Comparative Analysis of the Process of Initial State Genesis in Rus' and Bulgaria

Comparative Analysis of the Process of Initial State Genesis  in Rus' and Bulgaria
Authors: Shinakov, Evgeniy A. ; Polyakova, Svetlana G.
Journal: Social Evolution & History. Volume 10, Number 2 / September 2011


There has not been completed yet the typological research of European polities' forms (of the complexity level of ‘barbarous’ statehood, ‘complex chiefdoms’, and rarely – ‘early states’ – in terms of political anthropology), and of the pathways of their emergence. This research can be amplified with the study of the first Bulgarian kingdom before Omurtag's and Krum's reforms (the end of the 7th – the early 9th century) and synchronous to it complex chiefdom of ‘Rosia’ (in terms of Porphyrpgenitus) of the end of the 9th mid-10th century. They have typological similarity in military and contractual character of pathways of state genesis (in ‘Rosia’ it is supplemented by foreign trade) as well as in the form of ‘barbarous’ (pre-Christian) statehood. It has a multilevel – ‘federal’ – character. At the head there were the Turks-Bulgarians and the ‘Rhos’ (‘Ruses’), whose settlements had limited territory, the ‘slaviniyas’ with their own power structure were subordinated to them and supervised by the ‘federal’ power strong points. The ‘supreme’ power domination is supported not only by the fear of weapon, but also by the treaties based on reciprocity. The common interest was, for example, the participation in robbery of the Byzantine Empire and international trade. At first in a peaceful way, later with conflicts, Bulgaria was transformed into a unitarian territorial state by the reforms of the pagans Оmurtag and Krum, and then of the Christian Boris (the latter had led to the conflict within the top level of power – among the Turkic-Bulgarians aristocracy). In Russia the multilevel statehood had almost split up after the Russian-Drevlyan conflict in the time of Igor, but was revived on a new basis as ‘an early state’ due to activity and reforms of Olga and Vladimir the Saint.

The stage of ‘complex chiefdoms’ (Service 1971 [1962], 1975, 1978; Claessen 2000, 2006; Claessen and Kloos 1981; Claessen and Skalník 1978a, 1978b; Carneiro 1970, 2000, 2004; Haas 1982; Kradin 2000, 2004) or the potestal-political one (Kubbel 1988), including the transitional period to the ‘early state’, is studied and compared within the framework of political-anthropological theory of state genesis. The term ‘a barbarian state’ is more developed and up to use in the East European historical science, and it actually reflects the same stage of political genesis as the above-mentioned political anthropology terms, and it is also partly accepted by its modern adherents (Korotayev 1997, 2000, 2004; Bondarenko 2001; Popov 1990). It is also apt because it contaminates state genesis and sociogenesis as a transitional period between ‘wildness’ and ‘civilization’. In particular, both in Rus' and in Bulgaria the ‘barbarian’ period of state genesis almost coincided with the pagan époque of their existence. The acceptance of the world religion in the form of Orthodoxy marks both the end of this époque of their cultural history and the final stage of the ‘barbarian’ period in history of ‘complex chiefdoms’ and a transition to ‘an early state’ in terms of modern theory of state genesis. Yet, in Rus' the formal act of ‘the state baptism’ took place close to the middle point of this transition, while in Bulgaria it almost terminated it.

The methodological basis of comparative analysis is the observance of principle of synchrostadiality (not the chronological simultaneity) and typological homogeneity of the compared phenomena, structures and processes. As a working hypothesis we take our previously worked out classification of forms and models of statehood, approved by the data on different Slavic states and peoples (Shinakov 1993a, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2005).

The aim is the attributing of both Rus' and First Bulgarian Empire to a particular stage of state genesis and to a definite form of statehood. Actually, elsewhere we have already done this with respect to Rus' (Shinakov 1993a, 2000a, 2002b). That work has been similar in methodology to the one we have carried out to clarify the statehood form of the Ukrainian Hetman state. For the sake of comparison, the same set of attributes (elements) of the form is used, but at the given stage of research the comparative analysis is applied not to all statehood forms (more precisely to their ‘ideal models’) but with different principle and different aim – to compare them with each other. Moreover, the work in respect of Rus' (yet at an empirical level and without application of content analysis and correlation) has been already performed.

The sources on the subject are rather diverse (in respect of their category and type) and versatile (from the point of their ethnic origin and political engagement). We have previously presented on a number of occasions the analysis of sources on Rus' in the respective aspect (Shinakov 1987, 1990, 1993b, 2002b; Shinakov and Guryanov 2002) which saves the trouble of returning to it. As for Bulgaria, there have been analyzed The Bulgarian khans names list, works by John Exarchos, Theophanes, Nikiphor, Ennody, as well as the epigraphy data. All these sources have been often used by Bulgarian and Russian specialists in First Bulgarian Empire (e.g., Andreev 1994; Angelov 1987; Ivanova 1987; Litavrin and Naumov 1991 etc.), and we could not pass by their works and analytical publications on the sources. However, as a matter of fact the systematic and complex analysis of these resources in the comparative-structural aspect has not been carried out yet. The authors considered this question with regard to the application not to Bulgarian but to Russian realities (Shinakov 2006a). Below there is given a comparative table of elements of Bulgarian and Russian ‘barbarian’ statehood. The attributes are taken from one of the authors' work on the Ukrainian Hetman state (Shinakov2006b: 98–99):

1. Territorial-demographic structure.

2. Socio-economic basis.

3. Ways and mechanisms of state formation.

4. System (organization) of government.

5. Type of interrelations between state and society (including its particular fractions as classes, estates etc.).

6. Composition, sources and ways of forming and recruitment of the ruling stratum.

7. Composition of the social elite (exploiting classes).

8. The exploited classes.

9. Form of government.

10. Functions of the state apparatus.

11. Sources of the existence of the ruling stratum (‘state elite’).

12. Directions of public funds expenses.

In addition to the basic, essential attributes the comparison was held on the basis of the ‘secondary’ (derivative) ones, which are more completely and precisely (and the main thing, unambiguously) reflected in sources. They are the following:

13. Character of the armed forces and the prevailing type of foreign conflicts immanent to the given form.

14. Types of internal conflicts.

15. National policy.

16. Character of law and legal proceedings.

17. Types and methods of ideological support of power.

Table 1







‘Center’ and ‘Slaviniyas’, hierarchic federation; territorial-patrimonial, vertical relations

‘Center’ and ‘Slaviniyas’ + + ‘External Rus'’; territorial-patrimonial, vertical relations


Ranged society with arising strata; economical basis is semi-nomadic (camp) cattle breeding, agriculture, predatory wars

Ranged society with arising strata; economical basis is international trade, predatory wars, agriculture, stable cattle breeding


The model is military, partly aristocratic; mechanisms are military-aggressive and defensive, meritocratic, ‘kinship’, contractual, legal

The model is military-plutocratic, partly aristocratic; mechanisms are military-defensive and aggressive, ‘kinship’, contractual


Division of power at ‘federal’ and local levels. System of ‘federal’ military deputies. Within the higher level of power there is a patrimonial (aristocratic) principle, arising of the official-serving principle

Division of power at ‘federal’ and local levels. ‘Polyudie’ as a direct government. Within the higher level of power there is a corporate-patrimonial principle


Reciprocity. Dominance-subordination against pre-Slavic autochthonous population, elements of enforcement between the levels of power

Reciprocity with elements of enforcement between the levels of power, dominance-subordination, exploitation of the Slavs by the Ruses


Military aristocracy, all proto-Bulgarian against the Slavs, Slavic bodyguard? Principles are abilities, origin, force, wealth

‘All Rhos’ and ruling patrimonies. Slavic patrimonial aristocracy and bodyguard. Methods are origin, abilities, wealth, ‘luck’





Military men, cattle- and landowners

Military men, merchants


Community men, slaves a little, local pre-Slavic population

Community men, slaves a little


Patrimonial hierarchic monarchy

Patrimonial hierarchic monarchy


Military-organizing, judicial, redistribution. Function of self-sufficiency

Military and trade-organizing, judicial at the low level of power, redistribution. Military-frightening and repressive if necessary at the high level of power. Function of self-sufficiency


Robbery of ‘the aliens’ (Byzantine), tribute, private sources (cattle breeding)

Private sources (trade incomes), robbery of ‘the aliens’ (Byzantine, the Orient), tribute, ‘polyudie’


‘Feeding’ best warriors, bodyguard; prestige of power. Building of towns, fortresses

‘Feeding’ bodyguard, shipbuilding, usage in trade to gain the subjects of ‘prestige consumption’. Building of ‘grads’ (towns)


Cavalry and infantry as a home guard, Slavic bodyguards, pre-Bulgarian ‘best warriors’ and aristocrats. Offensive and predatory, defensive

‘Marines’ – professionals (‘Ruses’), Slavic home guard and tribal bodyguards. Offensively-aggressive (unifying), predatory, ‘commercial’


Interpatrimonial inside proto-Bulgarian aristocracy

Interpersonal in the struggle for power (Rhos); interpatrimonial and tribal (Slavic including Finno-Ugric)


Preservation, but not accentuation of national differences, then the integration at the legal level. Mixture of languages and cultures, adding of the Slavs to ‘federal’ top. Confessional differences are kept till the baptism

National differences are ‘shadowed’ by corporate-pragmatic ones. Different law, different confessions. Process of mixture of languages and cultures, Slavic adding to the ‘federal’ top





Before reforms of Omurtag and Krum different ‘customary law’ for the proto-Bulgarians and Slavs. Later – a single written law, whose source is power

Separate ‘customary law’ (mononorms) for the Rhos (‘Russian law’) and Slavs


Spiritualization of ruling patrimony to deity – Tengri Khan, genealogical sanction

Demonstration of force and ‘luck’ at different levels of power. In ‘Slaviniyas’, probably, religious-genealogical sanction

So, the basic components of the complex analysis have turned out to be the following:

a) the mechanisms of genesis of ‘barbarian’ statehood structures both reflected in the sources and in the categories of political anthropology;

b) the structure of statehood in statistics, its correlation with the social basis (a ‘ranged’ or ‘stratified’ society, according to Morton Fried 1967);

c) the reasons of formation and functions of power structures (in reality and in pagan and Christian ideological grounding);

d) the composition, sources of recruitment and incomes of the ruling elite or elites;

e) the role of war and the form of military organization in creating, functioning and transformation of a certain form of statehood;

f) time, reasons and mechanisms of ‘barbarian’ statehood transformation into ‘the early state’ one;

g) the reasons of ‘choosing the way’.

A. The First Bulgarian kingdom was formed in a military-contractual way. The same can be said about the initial Russian state – ‘the Northern confederation’ (Melnikova 1993) with its center in Novgorod. The difference is that in the former case it was made by means of a military-aggressive mechanism, and in the latter – by the military-defensive one. By the way, the seizure of Nizhnedunayskaya lowland by the proto-Bulgarians under Asparukh was rather relative because it was accompanied by the contract with the Severs and Slavic ‘unity of seven tribes’ (Typkova-Zaimova 1991: 45–47) as a defense from Byzantine attempts to restore its power in the region. As a result of the defensive-liberation struggle of five Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribal alliances and principalities (of the chiefdom level) with the Varangians, a new formed proto-state association appeared which was named in literature ‘the Northern confederation’ (Melnikova 1993). The conventional dates for the initial events are 679–681 for Bulgaria, and 859–862 for Rus' (in reality, with the account of the discrepancy of chronicle dating it is 852–854).

B. Both pre-state societies best fit the definition of a ‘two-level pre-state’. In respect of Rus' it becomes evident after the comparison of the data by Gardizi, Al-Masudi with Russian Primary Chronicle (Povest vremennykh let) and with Constantine Porphyrogenitus (1991). The idea has been expressed with regards to Rus' by one of the authors of the present paper and in respect of Bulgaria – by E. Koicheva and N. Kochev (1991: 52).

C. In Bulgaria the necessity of submission of the Slavs to the proto-Bulgarians might have been determined by the necessity of joint warfare actions against Byzantine.

Within the proto-Bulgarian society the khans' authority rights were based on their kin's origin from Tengri Khan. The types of power legitimation of particular pagan Slavic rulers in Bulgaria are unclear contrary to the Eastern Slavs. Among the latter there dominated either a ‘first settlement’ model of legitimation of power institutionalization (the Polyans, Vyatichs, Radimichs) or a patriarchal one (the Drevlyans) or the model probably connected with monopolization of power by a certain social-professional stratum (corporation) (the Krivichs) (Shinakov 2000a). The term ‘paktiots’ was used in the interrelations of the ‘Rhos’ with the slaviniyas' rulers and it can be interpreted both as allies and as tributaries (Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1991). There was a common interest of the Slavic top to participate in trade and robbery in Byzantine what was impossible without such large-scale actions organized by ‘Rhos’. This interest replaced the initial ‘force authority’, dominating in the Arabic sources concerning the ‘Ruses’ and ‘Slavs’ (Shinakov 1990).

In the resources the right for power among the ‘Rhos’ (or ‘Ruses’) is not postulated anyhow and the degree of power itself belonging to the ‘hakan Rus’ reminds not a sovereign power but that of a tribal chief (a head of corporation) which implies the abilities and ‘luck’ as power sanctions.

D. The composition, sources of recruitment and providing of the ruling elite totally correspond to the époque of ‘barbarity’ or a transitional period from chiefdom to the early state, i.e. complex chiefdom.

E. Permanently influencing military aspect defined to a great degree the specificity of a statehood form and was the reason of the typical similarity between pre-state formations in Bulgaria and in Rus'.1

F. The sequence of events that determined the process of transformation of a complex chiefdom into an early state looks as follows.

For Bulgaria: 1) the change of social basis of the top power level (settling of the proto-Bulgarians); 2) the reforms began only in the incorporated regions (Krum); 3) the major part of the territorial-administrative, law, governmental (Omurtag) reforms had led to an intensive mutual integration of social-ethnic bases of both power levels and their representatives; 4) the final stage of these reforms was the acceptance of an integrating world religion (Boris I); 5) the conflict with the proto-Bulgarian patrimonial aristocracy that lost the privileges and its ‘demonstrative’ suppression; 6) the defense from the Hungarians and Byzantines; 7) the ambitious building and demographic actions; 8) foreign expansion, an attempt to create an empire. The apotheosis was an acceptance of a title ‘basileus’ by Simeon (913); 9) the end of the expansion, change of character and sources of the military-bureaucratic top's incomes by acquiring land possessions (Peter I). Beginning of the early state transformation into a mature one in the form of primarily official-bureaucratic and feudal-hierarchic (Shinakov 2001).

For Rus': 1) the actual consolidation of the ‘Ruses’ and ‘Slavs’ within the framework of a single, although syncretic, heterogeneous bodyguard subculture (by the middle of the 10th century); 2) external and internal crisis of the ‘two-level’ authority (941–944); 3) a ‘provoked conflict’ and its ritually-precedent suppression by princess Olga; 4) the beginning of territorial-administrative, governmental, tax-financial and law reforms only at the incorporated territories (after the Drevlyans' revolt) and domain (private) lands; 5) an attempt to introduce world religion and departure facing the threat of conflict during Olga's reign; 6) foreign expansion, Sviatoslav's attempt to create an ‘empire’;2 the emphasis on exo-exploitation; 7) internal conflict within the ruling clan and the end of territorial consolidation after Sviatoslav's death (975–984); 8–9) parallel functioning of the defensive war factor and large-scale border strengthening meant to eliminate the tribal borders and the influence of regional, military-patrimonial aristocracy, as well as to integrate the former tribes into a new, early state structure in combination with overall reforms in all spheres (986–1000); 10) the massive monumental temple and fortification building including whole ‘grads’ (towns); 11) the acceptance of integrating and prestigious world religion; 12) the law reform and transition of the law under the state's control (1016–1113); 13) the change of the ruling class (druzhina top) status, its transformation into boyar-landowners (starting from the middle and second half of the 11th century), that marked the beginning of the early state transformation into a mature one.

The mechanisms of both the former (the emergence of a ‘two-level’ pre-statehood) and the latter (its conversion into an early statehood) transformations with respect to Rus' has been surveyed in detail in the one of the present authors' monograph (Shinakov 2002b, 2009), as well as in his articles (Idem 2002a, 2007). This work is to be carefully and thoroughly fulfilled for Bulgaria with the help of the content-analysis.

As a result, it becomes possible to estimate the duration of the stages and phases of state genesis for Bulgaria and Rus'. In Bulgaria the stage of the emergence of complex chiefdom in the form of ‘a two-level power’ lasted from 679 till the mid-8th century; in Rus' – from the mid-9th till the middle of the 880s. The heyday of the two-level pre-statehood in Bulgaria falls on the mid-8th – beginning of the 9th century (before Krum's and especially Omurtag's reforms), in Rus' – from the middle of the 880s till 941.

The phase of transformation and crisis of the pre-statehood of the given stage and form in Bulgaria lasted from Krum – Omurtag's reforms (conventionally from the first-second decades of the 9th century) till 865 (the year of the mutiny of proto-Bulgarian pagan nobility and its suppression by Boris I).

In Rus' the stage of transformation began, on the contrary, with the crisis of 941–944 and completed in general with Vladimir I's reforms (the second half of the 980s – the early 990s). The case of Rus' is also peculiar as the ‘complex chiefdom’ final stage chronologically (from Olga's reforms) but not territorially coincides with the stage of early statehood formation which completed by the 820s (except some law details and ancestral vestiges). It is remarkable that both in Bulgaria and Rus' the dates of the approval of Orthodoxy as a state religion (864/865 and 988/989) are rather conventional but they symbolically represent the beginning of the prevalence of the new (early state) development trends over the old (‘chiefdom’, patrimonial) traditions during the transitional period. These very 120 years separate the formal dates of the end of the ‘two-level proto-statehood’ in both countries. In Rus' the stage of ‘a two-level proto-statehood’ formation began 30–40 years after the beginning of the transformation process into the early state in Bulgaria that allows speaking about the typological resemblance of the initial development conditions and not about the borrowings.

From the typological viewpoint both Ancient Rus' and First Bulgarian kingdom were referred by the famous Slavist Vladimir D. Korolyuk to the so-called ‘contact zone’ between the countries of the Roman-barbarian synthesis and the non-synthesis zone (Korolyuk 1972, 1975). Its peculiarity is determined by the fact that the power of the Roman governmental and cultural institutions was indirectly influenced (though to a different degree) by Byzantine as well as by the strong influence of the nomadic factor (though varying in different countries of this zone). In Bulgaria this influence is obvious. In Rus' in the 9th century the role of proto-Bulgarians was played by the ‘sea nomads’ (for the Eastern Europe – river) – ‘varyags’ (the varangians) (or the ‘Ruses’ in the eastern sources and ‘Rhos’ in the Byzantine ones). The nomads and more precisely the semi-nomadic early state Khazar khaghanate, played the same role for the ‘two-level’ Rus' of the second half of the 9th century as the Byzantine empire did for the synchrostadial Bulgaria of the 8th – beginning of the 9th century, that influenced the further transformation of both states. The role and place of the Slavs in the statehood formation both in Bulgaria and in Rus' were absolutely identical and it is not without reason that in both countries the Slavic ethnopolitical component turned out to be the dominant one.


1 The role of the war factor in the development of such a statehood form was figuratively reflected by Nikolay M. Karamzin: ‘…Oleg bored by the silence which is so dangerous for a military state … decided to begin a war against Empire’ (Karamzin 1989: 103).

2 Original point of view on the situation in case of realization of Sviatoslav's empire ambitions was stated by the 19th century historian M. P. Pogodin: ‘He decided not to move the capital (it is a false expression), but simply speaking to move into another apartment, to another Slavic tribe in the suppressed country of Bulgaria and transfer a seed [of the Russian statehood – E. Sh.] into another soil! It was a toss of Bulgaria to become Rus', Normandy’ (Pogodin 1847: 475). In terms of political anthropology one may speak about the moving of a preserved as an atavism old Russian-team ‘power level’ to another low level – ‘Slaviniyas’. But by that time in Bulgaria they had already finished to exist for 150 years like ‘a two-level proto-state’ as a whole.


Andreev, J.

1994. Bulgarian Khans and Tsars in the 7th – 14th Centuries. Historical Chronological reference. Plovdiv: Petr Beron Press. InBulgarian(Андреев, Й. Българските ханове и царе VII–XIV век. Историко-хронологичен справочник. Пловдив: Изд-во «Петър Берон»).

Angelov, D.

1987. Problems of the pre-state period on the future Bulgarian state territory. In Angelov, D. et al. (eds.), Ethno-social and political structure of early feudal Slavic states and peoples (pp. 7–15). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Ангелов, Д. Проблемы догосударственного периода на будущей территории Болгарского государства. Этносоциальная и политическая структура раннефеодальных славянских государств и народностей / ред. Д. Ангелов и др., c. 7–15. М.: Наука).

Bondarenko, D. M.

2001. Pre-imperial Benin: Formation and Evolution of the Socio-political Institutions System. Moscow: Institute for African Studies Press. In Russian (Бондаренко, Д. М. Доимперский Бенин: формирование и эволюция системы социально-политических институтов. М.: Институт Африки РАН).

Carneiro, R. L.

1970. Theory of the origin of the state. Science 169: 733–738.

2000. Process vs. Stages: A False Dichotomy in Tracing the Rise of the State. In Kradin, N. N., Korotayev, A. V., Bondarenko, D. M., de Munck, V., and Wason, P. (eds.), Alternatives of Social Evolution (pp. 52–58). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

2004. Was the Chiefdom a congelation of ideas? In Grinin, L. E., Carneiro, R. L., Bondarenko, D. M., Kradin, N. N., and Korotayev, A. V. (eds.), The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues (pp. 28–45). Volgograd: Uchitel Publishing House.

Claessen, H. J. M.

2000. Problems, Paradoxes, and Prospects of Evolutionism. In Kradin, N. N., Korotayev, A. V., Bondarenko, D. M., de Munck, V., and Wason, P. K. (eds.), Alternatives of Social Evolution (pp. 1–11). Vladivostok: FEB RAS.

2006. Developments in Evolutionism. Social Evolution & History 5(1): 3–41.

Claessen, H. J. M., and Kloos, P. (eds.)

1981. Current issues in anthropology: The Netherlands. Rotterdam: Anthropological Branch of the Netherlands Sociological and Anthropological Society.

Claessen, H. J. M., and Skalník, P.

1978a (eds.). The early State. The Hague: Mouton.

1978b. Limits: Beginning and End of the Early State. In Claessen and Skalník 1978a: 619–636.

1981. Ubi sumus? The Study of the State Conference in Retrospect. InClaessen, H. J. M., and Skalník, P. (eds.), The Study of the State (pp. 469–510). The Hague: Mouton.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus

1991. About ruling the empire. Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Константин Порфирогенит. Об управлении империей. М.: Наука).

Fried, M.

1967. Evolution of Political Society. An Essay in Political Anthropology. New York: Random House.

Haas, J.

1982. The evolution of the prehistoric state. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ivanova, O. V.

1987. Forms of political organization of the Slavic society in the central and southern parts of the Balkan Peninsula in the 7th – 8th Century. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Ethno-social and political structure of early feudal Slavic states and peoples (pp. 56–65).Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Иванова, О. В. Формы политической организации славянского общества в центральной и восточной частях Балканского полуострова в VII–VIII вв. Этносоциальная и политическая структура раннефеодальных славянских государств и народностей / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин, c. 56–65. М.: Наука).

Karamzin, N. M.

1989. History of Russian state. Vol. 1. Moscow: Kniga. In Russian (Карамзин, Н. М. Историягосударствароссийского. Т. 1. М.: Книга).

Koicheva, E., and Kochev, N.

1991. Bulgarian state from the mid-8th till the End of the 9th Century. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Early feudal states and peoples (southern and western Slavs of the 6th – 12th Centuries) (pp. 51–68). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian(Койчева, Е., Кочев, Н. Болгарское государство с середины VIII до конца IX века. Раннефеодальные государства и народности (южные и западные славяне VIXII вв.) / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин, c. 51–68. М.: Наука).

Korolyuk, V. D.

1972. About the so-called ‘contact’ zone in the Southwestern and Central Europe in the period of the early Middle Ages. In Grossul, Ya. S. (ed.), Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Vol. 1 (pp. 31–46). Kishinev: Shtiintsa. InRussian(Королюк, В. Д. О так называемой «контактной» зоне в Юго-восточной и Центральной Европе периода раннего средневековья. Юго-Восточная Европа в средние века. Вып. 1 / ред. Я. С. Гроссул, с. 31–46. Кишенев: Штиинца).

1975. Main problems of the contact zone creation in the Southwestern Europe and non-synthesis region in the Eastern and Central Europe. In Zhukov, D. D. (ed.), Problems of socio-economic formations (pp. 158–184). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian(Королюк, В. Д. Основные проблемы формирования контактной зоны в Юго-Восточной Европе и необъединенный регион в Восточной и Центральной Европе. Проблемы социально-экономических формаций / ред. Е. М. Жуков, с. 158–184. М.: Наука).

Korotayev, A. V.

1997. The Sabean studies. Some common trends and factors in Sabean civilization evolution. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura. In Russian (Коротаев, А. В.Сабейские этюды. Некоторые общие тенденции и факторы эволюции Сабейской цивилизации. М.: Восточная литература).

2000. From state to chiefdom? From chiefdom to tribe? (Some common trends of South Arabian socio-political systems development for Last 3 000 years). In Popov, V. A. (ed.), Early forms of social organization. Genesis, functioning, historic dynamics (pp. 224–302). St. Petersburg: MAE RAS. In Russian (Коротаев, А. В. От государства к вождеству? От вождества к племени? (Некоторые общие тенденции развития социально-политических систем южных арабов за последние 3000 лет. Ранние формы социальной организации. Генезис, функционирование, историческаядинамика / ред. В. А. Попов, с. 224–302. СПб.: МАЭ РАН).

2004. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the Tribe? (Some Trends of Political Evolution in North-East Yemeni Highlands). In Grinin, L. E., Carneiro, R. L., Bondarenko, D. M., Kradin, N. N., and Korotayev, A. V. (eds.),The Early State, its Alternatives and Analogues (pp. 320–324). Volgograd: Uchitel Publishing House.

Kradin, N. N.

2000. Imperial confederation of the Hsiung-nu: social organization of the super-complex. In Popov, V. A. (ed.), Early forms of social organization. Genesis, functioning, historic dynamics (pp. 195–223). St. Petersburg: MAE RAS. InRussian (Крадин, Н. Н. Имперская конфедерация хунну: социальная организация суперсложного вождества. Ранние формы социальной организации. Генезис, функционирование, историческая динамика / ред. В. А. Попов, с. 195–223. СПб.: МАЭ РАН).

2004. Politicalanthropology. Moscow: Logos. InRussian (Крадин, Н. Н. Политическая антропология. М.: Логос).

Kubbel, L. E.

1988. Essays of potestal-political Ethnography. Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Куббель, Л. Е. Очерки потестарно-политической этнографии. М.: Наука).

Litavrin, G. G., and Naumov, E. P.

1991. Ethnic processes in the Central and South-Western Europe and peculiarities of the early feudal Slavic peoples' formation. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Early feudal states and peoples (southern and western Slavs of the 6th – 12th Centuries) (pp. 232–250). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Литаврин, Г. Г., Наумов, Е. П. Этнические процессы в Центральной и Юго-Восточной Европе и особенности формирования раннефеодальных славянских народностей. Раннефеодальные государства и народности (южные и западные славяне VIXII вв.) / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин, с. 232–250. М.: Наука).

Melnikova, E. A.

1993. Preconditions of the emergence and character of ‘the northern tribal confederation’. In Novoseltsev, A. P. (ed.), Eastern Europe in antiquity and the Middle Ages. Disputable problems in history (pp. 53–55). Moscow. Nauka. InRussian (Мельникова, Е. А. Предпосылки возникновения и характер «северной конфедерации племен». Восточная Европа в древности и Средневековье: Спорные проблемы истории. ЧтенияпамятиВ. Т. Пашуто/ ред. А. П. Новосельцев, с. 53–55. М.: Наука).

Petrov, P.

1987. Military-tribal unions of the Bulgarian Slavs in the 7th Century. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Ethno-social and political structure of early feudal Slavic states and peoples (pp. 44–49). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Петров, П. Военно-племенные союзы болгарских славян в VII веке. Этносоциальная и политическая структура раннефеодальных славянских государств и народностей / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин, c. 44–49. М.: Наука).

Pogodin, M. P.

1847. Researches, notes and lectures in Russian history. Vol. 3. Moscow. In Russian (Погодин, М. П. Исследования, замечания и лекции о русской истории. Т. 3. М.).

Popov, V. A.

1990. Ethno-social history of the Akans in the 19th – 20th Centuries. Moscow: Nauka. In Russian (Попов, В. А. Этносоциальнаяисторияакановв XVI–XIX веках. М.: Наука).

Service, E. R.

1971 [1962]. Primitive Social Organization. An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House.

1975. Origins of the state and civilization. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

1978. Classical and Modern Theories of the Origins of Government. In Cohen, R., and Service, E. R.(eds.), Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution (pp. 21–34). Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Shinakov, E. A.

1987. The Ruses in the 9th – mid-10th centuries (the content Aanalysis of the eastern sources). In Culture and History of the Medieval Russia. Theses of the Conference Dedicated to the A. V. Artsikhovsky's 85-Anniversary (pp. 96–99). Moscow. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Русы IX – середины XI вв. (контент-анализ восточных источников). Культура и история Средневековой Руси. Тезисы конференции, посвященной 85-летию А. В. Арциховского, с. 96–99.М.).

1990. The ‘Ruses’ and ‘Slavs’ in the 9th Century: The content Analysis of the eastern sources. In Theses of the Soviet delegation reports in VI International Congress of the Slavic archaeology (in Prilep). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. «Русы» и «славяне» IX в.: контент-анализ восточных источников. Тезисы докладов советской делегации VI Международного конгресса славянской археологии(г. Прилеп). М.: Наука).

1993a. Two levels of statehood in Ancient Rus'. In Actual problems in history and philology. Izmail – Bryansk. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Два уровня государственности Древней Руси. Актуальныепроблемыисторииифилологии. Измаил – Брянск).

1993b. Non-conventional Sources on Reconstruction of Process of Old Russian Statehood Formation (to the Statement of a Problem). In Zhurov, Yu. V. et al. (eds.), The Domestic and General History. Methodology, SourceStudy, Historiography. Bryansk: Izdateljstvo BGPI. InRussian(Шинаков, Е. А. Нетрадиционные источники по реконструкции процесса формирования древнерусской государственности (к постановке проблемы). Отечественная и всеобщая история методология, источниковедение, историография / ред. Ю. В. Журов и др. Брянск: Издательство БГПИ).

1998. The Druzhina (Prince Retinue) State in Poland and in Russia. In Melnikova, E. A. et al. (eds.), The Eastern Europe in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Readings in Memory of V. T. Pashuto. Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Дружинное государство в Польше и на Руси. Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. X Чтения памяти В. Т. Пашуто/ ред. Е. А. Мельникова и др. М.: Наука).

2000a. Tribes of the Eastern Europe on the eve and during the Old Russian state genesis. In Popov, V. A. (ed.), Early forms of social organization. Genesis, functioning, historic dynamics(pp. 303–347). St. Petersburg: MAE RAS. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Племена Восточной Европы накануне и во время генезиса Древнерусского государства. Ранние формы социальной организации. Генезис, функционирование, историческая динамика / ред. В. А. Попов, с. 303–347. СПб.: МАЭ РАН).

2000b. The Forms of Early Statehood of the Western Slavs of the 9–12th Centuries (The Question on the DruzhinaState). In Tarasova, I. A. et al. (eds.), The Law: History, Theory, Practice (pp. 138–150). Bryansk: Izdateljstvo BGPU. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Формы ранней государственности западных славян IX – XII вв. (вопрос о дружинном государстве). Право: история, теория, практика /ред. И. А. Тарасова и др., с. 138–150. Брянск: Изд-во БГПУ).

2000c. About family Marital mechanisms of Slavic power institutionalization. In TheProblemsofSlavicstudies. Vol. 2 (pp. 5–12). Bryansk. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А.К вопросу о семейно-брачных механизмах институционализации власти у славян. Проблемы славяноведения. Вып. 2, с. 5–12. Брянск).

2000d. Old Russian statehood genesis (the experiment of comparative Historical analysis). Synopsis of PhD Thesis. Bryansk. In Russian (Шинаков, Е. А. Генезисдревнерусскойгосударственности (опытсравнительно-историческогоанализа). Автореферат дис. ... д-ра ист. наук. Брянск).

2001. About the so-called ‘Byzantine-Bolgarian Model’ of Statehood in the Slavic World. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), The Slavs and their Neighbors. Formation of the Slavic World and Byzantine in the Epoch of the Early Middle Ages. Moscow: Izdatelstvo RAN; Logos. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. О так называемой «Византийско-болгарской модели государственности в славянском мире. Славяне и их соседи. Становление славянского мира и Византия в эпоху раннего средневековья / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин. М.: Изд-во РАН; Логос).

2002a. Slavic City-state (regional Typological Review). Law: History, Theory, Practice. Vol. 6. Bryansk. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Город-государство у славян (регионально-типологический обзор). Право: история, теория, практика. Вып. 6. Брянск).

2002b. The Old Russian State Formation: Comparative Historical Aspect. Bryansk: Izdateljstvo BGU. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Образование Древнерусского Государства: Сравнительно-исторический аспект. Брянск: Издательство БГУ).

2003. Experience in the formalized classification of the ancient and medieval states. Evolution 1: 39–41. InRussian(Шинаков, Е. А. Опыт формализованной классификации государств Древности и Средневековья. Эволюция 1: 39–41).

2005. Experience in the formalized classification of the ancient and medieval states. Evolution 2. InRussian(Шинаков, Е. А. Опыт формализованной классификации государств Древности и Средневековья. Эволюция 2).

2006a. The ‘Bulgarian trace’ in ‘The Song of the Wise Oleg’. Scientific Works. Vol. 1. P. 1. Plovdiv. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А.‘Болгарский след’ в сказании о Вещем Олеге. НаучниТрудове. Т. 1. Кн. 1. Пловдив).

2006b. Statehood forms of the Ukrainian Hetman state in the 18th Century. In Yakovleva, T. G. (ed.), Ucrainica Petropolitana. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo SPbSU. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Форма государственности украинского Гетманства XVII в.UcrainicaPetropolitana. Вып. 1/ ред. Т. Г. Яковлева. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ).

2007. Mechanisms of power institutionalization and legitimation (at the example of Old Russian state genesis). Vestnik BGU 2: 39–55. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А. Механизмы институционализации и легитимизации власти (на примере Древнерусского государствогенеза). ВестникБГУ2: 39–55).

2009. The Old Russian State Formation: Comparative Historical Aspect.2nd ed. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura; Nauka. InRussian(Шинаков, Е. А. Образование Древнерусского государства: сравнительно-исторический аспект. 2-е изд. М.: Восточная литература; Наука).

Shinakov, E. A., and Guryanov, V. N.

2002. Content Analysis of the terms ‘Slavs’ and ‘Ruses’ in the eastern sources. RussianVolume. Collected Academic Articles (pp. 186–207). Bryansk: Izdatelstvo BGU. InRussian (Шинаков, Е. А., Гурьянов, В. Н. «Славяне» и «Русы» IX – начала X вв.: сравнительный контент-анализ «восточных» источников. Русский сборник. Сборник научных трудов, посвященный 25-летию исторического факультета БГУ,с. 186–207.Брянск: Изд-во БГУ).

Typkova-Zaimova, V.

1987. Forms of power in Byzantine and Balkan States (until the 10th Century). In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Ethno-social and political structure of early feudal Slavic states and peoples. Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Тыпкова-Заимова, В. Формы власти в Византии и в балканских государствах: До X в. Этносоциальная и политическая структура раннефеодальных славянских государств и народностей / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин. М.: Наука).

1991. The Southern Slavs, proto-Bulgarians and Byzantine. Problems of State and Ethnic Development in Bulgaria in the 7th – 9th Centuries. In Litavrin, G. G. (ed.), Early feudal states and peoples (Southern and Western Slavs of the 6th – 12th Centuries) (pp. 37–51). Moscow: Nauka. InRussian (Тыпкова-Заимова, В. Южные славяне, протоболгары и Византия: Проблемы государственного и этнического развития Болгарии в VII–IX вв. Раннефеодальные государства и народности (южные и западные славяне VIXII вв.) / ред. Г. Г. Литаврин, c. 37–51. М.: Наука).