Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.

Accepted Paper:

Early Big Man Polities of the Inner Asian-Chinese Borderlands  
Zachary Hershey (William Mary)

Paper abstract:

Discussions of the early Xiongnu polity continue to use a variety of classifications ranging from loose confederacy to hereditary empire. The scarcity of sources documenting the early stages of Xiongnu state formation make the origins of the Xiongnu leadership near impossible to trace prior to the rise of the hereditary Luandi dynasty under Modu chanyu. The story of Modu chanyu's rise to power closely resembles the a leadership model described by Marshall Sahlins in his description of Polynesian and Melanesian polities which he termed "Big Man" polities. Big Men rise to power through the exercise of their influence and projection of power through control and redistribution of resources. Unlike hereditary systems which rely on succession based on birth, Big Man systems rely on the personality and resources of the individual to maintain their right to rule. This paper proposes a new method for understanding state formation in Inner Asian-Chinese borderlands through which the rise of Xiongnu, Serbi, Kitan, and Qai Big Men is accompanied by attempted transitions to hereditary systems. The success of the Big Man in establishing a stable hereditary system relies on the ability of the initial hereditary heir in inheriting the Big Man status of the previous Big Man. From the second to tenth centuries CE, the northern Inner Asian-Chinese frontier can be characterized by a series of such attempted transitions-some directly failing, some briefly successful, and others which achieve lasting success like the Tabgach-led Northen Wei, or the Kitan-led Liao. The Luandi of the Xiongnu are the earliest of such transitions that can be clearly identified, but the later activity of the Serbi, Kitan, Qai, and other related groups provide accounts of similar transitions along the Inner Asian-Chinese borderlands. By examining the rise and fall of the families of these Big Men style leaders, this paper reevaluates Sinification arguments of Inner Asian leadership by providing new insight into the succession of power and state formation in the Inner Asian-Chinese borderlands.

Panel HIS05
International Relations/ Rivalry Central Asia
  Session 1 Friday 21 October, 2022, -