The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Similarity and differences in processes of the Russian and Bulgarian initial gosudarstvogenez

I. Repressed geologists (chapter of an edition V.P. Orlov). The m is SPb., the 1999, 3 prod., iyepr. and additional, 452 pages (MPR Russian Federation, VSEGEI, RosGeo).

8. N.G. Gorbunova, N.K. Kachalova. Boris Aleksandrovich Latynin's memories (to the 90 anniversary since birth).//Soviet archeology, 1990. No. 4. Page 253-258.
9. N.V. Tokarev. The returned names: employees of AN of Belarus who were injured during Stalin repressions. Minsk, Navuka i tekhshka, 1992.
10. V.I. hornbeam, Suprunenko of O.B. Dol Mikhayla Rudinskogo//Archeology No. 4, 1992, S. 91-100.

II V.G. Mudritska, Chernenko of O.S. Petro 1vanovich Smol1chev. Chershpv, 2006.

12. Alexander Nikolaevich Lyavdansky's memories//Soviet archeology, 1964. No. 1, page 120-125.
13. A.Yu. saran. Oryol aspect of "business of local historians"//Requiem. The book of memory of the victims of political repressions on Orlovschina. T.4. - Oryol, 1998. Page 335-345; Sobolev B.C. Academy of Sciences and local history movement//Messenger RAS. 2000. T.70. No. 6. Page 535-541.
14. Voronezh CDNI, f.9353, it. 2, 169676. T.8, L.84.
15. Archive of Institute of history of material culture of RAS, f.2. op.1, 1928, 200
16. F.M. Zavernyaev. Heat of soul, depth of knowledge//"The Bryansk worker" of 21.08.1985, Page 4; Chubur A.A. Nikolay Lelyanov - "the last from Mohicans" pre-war local history archeology//Questions of archeology, history and the Top Poe-ochya culture. Mageraila XI nauch. konf. Kaluga, 2005. Page 58-61.
17. Archive of the Russian President, f.Z, op.24, 409-419.
18. Talgren M. Archaeological studies in Soviet Russia//NESA, 1936, X. p. 149.
19. Fedorov H. The power judged differently 11 "the Dmitrovsky bulletin" No. 134 of 30.10.2001.
20. UFSB archive of the Russian Federation on the Smolensk Region, archival criminal case No. 143313th; Chubu-ra.A. Elizabeth Arsenyevna Kalitina//Russian archeology, 2006. No. 2 of Page 157-161.
21. Yudinovsky museum of local lore, Scientific archive, f1, 45, ll 1-12.
22. Yudinovsky museum of local lore, Scientific archive, f1, 45, l. 17
23. Chubur A.A., G.P. Polyakov. Naumova. Trubchevsky nugget. To the 100 anniversary since the birth of V.P. Levenk (Essays of history of the Bryansk archeology, the issue H). Bryansk, 2006.
24. Filippov A.B. The contemporary history of Russia of 1945-2006. The book for the teacher. M.: Education, 2007.

About the author

A.A. Chubur - an edging. and crop, sciences, dots., Bryansk state university of the academician I.G. Petrovsky,

UDC 940 & #43; 949.72 & #43; 947


E.A. Shinakov

Typological research of forms of the European polities (level & #34; варварской" statehood, "difficult vozhdestvo", and it is rare - & #34; early государств" - in terminology of political anthropology), and ways of their emergence it is not finished yet. They can be added with the 1st Bulgarian kingdom before reforms of Omurtaga and Krum (the end of VII - the beginning of the IX century) and sinkhrostadialny to it a slozhnosostavny polity Russia (the name - in Konstantin Bagryanorodny's terminology) the end of IX - the middle of the X century. Typologically they are brought together by military and contractual mechanisms of a gosudarstvogenez (in & #34; Росии" they are complemented with foreign trade, i.e. "plutocratic" mechanisms) and also itself as a form & #34; варварской" (pre-Christian) statehood. It has "multilevel" - & #34; федеральный" character. At the head (at the so-called "top" level of the power) are the Turkoman - Bulgarians and & #34; росы" (& #34; русы" Russia), area

which it is accurately delimited, "slaviniya" with own structure of the power are subordinated to them and are controlled by strong points of the power & #34; федерального" level. The basis of domination of the "top" level of the power over "lower" is not only the fear of weapon, but also and the agreements based on the principle of a retsiproknost. The general interest, there was, for example, a participation in robbery of the Byzantine Empire and international trade.

At first peacefully, then with the conflicts Bulgaria was transformed in unitarno - the territorial state by reforms of pagans of Omurtaga and Krum, then - the Christian Boris (led the last to the conflict in the "top" level of the power - the Turkoman - the Bulgarian aristocracy). In Russia "multilevel" watered almost broke up after Russian-drevlyanskogo the conflict at Igor, but it was restored on the new bases already as "the early state" thanks to activity and Olga and Vladimir Svyaty's reforms.

It is about the period before Vladimir I's reforms in Russia and Boris I in Bulgaria (for the last - partly inclusive).

Within the political and anthropological theory of a gosudarstvogenez the stage of "difficult vozhdestvo" (Service, Klassen, Skalnik, Carneiro, Haas, Kradin) or potestarno - political [15], including the period, transitional to "the early state ", is studied and is compared. The term "barbaric state" is more habitual and fulfilled in the East European historical science, reflects the same in fact a stage of a poligogenez, as the mentioned terms of political anthropology and is partly accepted by her modern adherents (Korotayev, Bondarenko, Popov). It is successful also the fact that it kontaminirut gosudarstvogenez and sotsiogenez as a development stage, intermediate between "wildness" and "civilization". Specifically in Russia and in Bulgaria the "barbaric" period of a gosudarstvogenez almost coincides with a pagan era of their existence. Adoption of world religion in the form of Orthodoxy marks itself both the end of this era of their cultural history, and a final stage of the period of "barbarity" in the history of "difficult vozhdestvo" to "the early state" in the modern theory of a gosudarstvogenez. In Russia, however, the formal act of "the state baptism" costs somewhere closer to the middle of this transition, and in Bulgaria almost finishes it.

A methodological basis of the komparativny analysis is respect for the principle of a sinkhrostadialnost (but not chronological simultaneity) and typological uniformity of the compared phenomena, structures and processes. As a working hypothesis the classification of forms and models of statehood developed earlier by the author approved on materials of the different Slavic states and the people [26, 29, 23, 31,32,35] is accepted.

The purpose is to define accessory and Russia and the I Bulgarian kingdom to a concrete stage of a gosudarstvogenez and a form of statehood. Actually, concerning Russia it was already made by the author [26, 29. 30]. Work is similar by a technique the carried-out author for clarification of a form of statehood of the Ukrainian getmanstvo [34]. For comparison the same feature set (elements) of a form is used, but at this investigation phase the komparativistsky analysis is carried out not with all forms of statehood (more precisely, their "ideal models") and by other principle and with other purpose - among themselves. Especially as for Russia this work (the truth at the empirical level, without use content - and correlation analyses) was already carried out.

Sources on a subject are rather various

and (in terms of their category and type) and is versatile (in terms of their ethnic origin and political involvement). The analysis of sources across Russia in the specified aspect is published by the author repeatedly [24, 25, 27, 33, 38] that saves from need to address it again. As for Bulgaria, Imennik of the Bulgarian khans", Ioann Ekzarkh, Feofan, Nikifor, Ennodiya's works and also these epigrafik were attracted to the analysis ". All these sources were repeatedly used by the Bulgarian and Russian specialists in the I Bulgarian kingdom, and the author could not pass by their Sochi -

neniye and analytical publications of sources. However system, their complex analysis in komparativno-structural aspect in fact was not carried out yet. The author concerned this question but concerning their application not to the Bulgarian, and the Russian realities [34]. Below the comparative table of elements of the Bulgarian and Russian "barbaric" statehood is offered. Signs are taken from work of the author about the Ukrainian getmanstvo 34].

1. Territorial and demographic structure;
2. Social and economic basis;
3. Ways and mechanisms of formation of the state;
4. System (organization) of management;
5. The nature of the relations of the state and society (including its separate fractions (classes, estates, etc.));
6. Structure, sources and ways of formation and replenishment of a ruling layer
7. Structure of elite (exploiter layers) of society;
8. The operated layers;
9. Form of government;
10. Functions of government;
11. Livelihoods of a ruling layer ("elite of the state");
12. Directions of expenditure of public funds;

Except the main, "intrinsic", comparison of forms was carried out also on "secondary" (derivatives), but in sources often more fully and precisely (and, the main thing, is unambiguous) to the blocks of signs reflected in sources.

Treat them:

13. Character armed forces and prevailing, immanent to this form type of the external conflicts;
14. Types internal conflicts;
15. National policy;
16. Character right and legal proceedings;

_ 17. Types and methods of ideological providing power. _

Bulgaria Russia

1 "Center" and Slaviniya, federation hierarchical, territorial and patrimonial, vertical communications "Center" and Slaviniya & #43; "External Russia" territorial and patrimonial, vertical communications
2 The ranged society with the arising strata, the Basis of economy - semi-nomadic (taborny) cattle breeding, agriculture, predatory wars The ranged society with the arising strata, a basis of economy - international trade, predatory wars, agriculture, cattle breeding stall
3 A way - the military, partly - aristocratic, Mechanisms - military and aggressive and defensive, meritocratic, "related", contractual, legal The way is military and plutocratic, partly aristocratic, the Mechanism - military and defensive and aggressive, "related", contractual
4 Division of powers of "federal" and local levels. System of "federal" military deputies. In the top level of the power - the patrimonial (aristocratic) principle, origin Division of powers of "federal" and local levels. Polyudye is direct management. In the top level of the power - the corporate and patrimonial principle

official-sluzhilogo principle

5 Retsiproknost. Domination submission in relation to the doslavyansky autochthonic population, coercion elements between levels of the power The Retsiproknost, with coercion elements between levels of the power, domination - submission, operation of a russama of "Slavs".
6 The military aristocracy, all protobulgarians but to the attitude towards Slavs, at the last - team? The principles are abilities, origin, force, generosity (wealth). "All dews" and ruling childbirth. The patrimonial aristocracy and team at Slavs. Ways - origin, abilities, wealth, "good luck"
7 Military, skoto- and land owners Military, merchants
8 Community members, it is a little - slaves, the local doslavyansky community Community members, it is a little - slaves
9 Patrimonial hierarchical monarchy Patrimonial hierarchical monarchy
10 Military and organizing, judicial, redi-stribution. Self-sufficiency function Authorities, military and trade and organizing, judicial at the lower level, redist-ribution. Military and frightening, if necessary - repressive at the top level of the power. Self-sufficiency function
11 Robbery of "strangers" (Byzantium), tribute, private sources (cattle breeding) Private sources (trade income), robbery of "strangers" (Byzantium, East), tribute, "polyudya"
12 Subforage of the best soldiers, teams, prestige of the power. Building of city, fortresses A team subforage, construction of the ships, use in trade for receiving objects of "prestigious consumption". Construction of Grads
13 A cavalry and infantry - a militia, teams at Slavs, "the best soldiers" and aristocrats at protobulgarians. Offensive and extortionate, defensive. "Marines" - professionals (Russia), a militia and breeding teams at Slavs. Offensive and aggressive (unifying), extortionate, "trade".
14 Intergeneric in the protobulgarian aristocracy Interpersonal in race for power at ro-owls, intergeneric and breeding at "Slavs" (including finno-ugr)
15 Preservation, but not underlining of national distinctions, then - integration at legal level. There are confusion of languages and cultures, replenishments of a "federal" top by Slavs. Confessional distinctions remain before adoption of Christianity. National distinctions "are covered" with corporate and pragmatic. Different right, different faiths. Process of confusion of languages and cultures, replenishments of a "federal" top by Slavs.
16 Before reforms of Omurtaga and Krum - for prtobolgar and sla- Separate "common law" (mononorms) for ros ("the Russian law") also ate different "common law" -

vyan. Then - uniform written law which source is the power. vyan.

17 Construction of a ruling sort to the deity - Tengri-to the khan, the genealogical sanction Demonstration of force and "good luck" of the authorities of different level. In Slaviniyakh - it is possible, the religious and genealogical sanction

So, the main components of the complex analysis appeared:

A) Mechanisms of a pervoobrazovaniye of structures of "barbaric" statehood, as in that look as it found reflections in sources, and in categories of political anthropology.

B) Structure of statehood in statistics, its ratio with a social basis ("ranged" or "stratified" {according to M. Fried } society).

B) The reasons of education and function of structures of the power (in reality and pagan and Christian ideological justification).

D) Structure, sources of completing and income of ruling elite or elite.

E) A role of war and a form of the military organization in creation, functioning and transformation of a specific form of statehood.

E) Time, the reasons and mechanisms of transformation of "barbaric" statehood in "early".

G) Reasons of "choice of a way".

A. The I Bulgarian kingdom was formed in the military and contractual way. The same can be told also about the initial Russian power - "Northern confederation" [22] with the center in Novgorod. Distinction - in the first case the military and aggressive mechanism, in the second - voyenno - defensive operated. However, gaining a nrotobolgarama of Asparukh of the Nizhnedunaysky lowland was relative - it was followed by the contract with the North and "the union of seven tribes" of Slavs [20, 21] defense against the Byzantines trying to restore the power in the region. Formed as a result of defensive and liberating fight against "Varangians" of five Slavic and Finno-Ugric breeding unions and the principality (level of vozhdestvo) protonational association received in literature the name of "Northern confederation" [22]. Traditional dates of initial events - 679-681 years for Bulgaria, 859-862 - for Russia (in reality, taking into account inaccuracy of annalistic datings - 852-854).

B. Both predgosudarstvsnny associations most of all fit the definition "two-level predgosudars gvo". For Russia this device is drawn by comparison of data of Gardizi, Al-Masudi with the Story of temporary years and Konstantin Bagryanorodny [12]. The idea for Russia is stated by the author [26.27], and for Bulgaria - E. Koycheva, N. Koychev | 7].

B. In Bulgaria the need of submission of Slavs, perhaps, was dictated to irotobolgara by need of joint military operations against Byzantium.

In the right of khans, most about gobolgarsky society, for the power were proved by origin of their sort from Tengri - the khan. Types of justification of the power at certain pagan Slavic governors of Bulgaria are definitely not known, unlike Slavs east where dominates or "pervoposelenchesky" model of justification of an institutionalization of the power (a glade, residents of Vyatka, radimich), or patriarchal (Drevlyans), or, perhaps, connected with monopolization of the power a certain social and professional layer (corporation) (Krivichi) [36]. In relationship of "ro-owls" with governors Slaviny is used the term "paktiota" that can be treated both as allies, and as tributaries (Konstantin Bagryanorodny). The general interest was - participation of a Slavic top both in trade, and in robbery of Byzantium that without the large-scale actions organized by "dews" was it is impossible. This interest the deputy -

With the II ostu-

sovereign, and and "good luck" as

i:. Kj ■ bciwvii! structure, in combination with all -

& #34; 1000).

>; ¡. ratsionny construction, including - - i - f =., and. t I prestigious world religion. 12. Право-< - ■ & states (1016-1113). 13. Change statu-

a team top layer, its transformation into boyars-land owners (since the middle - the second half of the 11th century) that marked the beginning of transformation of the early state in mature.

Mechanisms as to the first (formation of "two-level" prestatehood), and transformations for Russia are in detail considered by the second (its transformation to early statehood) both in the monograph by the author [38, 32, 39], and in Articles [32, 39]. For Bulgaria still it is necessary in detail and carefully, by means of the content analysis to carry out this work.

as a result can establish to

duration of stages and phases of a gosudarstvogenez for Bulgaria and Russia. In Bulgaria the phase of formation of a difficult vozhdestvo in the form of "the two-level power" lasted since 679 to the middle of the 8th century, in Russia - from the middle of IX to the middle 80th years of the 9th century. Blossoming of two-level prestatehood falls: in Bulgaria - on the middle of VIII - the beginning of the 9th century (before Krum's reforms and especially - Omurta-ga), in Russia - from the middle of the 80th years of the 9th century till 941 year.

The phase of transformation and crisis of prestatehood of this stage and a form in Bulgaria lasted from reforms of Kruma-Omurtaga (conditionally - from the 10th - the 20th years of the 9th century) till 865 (mutiny of the protobulgarian pagan nobility and its suppression by Boris I).

In Russia the phase of transformation began, on the contrary, with crisis of 941-944 years, and comes to the end generally with Vladimir I's reforms of the second half of the 80th - the beginning of the 90th years of the 10th century. Specifics of Russia also in that. that the final phase of a stage of "difficult vozh-destvo" partly (from Olga's reforms) chronologically (but not regionally) coincided with a phase of formation of early statehood. comes to the end by 20th years of the 11th century (except some legal details and patrimonial remnants). It is remarkable, as in Bulgaria and in Russia the dates of a statement of Orthodoxy as the state religion (864/865 and 988/989 years) convention, but symbolically make a side of prevalence of the beginning of prevalence of new (early state) trends of development over old ("vozh-desky", patrimonial) traditions in a transition period. These 120 years separate also formal date of end of "two-level protostatehood" in both countries, and the phase of formation of "two-level protostatehood" in Russia began in 30-40 years after the beginning of process of its transformation in early statehood in Bulgaria that allows to speak not about loans, and about typological similarity of initial conditions of development.

Typologically both Ancient Russia, and I Bulgarian the kingdom is carried by famous Slavist V.D. Korolyuk to a so-called "contact zone" between the countries of romano-barbaric synthesis and a bessintezny zone [8.9].

Its specifics are defined by the fact that influence of the Roman power institutions and culture was mediated (though in different degree) by Byzantium, also strong (though a miscellaneous in different countries of this zone) influence of a kochevnichesky factor. In Bulgaria this influence is obvious, in Russia rather "nomads of the sea" played 9th century of ugly faces of protobulgarians (for the continent of East Europe rivers) there are Varangians (or "rusa" of east sources, "dews" - Byzantine). Nomads, more precisely - the semi-nomadic early state Khazar Khanate - for "two-level" Russia of the second half of the 9th century played rather that role which for sinkhrostadialny Bulgaria VIII - the beginnings of the 9th centuries was played by the Byzantine empire from which further transformation of both states is in many respects connected. A role and the place of Slavs in formation of statehood and in Bulgaria, • there are tenges. — but identical, not without reason and there, and there Slavic ethno - ■ - * t, - p & gt; 1. • & #34; setting.

40. Carneiro R. A theory of the origin of the state//A handbook of method in cultural anthropology. N.Y., 1970.
41. Carneiro R, Was the Chiefdom a Congelation of ideas?//The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Saratov, 2004.
42. Claessen H.J.M. Developments in Evolutionism//Social Evolution and () History. Studies in the Evolution of Human Societies. V.5, No. 1. March 2006. M.
43. Claessen H.J.M, Political anthropology 11 Current issues in anthropology. The Netherlands. Rotterdam, 1981.
44. Claessen H.J.M, Skalnik P. - The Hague Paris - N.Y., 1978.
45. Claessen H.J.M., Skalnik P. Limits: Beginning and End of the Early State/7 The Early State. Ed. by
46. Claessen H.J.M, Skalnik P. Ubi sumus? The Study of the State Conference in Retrospect//The Study of the State. The Hague, 1981.
47. M. Fried The Evolution of Political Society//an Assay in Political Anthropology. N.Y., 1967
48. Haas J. The evolution of the prehistoric state. N.Y., 1982.
49. A.K Korotayev The Chiefdom: Precursor of the Tribe? 11 The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues. Saratov, 2004.
50. Service E.R. Origins of the state and civilization. N.Y., 1975.
51. Service E.R. Primitive Social Organisation. An Evolutionary Persoective. - N-Y., 1971 (1962).
52. Service E.R., Cohen R. Classical and Modern Theories of the Origin of The State. The anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia, 1978.

reference book. Plovdiv: Pegr Baron publishing house, 1994.

About the author

Alfredo Davis
Other scientific works: