Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production

Krikh, Sergey

doi:10.18254/S207987840024701-0

Home>Issue 2 (124)>Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production

Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production

Table of contents

Annotation Estimate Publication content

References Comments

Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production

Annotation

PII

S207987840024701-0-1

DOI

10.18254/S207987840024701-0

Publication type

Article

Status

Published

Authors

Sergey Krikh Send message

Affiliation: Dostoevsky Omsk State University
Address: Russian Federation, Omsk

Edition

Volume 14 Issue 2 (124)

Abstract

At the beginning of the article, the author defines the significance of the discussions about the Asian mode of production for the Soviet historiography of antiquity, and also talks about the special characteristics of the second discussion, the main phase of which dates back to the second half of the 1960s. If the first discussion established the rules for understanding the historical process among Soviet historians, then during the second one some historians tried to revise these rules. At the same time, those historians formed themselves as authors of texts already under unified rules for constructing a narrative. The author of the article consistently examines the principles of constructing statements pro et contra the revision of the unified terminology for historians of the ancient world. It turns out that, in fact, both supporters and opponents of the Asian mode of production used the same arguments, and their texts were built from the same components, only the vector of thought and the volume of concrete textual parts differed. Thus, in the early 1960s the unified narrative still dominated even in the face of diverging points of view. At the same time, another difference between the positions consisted in different vectors of understanding the general theory, and from this angle, the conservative trend, which essentially called for abandoning any significant changes in the Soviet approach to understanding history, looked the most unattractive.

Keywords

Soviet historiography, history of scholarship after WWII, history of the ancient world, unification of narrative, Asiatic mode of production

Received

19.09.2022

Publication date

15.03.2023

Number of characters

47265

Number of purchasers

Views

234

Readers community rating

0.0 (0 votes)

Cite Download pdf 200 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion

GOST	Krikh S. Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production // ISTORIYA. – 2023. – V. 14. – Issue 2 (124). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840024701-0-1/. DOI: 10.18254/S207987840024701-0
MLA	Krikh, Sergey "Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production." ISTORIYA. 14.2 (124) (2023). DOI: 10.18254/S207987840024701-0
APA	Krikh S. (2023). Narrative Strategies of Soviet Historians of Antiquity at the Beginning of the Second Discussion about the Asiatic Mode of Production. ISTORIYA. vol. 14, no. 2 (124) DOI: 10.18254/S207987840024701-0

Full text is available to subscribers only

Subscribe right now

Only article and additional services

Subscription benefits

200 RUB / 1.0 SU

Whole issue and additional services

Subscription benefits

820 RUB / 10.0 SU

All issues and additional services for 2023

Subscription benefits

5000 RUB / 50.0 SU

References

1. Vasil'ev L. S. Rabovladenie i feodalizm v drevnem Kitae (o sotsial'no-ehkonomicheskom stroe dokapitalisticheskikh obschestv) // Obschee i osobennoe v istoricheskom razvitii stran Vostoka. Materialy diskussii ob obschestvennykh formatsiyakh na Vostoke (aziatskij sposob proizvodstva). M.: Nauka, Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1966. S. 105—121.

2. Vasil'ev L. S., Stuchevskij I. A. Tri modeli vozniknoveniya i ehvolyutsii dokapitalisticheskikh obschestv (k probleme aziatskogo sposoba proizvodstva) // Voprosy istorii. 1966. № 5. S. 77—90.

3. Vitkin M. A. Vostok v filosofsko-istoricheskoj kontseptsii K. Marksa i F. Ehngel'sa. M.: Nauka, 1972.

4. Danilova L. V. Diskussiya po vazhnoj probleme // Voprosy filosofii. 1965. № 12. S. 149—156.

5. Il'in G. F. Edinstvo istoricheskogo protsessa // Obschee i osobennoe v istoricheskom razvitii stran Vostoka. Materialy diskussii ob obschestvennykh formatsiyakh na Vostoke (aziatskij sposob proizvodstva). M.: Nauka, Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1966. S. 171—174.

6. Kim O. V. Problema aziatskogo sposoba proizvodstva v sovetskoj istoriografii (1920-e gg. — nachalo 1990-kh gg.): dissertatsiya kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. Kemerovo, 2001.

7. Korostovtsev M. A. Osobennosti rabovladel'cheskogo sposoba proizvodstva na drevnem Vostoke // Obschee i osobennoe v istoricheskom razvitii stran Vostoka. Materialy diskussii ob obschestvennykh formatsiyakh na Vostoke (aziatskij sposob proizvodstva). M.: Nauka, Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1966. S. 56—58.

8. Krikh S. B. Planovaya ehkonomika ot Shumera do Sovetskogo Soyuza: sud'ba drevnej imperii glazami sovremennykh istorikov // Ab Imperio. 2015. № 3. S. 255—291.

9. Krikh S. Unification of Narrative and Freedom of Scholarship in the Post-War Soviet Historiography of Antiquity // ISTORIYA. 2020. Vol. 11. Issue 1 (87). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840008231-3-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840008231-3

10. Krikh S. B. Yazyk sovetskoj istoriografii: osnovnye kharakteristiki // Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki. 2014. T. 156. Kn. 3. S. 214—222.

11. L. B. Alaev: obschina v ego zhizni. Istoriya neskol'kikh nauchnykh idej v dokumentakh i materialakh / sost. Alaev L. B. M.: Izdatel'skaya firma «Vostochnaya literatura» RAN, 2000.

12. Lentsman Ya. A. Neskol'ko predvaritel'nykh zamechanij // Vestnik drevnej istorii. 1965. № 3. S. 75—83.

13. Melikishvili G. A. K voprosu o kharaktere drevnejshikh klassovykh obschestv // Voprosy istorii. 1966. № 11. S. 65—80.

14. Nikiforov V. N. Vostok i vsemirnaya istoriya. M.: Nauka, 1977.

15. Pavlovskaya A. I. Po povodu diskussii ob aziatskom sposobe proizvodstva na stranitsakh zhurnalov “La Pensée” i “Eirene” // Vestnik drevnej istorii. 1965. № 3. S. 89—96.

16. Pavlovskaya A. I., Utchenko S. L. Nauchnaya zhizn' sektora drevnej istorii Instituta istorii AN SSSR za 1965 g. // Vestnik drevnej istorii. 1966. № 1. S. 145—150.

17. Perelomov L. S. O kharaktere sel'skoj obschiny v period Khan' // Narody Azii i Afriki. 1965. № 1. S. 93—99.

18. Perelomov L. S. Ehvolyutsiya obschiny i rost chastnoj zemel'noj sobstvennosti v Kitae v IV v. do n. eh. — III v. n. eh. // Obschee i osobennoe v istoricheskom razvitii stran Vostoka. Materialy diskussii ob obschestvennykh formatsiyakh na Vostoke (aziatskij sposob proizvodstva). M.: «Nauka», Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1966. S. 150—159.

19. Pigulevskaya N. V. K voprosu ob aziatskom sposobe proizvodstva (Po povodu knigi M. Godelier, La notion de “mode de production asiatique” et les schémas marxistes d’evolution des sociétés, Les Cahiers du centre et d’etudes et de recherches marxistes, P., 1964) // Vestnik drevnej istorii. 1965. № 3. S. 83—89.

20. Struve V. V. Ponyatie «aziatskij sposob proizvodstva» // Narody Azii i Afriki. 1965. № 1. S. 104—109.

21. Stuchevskij I. A. O pervichnykh klassovykh formatsiyakh i aziatskom sposobe proizvodstva // Obschee i osobennoe v istoricheskom razvitii stran Vostoka. Materialy diskussii ob obschestvennykh formatsiyakh na Vostoke (aziatskij sposob proizvodstva). M.: «Nauka», Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1966. S. 122—134.

22. Ter-Akopyan N. B. Razvitie vzglyadov K. Marksa i F. Ehngel'sa na aziatskij sposob proizvodstva i zemledel'cheskuyu obschinu // Narody Azii i Afriki. 1965. № 2. S. 74—88; № 3. S. 70—85.

23. Dunn S. P. The Fall and Rise of the Asiatic Mode of Production. L.: Routledge, 2011.

24. Pečirka J. Die sowjetischen Diskussionen über die asiatische Produktionsweise und übeg die Sklavenhalterformation // Eirene. 1964. III. S. 147—169.

25. Sofri G. Il modo di produzione asiatico. Storia di una contorversia marxista. Torino: G. Einaudi, 1969.