24. The system of kinship and family relations in the early primitive community.

Yuri Semyonov

2. Early primitive (primitive communist) society

2.1. Introductory remarks

The problem of the evolution of the primitive economy is one of the least developed in ethno-economic literature. Modern foreign experts in economic anthropology (ethnology), as a rule, generally refuse to raise the question of the stages of evolution of primitive economic relations. They are mainly limited to identifying and describing various forms of economic relations, often emphasizing that these forms cannot be considered as stages of development.

Researchers who adhere to the positions of Marxism have always been characterized by the desire to approach the primitive economy historically. However, referring to primitive production relations, they most often depicted their evolution as a process of decomposition of primitive collectivism. At the same time, it was often overlooked that primitive collectivism itself did not remain unchanged. For a long period, primitive-communist relations developed, changed forms, one stage of development was replaced by another. And even when they began to be forced out and replaced by other relations, this process can hardly be characterized as the decay of primitive communism.

2.2. Collapsible-communalist relations

The stage of early primitive society was characterized by the complete ownership of the early primitive sociohistorical organism[ 2 ], the early primitive community both for consumer goods, primarily food, and for the means of production. This property was manifested in the fact that each member of the primitive community had the right to a share of the product obtained by its other members, solely because of their belonging to this social unit.

The early primitive community was a genuine collective, a real commune. It operated on the principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Accordingly, property relations, distribution relations in this commune should be called communist (primitive communist), or communalist. The early primitive society was a primitive communist or communal society.

Two most important concepts of economic ethnology help to understand the reason for the existence at a given stage of social development of precisely these, and not other economic, production relations: the concept of a life-supporting product and the concept of a surplus product.

A life-supporting product is a social product that is absolutely necessary for maintaining the physical existence of the members of a primitive collective. The entire social product exceeding this level is a surplus product. This product is not at all redundant in the sense that it cannot be consumed by members of society, but only in the sense that even without it their normal physical, and thus social existence, is possible.

As long as the entire social product was life-supporting, no other distribution than the communal one could exist. Any other form of distribution would lead to the fact that part of the members of society would receive less product than is necessary to maintain their existence, and, in the end, would perish. And this would lead to the degradation and disintegration of the community itself. The appearance of a comparatively small excess product also could not change the situation in any significant way.

Thus, the relations of the collective's complete ownership of the entire social product, primarily food, were dictated by the volume of this product per head of its member, that is, by the productivity of social production. And the productivity of social production is an indicator of the level of development of those forces that create a social product, that is, the productive forces of society.

Having arisen, communalist relations constantly developed. Their earliest form began to emerge along with human society. These relations consisted in the fact that each member of the proto-community received free access to prey. He could, without being afraid of anyone, go up to the carcass, tear off a piece and immediately eat it. If that wasn't enough, he could take and consume another piece. But he had no right to take even a small part of the meat with him, because this would mean the removal of all others from access to this part of the product. And this, as indicated in the previous issue, was considered a violation of the first norm of behavior in the history of mankind and was severely punished. Taking piece after piece, a person had to ensure that as a result of these actions of his, not a single member of the collective would be left completely without meat. This was also regarded as the removal of other members of the team from the prey and was punished accordingly. Under this form of communal distribution, no one received their share from anyone. He just took it from the general fund. Therefore, this kind of relationship could be called collapsible-communalist.

Judging by the descriptions of some ethnographers, in a number of societies they studied, such relations not only existed, but were almost the only ones that existed. Such, for example, is related to the beginning of the 20th century. a report by the Danish ethnologist Knud Rasmussen about one of the Netsilik Eskimo groups (Northern Canada). “People of the same village,” he wrote about utkilikyalingmiyut, “live together in summer and winter in a state of such pronounced communism that they do not even have a division of hunting prey. All meat is eaten together as quickly as possible, although men and women eat separately.”[ 3 ]

This and other similar reports are still questionable. Most likely, in these societies, along with collapsible-communist relations, there were other, later forms of communal relations, to which these scientists did not pay attention.

One of the important features of the development of primitive socio-economic relations is that the emergence of a new form did not mean the complete disappearance of the old one. At first, it meant only a narrowing of the scope of the old forms. The latter continued to exist for a long time along with the new ones, and not necessarily only in the form of a relic. As almost all researchers note, in developed primitive sociohistorical organisms, several different systems of distribution of the social product, as well as several forms of exchange, usually acted simultaneously.

Apparently, all the primitive societies that were the subject of research by ethnologists long ago passed the stage at which collapsible communal relations were the only ones. But in many of these societies, collapsible-communalist relations continued to exist along with higher forms of socio-economic ties. Most often they were kept in the sphere of food distribution.

The essence of collapsible-communist relations was that all food was not only in full ownership, but also at the undivided disposal of the collective. It could be disposed of only by the collective as a whole, but not by any of its members taken separately. Each member of the collective had the right to a share of the product, but it did not come into his possession or at his disposal, but only for his use. He could not use it for any other purpose than direct physical consumption. As a consequence, the process of consumption was at the same time a process of distribution.

A clear embodiment of the main feature of these relations - the transfer of food only to the consumption of the individual, to his stomach, but not to his property and even at his disposal - was the method of distributing and simultaneously consuming food that existed among a number of Eskimo groups. A large piece of meat was walking in a circle. Each man cut off from him such a portion that he could take in his mouth, and passed it on to the next, who did the same. By the time the piece returned to the same person, the latter had chewed and swallowed the first portion and cut off the second. And so the piece circulated until it was eaten. In the same way, the bowl of soup went around the circle. Each took a sip and passed it on to the next.

Similar orders existed among some groups of Bushmen. Among them, a large piece also passed from one present to another, and each took a very moderate share for himself. If there was little food, then they took exactly as much as could be swallowed at one time. In connection with the above, one cannot but recall that in Russian the word "piece" comes from the verbs "bite", "bite off".

In the same method of distribution, another most important feature of these relations was clearly expressed - ensuring access to food for all members of the team. No member of the collective could satisfy his need by suppressing the needs of his other members. As long as food was available, access to it was open to everyone.

By virtue of the inseparability of the process of distribution from the process of consumption, everything that had not yet been consumed continued, at the stage when these relations were the only existing ones, to be in full ownership and at the disposal of the entire collective. Therefore, each member of the collective had an equal right with the rest to a share of the product not yet consumed. He could take part of it, but in such a way that it would not deprive the rest of the team of the opportunity to satisfy their needs.

The bulk of the life-supporting product in primitive society was food. Collapsible-communalist relations arose primarily as relations of ownership of food and distribution of food. But, having arisen, they inevitably spread to all things that were subject to distribution among the members of the collective.

Things that were in collapsible communal property could not pass either into the ownership or even at the disposal of individuals. The collective as a whole remained the only owner and manager, and its individual members could only consume things, use them. Due to the fact that the things were in full ownership and full disposal of the collective, any member of society had the right to use each of them. But if the thing was intended for individual, and not collective use, then at each given moment to exercise this right, i.e. only one person could physically consume it. As applied to such conditions, distribution was nothing more than the realization by individual members of the collective of their right to use things that were in the full ownership of the collective.

And here we are faced with a difference in the distribution of food and things, resulting from the difference between the physical consumption of food and the physical consumption of things. This portion of food could only be consumed once. The food eaten ceased to exist and thereby fell out of the subsequent distribution. In other words, the right to each particular share of food could only be realized once.

Unlike food, each specific thing could be used repeatedly for a more or less long time. Therefore, the distribution of things could also have a repeated character. The right to consume a thing could be exercised at any given moment by only one person. While he used the thing, the rights of all other members of the collective to this thing were only of a potential nature. But as soon as he stopped using the thing, any member of the team could exercise this right.

Among the Yir-Yoront Australians, like among the overwhelming majority of the peoples of primitive society, things constantly changed hands. And among other ways of their transfer from one person to another, one of the researchers calls "appropriation", defining the latter as such taking of a thing without the permission of the owner, which does not constitute theft, is legal.

It is quite clear that communalistic ownership was limited to food, as well as to those things that could only be used individually. Things that were used collectively were not distributed among the members of the collective and thus did not go into analysis. They were simply in communal property. Such property included, in particular, land and its resources.

Introduction

The development of science has an internal logic. Each era puts forward its own scientific problems, among which there are private and general. Some of them run through the entire history of science, but they are also solved in a new way by each new generation of scientists. Thus, as the history of primitive society developed, it became more and more obvious that the key to understanding it could only be a deep insight into the essence of socio-economic relations. The need to identify in the structure of the primitive society its vital center, the focus of socio-economic ties, was asserting itself more and more insistently. In-depth ethnographic studies of the social organization of hunters and gatherers have shown that such an institution is the community, that it is a form of existence of a primitive pre-agricultural society. That is why in our time the study of the primitive community has become one of the most important tasks of the science of primitive society, that is what determined the goals and content of this work.

Even F. Engels, emphasizing the stadial difference between the appropriating economy and the producing economy, based on the criterion of the appropriating and producing economy, built a periodization of primitive history. But why am I talking specifically about the pre-agricultural community, why is this term for me, as it were, a synonym for the community of hunters and gatherers, a community characteristic of the stage of appropriating economy? Because it was agriculture that was the general line of development in the era, which was marked by the transition from an appropriating economy to a producing economy and the radical restructuring of the entire socio-economic structure associated with it. It was agriculture that played the leading role in this process.

The history of the primitive community of hunters and gatherers begins with the emergence of human society and ends with its transition to a productive economy and the disintegration of the primitive communal formation. During this era, a modern man was formed, people settled entire continents, the foundations were laid for the subsequent social and cultural development of mankind. This era, according to archaeological periodization, corresponds to the Paleolithic and almost the entire Mesolithic. At present, the economically most backward peoples of the globe are still (or were recently) at the stage of hunting and gathering, to whom our study is devoted.

The history of primitive society, as one of the sections of world history, stands on the verge of two historical sciences - ethnography and archeology. Two streams, pouring into its bed, mix their waters in it. History studies primitive society, regardless of time and place, because on earth there are still (or existed recently) ethnic communities living in the conditions of a primitive communal formation. This distinguishes the history of primitive society from other sections of general history and makes it, in essence, the history of a primitive communal formation, and the source base and methodology make it a complex science. Archeology and paleoethnography study the history of the primitive communal formation in antiquity, ethnography - in the modern era. Only ethnography allows us to give an in-depth socio-cultural interpretation of archaeological sites, as if saturating them with flesh and blood. Ethnography and archeology are the source study basis for this study.

In characterizing the primitive community of hunters and gatherers - one of the earliest forms of social organization that has survived to this day and is accessible to direct observation - I do not use the division of primitive pre-agricultural societies into higher and lower hunters and gatherers, which is somewhat widespread, because such a division ignores the fundamental similarity of their community organizations. Of course, not all the peoples whose communities my work is devoted to are at the same level of social and cultural development. Some, such as the Californian Indians, with the similarity of their communal structure with the structures of other peoples, have gone further in the development of other social institutions. But taken together, they are all at the earliest of the currently existing stages of the primitive communal formation. A comprehensive study of these peoples sheds light on the culture and socio-economic relations in the era of the Paleolithic, Mesolithic and early, pre-agricultural Neolithic. For all these peoples, the community is a universal cell of the social structure. Archaeological materials allow us to say that in ancient times the community occupied a similar place.

What explains this?

The primitive pre-agricultural community is the earliest stage of community development known to science.. The universality of the community organization at this level of development of society is connected with its vital necessity for society as a whole (its preservation and stability in difficult natural conditions) and for each member individually. The technical equipment of society is too low, and the dependence on natural conditions is too great for a person to be able to fight for existence without uniting with other people. Moreover, people “cannot produce without uniting in a certain way for joint activity and for the mutual exchange of their activity. In order to produce, people enter into certain connections and relations, and only within the framework of these social connections and relations does their relation to nature exist, does production take place. In addition, people by their very nature were and remain social beings. The primitive community is a naturally formed collective that arose simultaneously with the emergence of human society itself, with the emergence of production, it is a form of organizing the joint economy of primitive society, the leading production team of primitive society. Therefore, the entire corresponding formation with good reason can be called primitive communal. The primitive community determines the socio-economic appearance of this formation.

A socio-economic formation is a historically defined stage of social development with its own special mode of production, its own historical type of social relations. And since the main production team, the focus of socio-economic relations of primitive society throughout its history was the community, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the main content of the development of the primitive communal formation is the development of the primitive community, and the mode of production inherent in this formation is the primitive communal mode of production.

Primitive hunters and gatherers still live in different socio-historical and natural-geographical conditions, in accordance with which they are forced to build, and, if necessary, rebuild their social life and culture. Their social organization is characterized by flexibility, mobility, adaptability, no matter how it contradicts the widespread ideas of primitiveness. Otherwise, primitive society would not have been able to survive the sharp changes in climatic conditions in the Pleistocene and Holocene, to populate new continents. All this was further complicated by the extreme disunity of the population.

The model of the community proposed in this book as a relatively stable social institution and as a set of mobile economic groups that change their composition and size is the optimal form of social adaptation; the latter allowed human society to survive and develop almost all ecological zones of the globe. It was created by society at its very beginning, and then changed and improved throughout the history of primitiveness. Calling the community the optimal form of social adaptation, I have in mind only the leading trend. The opportunities for adaptation inherent in the community cannot be realized in each individual case.

The primitive community is a form of social adaptation to environmental conditions, both natural and social. This is the most dynamic organization of the most primitive society. The plasticity and mobility of the primitive pre-agricultural community - that is the reason for the extraordinary stability of this institution. It is thanks to these properties that the community gave the primitive society the opportunity to survive in the most unfavorable environmental conditions, in demographic crisis situations, to survive wars, epidemics, famine and other shocks, these properties made the community the leading social form of the primitive communal system.

Making the assumption that the community arose simultaneously with the emergence of human society itself, that the primitive community was the first and main form of human community, I am guided by the principle of historical and materialistic monism, which affirms the genetic primacy of material production activity and, accordingly, those structural units of society, those social institutions in which this activity was carried out. After all, the community as a “primitive type of cooperative or collective production”, as an expression of the low level of development of the productive forces and, as a result, the weakness of the individual, was the most natural form of social life of people at the dawn of their history. Moreover, it was the only possible form of their existence.

At the same time, an economy based on hunting and gathering set ecologically determined limits to the numerical growth of primitive collectives. The community is a form of social adaptation of the primitive collective not only to the environment, but also to the conditions of activity, primarily hunting, associated with obtaining food. An analysis of modern primitive social structures shows that the community is their key socio-economic institution, and we have no reason - either factual or theoretical - to assume that it has ever been otherwise. Only the forms of the community changed, but the community itself as a social institution retained its significance throughout the history of primitive society, its leading socio-economic role. The community is, as it were, an elementary cell of a primitive social organism; other elements of the social structure are formed from it. Just as a single-celled organism is the basis of more complex biological forms, the community is the basis for the development of more complex (and sometimes simpler, such as a simple family) social forms.

In whatever conditions primitive pre-agricultural societies may develop, the principles of their organization are universal.

They are characterized, firstly, by adaptability and plasticity, as evidenced by their adaptability to changing conditions, and secondly, by the presence of a primary, universal, adaptive dynamic system, the main, initial link of which is the community (the dynamism of this system is expressed in the ability to develop and transformation, on its basis the transition to higher levels of socio-economic development is carried out), thirdly, basic and superstructural phenomena that apply to all social institutions, but not evenly: basic, socio-economic phenomena are characteristic of the community to the greatest extent.

The components of primitive cultures form two large blocks. The first is characterized by the infinite variability of the elements of material and spiritual culture, the second, on the contrary, by uniformity. It is characterized by basic, socio-economic features. In other words, there is an unlimited number of cultures and a limited number of socio-economic structures. In the dialectical combination of these two blocks - the unity and at the same time the diversity of primitive society as a socio-cultural whole. Traditional societies of hunters and gatherers, which developed in different geographic and ethnic environments, are the same in almost everything that concerns the socio-economic foundations of their existence, and sometimes deeply different in many other respects. One can imagine primitive societies in which certain socio-ideological institutions, certain components of material or spiritual culture take on the most varied appearance, and sometimes are completely absent (and such societies do exist), but there is no and cannot be a primitive society without a community of the same type in its main features as a leading socio-economic institution.

If we consider the modern pre-agricultural community as a social institution that has gone through a long path of development, then it turns out that the lower levels are integrated by it; their genesis is, as it were, hidden in a higher type of organization and can be "extracted" from it. This methodological principle was formulated by K. Marx: “Categories expressing it (bourgeois society. - VC.) relations, an understanding of its organization, at the same time make it possible to penetrate into the organization and production relations of all obsolete social forms, from the fragments and elements of which it is built, partly continuing to drag behind it still unsurmounted remnants, partly developing to its full value what was previously there only in the form of a hint ... Human anatomy is the key to the anatomy of a monkey ... Hints of a higher one in lower animal species can only be understood if this higher one is already known. These words contain the essence of the retrospective method of social cognition, through which the unknown past is known through the known present, the cause - by its effect. This method makes it possible to judge the socio-economic structures of bygone historical epochs by their elements, preserved and developed by modern societies. It should not, K. Marx warns, discredit this method, leveling historical differences, identifying past forms with existing ones. Nor should the retrospective method be confused with the evolutionary survival method.

So, knowledge of the essence and origin of an object must begin with an analysis of the phase in which its potential capabilities and leading features are most fully manifested. The study of an already formed object clarifies its past, which is preserved, as it were, in a latent state. “Ignorance of the past inevitably leads to a misunderstanding of the present. But, perhaps, attempts to understand the past are just as futile if you do not imagine the present. This principle can also be used as the basis for the study of the origin and history of the primitive community, and the analysis should begin with the pre-agricultural community as it has come down to us and is attested by ethnography, that is, with the primitive pre-agricultural community in its most mature form.

The primitive community is based on collective ownership of land, which acts as the main condition and means of production, the source of all material resources, which are the basis for the existence of the community. Members of the primitive community treat the land “as the property of a collective, moreover, a collective that produces and reproduces itself in living labor. Each individual person is the owner or possessor only as a link in this collective, as its member. Public ownership of land and natural resources is the result of the natural unity of the producer and the conditions of production. There is also personal ownership of the objects in which the labor of the individual is invested, and hence also of the instruments of labor made by him. Communal ownership of land should not be absolutized, since in fact communities often earn their livelihood in other parts of the tribal territory. Communities sometimes do not have a fixed connection with a certain territory, but even in these cases they treat the land as their own property - after all, it is not the land that is appropriated, but the natural products of the land. “The attitude to land as property is always mediated by the seizure (peaceful or violent) of land by a tribe, a community that has a more or less naturally formed or already historically developed form.” The community, as a naturally formed form in which society arises, mediates the relation of the individual to the earth. It transforms the appropriation of land as a prerequisite for production into communal ownership of the land.

The first, earliest form of property is the relation of the emerging society to the natural condition of production, to the land. And if society arose in the form of a community, then it can be argued that collective production, even at this initial stage of its development, was based on ownership of the natural resources of the territory that the community developed, on communal property.

The study of the primitive community is connected with the study of the primitive economy. Without studying economics, it is impossible to understand the formation and development of the primitive communal formation itself. This study is complicated by the inseparability of basic and superstructural phenomena, which is characteristic of all pre-capitalist formations, but especially primitive communal ones. This is due to the specifics of industrial relations, the predominance of personal relations. And yet, despite the peculiarity of economic relations in the era of primitiveness, its inherent syncretism, which closely links both in real life and in the perception of people the sphere of production with non-economic forms of activity, the most general categories of economic science are abstract labor and working time, production and consumption, division of labor and exchange of activity - remain the instrument of scientific knowledge and primitive economy. These objective economic categories and concepts retain their methodological significance for the analysis of the primitive economy, despite the fact that, for example, working time, and the entire production process, is estimated by primitive man differently than people at higher levels of socio-economic development do. and the expenditure of labor in a product is measured not by socially necessary average labor, as under the operation of the law of value, but by the direct labor expended on it. All of the above applies to the category of property. The primitive community, which is characterized by a natural unity with objective, naturally formed conditions of production, acts, according to Marx, as "the first great productive force", and this unity itself - as a "special form of property".

Property is the appropriation by people of objects of nature or products of culture within and through a certain social form. Relations between people in the process of this appropriation constitute the content of the concept of "property". Primitive communal property is an objective relationship that develops within a primitive community. But it is perceived by people subjectively; with the formation of a tribal organization, they view it through the prism of the latter. This is one of the reasons why communal property sometimes appears in people's minds as tribal property. Such a subjective perception of property relations does not exclude, of course, that as the genus develops, it, in the person of some of its members, may become the actual subject of property, but this process is not necessary, moreover, it leads to a violation of economic and social equality within the primitive communities - one of its most important principles

Objective economic relations within the community find a diverse, often contradictory, normative expression. It is necessary, however, to distinguish between the economic relations of property and their ideological expression.

Formal tribal ownership of land does not yet testify to the actual economic ownership of the clan to land and natural resources. Nor does it indicate that in the past the clan was an economic institution.

When they talk about a primitive or tribal community, they often confuse it with a clan, identifying the concepts of "clan" and "community", and this is a mistake. In order to correctly understand the problem of the relationship between the primitive community (Greek demos) and the clan (Greek genos), it is necessary to understand the essence of both forms of social organization. The most important features of the genus are descent from a common ancestor, or consanguinity, and exogamy, that is, the prohibition to marry within the genus. The genus, therefore, does not and cannot consist of families. The discovery of this property of the genus belongs to L. G. Morgan. According to F. Engels, Morgan thus revealed the essence of the family. Meanwhile, the community in its historically attested forms always consists of families and for this reason alone cannot be identified with the clan. All types of primitive communities known to science are constituted on relations of consanguinity and property, that is, kinship by marriage, and also, as numerous facts show, on relations that are not at all based on kinship ties. Members of the community, husbands and their wives, are not blood relatives, they are descended from different ancestors and belong to different clans. True, exogamy can also be characteristic of a community; moreover, historically communal exogamy preceded clan exogamy, just as the community preceded the clan. Communal exogamy appeared before the emergence of generic exogamy and probably served as the basis for the latter. But communal exogamy is not absolute and is not an obligatory sign of a community. The peculiarity of communal exogamy lies in the fact that it prohibits marriage within the community, despite the fact that the latter consists not only of blood relatives, but also of strangers. In this, communal exogamy differs from tribal exogamy, which, according to Engels, is "a negative expression of that very definite blood relationship, by virtue of which the individuals united by it only become a clan." The emergence of the institute of exogamy is due not only to the desire to avoid the biologically harmful consequences of incest, as is sometimes thought, but also to non-biological, social goals - primarily the need to strengthen intercommunal ties.

Genus is an exogamous group of persons united by consanguineous, socially institutionalized ties; the community in its historically attested forms is a relatively stable association of families, representatives of at least two genera. The community primarily pursues economic goals, the genus as a whole does not, in different eras and under different conditions, its members could perform only certain economic functions. Part of the clan - all married women or all married men - leaves by virtue of the law of exogamy to other tribal communities, joins other clans and thus ceases to directly participate in the economic activity of their own clan; a community consisting of families, unlike a clan, is a single socio-economic collective. The significance of the genus, especially in the comparatively late stages of its development, is great. Formed on the basis of the community, the genus then itself acts as a socially organizing and regulating institution. But the origin and place of this and that form of social organization are different, and their functions are also different in many respects.

What is meant by the institutionalization of family ties? Objective consanguinity, by virtue of which an exogamous group becomes a genus, must pass through the collective consciousness and be embodied in social institutions (the prohibition of marriage between members of the genus, tribal mutual assistance, tribal rites and cults, including the cult of ancestors, mythical or real, the idea of ​​a mystical , totemic or other connection between members of the genus), in the concept of the genus as a social community of a special type, in the appropriate term, in the custom of adoption, that is, acceptance into the genus, etc. It can find expression in the connection of the genus with a certain territory, with tribal sanctuaries on it, in the idea of ​​special beings-patrons of the clan who lived on this territory, etc. Of course, not all of these institutions and ideas exist simultaneously, but in some form the institutionalization and ideologization of the clan always exist, and this makes it a social institution. It is necessary to distinguish between objective connections and their subjective refraction in people's minds. Blood relations exist objectively, social relations are constructed by society itself on the basis of blood relations or even independently of them.

Why is the genus, not being an economic community, nevertheless sometimes considered the owner of the communal land? The answer to this question is contained in the institutionalization of the genus. Having arisen and taking shape as a social institution, the genus, as noted above, itself acts as a socially organizing and regulating mechanism. In the person of its localized part, it assumes some of the functions of the community, including economic ones. This, however, is not a necessary condition for the idea of ​​tribal ownership of land to appear. I have already said that the objective, real-life communal ownership of land with the advent of a tribal organization can be subjectively perceived by people as tribal property. Social psychology generally tends to perceive objective, real relations through the prism of ideological and institutionalized layers. And in this case, it is necessary to distinguish between objective connections and their subjective refraction in the public consciousness. The idea of ​​the clan as the owner of the land is not a relic of the time when the clan was allegedly the actual owner of the land, but a new formation, a product of the development and strengthening of the clan as a social institution. It could arise only after the tribal organization had already stabilized, that is, relatively late. Not every phenomenon that seems to contradict the logical system of other phenomena is a relic of past eras. On the contrary, it may arise in the process of formalizing a new system of relations.

Researchers often confuse the ideological attitude of the clan to the territory where totemic sanctuaries are located, the mythical patrons of the clan live, with land ownership in the economic sense, the subject of which the clan as a whole never acts and never acted in the past. This happens, perhaps, because the members of the tribal community themselves often do not distinguish between the ideological attitude to the land and the economic content of ownership of the land. To the question: “Whose land is this?” they answer: “So-and-so.” An inaccurate question is followed by an inaccurate answer. However, these phenomena are different in origin and in essence.

In local tribal communities, all members of which, with the exception of wives or husbands who came from other tribal communities, belong to the same genus (I call such a genus localized), relatives make up the majority.

This circumstance could also give rise to the idea of ​​tribal ownership of the land of the community. But this is an illusory representation, since the community as a whole remains the real subject of economic relations, including property relations. One cannot exclude people who have joined it from other communities, but do not belong to a localized genus, because these people take an active and equal part in the production and appropriation of the social product. How else is the ownership of the fishing territory and its resources expressed in the primitive community? If people who joined the community were deprived of the right, on an equal basis with other members of the community, to economically develop the land of the community and its resources, this would mean, as mentioned above, a violation of economic and social equality within the community, the existence of an economically privileged group within it. In the era of the flourishing of the communal-tribal system, such relations have not yet become widespread. It must be said that local tribal communities are by no means the only type of communities characteristic of this era. Along with them, there are heterogeneous communities consisting of representatives of several clans (in addition to wives and husbands), and all these people, like members of local tribal communities (including wives and husbands who came from other clans), are fully integrated by their communities. This indicates that not the genus and not the localized part of the genus, but the community as a whole is a single socio-economic collective and, therefore, the leading socio-economic unit of primitive society.

What should be understood by the economic unity of the primitive society? First, joint labor, joint housekeeping, some form of division of labor and exchange of activities. Secondly, common ownership of the main means of production - the land. Thirdly, the collective distribution of the products of labor. But is it possible to speak of the economic unity of the genus?

For example, due to tribal exogamy, part of the members of clan A goes to clan B, where she lives and works. As a rule, it is not necessary to talk about a joint pile, joint housekeeping of all representatives of the genus. True, one can recall the custom of tribal mutual assistance, when relatives belonging to different communities help each other in everyday affairs, participate in joint work, rituals, etc. But, as a rule, members of the same clan who have gone to other communities by marriage working in different communities. Does a member of genus A who has gone to genus B retain ownership of the means of production of his genus, say land? Nominally yes. Returning to his family, he can again claim his land. After all, the genus often makes claims to a certain territory - the only question is whether this phenomenon can be considered as economic in its content. After all, even if the clan is the nominal owner of the land, its actual owner is the clan community, which includes people from other clans and other communities. A member of clan A has the same economic right to the hunting-gathering grounds, to the land of the community into which he has merged, and to its products, as those who belong to this community by birth and work on this land. And what other property right - in the economic sense of the word - can we talk about in a primitive society?

In fact, a member of the clan loses this right if he does not work on the land of his own clan, because, according to F. Engels, “property obtained by one’s own labor” is characteristic of a clan society, and only such property is recognized by society.

Having left his tribal community, a member of the clan, as a rule, ceases to participate in the distribution of products created by members of his clan. Thus, the economic unity of the whole species does not really exist. All those signs that allow us to talk about the economic unity of the primitive society are characteristic not of the clan, but of the community.

Is there any reason to consider as an exception to the rule such forms of joining a wife or husband to the clan of a marriage partner, as a result of which both of them are considered by society as members of the same clan? Some peoples have these comparatively late forms of tribal organization. But we should not forget that although the husband and wife are in the eyes of society representatives of the same clan, in reality they come from different clans and are not related by blood. Scientific accuracy and objectivity require us to consider them as representatives of different genera. The belonging of a husband and wife to the same clan is conditional, subjective, because the society in which the spouses live, and they themselves, think so. Science is guided by other criteria.

Based on the fact that exogamy is a sign that expresses the essence of the clan, that families in the presence of a clan organization unite representatives of different clans, it can be concluded that the leading function of the clan, no matter how the forms of clan organization develop and change, is the regulation of family and marriage relations. This most important function, apparently, was the root cause of the formation of the genus. This social institution in the process of development of the tribal organization can perform other functions, but they are secondary and derivative. Both in terms of its functions and its structure, the primitive community is ideally adapted to obtaining means of subsistence in a changing ecological environment, to interacting with this environment, to reproducing itself in this environment. Tribal and communal structures are fundamentally different forms of social organization.

Ethnographers are familiar with primitive pre-agricultural societies where there is no tribal organization at all - it has either disappeared or has not yet taken shape. The fact that such societies are also characterized by a communal organization indicates the primacy of this institution and its significance in the life of primitive mankind. After all, before a clan organization arose, a community must already have existed - such a form of organization of primitive society, without which its very existence is unthinkable. The formation of a clan is possible only on the basis of a community as the initial form of organization of a primitive society, moreover, a community that has entered into regular marital relations with another or other communities.

Recognition of the community as the main socio-economic unit of primitive society, the institution within which the tribal organization functions, of course, does not detract from the importance of the latter. It is only necessary to find out the true relationship between these institutions, to understand their social functions, their role and place in the life of the social whole.

The community is a microcosm of primitive man. It mediates his attitude not only to the earth, to nature in general, but also to social and ideological institutions. In the community or through the community passes the whole life of primitive man. Being a collection of families, it performs the functions of not only the production of means of subsistence, but also reproduction, the continuation of life itself. The latter should not be understood in a purely biological sense - the community "produces" a person not only as a biological, but also as a social being, his socialization takes place in the community. All this makes it the center of social life, the main spheres of life of primitive society are concentrated in it.

In primitive society, material production and the reproduction of society itself are two sides of a single process, and the latter is in close, dialectical connection with the development of the productive forces. When the biologically determined ties that still dominate society cease to give sufficient scope for the development of productive forces, they more and more adapt to the needs of developing production, which begins to dominate more and more clearly. And this process, of course, is outlined very early, simultaneously with the emergence of social production itself.

So, clan and community never completely coincide, only their convergence of varying degrees is observed. If there is a clan organization, the community consists of representatives of different (at least two) clans, connected by family and marriage relations. These relationships can be built in different ways. As a rule, the husband goes to the wife's community (uxoriolocal marriage) or the wife goes to the husband's community (virilocal marriage). Marriage can also be avunculo-local (settlement of a married couple in the community of the husband's mother's brother), ambilocal (settlement of a married couple in the community of either the wife or husband), or neo-local (foundation of a new community). Dislocal marriage, in which the husband and wife remain in their own communities, is very rare and completely uncharacteristic of hunter-gatherers.

The community is in a complex dialectical unity with such forms of social organization as clan, family, economic group, tribe, with various social and industrial groupings inside and outside the community, but it is not identical to them. This is evidenced by ethnography dealing with the primitive pre-agricultural community in its developed state, and we have no reason to believe that anything fundamentally changed in this respect in the past, despite the evolution of the communal organization itself.

The principle of historicism, one of the most important methodological principles in the study of the history of social forms, underlies this work. The primitive communal formation, like other eras in the history of human society, was characterized by its own internal dynamics. With the development of society, the forms of community organization also changed. The idea that the community organization developed historically and that this development reflected the internal logic of the development of the corresponding social formations is one of the fundamental ideas of this study.

Despite the fact that world ethnographic literature has accumulated extensive specific material characterizing the pre-agricultural community among various peoples of the world, this most important institution of primitive society for a very long time fell out of sight of the authors of general theoretical works. It began to attract special attention only in recent decades in connection with an ever deeper study of the foundations of the social life of primitive peoples, with an ever-increasing interest in the study of socio-economic relations, although even now this leading socio-economic unit of primitiveness has been studied worse than other social institutions of the era.

A historiographical review of the literature on the community is beyond the scope of this study. On the pages of this book, the reader will find references to specific and generalizing theoretical works, and, where necessary, their critical analysis. However, the contribution of American scientists to the study of the primitive community must be specially mentioned. Their research marked the beginning of one of the modern trends in the development of American and then world ethnography. Let us dwell in more detail on the works of J. Steward, the author of the concept of cultural ecology and the theory of multilinear evolution. In his opinion, hunters and gatherers build their social institutions in accordance with the characteristics of the means of subsistence they obtain. Thus, hunting animals that move in large herds, such as bison or caribou, forces people to maintain large, strong associations throughout the year. But if the animals do not migrate and are scattered in small packs, people prefer to hunt in small groups or alone. Accordingly, the structure of communities also changes: in the first case, these are mobile multi-family associations, typical, for example, for the Athabaskans and Algonquins of Canada, in the second, small localized patrilineal communities. The structure of the latter is the same, despite the differences in the natural environment: the Bushmen, Australians and Indians of Southern California live in deserts and semi-deserts, the pygmies of Central Africa live in tropical forests, and the Indians of Tierra del Fuego live on mountainous, forested islands with a cold and rainy climate. According to J. Steward, the whole point is that they have to adapt their social institutions to the characteristics of the food they get. So, the Eskimos are forced to settle in separate families, because the collective obtaining of food in such conditions is ineffective. But the same character of settlement is also characteristic of the Shoshone of Nevada, who live in a completely different ecological environment: here this is due to the fact that hunting prey is rare and plant products predominate in the diet. However, if in his early works, J. Steward considered the Shoshone family as a self-sustaining and autonomous unity, then in later works he recognized that among hunters and gatherers, individual families tend to unite into permanent communities - communities.

Without going into a discussion of Steward's theoretical views as a whole, I will only note the one-sidedness and narrowness of such a factor as the characteristics of food obtained by hunters and gatherers. This factor really plays an important role, but, as will be shown below, it is not the only factor that determines the structure of primitive communities. The typology of hunter-gatherer communities is characterized by limitation and schematism: multi-family and strong, but mobile in some cases, localized, but tending to break up into separate families - in others. According to Steward, the technological equipment of primitive societies is the same, while their social structures are diverse due to ecological differences. In my opinion, on the contrary, the cultures of primitive pre-agricultural societies living in different ecological and historical conditions reflect these differences, while their socio-economic structures are basically the same, and this fundamental unity is a natural expression of their stadial closeness.

At the same time, one should pay tribute to Steward, who pointed out the structural similarity of many, although by no means all, pre-agricultural societies living in different natural and ethnic environments, although the totality of the socio-economic conditions underlying the unity and diversity of hunting-gathering communities, remained unidentified. Many of Steward's views were revised and rejected in the light of later studies, but in their time they had a great stimulating effect on the study of the primitive community.

Primitive society has a large reserve of internal opportunities for development; despite its apparent conservatism and stagnation, it actively adapts to changing conditions, giving rise to a variety of social forms, which is the key to its progress. Some of these forms, characteristic of certain groups of primitive mankind, probably did not survive to our days at all, and we can judge them only from indirect archaeological data.

The statement of another American theorist, E. Service, that some types of communities among modern hunters and gatherers - patrilocal, or virilocal, strictly exogamous - existed from the deepest antiquity, while others, in which the listed signs are absent, appeared only under the influence of European colonization, is of little evidence. . Of course, when faced with colonization, primitive society sometimes undergoes far-reaching changes, but in each case they must be the object of careful and comprehensive study. It is impossible to attribute only to the influence of colonization or neighboring, higher civilizations the emergence of social forms that do not fit into the a priori schemes of social development. The views of Service, as well as other theorists prone to abstract schematism, are negatively affected, in particular, by inattention to environmental and demographic factors that directly affect primitive society and model its structure. The more complex ecological situation a society finds itself in, the more freedom it needs from the restrictions imposed by the customs and traditions of locality, land ownership, etc., the more mobility and dynamism it needs. Under favorable conditions, society forms relatively more stable social forms. The model of the community as a relatively stable community, which at the same time has internal dynamics, which manifests itself in the course of the development of the territory and active adaptation to environmental conditions, in the diverse recombinations of economic groups, is, as will be shown below, the most capacious and corresponds to the largest number of specific cases. By virtue of its universality, it is original and organically characteristic of primitive society.

More and more researchers differentiate tribal and communal structures, closely related, but different in their origin and functions, single out the community as an independent socio-economic community that deserves special study.

Paying tribute to the merits of foreign researchers in studying the economy of primitive society and the primitive community, I would like to specifically mention the Russian scientist N. I. Ziber, whose book “Essays on Primitive Economic Culture”, published in 1899, made a great contribution to the study of society. With amazing insight, Sieber was able to discern the economic foundations of the communal-tribal organization: “The communal-tribal organization has its own economic raison d" etre, even more, it is primarily an economic, and then a tribal organization. Without separating labor and consumption of individual groups of the population associated for this goal by well-known collective works, no tribal system would be possible ... It is not the clan that creates the community, but the community creates the clan ". Sieber, perhaps, was the first to raise the problem of the priority of the communal organization, the emergence of the clan on the basis of the community. Another pre-revolutionary researcher - A. N. Maksimov Based on the analysis of ethnographic materials from all parts of the world, he concluded that the tribal organization arose from the territorial organization (by the latter Maksimov understood the community organization) and on its basis.

In this book, the primitive pre-agricultural community is studied in connection with other social institutions of primitive society among peoples in whom it is still preserved and accessible to comparative analysis. The study is based on the comparative ethnographic method, which allows identifying similar social phenomena and forms in an endless variety of ethnographic facts, comparing and typifying them. I am not trying to cover all the specific material, but limit myself to only a number of local ethnographic types that characterize the traditional community of hunters and gatherers among peoples with different historical fates, living on different continents, in different natural geographic environments and in different social and ethnic environments. These peoples, due to certain historical conditions, managed to preserve the traditional foundations of social life to a large extent. Therefore, the types of communities considered in the book are representative as local variants of the primitive pre-agricultural community, which is confirmed by a historical analysis of the conditions of their existence and their inherent universal features. In addition, the peoples in question, for the most part, are quite well studied. This explains the choice of certain ethnographic types. The work analyzes the communal structures of only foreign peoples, the size of the community, its functions, property relations and territoriality, the annual cycle, the system of internal relations, etc.

Generalization and theoretical understanding of the materials involved make it possible to see deep, natural connections behind the external diversity of social and cultural phenomena, to identify the universal features inherent in the primitive pre-agricultural community, no matter in what specific spatio-temporal conditions it may be. This makes it possible, to some extent, to characterize the stages of development of the pre-agricultural community, which are known only from archaeological sites. I also tried to trace how an appropriating economy turns into a productive one, and a primitive pre-agricultural community into an early agricultural one. The analysis of this process naturally completes the work.

History is divided into two layers: primitive society and civilizations. The initial system is the primitive system, which covers a period of time over two million years, when there were no state formations, legal norms had not yet been formed.

During its existence, primitive society has gone through a significant evolutionary path, during which there was a change in its socio-cultural appearance and economic structure. There are two main stages of primitive society: the first is the appropriating economy, the second is the producing economy. The change of stages occurs in the Neolithic era in the 8th-3rd millennium BC.

The first stage is characterized by the formation of people who used the simplest stone tools, lived by appropriating the products of nature (gathering, fishing, hunting), led a wandering lifestyle, united in local groups under the leadership of a leader. This simplest form of life and social organization, reflecting the low level of development of industrial, social and cultural relations, is called the primitive herd or the ancestral community. However, despite the chaotic nature of the internal life of the herd, the first primitive society, rules, standards and other behavioral stereotypes can be traced in it.

Natural instincts begin to recede before sociocultural stereotypes. Relations within the group are egalitarian. Distribution of food and other resources occurs evenly. The basis of such equality is an equivalent exchange (both food, tools, and wives, etc.). The power of the leader over the group is manifested very expressively. His will is perceived by the herd as the norm.

The complication of social ties, changes in marital relations (the appearance of exogamy, which prohibited marriages between blood relatives) and the Neolithic revolution led to the emergence of family and clan groups. There was a change of the herd based on kinship relations. Clan-communal relations could be built according to the principles of matrilineality or patrilineality.

The history of primitive society after the Neolithic revolution enters a new round. People are moving to a productive economy, which allows them not only to ensure their own survival, but also to start purposefully providing themselves with food and other items necessary for life. This became a prerequisite for the transition to a settled way of life. Gradually, separate family and clan groups establish control over a certain territory. The primitive herd turns into a stable group of producers, which has grown in numbers and is associated with a certain territory. The new social organization is based on self-government and self-regulation.

At this stage of development, primitive society moves to a fixed division of labor, the distribution of food, and the principles of equality and egalitarianism are still preserved. But, at the same time, the distribution of booty could be made taking into account the role functions of its participants (by the principle of gender, age, etc.). Its leader also had advantages in the team. Members of the group were concentrated around him, who, in return for the benefits provided to them, recognized the authority of the leader. So there was a pre-state form of power.

In tribal communities, there are already rules of conduct that are obligatory for all members of its team. Generic norms were associated with totems, had a mythological coloring. The order of distribution of booty becomes regulated, the leader takes control over this process. are self-adjusting in nature: they are supported by interests, religious beliefs and other value orientations. But this did not exclude the compulsion to follow the norms that primitive society developed. When taboos were violated, the offender could even be expelled or subject to the death penalty.

Ancient people, who appeared at the dawn of the human era, were forced to unite in herds in order to survive. These herds could not be large - no more than 20-40 people - because otherwise they would not be able to feed themselves. The leader of the primitive herd was the leader, who advanced due to personal qualities. Separate herds were scattered over vast territories and had almost no contact with each other. Archaeologically, the primitive herd corresponds to the Lower and Middle Paleolithic.

Sexual relations in the primitive herd, according to a number of scientists, were disordered. Such relationships are called promiscuity. According to other scientists, a harem family existed within the framework of the primitive herd, and only the leader participated in the process of reproduction. The herd, as a rule, consisted of several harem families.

Early tribal community. The process of transformation of the primitive herd into a tribal community is associated with the growth of the productive forces that rallied the ancient collectives, as well as with the appearance of exogamy. Exogamy is the prohibition against marrying within one's own group. Gradually, an exogamous dual-clan group marriage took shape, in which members of one clan could only marry members of another clan. At the same time, from the very birth, men of one kind were considered husbands of women of another kind, And vice versa. At the same time, men had the right to have sexual intercourse with all women of a different kind. In such a relationship, the danger of incest And conflicts between men of the same kind was eliminated.

In order to finally avoid the possibility of incest (for example, a father could have an affair with his daughter), people resorted to dividing the genus into classes. One class included men (women) of one generation, and they could only have relations with the same class of another kind. The set of marriage classes included usually four or eight classes. With such a system

kinship was kept on the maternal line, and the children remained in the mother's family. Gradually, more and more restrictions were established in group marriage, as a result of which it became impossible. As a result, a pair marriage is formed, which was very often fragile and easily dissolved.

The dual-tribal organization of two clans formed the basis of the tribal community. The clan community was united not only by marriage relations between clans, but also by production relations. After all, due to the custom of exogamy, a situation developed when part of the relatives went to another clan and was included here in production relations. In the early tribal community, management was carried out by a meeting of all adult relatives, who decided all the main issues. The leaders of the clan were chosen at a meeting of the whole clan. The most experienced people, who were the keepers of customs, enjoyed great authority, and they were, as a rule, elected leaders. Power was based on the strength of personal authority.

In the early tribal community, all products obtained by members of the community were considered the property of the clan and were distributed among all its members. This was a necessary condition for the survival of ancient societies. The collective property of the community was the land, most of the tools. It is known that in the tribes at this level of development, it was allowed to take without asking and use other people's tools and things.

All people in the community were divided into three gender and age groups: adult men, women, and children. The transition to a group of adults was considered a very important milestone in a person's life and was called initiation ("initiation"). The meaning of the initiation rite is to introduce the teenager to the economic, social and ideological life of the community. Here is the scheme of initiation, the same for all peoples: the removal of initiates from the collective and their training; trials of the initiates (hunger, humiliation, beatings, infliction of wounds) and their ritual death; return to the team in a new status. Upon completion of the initiation rite, the "initiate" received the right to enter into marriage.

Late tribal community. The transition to an appropriating economy led to the replacement of the early tribal community by the late community of farmers-pastoralists. Within the framework of the late tribal community, tribal ownership of land was preserved. However, the increase in labor productivity gradually led to the appearance of a regular surplus product that the community member could keep for himself. This trend contributed to the formation of a prestigious economy. The prestige economy arose from the emergence of a surplus product that was used V gift exchange system. This practice increased the social prestige of the donor, and he, as a rule, did not incur losses, since there was a custom of obligatory return. The exchange of gifts strengthened the relationship between members of both the same and different communities, strengthened the position of the leader and family ties.

Due to the high productivity of labor, the communities, growing, were divided into groups of relatives on the maternal side - the so-called maternal families. But tribal unity has not yet disintegrated, since, if necessary, families united back into the clan. Women, who play the main role in agriculture and in the home, strongly pressed men in the maternal family.

The paired family gradually strengthened its position in society (although there are known cases of the existence of "additional" wives or husbands). The appearance of an excess product made it possible to take care of the children financially. But the paired family did not have a property separate from the clan property, which hindered its development.

Late tribal communities united in phratries, phratries - in tribes. A phratry is the original genus, divided into several daughter gentes. The tribe consisted of two phratries, which were exogamous marriage halves of the tribe. In the late tribal community, economic and social equality was maintained. The clan was ruled by a council, which included all members of the tribe and an elder chosen by the clan. For the duration of the hostilities, a military leader was elected. If necessary, a tribal council was assembled, consisting of the elders of the tribal clans and military leaders. The head of the tribe was elected one of the elders, who had not very much power. The women were in

to the clan council, and in the early stages of development of the late clan community, they could become heads of clans.

Decomposition of the tribal community. The emergence of a neighborhood community. The Neolithic revolution contributed to a radical change in the way of life of a person, sharply accelerating the pace of development of the human community. People have moved to the purposeful production of basic foodstuffs on the basis of an integrated economy. In this economy, cattle breeding and agriculture complemented each other. The development of an integrated economy and natural and climatic conditions inevitably led to the specialization of communities - in some they switched to cattle breeding, in others to agriculture. This is how the first major social division of labor took place - the separation of agriculture and animal husbandry into separate economic complexes.

The development of agriculture led to settled life, and the increase in labor productivity in areas favorable for agriculture contributed to the fact that the community gradually grew. In Western Asia and the Middle East, the first large settlements appeared, and then cities. The cities had residential buildings, religious buildings, and workshops. Later cities appear in other places. The population in the first cities reached several thousand people.

A truly revolutionary change occurred due to the appearance of metals. First, people mastered the metals that can be found in the form of nuggets - copper and gold. Then they learned to smelt metals on their own. The first alloy of copper and tin known to people appeared and became widely used - bronze, which surpasses copper in hardness.

Metals were slowly replacing stone. The Stone Age was replaced by the Eneolithic - the Copper-Stone Age, and the Eneolithic - the Bronze Age. But tools made of copper and bronze could not completely replace stone ones. First, the sources of raw materials for bronze were only in a few places, and deposits of stone were everywhere. Secondly, in some qualities, stone tools were superior to copper and even bronze ones.

Only when man learned to smelt iron did the era of stone tools finally become a thing of the past. Iron deposits are found everywhere, but iron is not found in its pure form and is rather difficult to process. Therefore, mankind learned to smelt iron after a relatively long period of time - in the II millennium BC. e. The new metal, in terms of availability and working qualities, surpassed all materials known then, opening a new era in the history of mankind - the Iron Age.

Metallurgical production required knowledge, skills and experience. For the manufacture of new, difficult to manufacture metal tools, skilled labor was required - the labor of artisans. Artisans-blacksmiths appeared, passing their knowledge and skills from generation to generation. The introduction of metal tools caused an acceleration in the development of agriculture, animal husbandry and an increase in labor productivity. So, after the invention of a plow with metal working parts, arable farming appeared, based on the use of the draft power of livestock.

In the Eneolithic, the potter's wheel was invented, which contributed to the development of pottery. With the invention of the loom, the weaving industry developed. Society, having acquired stable sources of subsistence, was able to carry out the second major social division of labor - the separation of handicrafts from agriculture and cattle breeding.

The social division of labor was accompanied by the development of exchange. In contrast to the previously sporadically occurring exchange of wealth from the natural environment, this exchange was already of an economic nature. Farmers and pastoralists exchanged the products of their labor, artisans exchanged their products. The need for an ongoing exchange even led to the development of a number of public institutions, primarily the institution of hospitality. Gradually, societies develop means of exchange and measures of their value.

In the course of these changes, the matriarchal (maternal) clan is replaced by the patriarchal one. It was due to the displacement of women from the most important spheres of production. Hoe farming is being replaced by plow farming, only a man could handle the meadow. Sco-

Farming, like commercial hunting, is also a typically male occupation. In the course of the development of a productive economy, a man acquires significant power, both in society and in the family. Now when entering V marriage, a woman passed into the family of her husband. The kinship account was carried out through the male line, and the children inherited the property of the family. A large patriarchal family appears - a family of several generations of paternal relatives, headed by the oldest man. The introduction of iron tools led to the fact that a small family could feed itself. A large patriarchal family breaks up into small families.

The formation of a surplus product and the development of exchange were an incentive for the individualization of production and the emergence of private property. Large and economically strong families sought to stand out from the clan. This trend led to the replacement of the tribal community by the neighboring one, where tribal ties gave way to territorial ones. The primitive neighborhood community was characterized by a combination of private ownership of the yard (house and outbuildings) and tools and collective ownership of the main means of production - land. Families were forced to unite, since an individual family was unable to cope with many operations: land reclamation, irrigation and slash-and-burn agriculture.

The neighborhood community was a universal stage for all the peoples of the world at the pre-class and class stage of development, playing the role of the main economic unit of society until the era of the industrial revolution.

Politogenesis (formation of the state). It should be noted that there are different concepts of the origin of the state. Marxists believe that it was created as an apparatus for the violence and exploitation of one class by another. Another theory is the "theory of violence", whose representatives believe that classes and the state arose as a result of wars and conquests, during which the conquerors created the institution of the state in order to maintain their dominance. If we consider the problem in all its complexity, it becomes clear that the war required powerful organizations.

structural structures, and was rather a consequence of politogenesis than its cause. However, the Marxist scheme also needs to be corrected, because the striving to fit all processes into one scheme inevitably runs into material resistance.

The growth in labor productivity led to the emergence of surpluses of products that could be alienated from producers. Some families accumulated these surpluses (food, handicrafts, livestock). The accumulation of wealth took place, first of all, in the families of the leaders, since the leaders had great opportunities, participating in the distribution of products.

Initially, this property was destroyed after the death of the owner or used in rituals, such as, for example, “potlatch”, when all these surpluses were distributed to all those present at some festival. With these distributions, the organizer gained authority in society. In addition, he became a participant in reciprocal potlatch, in which part of the gift was returned to him. The principle of giving and giving, characteristic of a prestigious economy, placed ordinary community members and their wealthy neighbors in unequal conditions. Ordinary members of the community became dependent on the person arranging the potlatch.

The leaders are gradually seizing power into their own hands, while the importance of popular assemblies is declining. The society is gradually being structured - the top is allocated from among the community members. A strong, rich and generous, and, consequently, an authoritative leader subjugated weak rivals, spreading his influence to neighboring communities. The first supra-communal structures arise, within which the authorities are separated from the tribal organization. Thus, the first pro-state formations appear.

The appearance of such formations was accompanied by a fierce struggle between them. War is gradually becoming one of the most important industries. In connection with the wide spread of wars, military equipment and organization are developing. Military leaders play an important role. A squad is formed around them, which included warriors who have proven themselves in the best possible way.

in battles. During the campaigns, booty was captured, which was distributed among all the soldiers.

The head of the proto-state simultaneously became the chief priest, since the power of the leader in the community remained elective. The acquisition of the functions of a priest made the leader a bearer of divine grace and an intermediary between people and supernatural forces. The sacralization of the ruler was an important step towards his depersonalization, turning into a kind of symbol. The power of authority is replaced by the authority of power.

Gradually, power became lifelong. After the death of the leader, the members of his family had the greatest chance of success. As a result, the power of the leader became hereditary within his family. Thus, the pro-state is finally formed - the political structure of society with social and property inequality, a developed division of labor and exchange, headed by a priest-ruler who had hereditary power.

Over time, the proto-state expands through conquest, complicates its structure and turns into a state. The state differs from the proto-state in its large size and the presence of developed institutions of governance. The main features of the state are territorial (and not tribal-clan) division of the population, army, court, law, taxes. With the advent of the state, the primitive neighborhood community becomes a neighborhood community, which, unlike the primitive one, loses its independence.

The state is characterized by the phenomenon of urbanization, which includes an increase in the number of urban population, monumental construction, the construction of temples, irrigation facilities and roads. Urbanization is one of the main signs of the formation of civilization.

Another important sign of civilization is the invention of writing. The state needed to streamline economic activity, write down laws, rituals, deeds of rulers, and much more. It is possible that writing was created with the participation of priests. In contrast to the pictographic or rope cism, characteristic of undeveloped societies, for the development of hieroglyphic

writing required a long study. Writing was the privilege of the priests and the nobility, and only with the advent of alphabetic writing became publicly available. The development of writing was the most important stage in the development of culture, since writing serves as the main means of accumulating and transmitting knowledge.

With the advent of the state, writing, the first civilizations arise. Characteristic features of civilization: a high level of development of the productive economy, the presence of political structures, the introduction of metal, the use of writing and monumental structures.

agricultural and pastoral civilizations. Agriculture developed most intensively in the river valleys, especially in countries stretching from the Mediterranean in the west to China in the east. The development of agriculture eventually led to the emergence of the ancient eastern centers of civilization.

Cattle breeding developed in the steppes and semi-deserts of Eurasia and Africa, as well as in the highlands, where cattle were kept on mountain pastures in summer and in valleys in winter. The term "civilization" can be used in relation to a pastoral society with certain reservations, since pastoralism did not provide such economic development as agriculture. An economy based on cattle breeding provided a less stable surplus product. Also very important was the fact that pastoralism requires large areas, and the concentration of the population in societies of this type, as a rule, does not occur. The cities of pastoralists are much smaller than in agricultural civilizations, so one cannot speak of any large-scale urbanization.

With the domestication of the horse and the invention of the wheel, significant changes take place in the economy of pastoralists - nomadic pastoralism appears. The nomads moved across the steppes and semi-deserts on their carts, accompanying herds of animals. The emergence of a nomadic economy in the steppes of Eurasia should be attributed to the end of the 2nd millennium BC. Only with the advent of nomadic pastoralism does a pastoral economy finally take shape that does not use agriculture (although many nomadic societies were engaged in processing

which land). Among the nomads, in conditions of an economy isolated from agriculture, exclusively proto-state associations, tribal proto-states, arise. While in an agricultural society the neighboring community becomes the basic unit, in a pastoral society tribal relations are still very strong and the tribal community retains its position.

For militancy is characteristic of nomadic societies, since their members did not have reliable sources of livelihood. Therefore, nomads constantly invaded the areas of farmers and robbed or subjugated them. The entire male population of the nomads usually participated in the war, and their cavalry was very maneuverable. And could travel long distances. Appearing quickly and disappearing just as quickly, the nomads achieved significant success in their unexpected raids. In the case of the subjugation of agricultural societies, nomads, as a rule, settled on the ground themselves.

But one should not exaggerate the fact of confrontation between settled and nomadic societies and talk about the presence of a constant war between them. There have always been stable economic relations between farmers and pastoralists, since both of them needed a constant exchange of the products of their labor.

traditional society. Traditional society appears simultaneously with the emergence of the state. This social development model is very sustainable And characteristic of all societies except European. In Europe, a different model has developed, based on private property. The basic principles of traditional society were in effect until the era of the industrial revolution, and in many states they still exist today.

The main structural unit of a traditional society is the neighborhood community. Agriculture with elements of cattle breeding prevails in the neighboring community. Community peasants are usually conservative in their way of life due to the natural, climatic and economic cycles that repeat from year to year and the monotony of life. In this situation, the peasants demanded from the state, first of all, stability, which could only be provided by a strong state.

stvo. The weakening of the state has always been accompanied by turmoil, arbitrariness of officials, invasions of enemies, and a breakdown in the economy, which is especially disastrous in the conditions of irrigated agriculture. As a result - crop failure, famine, epidemics, a sharp drop in population. Therefore, society has always preferred a strong state, transferring most of its powers to it.

Within a traditional society, the state is the highest value. It usually operates in a clear hierarchy. At the head of the state was the ruler, who enjoys almost unlimited power and is the deputy of God on earth. Below was a powerful administrative apparatus. The position and authority of a person in a traditional society is determined not by his wealth, but, above all, by participation in public administration, which automatically ensures high prestige.

Culture of primitive society. In the course of his development and in the process of labor activity, a person mastered new knowledge. In the primitive era, knowledge was exclusively applied in nature. Man knew the natural world around him very well, since he himself was a part of it. The main areas of activity determined the areas of knowledge of ancient man. Thanks to hunting, he knew the habits of animals, the properties of plants, and much more. The level of knowledge of an ancient person is reflected in his language. So, in the language of the Australian aborigines there are 10,000 words, among which there are almost no abstract and generalizing concepts, but only specific terms denoting animals, plants, natural phenomena.

The man knew how to treat diseases, wounds, apply splints for fractures. Ancient people used for medicinal purposes procedures such as bloodletting, massage, compresses. Since the Mesolithic era, amputation of limbs, trepanation of the skull, and a little later, filling of teeth have been known.

The account of primitive people was primitive - they usually counted with the help of fingers and various objects. Distances were measured by body parts (palm, elbow, finger), travel days, arrow flight. Time was calculated in days, months, seasons.

The question of the origin of art is still accompanied by controversy among researchers. Among scientists, the prevailing point of view is that art arose as a new effective means of knowing and understanding the world around us. The beginnings of art appear as early as the Lower Paleolithic. Notches, ornaments, drawings were found on the surface of stone and bone products.

In the Upper Paleolithic, a person creates painting, engraving, sculpture, uses music and dance. Drawings of animals (mammoths, deer, horses) made in color using black, white, red and yellow paints were found in the caves. Caves with drawings are known in Spain, France, Russia, Mongolia. Also found are graphic drawings of animals carved or carved on bone and stone.

In the Upper Paleolithic, figurines of women with pronounced sexual characteristics appear. The appearance of the figurines is connected, possibly, with the cult of the foremother and the establishment of the maternal tribal community. Songs and dances played an important role in the life of primitive people. Rhythm is the basis of dance and music, songs also originated as rhythmic speech.

1. What were the periods in the history of human development?

The first stage in the development of mankind - the primitive communal system - takes a huge period of time from the moment people were separated from the animal kingdom (about 3-5 million years ago) until the formation of class societies in various regions of the planet (about 4000 BC. ). Its periodization is based on differences in the material and technique of making tools (archaeological periodization). In accordance with it, 3 periods are distinguished in the most ancient era:
1) stone Age(from the emergence of man to the III millennium BC);
2) bronze age(from the end of IV to the beginning of I millennium BC);
3) iron age(from the 1st millennium BC).
In turn, the Stone Age is subdivided into the Old Stone Age (Paleolithic), the Middle Stone Age (Mesolithic), the New Stone Age (Neolithic) and the Medio-Stone Age transitional to Bronze Age (Eneolithic).

2. What were the life and occupations of primitive people?

The first species of modern man appeared 90 thousand years ago in the Middle East and North Africa. For a long time they coexisted with the last Neanderthals, who gradually disappeared from the face of the Earth.
More than 30 thousand years ago, primitive art appeared and flourished, testifying to the developed figurative thinking and artistic feeling of the ancients.
The hunting people of the Upper Paleolithic lived during the period of the last glaciation, called in Europe the Wurm. They quickly adapted to the changing climatic conditions, began to populate new territories, reaching the glacial and arctic regions.
One of the characteristics of the Upper Paleolithic is the improved technology of making tools. A man who lived 35-9 thousand years BC. e., he himself crushed stones into thin plates and strips. They became the basis for a variety of weapons - light and effective. Bone tools were also made, constantly changing for 25 millennia.
The hunters of the Upper Paleolithic were the bearers of the experience of previous generations and already knew perfectly well what their territory was rich in and what was the way of life of game, herbivores (living both in herds and alone), carnivores, small mammals, birds. People adapted to the seasonal migrations of the reindeer, the hunting of which fully satisfied their need for meat food.
Prehistoric people also used the fur skins of predators, mammoth tusks and the teeth of various animals to make art and jewelry. On occasion, hunters were engaged in fishing, which became a valuable help in certain months, as well as gathering, which played an equally important role in the warm season.
During the nomads, people also found other natural materials, primarily various types of stone, necessary for turning tools. The primitive man knew where the deposits of flint were located, where he systematically visited to select and carry away the best pieces that were not subjected to glaciation, from which he cut the plates.
Still people picked up stones of soft breeds for sculptural products and engravings. They found shells of marine animals, fossil bones, and sometimes they followed them hundreds of kilometers from their place of stay. The nomadic way of life of the hunters of the Upper Paleolithic assumed a fair distribution of duties and cooperation of all members of the community.
Everywhere, wherever people went, they sought to protect themselves from cold, wind, dampness and dangerous animals. The housing model depended on the type of activity, the type of social organization and the level of culture of primitive people. Certain requirements were imposed on the shelter: a convenient approach, the proximity of the river, an elevated location above the valley with animals grazing above it. The dwelling was insulated: a “double roof” was erected. But more often they still settled in the valleys, on the plains or plateaus, where they built huts and tents. In this case, a variety of materials were used, sometimes even mammoth bones.
The term "Paleolithic art" combines works of very different artistic styles and techniques. rock painting- this is the art of drawing on stone walls, which, starting from Gravettian time conquers the depths of the dungeons and turns them into sanctuaries. Every corner in the more than a hundred caves of the Centabrian Mountains is covered with masterpieces of Madeleine culture.
The artistic technique of that time was very diverse: drawing lines with fingers on clay, carving on various supports, actually painting, carried out in a variety of ways - spraying liquid paint, applying it with a brush, combining paint and carving on the same image.
Until the 8th millennium BC. e. in the Middle East and until the 6th millennium in Europe, man lived by hunting, fishing and gathering. In the Neolithic era, his way of life changed radically: by raising livestock and cultivating the land, he himself began to produce food for himself. Thanks to pastoralism, people provided themselves with food supplies that were constantly at their disposal; in addition to meat, domestic animals gave milk, wool, and skin. The emergence of villages preceded the development of cattle breeding and agriculture.
Neolithic meant a new socio-economic organization of life. But this era brought with it a number of major technical innovations: pottery, stone grinding, weaving.
In the Neolithic era in Western Europe, giant stone monuments appear - megaliths. It is believed that by building a megalith, the peasant community declared the establishment of its control over a certain territory.
Society gradually changed. And although the tribal group still produced everything it needed for life, along with the peasants, miners, bronze craftsmen, and small merchants began to appear. The need to protect mines and trade routes led to the emergence of a special estate - warriors. If in the Neolithic era people lived in relative equality, then the Bronze Age is already marked by the emergence of a social hierarchy.

3. What were the stages of decomposition of the primitive communal system?

Approximately at V-IV millennium BC. uh. the disintegration of primitive society began. Among the factors contributing to this, an important role was played by agriculture, the development of specialized cattle breeding, the emergence of metallurgy, the formation of a specialized craft, and the development of trade.
With the development of plow agriculture, agricultural labor passed from women's hands to men's, and the male farmer became the head of the family. Accumulation in different families was created differently. The product gradually ceases to be shared among the members of the community, and property begins to pass from father to children, the foundations of private ownership of the means of production are laid.
From the account of kinship on the maternal side, they pass to the account of kinship on the father's side - a patriarchy is formed. Accordingly, the form of family relations is changing, a patriarchal family based on private property arises.
The growth of labor productivity, increased exchange, constant wars - all this led to the emergence of property stratification among the tribes. Property inequality gave rise to social inequality. The tops of the tribal aristocracy were formed, in fact, in charge of all affairs. Noble community members sat in the tribal council, were in charge of the cult of the gods, singled out military leaders and priests from their midst. Along with property and social differentiation within the tribal community, there is also differentiation within the tribe between individual clans. On the one hand, strong and wealthy clans stand out, and on the other, weakened and impoverished ones.
So, the signs of the collapse of the tribal system were the emergence of property inequality, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the leaders of the tribes, the increase in armed clashes, the condemnation of captives into slaves, the transformation of the clan from a consanguineous collective into a territorial community.
In different parts of the world, the destruction of primitive communal relations occurred at different times, and the models of transition to a higher formation were also diverse: some peoples formed early class states, others - slave-owning, many peoples bypassed the slave-owning system and went straight to feudalism, and some - to colonial capitalism (peoples America, Australia).
Thus, the growth of productive forces created the prerequisites for strengthening ties between social organizations, the development of a system of gift-exchange relations. With the transition from the first marriage to the patriarchal, and later monogamous, the family is strengthened, which is isolated within the community. Community property is complemented by personal property. With the development of productive forces and the strengthening of territorial ties between families, the early primitive community is replaced by a primitive neighborhood community, and later by an agricultural community. It is characterized by a combination of individual parcel production with common ownership of land, private ownership and communal principles. The development of this internal contradiction created the conditions for the emergence of class society and the state.