282 Conclusion
statehood concept evolved beyond the influence of the powerful but alien civi-
lizations of the sedentary south. The ideology of the steppe world had its roots
in ancient times (dating as far back as the Bronze Age), when the boundaries
between agriculture and nomadism were not yet clearly defined. That was the
time of the mythical Aryans and Turanians.55 All significant steppe empires in
the subsequent centuries (up to Genghis Khan) compared to them. Thus, the
ideology and religious notions of the linguistically different Turks and Iranians
were extremely similar during the Early Middle Ages. According to O. Pritsak,
the idea of a specific order (world) that bound the whole Eurasian Steppe was
extremely durable and kept the steppe empires vital for two millennia.56 The
common tradition was preserved in the worldview and rituals of the majority
of the descendants of the former steppe empires. This is for example true for
the population of Eastern and Western Turkestan that otherwise differed in its
origins and economy.57
In the view of V. Stoianov, “equestrian peoples with their abilities in main-
taining traditions were the bearers of elements (concepts, organizational
forms, etc.), inherited from the contacts of their ancestors in the past, which
also made them intermediaries between cultures distant in time and space”.58
But the typologies of the steppe empires that are based on their economic
characteristics alone are unable to give due weight to the ideology, and hence
to the continuity of the cultural traditions that cannot, of course, be typical
solely for pastoralists.59
55 See Kliashtornyi and Sultanov 2000, 15–27. Such continuity among the steppe communi-
ties is disputed by Kradin and Skrynnikova 2006, 44. According to N. Kradin, continuity
among the “nomadic” empires cannot be proven, since they were sometimes separated
from each other by significant periods of time. The existence of a state or a political suc-
cession is not the sole cause for the spread of ideas, regardless of the society’s political
structure. At the same time, Kradin 2001a, 140 notes that the Huns, Turks and the Mongols
had a “similar mythological system to justify the authority of the ruler of the steppe
empire”. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with his assertion that the steppe peo-
ples (the nomads) did not have a singular spiritual core (Kradin and Skrynnikova 2006, 44).
56 Pritsak 1981a, 12–13.
57 See for instance an interesting ethnological study that shows the people of Eastern and
Western Turkestan as part of a single ethno-cultural entity on the basis of childhood ritu-
alism (Chvyr 2001).
58 Stoianov 2006, 182.
59 Particularly on the continuity in the statehood and ideology of the various steppe
empires, see the works of P. Golden (especially the articles published in Golden 2003;
see also Golden 2006 and 2007b), N. Di Cosmo (Di Cosmo 1999 and 2004), S. Kliashtornyi
(Kliashtornyi and Sultanov 2000), S. Pletneva (Pletneva 1982), O. Pritsak (Pritsak 1981a), Ts.
Stepanov (Stepanov 2005a), V. Stoianov (Stoianov 2006a) among others.