| Abstract | The so called multinational 'Hermanarich's Kingdom' was the first pre-state formation on the territory of the future Kievan Rus. Its level was a 'complete chiefdom' in the terms of political anthropology.
By the utilitarian understanding of wealth in 1st – 3rd century A.D. amenities, ammunition, cattle etc. were considered as wealth in the Goth's society.
Initial concentration of wealth arose from the war spoils and tribute from the subjugated communities, wealth was distributed among the war band members according to the hierarchy (the tribute of the Roman Empire to the Goths in 3rd century, campaigns of Kniva and Ostrogotha, looting of Rome by Alarich etc.)
Wealth is an impermanent category. It often changed hands because of wars and raids, that's why it was difficult to amass it (Suebi's attack on the Goths at the end of the 4th century in Pannonia).
The main wealth was people, their number was a key to influence and power (Tacitus: 'It is their principal state, their chief force to be at all times surrounded with a huge band of chosen young men…').
Emerging of a powerful state and of a wealth-keeper are the two processes which ran in parallel (Hermanarich's kingdom).
The important element of politogenesis is a financial maintenance of the formed authorities. In particular, one of signs of the state formation is a transition to the centralized system of the taxation. We will consider the given process on an example of the early middle-ages England and Old Rus. The process of the state formation in England actively occurred during 7th-9th century, in Rus - 8th-10th century. At an initial stage in both cases there were following sources of financing of the formed state power - redistributive incomes. For Rus it is a period of proto-princialities, for England – English-Saxon dominance. At a stage of politogenesis the use of vergeld (vira) as one of the income sources of the state power (simultaneously vergeld (vira) was an indicator of social stratification in society and estrangement of the central power from the rest) was similar elements in both cases. Also, there is a number of distinctions in formation of economic base in England and in Rus. In England process of formation of the unified economic base occurred faster. King domains played an important role in the treasury maintenance. In Rus formation of the unified tax system was prolonged (transition from tax system (tribute) to urochno-pogostny one), due to a big role of trading incomes and war spoils. In England Varangian factor led to the development of the centralized tax system (the Danish money), and in Rus – 'preservation' of a tribute and military robberies.
The main source is 'Russkaya Pravda in short edition', reflecting the life and property of a person in the sphere of their defense in both traditional and case law (considering not just 11th but also a bit earlier period of the second half of the 10th century). People were assessed by two parallel attributes: social status with the existing of just two categories (free and dependent people including the slaves). The second principal was the degree of their 'closeness' to the prince, whose people even including the slaves but taking high positions of house managers in the princely manors, were protected by higher penalty than usual free ones. Women of the princes' families could independently possess and manage all kinds of personal property and real estate, what is confirmed by different kinds of sources, comprising both their high social status and family relations to princes. Property independence bore political and legal ability.
|
|---|
