Юлий Иванович Дробышев - Человек и природа в кочевых обществах Центральной Азии (III в. до н.э. – XVI в. н.э.)

граница:
кочевые империи и Китай (221 г. до н.э. – 1757 г. н.э.) / Пер. Д.В. Рухлядева и
В.Б. Кузнецова. Санкт-Петербург, 2009. P. 433.

601

way of life. Galdan-Tseren (1727–1745), a son of Tsevan-Rabdan, continued to patronize to soil cultivation. Besides numerous plough-lands, ambassadors and merchants arriving to the court of a Jungar khan noted gardens,
which also were created by natives from Eastern Turkestan. There were
many gardens enclosed by brick walls up to 5 km long in perimeter.
Agriculture in Northern and Western Mongolia in XVIII – beginning
of XX centuries was also obliged to the stable enough political situation
under the power of the Qing dynasty, and not so much Mongols were engaged in this business (their ploughing was very modest, and the level of
agrotechnics allowed to wish much better), as Manchurians and Chinese
quartered in the cities-garrisons. The last played more important role in
agriculture of Mongolia, while the events of 1911 marked the beginning of
rapid decline of their economic activity in this country. In the anxious years
following on the proclamation of autonomous Mongolia, many Chinese
hurried on the historical motherland putting Mongolian agriculture on the
verge of nearly complete crash. The attempts of Bogdo-Gegen to lift agriculture from ruins had little effect, but already at the beginning of 1980th
Mongolia was able to export grain in spite of the fact that climate was basically the same. Thus, in the history of Inner Asia it is impossible to put
agriculture in direct dependence on the changes of climate.
The “ecophylity” is a complicated issue too. If we try to range cultures
conditionally along this parameter, then the traditional nomadic culture of
Inner Asian peoples can be considered highly enough “ecophylly” and exceeding the Western civilization and some civilizations of the East, for example Chinese one. At the same time, materials available on the ethnic
ecology of Mongolian and Turkic peoples, do not allow to propose hypotheses about greater or less “ecophylity” some of them. Language, stereotypes of behavior and other ethnic features have not influenced substantially
on the character of nature management and on people relation to the environment. Presumably, the same natural conditions caused identical adaptive
reactions of different ethnoses and supported in nomads’ consciousness a
practically stereotype image of the world with a stable subordination of the
Man and the Nature. Foreigner religions could bring some variety, but they,
as a rule, neither undermined foundations of life-support nor traditional
worldview, although at reading of the sources, one can get the deceitful impression of total alteration of a “society-neophyte” according to the religious canons. New deities and new ideas incorporated into the existing system of believes, and sometimes nature of Inner Asia received additional
supernatural patrons.
On the example of Inner Asia, we can confirm and specify two categories of “ecophylity” or “ecofriendlyness” of traditional culture: adaptive and

602

ethic. The first category, mostly not realized by people, is always aimed at
survival of the tribe, so the environment is saved exactly as far as there is a
human tribe in the center of it. Out of tribe interests, the nature does not
have any value. The second category is fully realized and unconnected to
the idea of prosperity of a tribe or an individual. Nature in this case comes
forward as a self-value. In the history-cultural region in question, we can
observe a combination of both categories of “ecophylity”, but with absolute
historical predominance of the first.
Overall, the “ecofriendlyness” of the Inner-Asian nomadism is stipulated, at least, by three factors. At first, technical equipment during millenniums remained here at a comparatively low level, and people did not have
an opportunity to change landscapes on the desire or effectively exploit natural resources in all their fullness. Some resources were inaccessible. Secondly, small number and dispersion of population, and extremely poor
towns building hindered creation of the critical loads to landscapes. Thirdly,
the vulnerable nature of Inner Asia is liable to rapid and sometimes irreversible degradation, so it did not allow exploiting itself without a risk. Probably, a local population came by an empiric way to the realizing of this simple rule long before the origin of the first nomadic emperies; therefore, the
systems of life-support of nomads were already adjusted to avoid causing an
injury to their fragile resource base. Rules and prohibitions appeared on this
base, in the course of time acquiring authority of strong traditions, which in
the end of ХХ century got the name “ecological”.
These traditions are difficult to understanding, if not to take into account their mental constituent. The same people and even a concrete person
could behave themselves in the nature very differently depending on whom
it belonged to. Nomads perceived the world as semantically heterogeneous:
it had a sacral center and a profane periphery; and a stranger land stood out
of this simplest classification, but precise fit into the universal code “ours –
aliens”. Provided with various positive properties, the native land was in
strong opposition to territories occupied by hostile tribes, therefore attitude
toward nature of aliens land was exploitative and predatory, and to the own
nature – zealous and even, it be possible to say, with love. In like manner,
other peoples have interpreted the Earth’ surface.
The sacredness of the own land followed from ideas about its exceptional position in the traditional image of the world. Any family or tribe
always put itself in the semantic center of the world, in a place, where salutary force of the Sky is maximal. Consequently, this place is ideal for life.
The spirits of ancestors inhabit the tribe land and untiringly watch everything that takes place on it. They help their descendants: provide people
with health, children, richness, and longevity, increase their herds. Other

603

spirits having a natural origin, under condition of their honoring give hunting booty, favorable weather, and so on. Places of their “dwelling” – as a
rule, anyway prominent elements of landscape – become sacral and actually
grow into natural reserves. The good example of the deified ethnic territory
is Otűken glorified in the runic monuments. This area on the banks of the
Orkhon River in Mongolia personified for Ancient Turks, Uighurs and
many other nomads the “promised land”, the best place for life and state
creation. The owners changed of the strategically important area that one
can call the heart of Inner Asia, but it saved value of the sacral and political
center.
All objects and phenomena of nature occupied their places in the image
of the world correlated with a human society and have not been considered
out of peoples’ interests, hence the normal coarse of natural processes
pointed out harmony reigning in a society, and their unusual behavior signaled about some trouble in public relations. In Inner Asia since antiquity,
an idea was developed on a close interrelation of sovereignty and natural
harmony. The Eternal Sky elected a legitimate ruler of a nomadic empire
who incarnated the “World axis” and served as a transmitter of the Sky
force to the Earth. Extending the borders of his state, he thereby moved
apart the borders of well-organized space, where both wild nature --">