A well-balanced system of ranks developed under Мао-tun has not remained later on. The Chinese historian Fan Yeh has given the same detailed description of the Hsiung-nu's political system in I AD as his eminent predecessor Ssu-ma Ch'ien [Лвдай 1958: 680; Материалы 1973: 73]. It provides an unique opportunity to observe a dynamics of the political institutions of the Hsiung-nu throughout 250 years. The most considerable differences between the power of Мао-tun epoch and Hsiung-nu society before collapses are as follows: (1) There has been a transition, from the tribe, military-administrative division to dual tribal division into wings; (2) Ssu-ma Ch'ien wrote about clearly development military-administrative structure with 'chiefs of a ten thousand'. Fan Yeh does not mention a 'decimal; system and instead of military rank of 'chiefs of a ten thousand', the civil titles of 'kings' (wang) are enumerated; (3) According to Fan Yeh, the whole first ten of so called 'strong' 'chiefs of a ten thousand' that shows, from the viewpoint of the Chinese chronicles. Their more independent position on the side of the Shan-уй headquarters; (4) In the Hsiung-nu empire, an order of succession to the throne has changed. If ordinally the throne of Shan-уй has been passed from the father to the son (except several extraordinary cases), them other order has become to predominate: from uncle to nephew; (5) In the Hsiung-nu society, a principle of join government has prevailed according to which the ruler of the nomadic empire has a cornier controlling a junior by rank 'wing'. A capacity of junior co-ruler is in herited within his lineage but his successors can not pretend on this Shan-уй 's throne.
Therefore, these changes demonstrate a gradual weakening of the autocratic relations in the empire and their substitution for federative relations as demonstrated partially by a transition from triple administrative-territorial division to dual one. The military-hierarchical relations have been pressed back and the genealogical hierarchy between 'seniors' and 'junior' by rank tribes have been pushed into the foreground.
Could the Hsiung-nu create their own statehood? How should the Hsiung-nu society be classified in the anthropological theories of political evolution? Can they be considered as states or pre-state formations? These question are up to present discussed by the researchers of different countries and, especially, by Marxist anthropologists [in details review see in Крадин 1992]. At present there are two most popular groups of the theories explaining a process of origin and essence of early state. The conflict ox control theories show the origin of statehood and its internal nature in the context of the relations between exploitation, class struggle, war and interethnic predominance. The integrative theories were largely oriented to explain a phenomenon of the state as a higher stage of economic and public integration [Fried 1967; Service 1975; Claessen and Skalnik 1978; 1981; Cohen and Service 1978; Haas 1982; 1995; Gailey and Patterson 1988; Павленко 1989; Kradin and Lynsha 1995 etc.].
However, from the viewpoint of neither conflict nor integrating approaches, the Hsiung-nu nomadic empires can not be unambiguously interpreted as a chiefdom or state. A similarity of the Hsiung-nu empire to the state clearly manifests itself the relations with the outer world only (military-hierarchical structure of the nomadic society to confiscate prestigious product from neighbours as well as to surpress the external pressure; international sovereignty, specific ceremonial in the foreign-policy relations).
At the same time, as to internal relations, the 'state-like' empires of nomads (except some quite explainable cases) were based on non-forcible (consensual and gift-exchange) relations and they existed at the expense of the external sources without establishment of the cattle-breeders taxation. Finally, in the Hsiung-nu empire the main sign of statehood was absent. According to many present theories of the state, the main dissimilarity of the statehood from pre-state forms lies in the fact that the chiefdom's ruler has only consensual power i.e., in essence authority whereas, in the state, the government can apply sanctions with the use of legitimated force [Service 1975: 16, 296–307; Claessen and Skalnik 1978: 21–22, 630, 639–640 etc.]. The power character of the rulers of the steppe empires is more consensual and prevented from monopoly of legal organs. Shan-yii, is primarily redistributor and its power is provided by personal abilities and know-how to get from the outside of he society prestigious goods and to redistribute them between subjects.
For such societies which are more numerous and structurally developed that complex chiefdoms and which are at the same time no states (even 'inchoate' early state), a term supercomplex chiefdom has been proposed [Крадин 1992: 152; Kradin 2000a]. This term has been accepted by the colleagues-nomadologists [Трепавлов 1995: 202; Скрынникова 1997: 49] although, at that time, clear logical criteria allowing to distinguish between supercomplex and complex chiefdoms have not be defined.
The critical structural difference between complex and supercomplex chiefdoms was stated by professor Robert Carneiro in the special paper [1992; 2000]. True Carneiro prefers to call they 'compound' and 'consolidated' chiefdoms respectively. In his opinion, a difference of simple chiefdoms from compound ones is a pure quantitative by a nature. The compound chiefdoms consist of several simple ones and over the subchiefs of districts (i.e. simple chiefdoms), the supreme chief, ruler of the whole polity, is. However, Robert Carneiro pointed out that the compound chiefdoms when they unite in the greater polities prove rarely to be capable to overcome a separatism of subchiefs and such structures disintegrate quickly. A mechanism of the struggle against the structural division was traced by him by the example of one of the great Indian chiefdoms inhabited in XVII century on the territory of present-day American state of Virginia. The supreme chief of this polity by Powhatan name, in order to cope with centrifugal aspirations of the segments chiefs, began to replace them with his supporters who were usually his near relations. This imparted the important structural impulse to the following political integration.
The similar structural principles have been by Thomas Barfield in the Hsiung-nu history [1981:49; 1992: 38–39]. The Hsiung-nu power has consisted of multi-ethnic conglomeration of chiefdoms and tribes including in the 'imperial confederation'. The tribal chiefs and elders have been incorporated in the all-imperial decimal hierarchy. However, their power was to certain degree independent from the centre policy and based on the support on the side of fellow-tribesmen. In the relations with the tribes being members of the imperial confederation. The Hsiung-nu Shan-yii has relied up on support of his nearest relations and companions-in-arms bearing titles of 'ten thousand commander'.
They were put at the head of the special supertribal subdivisions integrating the subordinate or allied tribes into 'rumens' numbering approximately 5–10 thousand of warriors. These persons should be a support for the metropolis' policy in the provinces.
Other nomadic empires in Eurasia were similarly organized. The system of uluses which are often named by Celtic term of tanistty [Fletcher 1986], has existed in all the multi-polities of nomads of the Eurasian steppes: Wu-sun [Бичурин 1950b: 191], European Huns [Хазанов 1975: 190, 197], Turkish [Бичурин 1950a: 270] and Uighur [Bariield 1992: 155] Khaganates, Mongolian Empire [Владимирцов 1934: 98–110].
Further more, in many nomadic empires, there were special functioners of lower rank engaging in the support of the central power in the tribes. In the Hsiung-nu empire, such persons were named 'marquises' Ku-tu [Pritsak 1954: 196–199]. In the Turkish Khaganate, there were functioners designed to control the tribal chiefs [Бичурин 1950а: 283]. The Turk have also sent their governor-general (tutuks) to control the dependent people [Бичурин 1950b: 77; Материалы 1984: 136, 156]. Chinggis Khan, after reform of 1206, has appointed special noyons to control his relations [Козин 1941: § 243].