Gumilev “Fan-Boy”, and a simple explanation of his theory.
Contemporaries didn't like Gimilev's writings and made many efforts to suppress them. Although he did not criticize the Soviet Union, he did not accept Marxism as foundational.
Drop-Down link, to the explanation of The Gumilev Theory
(link only works on-line, not in an email)
Criticism:
It is true that I get a lot out of Gumilev's writings, and I've grown used to his style. He has a combination of expertise. A great historical-geographer, and a capable researcher and author of history. He also writes in an accessible style that is easy and entertaining to read. Not everybody likes him though.
Some claim that he takes too many liberties with historical sources, and doesn’t take them seriously enough, taking from them only ‘bare-dumb-facts’. His chronological constructions are a subjective invention and his story telling is merely to create a popular following instead of a rigorous scientific method. Furthermore, his theory of ethnogenesis is so far-out to border on science fiction, or the invasion of the extraterrestrials.
It’s true that he has another approach which most other historians can’t imagine.
Those academicians who wrote denunciations of Gumilev to the CPSU Central Committee (Bromley, Rybakov, Grigulevich), did not respond to his calls to enter into open discussion. They were smart people and understood perfectly well that they were guaranteed to lose. Therefore, as it is often customary among the "creative intelligentsia," they acted behind their backs, stealthily. Their articles were published, but Gumilev was almost never allowed to give an answer. In the seventies and the first half of the eighties, Y.V. Bromley once frankly stated: "I cannot discuss with Gumilev, he has a quick reaction, and I am slow-witted," and, in general, "Gumilev walks through world history as if in his living-room!
At first academicians tried everything to deny Gumilev of his doctorate degree. They found excuses so he couldn’t defend his thesis. Then it was arranged that he would defend his book “The Hunnu People”. Many adversaries studied the book to tear it down. At the last minute Gumilev switched and defended his book “The Ancient Turks”, and so the adversaries were foiled and he obtained his degree.
Then with his first important book, it was arranged to go into the book repository. That meant that it wasn’t really published but there were only about 10 copies in a library, and you had to reserve one to read it. Then his next important book (it took decades of intrigue), was finally published with 10,000 copies. The next day they were all bought up from the publisher and loaded into a truck. These books never again appeared.
We should understand that Gumilev was repressed all of his life. He was in jail for 12 or 15 years at various times. He was even sentenced to death during the 30’s Soviet repressions. But then the NKVD leader, Nikolai Yezhov was tried and shot and the prosecutor that was pursuing Gimilev’s case was tried and shot. So Gumilev was sentenced to only 5 years. He only got released by joining the army, and he said that life at the front was much better than life in the Gulag. He was in the campaign that entered Berlin.
There are some critiques of his work, which I have read, (SHNIRELMAN and PANARIN, the link is below). I am not a competent scientist, but working with Gumilev, I have read enough to compare what they are saying in their critique to my own impressions, which are pretty well formulated. Let’s look into it. They say this:
Some call his books ‘scientific-fantasy romances’, 4 others call him a ‘crafty myth-creator in the guise of a natural scientist’, 5 a third is convinced that Gumilev’s theories can never be proved by scientific methods, 6 a fourth sees in them a muddled mixture of quasi-science, gigantomania, and ‘patriotic’ voluntarism, 7 while a fifth asserts that they lack elementary logic, insofar as the basic ideas in his theories, such as ‘the ethnic field’ and ‘passionarity’ (passionarnost’) ‘cannot exist as objects of theory’. 8
Some of these references are:
4 R. F. Its, ‘Neskol’ko slov o knige L. N. Gumileva’, in L.N. Gumilev, Ethogenezi biosfera zemli’, Leningrad, 1989, p.3.
5 L. Klein, ‘Gor’kie mysli ‘priveredlivogo retsenzenta; ob uchenii L. N. Gumileva’, Neva, 1992, no. 4, p. 231.
6 K. Maklakov, ‘Teoriya etnogeneza stochki zreniya biologa’, Ural, 1996, no. 10.
7 A. Yanov, ‘Uchenie L’va Gumileva’, Svobodnaya Mysl’, 1992, no. 17, pp. 111–112.
8 P. L. Belkov, ‘O metode postroeniya teorii etnosa’, in Etnosy i Etnicheskie Protsessy. Pamyati R. F. Itsa, Moscow, 1993, pp. 51–6.
It is argued that his work lends a spurious credence to nationalism and anti-Semitism. He proposed his own explanation of the mainsprings of the universal historical process. His arguments were radically different from the orthodox theories reigning in the USSR, - Marxism. He liked to obtain ‘the maximum information from the minimum of facts’. He should have given more attention to economic systems.
“Battles and campaigns, the birth and ruin of states, intrigues, heresies and schisms. He constructs the most unexpected, sensational and head-spinning theories”. And try to disprove them! You will hardly be able to manage it, for the very same reason – because of the absence of reliable facts. Putting ethnic, as opposed to social, political and economic factors at the basis of his interpretations, Gumilev is obliged to come to the conclusion that war within each ethnic system was simply a matter of victory over enemies, while war between systems was waged for the sake of cold-blooded destruction of the defeated.
_______________
With regard to the Gumilev theory in the definitions of the first block ethnos is presented as a biological, nonsocial entity.
On the one hand, ethnos is a population, 27 a ‘phenomenon of the biosphere or a systematic whole of a discrete type’, 28 a ‘natural phenomenon’, 29 a ‘non-social phenomenon’, 30 a ‘biophysical reality’, 31 and a ‘specific form of existence of the species of Homo sapiens’. 32 In consequence, ‘ethnogenesis is the local variant of intra-species formation’, 33 a ‘process of interaction between humanity and nature’, 34 a ‘natural process’, and hence ‘independent of situations created by the emergence of culture’. 35
On the other hand, ethnosis ‘is a grouping on the principle of us vs them’, 36 a ‘human collective opposing itself to all other collectives’, 37 ‘not identical to a biological taxon or a population’, 38 and it should have its own laws ‘different from biological and social ones’. 39
(All these numbers are references in mostly his own and other’s works, which I will omit, except those cited above.)
He defines “compatibility and non-compatibility of ethnicities, but he had no interest in how and why such relations might occur. Gumilev relied on ‘ethnic stereotypes of behavior’ (ESB), which he saw as the essence of the ethnic phenomenon.
Ethnogenesis lies in a certain energy, which spreads in given regions of the Earth and provides the impulse to ethnic processes. 61 According to Gumilev, ethnogenesis is not a constant or steady process but happens in waves or bursts and it has an explosive character. It suddenly arises in one place, while in neighboring areas there is complete calm. ‘The bursts of ethnogenesis are related not to the culture and way of life of peoples, nor to their racial make-up, nor to their economic and technological level, nor to climatic influences on the ecology, but to specific conditions of space and time.’ 62 An almost enigmatic statement. To prove it one would require, at the very least, evidence of synchronic processes happening in parallel in different regions of the world.
Gumilev’s predecessors, the early Eurasianists, understood this well, and wrote of the ‘ruling elite’ or the ‘state activists’, who were able to inspire the people to socio-political transformation. 68
He directly relates the vitality of the ethnos to the fertility of these ‘passionaries’, to their ability to transmit their talents and moods genetically. ‘Passionarity’, he wrote, ‘is an important hereditary attribute’, a ‘biological attribute’, and an ‘inborn capacity of the organism to absorb external energy from the surroundings and give it out again in the form of work’. It is all very simple: biochemical processes create mutations and influence emotions; emotions push people to certain actions and … a passionary generation is born. It has an ‘other-worldly origin’. (Is that from “God”?) According to the theory any action is justified by the bursts of ‘cosmic energy’ manifested by the conqueror passionaries. (Note: You don’t have to believe anything to see the theories working.)
He has concepts of the ‘parasite ethnos’, or the ‘chimera’. These are the groups that live at the expense of other groups. 76 ‘Chimerical ethnic composites’ are created at the junction (contact points), of super-ethnoses. They are not tied to the landscape and cannot adapt normally to natural conditions, and therefore live as parasites on other groups,
He introduces ethno-nationalist discourse into the writing of history; and that creates an ideological tension concerning the relations between different peoples and re-ignites old prejudices and stereotypes.
And Jews are represented in an unflattering light: they are the traitors who opened the gates of Byzantium to the Arabs; they are harsh slave traders; they are an arrogant elite, consciously holding themselves apart from the ordinary Khazars; they are bigots who mistreated the Christians; and they are money-loving traders who dragged the Russians into wars with the peaceful Polovtsy for the sake of the slave-trade, and so on.
He had a desire to provide humanity with a new version of universal history. He probably did not intend this, but the fact is Gumilev in essence prepared the ground for the authors of the current wave of pseudo-historical gibberish and the demand for their writings among readers. Without him neither the authors nor the readers would have been so self-confident or numerous. His self-elected ‘followers’, who are completely without his intuition, his erudition or his poetic gift, are creating a fantastic caricature of his ideas, parasitical on his many-sided personality.
THESE ARE THE COMPLAINTS: Here’s the link, already in English. Lev Gumilev: His Pretensions, VIKTOR SHNIRELMAN, SERGEI PANARIN, two Russian scientists from Moscow. Posted Jan 2001.
________________
This is a simple explanation of the Gumilev Theory
As I said, I have read enough of Gumilev to relate to everything they are saying above. If you have not read anything, these arguments might seem credible or important. But of course, I have no intent to make Gumilev conform to the older methodology of Soviet or Russian scientists. He can present his work as he sees fit, and I will judge whether it makes sense to me.
Yes, he says for any people, (for any creature on earth), the relationship with the native feeding-landscape, which determines the system of economy, (or of life), is extremely important. But there is more to it than that. There seems to have been three rules of primitive man:
1. If you work diligently within your landscape, you can gather value for future use, and for more difficult times.
2. If you cannot defend the store of value that you created, it can and will be taken away from you.
3. You can capture value created by others, and not work so hard to make for it yourself.
Out of these three rules the need to organize for protection arose. So there came the time of consolidation, and the “makers” and the “takers” appeared. We are talking about 1000’s upon 1000’s of tribal families, and over 1000’s of years. Everyone did not become a “taker”. Maybe they were just a “protector”, but a stronger taker could come next year, and they might be plundered. So, that most tribes were either exterminated, or enslaved. Why did some “takers” arise with more power?
This is what Gumilev calls “The will-to-do”. It means they had the energy to organize both their civilization, the protection of it, and the ability to raid all the neighboring tribes. Gumilev’s shorthand for energy is “passion”, or the quality of that arising ethnos as passionarity. It makes perfect sense, and is not arbitrary. Those groups that were exterminated, (the majority), didn’t have enough “energy” to survive. Some of those groups that did survive, had enough energy to keep growing into what became a recognizable civilization, (recognizable meaning to modern archeologists). From the 18th century BC to the 13th century AD (3,100 years), we are recognizing the rise of about 43 civilizations. Gumilev researched all of these 43 civilizations to some degree or another, or at least knows of their existence.
It is extremely difficult or impossible to determine a starting date for an ethnic civilization, because at first the movement is not intrusive enough to leave evidence. There are various “incubation periods” with regard to the different groups. But once you see their monuments, you can work backwards to get an idea of a time of birth. You can also collect evidence of their territory. Here is the list of 43, grouped by approximate century of birth:
List of passionate thrusts
I - The case of the XVIII century BC.
1. Egyptians-2 (Upper Egypt). The collapse of the Ancient Kingdom. The conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos in the XVII century. The new kingdom. The capital in Thebes (1580 BC) Change of religion. The cult of Osiris. Termination of pyramid construction. Aggression to Numibia and Asia.
2) Hyksos (Jordan. Northern Arabia).
3) Hittites (Eastern Anatolia). Formation of Hittites from several Hatto-Hurite tribes. The rise of Hattussa. Expansion to Asia Minor. The capture of Babylon.
II - The case of the XI century BC.
1) Zhoussi (Northern China: Shaanxi). The conquest of the Shang Yin Empire by the Zhou Principality. The appearance of the cult of Heaven. The cessation of human sacrifice. The expansion of the area to the sea in the east, the Yangtze in the south, the desert in the north.
2) (?) Scythians (Central Asia).
III - The case of the VIII century BC.
1) The Romans (central Italy). The appearance in place of a diverse Italian (Latin-Sabino-Etruscan) population of the Roman community-troops. The subsequent settlement in central Italy, the conquest of Italy, which ended with the formation of the Republic in 510 BC. The change of the cult, the organization of the army and the political system. The appearance of the Latin alphabet.
2) Samnites (Italy).
3) Equa (Italy).
4) (?) Gauls (southern France).
5) Hellenes (middle Greece). The decline of the Achaean Kritomikene culture in the XI-IX centuries BC. The oblivion of writing. Formation of the Dorian states of the Peloponnese (VIII century). The Hellenic colonization of the Mediterranean. The appearance of the Greek alphabet. Reorganization of the pantheon of gods. Legislation. Polis lifestyle,
6) Lydians.
7) Cilicians (Asia Minor).
9) Persians (Persida). The education of the Medes and Persians. Deyok and Achemen are the founders of dynasties. Expansion of the Mussel. The partition of Assyria. The rise of Persia on the site of Elam, which ended with the creation of the Achaemenid kingdom in the Middle East. Change of religion. The cult of fire. Magicians.
IV - The case of the III century BC.
1) Sarmatians (Kazakhstan). Invasion of European Scythia. Extermination of the Scythians. The appearance of heavy cavalry of the knight type. The conquest of Iran by the Parthians. The emergence of estates.
2) Kushans-Sogdians (Central Asia).
3) The Huns (southern Mongolia). The addition of the Hunnic tribal union. Collision with China.
4) Xianbi.
5) Pue.
6) Goguryeo (South Manchuria, North Korea). The rise and fall of the ancient Korean state of Joseon (III-II centuries BC). The formation of tribal unions on the site of the mixed Tunguso-Manchu-Korean-Chinese population, which later grew into the first Korean states of Goguryeo, Silla, and Baekje.
V is the case of the first century H.E. (AD)
1) Goths (southern Sweden). The migration of the Goths from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea (II c.). Widespread borrowing of ancient culture, which ended with the adoption of Christianity. The creation of the Gothic Empire in Eastern Europe.
2) Slavs. It is widely distributed from the Carpathian region to the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas.
3) Daci (modern Romania).
4) Christians (Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine). The emergence of Christian communities. A break with Judaism. Formation of the Institute of the Church. Expansion beyond the Roman Empire.
5) Jews-2 (Judea). Renewal of the cult and worldview. The appearance of the Talmud. The war with Rome. Widespread emigration to outside Judea.
6) Aksumites (Abyssinia). The rise of Axum. Wide expansion into Arabia, Nubia, access to the Red Sea. Later (IV century) the adoption of Christianity.
VI - The case of V. - VI H.E.
1) Muslim Arabs (Central Arabia). Unification of the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Change of religion. Islam. Its expansion to Spain and the Pamirs.
2) Rajputs (Indus Valley). The overthrow of the Gupta Empire. The destruction of the Buddhist community in India. Complication of the caste system with political fragmentation. The creation of the religious philosophy of Vedanta. Trinity monotheism: Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu.
3) Bots (Bon Religion in southern Tibet). A monarchical coup with administrative and political support for Buddhists. Expansion into Central Asia and China.
4) Tabgachi.
5) Chinese-2 (northern China: Shaanxi, Shandong). In place of the almost extinct population of northern China, two new ethnic groups appeared: the Sino-Turkic (Tabgachi) and medieval Chinese, which grew out of the Guanlong group. The Tabgachi created the Tang Empire, uniting all of China and Central Asia. The spread of Buddhism, Indian and Turkic mores. The opposition of Chinese chauvinists. The death of a dynasty.
6) Koreans. The war for hegemony between the kingdoms of Silla, Baekje, Goguryeo. Resistance to Tang aggression. Unification of Korea under the rule of Silla. Assimilation of Confucian morality, intensive spread of Buddhism. Formation of a single language.
7) Yamato (Japanese). The Thai coup. The emergence of a central state headed by a monarch. The adoption of Confucian morality as state ethics. The widespread adoption of Buddhism. Expansion to the north. Termination of the construction of mounds.
VII - The case of the VIII century H.E.
1) Spaniards (Asturias). The beginning of the reconquista. Formation of kingdoms: Asturias, Navarre, Leon and counties of Portugal on the basis of a mixture of Spanish-Romans, Goths, Alans, Lusitanians, etc.
2) Franks (French).
3) Saxons (Germans). The split of Charlemagne's empire into national-feudal states. Reflection of Vikings, Arabs, Hungarians and Slavs. The split of Christianity into Orthodox and Papist branches.
4) Scandinavians (southern Norway, northern Denmark). The beginning of the Viking movement. The emergence of poetry and runic writing. Pushing the Lapps into the tundra.
VIII - The case of the XI century H.E.
1) Mongols (Mongolia). The appearance of "people of long will". The unification of tribes into a people-army. Creation of legislation – Yasa-Law and writing. Expansion of the ulus from the Yellow to the Black Sea.
2) Jurchen (Manchuria). The formation of the Jin Empire of the semi-Chinese type. Aggression to the south. The conquest of northern China.
IX - The case of the XIII century H.E.
1) Lithuanians. The creation of a rigid princely power. Expansion of the Principality of Lithuania from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Adoption of Christianity. Merger with Poland.
2) Great Russians. The disappearance of Ancient Rus, captured by the Lithuanians (except Novgorod). The rise of the Moscow Principality. The growth of the service class. Wide mestization of the Slavic, Turkic and Ugric populations of Eastern Europe.
3) The Ottoman Turks (west of Asia Minor). Consolidation by the Ottoman bailiff of the active Muslim population of the Middle East, captured Slavic children turned into armies (Janissaries), and sea vagabonds and pirates of the Mediterranean (fleet). A military-type sultanate. The Ottoman Porte. The conquest of the Balkans, Near Asia and North Africa to Morocco.
4) Ethiopians (Amhara, Shoah in Ethiopia). The disappearance of Ancient Axum. The Solomonid coup. The expansion of Ethiopian Orthodoxy. The rise and expansion of the Kingdom of Abyssinia in East Africa.
OK, NOW LETS PLOT ALL THESE ETHNIC GROUPS ON A MAP BY THE CENTURY OF APPEARANCE.
In the figure above, the Roman numeral indicates the ordinal number of the push, (the century of birth), and the Arabic numerals number signify the ethnic groups that arose as a result of this passionate push, and approximately where they were located.
WOW? Each century plots as a strip through Asia, and not sprinkled around at random, not even bunched up close to each other. Why is that? Was there a relationship within each strip? Did they have contact while they were arising? In other words, each of these 43, in their own century of rising, (and they all lasted many more than just one century), had enough excess energy to keep growing and growing in their influence, and impinging on their neighbors coming in from all sides. Can you explain it? Clearly hundreds of other small neighbors were killed, enslaved or forced to migrate. Those were the ones without excess energy, or not enough energy (passion) to sustain themselves.
WHY DID THE 43 HAVE ALL THIS ENERGY TO BURN AND BECOME DOMINATE IN THEIR ZONE?
Good questions: Gumilev proposes that they had biologic micro mutations that allowed their biology (body) to absorb more energy (will-to-do), from their feeding landscape. And it is clearly not everybody in their group, nor not even the majority. But it is enough to influence all the rest to get active. Well, it is a theory; to see where it can go from there. (If you have a better theory, let’s hear it.)
Why are these micro mutations, if that’s what they were, in a strip, only 300 km wide, across the landscape? That’s a good question. (By the way, the strip starts and stops, and it doesn’t go to the other side of the globe, so it is in bursts.) If the mutations were due to solar radiation, they would be more uniform on the map. If it was due to radio-active decay, radioactive elements are not in strips, nor in different strips in different centuries.
Gumilev proposes that because of various sun-spot activity that interfere with the ozone and atmospheric protection, there are times that bursts of cosmic radiation hit the surface of the earth in certain patterns. Then when the ozone repairs itself, they cease.
He is not saying each strip is one event, and repeat, we don’t know the exact starting date of each ethnos, nor what could be its incubation period. And of course, this doesn’t preclude external events, attacks by neighbors, perhaps floods or drought and famine, that also forced these people to act. But the point is, they had the energy and the will to make that action.
If these rays cause mutations that process more energy, then (in part), the theory of civilization, or of the dominate civilizations that makes themselves felt on earth, becomes a biological phenomenon. All the peoples that didn’t receive these mutations; we never heard from them. They were absorbed. Many of the mutations might also have had a different effect, or even killed the recipients.
That’s the theory of ethnogenesis and that is the theory of passonarity. That is Gumilev in a nutshell.
______________
OK, where do we go from there? You can begin to notice in those 43 ethnic forces, and between all those centuries, were there any trends that were common to them all? Well, they all became visible, and then all started rising in power. They used that power in their surroundings to expand their influence. At some point there was no longer a convenient external place to absorb that energy, but it was still there, boiling. So, it had to turn in on itself, and begin to consume its own. This was christened the burn-out or fracture phase, and every civilization had a period of inner turmoil. That started the decline. But still there is a great inertia. And the inertia phase is when people stop killing each other and start making laws for stability and engage in creativity for better living conditions, creating culture. It is a phase common to all ethnicities. The creativity can be the flowering of internal science and abilities, or it can be the flowering of trade, conquest and colonialization, or both. That society can become highly efficient takers, but now from the rest of the world.
Then comes a time of the internal takers, it was mentioned above. They were called the ‘parasite ethnos’, or the anti-system. The anti-system gets more and more prevalent. (It is not an organized opposition, to say that it is “in power”, but just individual gangsters and con men.) Take from the others and take from the collective, it’s easy. Then when there is nothing left to take, (as in Rome) even those dissipate. There can be remnant societies, if they make it that far. Or likely they are taken over by a new group on the rise.
Of course, there are unforeseen events that disrupt this sequence. These Gumilev has called “Zig-Zags”. All of these phases of “energy levels” Gumilev calls the “deep-people”. Those that think only economics and politics run world affairs talk about the “deep-state”. Both exist, but deep state has short term power and deep people has the ultimate power. (Maybe after a lot of suffering).
In most of his writings, he fits the historical into one of these phases, to see what must be coming next, and if his theory has a predictive capacity. It is certainly worth your while. Is it relevant now?
A great deal of the theory is about the weakening and dissolution. Due to the fact of “no real opportunity” for many westerners, and massive internet dumbing down, and radical diversion, (time-wasting consumption), I would surmise that the weakening is happening much faster than this theory would predict.
It is said that there is robust full employment in the US, (opportunity for all), but I started tracking American employment some years back, maybe 5-6Y. Then the workforce was said to be 162 million or so. I watched with amazement as it descended to 150 something then in the 140’s. Now I just looked for this September 2023. The figure for full employment in the US is 134.56 million. What the hell happened to those 30 million working people from a few years back????? They’re all dinking around with their cell-phones, since there are no jobs for them.
Well, there are zig-zags. I would say that both the people of Russia and people of Europe did not want any war. They are both in an inertia period and want just to develop culture and prosperity. Europe is 500 years older than Russia, so they are really averse to risking their prosperity. European leaders as guided by the USA, are saying that they are going to dismember Russia. It is the Russians that have sustained the Zig-Zag, in that they will not be dismembered without the destruction of Europe, and the world. They play a “cool-handed” strategy, and the western side is just a babbling brook, that keeps making frantic meaningless noises. I guess we’ll see shortly, so no need to predict.
That is the relevant insight from Gumilev.
.