hunts in most cases take place in the number of 10 people [Okhota..., pp. 46-47]. Perhaps this is indirectly related to memories of past round-up hunts.

The Institute of roundup hunting among the nomads of Central Asia performed four main functions:

1) economic and economic, in the life support system of nomadic society (replenishment of food supplies);

2) quartermaster (military marching);

3) military (military training of soldiers, structure of the formation of the armed forces, working out combat tactics and techniques);

4) spiritual and physical (entertainment, recreation, demonstration of courage and skill, warm-up).

All of the above suggests that round-up hunting was not only an additional element of the economic support system, but also a necessary institution in nomadic society, closely connected with the military organization and the military system as a whole. This military-social institution becomes a kind of" micro-model " of the nomad military organization, forming a strategy for the development of the natural environment first, and then, with the emergence of statehood, the military-political world space.

list of literature

Abramzon S. M. Cherty voennoy organizatsii i tekhniki u kirghizov (po istoriko-etnograficheskim dannym i materialam eposa "Manas") [Features of military organization and technology among the Kyrgyz (based on historical and ethnographic data and materials of the epic "Manas")]. Frunze, 1945. Issue 1.

Averkieva Yu. P. Indian nomadic society of the XVIII-XIX centuries. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970.

Averkieva Yu. P. Indians of North America. Ot rodovogo obshchestva k klassovomu [From generic society to class]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974.

Akishev A. K. Iskusstvo i mifologiya sakov [Art and Mythology of the Saks]. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1984.

Akishev A. K. Mirza Mukhammad Haidar: duglat vs kurken / / Otan tarikhy (Otechestvennaya istoriya). Almaty, 2001. N 2.

Akhinzhanov S. M. Kipchaks in the history of medieval Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1989.

Bekmakhanov E. B. Kazakhstan in the 20-40s of the XIX century. Алма-Ата: Казак университеті, 1992.

Bernshtam A. N. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskiy stroi orkhono-eniseyskikh tyurkov VI - VIII vv [Socio-economic structure of the Orkhon-Yenisei Turks of the VI-VIII centuries].

Bichurin N. Ya. Sobranie informatsii o narodakh, obitavshikh v Srednoi Azii v drevnih vremeni [Collection of information about the peoples who lived in Central Asia in ancient times], vol. 1, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

page 25
Vladimirtsov B. Ya. Public order of the Mongols. Mongolian Nomadic Feudalism, Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1934.

Goncharov S. N. Chinese Medieval Diplomacy: Relations between the Jin and Sun Empires. 1127-1142. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1986.

Gordeev A. A. Istoriya kazakov [History of the Cossacks], Part 1. Zolotaya Horda i zarozhdenie kazachestva (Golden Horde and the Origin of the Cossacks), Moscow, 1991.

Golden Horde and Its Fall, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

Gumilev L. N. Drevniye tyurki [Ancient Turks], Moscow, 1993.

Dalai Ch. Mongolia in the XIII-XIV centuries. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.

Dal ' V. I. Tolkovyi slovar zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language]. In 4 volumes, vol. 4. Moscow: Russian Language, 1999.

Dal 'V. I. Bolshoy illustrated explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language: Modern Writing, Moscow: Astrel; AST; Khranitel', 2006.

Juvaini-From "Tarikh-i jahan-gushai" by Juvaini // History of Kazakhstan in Persian sources. Extracts from works of the XIII-XIX centuries. Vol. V. / Ed. by M. Kh. Abuseitov; comp. by M. Kh. Abuseitov. Almaty: Daik-Press, 2007.

Drevnetyurkskiy slovar ' [Ancient Turkic Dictionary], Nauka Publ., 1969.

Egorov V. L. Zolotaya Horda: mifi i real'nost '' [The Golden Horde: Myths and Reality]. Moscow: Znanie Publ., 1990.

Zhambalova S. G. Traditional hunting of Buryats. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1991.

Zhargalov D. Round-up hunting before and after Genghis Khan. Irkutsk: Imeni Publ., 1996.

Zhdanko T. A. Essays on the historical ethnography of Karakalpaks. Tribal structure and resettlement in the XIX - early XX century. M. - L.: Izd-vo an SSSR, 1950.

Zhuzbasov K. Musical folklore of the Kazakhs of Gorny Altai. Almaty: Vner Publishing House, 2007.

Zalkind E. M. Public order of Buryats in the XVIII-first half of the XIX century. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970.

Zuev Yu.A. Istoricheskaya proeksiya kazakhskikh genealogicheskikh predaniy (k voprosu o otzhitkakh trialnoy organizatsii u kochevykh narodov Tsentral'noi Azii) [Historical projection of Kazakh genealogical traditions (on the question of the survivals of the trial organization among the nomadic peoples of Central Asia)]. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1981.

Zuev Yu.A. O formy etnosotsialnoy organizatsii kochevykh narodov Tsentral'noi Azii v drevnosti i srednevekovye: Pestraya Horda, Sotnya (sravnitel'no-tipologicheskoe issledovanie) [On the forms of ethno-social organization of nomadic peoples of Central Asia in antiquity and the Middle Ages: Motley Horde, Hundred (comparative typological research)]. Collection of articles. Almaty, 1998.

Their Tsaaz ("Great Code"). Monument of the Mongolian feudal law of the XVII century. and comments by S. D. Dylykova, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981.

Kradin N. N. Nomadic societies (problems of formation characteristics). Vladivostok, 1992.

Kradin N. N., Skrynnikova T. D. The Empire of Genghis Khan, Moscow: East Lit., 2006.

Kuznetsov V. S. Nurkhatsi - osnovatel ' manzhurskogo gosudarstva [Nurkhatsi-the founder of the Manchurian state]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1980.

Kun V. N. Cherty voennoi organizatsii srednevekovykh kochevykh narodov Srednoi Azii [Features of the military organization of medieval nomadic peoples of Central Asia]. in-ta im. Nizami. (Ser. of societies and sciences). 1947. Issue 2.

Kutepov N. I. Grand-ducal, royal and imperial hunting in Russia. In 4 volumes (Electronic version of CD-ROM, 2005: Publishing house: "Directmedia Publishing". T. 54).

Kychanov E. I. Forms of early statehood among the peoples of Central Asia // North Asia and neighboring territories in the Middle Ages. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1992.

Kychanov E. I. Nomadic States from the Huns to the Manchus, Moscow: Publishing House of the Eastern Literature Company of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997.

Kuehner N. V. Chinese news about the peoples of Southern Siberia, Central Asia and the Far East. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961.

Lin Kyung-yi, Munkuev N. C. "Brief information about the Black Tatars" by Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting / / Problems of Oriental Studies, 1960. N 5.

Malov S. E. Pamyatniki drevnetyurkskoy pis'mosti Mongolia i Kirghizii [Monuments of ancient Turkic writing in Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan].

Marco Polo. The book of Marco Polo. (Ser. Travel. Openings. Adventures). Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1990.

Markov B. I. Okhota na lynx, boar, elk, roe deer / / Russkaya okhota s gonchimi [Russian hunting with hounds]. Moscow: Ekologiya, 1992.

Materials on the history of the Xiongnu (based on Chinese sources). Issue 1 / Translated and commented by V. S. Taskin, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1968.

Materials on the history of nomadic peoples of the Donghu group (MIGD), Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984.

Materials on the history of the Kazakh Khanates of the XV-XVIII centuries. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1969.

Moiseev V. A. O voennom delo i voynakh Dzungarskogo khanstva [On military affairs and wars of the Dzungarian Khanate]. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1990.

Moiseev V. A. Dzungarian Khanate and Kazakhs (XVII-XVIII centuries). Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1991.

On the origin of the Scythians: the main stages of the formation of the Scythian ethnos. Киев: Наукова думка, 1990.

Meng-da bey-lu (Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars) / Translated and commented by N. Ts. Munkueva, Moscow: Nauka, 1975.

page 26
Nurkamysov A. Administrativnoe i voennoe upravlenie v stane Amangeldy Imanov [Administrative and military management in the camp of Amangeldy Imanov]. Alma-Ata, 1986.

Hunting for ungulates (biological basis of fishing). Moscow, 1976.

Plano Carpini, Giovanni del. Istoriya mongolov [History of the Mongols] / / Poezdestvie v vostochnye strany Plano Karpini i Guillaume de Rubruk / Translated by A. I. Maleina, Moscow: Geograf Publishing House, lit., 1957.

Pletneva S. A. Polovtsy, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1990.

Rashid al-Din. Collection of chronicles. Vol. I Kn. 2; Vol. II. Moscow-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952.

Ruzbihan (Fazlallah ibn Ruzbihan Isfahani). Mihman namei Bukhara (Notes of the Bukhara guest). Moscow, 1976.

Skrynnikova T. D. Potestarno-politicheskaya kul'tura mongolov XI - XIII vv. [Potestarno-politicheskaya kul'tura mongolov XI-XIII vv.]. Srednevekovaya kul'tura mongol'skikh narodov. Sb. nauch. trudov. Novosibirsk, 1992.

The secret legend of the Mongols. Ulan-Ude Publ., 1990.

Stratanovich G. G. Voennaya organizaciya triadnogo tipa i ee sudba [Military organization of the triad type and its fate]. Problemy altaistiki i mongolovedeniya, Issue I. Elista, 1974.

Trepavlov V. V. State system of the Mongolian Empire of the XIII century. The problem of historical continuity, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1993.

Tyuryumina L. V. Voennoe delo u manchurov (informatsii iz "Man-wen lao-dan") [Military affairs among the Manchus (information from "Man-wen lao-dan")]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1990.

Fedorov-Davydov G. A. Public order of the Golden Horde. Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1973.

Khazanov A. M. a Social history of Scythians: the main problems of development of the ancient nomads of the Eurasian steppes. M.: Nauka, 1975.

Khangalov M. N. Zagete-aba-a raid on animals in ancient Buryats / / M. N. Khangalov. Collected works. 1. Ulan-Ude: Buryat, kn. izd-vo, 1958.

Khangalov M. N. Zagete-aba u kudinsky buryats / / M. N. Khangalov. Collected works. 1. Ulan-Ude: Buryat, kn. izd-vo, 1958.

Khangalov M. N. Yuridicheskie uslugi u buryat [Legal customs of the Buryats]. Collected works. 1. Ulan-Ude: Buryat, kn. izd-vo, 1958.

Khara-Davan E. Genghis Khan as a commander and his legacy. Kul'turno-istoricheskiy ocherk Mongol'skoy imperii XII-XIV vv. Alma-Ata: KRAMDS-Ahmed Yassawi, 1992.

Khudyakov Yu. S. Armament of the Yenisei Kyrgyz. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1980.

Shevchenko N. F. "Sarmatian priestesses", or once again to the question of the maternal gender of the Sarmatians / / Vestnik drevnoi istorii. 2006. N 1 (255).

Yakubovsky A. Timur / / Tamerlane: Epoch. Personality. Acts / Comp. arr. and subg. text by R. Rakhmanaliev, Moscow: Gurash Publ., 1992.

Allsen Th. T. The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2006.

Barfield T. The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy // Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. XLI. No. 1

Benson D. S. Six Emperors: Mongolian Aggression in the Thirteenth Century. Chicago-Illinois, 1995.

Chambers J. Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe. N. Y.: Atheneum, 1979.

Grousset R. l'Empire des Steppes. Attila, Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan. P., 1939.

Hartog L de. The army of Genghis khan // Army Quarterly and Defence Journal. Vol. 109. 1979.

Phillips E. D. The Mongols. L., 1969.

Saunders J. J. The History of the Mongol Conquests. N. Y., 1971.

Sinor D. On Mongol Strategy // Proceedings of the Fourth East Asian Altaistic Conference / Ed. Ch'en Chien-hsien. Tainan, Taiwan, 1975.

Sinor D. The Mongols in the West // Journal of Asian History. 1999. Vol. 33. No. 1.

Permanent link to this publication: