The study of the socio-political nature of the Geto-Dacian" kingdoms " of Burebista and Decebalus, which existed in the Carpathian-Danubian lands in ancient times, has a long tradition. Among the major foreign historians of the last century, V. Parvan and K. Patsh stand out, who called these "kingdoms" states, without undoubtedly putting a modern meaning in this concept .1 In the post-war period, the idea of an early Geto-Dacian slave state was substantiated by Romanian historians to K. Daikovich and, with reservations about the weak development of slavery in them and the existence of other forms of exploitation, to A. Daikovich 2 . This idea is continued in the concept of the Geto-Dacian centralized state, which supposedly emerged as early as the first century BC under Burebistus (I. Krishan et al.), 3 and logically ends with the recognition of the existence of several states among the Geto-Dacians as early as the third century BC, i.e., before the appearance of the "kingdom"that united them Burebists (L. Kicescu, L. Roxu, etc.) 4 . In 1980. Romania celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the creation of the "first Dacian centralized and independent state" - a high form of statehood that was supposedly preserved over the next two millennia of history5 .

However, not all Romanian historians are unanimous in defining the character of the Geto-Dacian "kingdoms". A number of researchers were of the opinion that the Geto-Dacians of Burebista (M. Macrea, M. Constantinescu) and even Decebala (M. Babes) had 6 tribal unions

1 Prâvan V. Gelika. About protohistory a Daciei. Bucuresti. 1926, p. 75; Patsch С. Der dacische Grosstaat des Burebistas. Beiträge zur Völkerkunde von Südosteuropa, V. Wien - Leipzig. 1932.

2 Daiсоviсiu C. Dacii din Munti Orastiei si începuturile statului sclavagist dac. - Studii si cercetari stiintifice. Cluj, 1950, 1/2; Daicoviciu H. Dacîa de la Burebista la cucerirea rornana. Bucuresti. 1972.

3 Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa. Ed. 2. Bucuresti. 1977; EJerciu D. De la Burebista la Decebal. Bucuresti. 1976; Musat M., Ardeleanu J. De la statul geto-dac la statul roman unitar. Bucuresti. 1983.

4 Rоsu L. Consideratii cu privire la structura Societatii dacice inainte de Bure bista. - Revista muzeelor si monumentelor. - Muzee, 1978, N 3; Shifescu L. Formafiuni unional - tribale sau formafiuni statale? In: Cersetari archeologice. IV. Bucuresti. 1981.

5 Сu. Сhitesсu L. Continuitate pe acelasi teritoriu, de la organizarea statala geto-daca la statele feudale românesti. - Revista muzeelor si monumentelor. - Muzee, 1979, N 7; Crisan I. H. Statul dac condus de Burebista. -Revista de istorie, 1979, N 7, p. 1232.

6 Macrea M. Procesul separarii orasului de sat la daci. In: Studii si referate privind istoria României, I Bucuresti. 1954; Constantinescu M. Schita unei teorii marxiste a formatiunii social- economice tributale. Bucuresti. 1974; see M. Babesh's review of A. Daikovich's work: Studii si cercetari de istorie veche si archeologie. Bucuresti, 1974, N 2.

page 59

epochs of military democracy. This opinion is more or less shared by Soviet historians .7
A versatile approach, even on the same source base, and the inevitable discussions, if they are conducted at the proper level, only contribute to getting closer to the truth. The main reason that opens up their possibility is the specific limitation of the source base. For the problem under study, a significant but generally growing number of written sources is constantly in circulation, 8 which in themselves do not allow us to give an unambiguous answer to most questions of the socio-political history of the Geto-Dacians, since the reports of ancient authors are concise and can be interpreted in different ways. However, the accumulation of archaeological materials makes it possible to study in more depth the material and a number of aspects of the spiritual Geto-Dacian culture .9 Finds of coins circulating in the Carpathian-Danubian lands in the 3rd century BC-2nd century AD indicate the development of economic life among their inhabitants .10 However, archaeological and numismatic sources only indirectly cover some aspects of the socio-political history of the Geto-Dacians. And such an important source as language generally disappears in this case, because in modern East Roman languages barely a hundred and one and a half words of the Thracian substratum have been preserved, many of which are also doubtful .11Ethnographic and folklore materials help to identify some relict substratum Thracian elements of social life 12 . But even combined, all these sources do not always provide a clear picture of the socio-political history of the Geto-Dacian world.

The first mentions of the Getae by ancient authors date back to the VI-V centuries BC (Hecateus, Sophocles, Herodotus, Hellenicus). Herodotus, describing the campaign of Darius against the Scythians 514-513 BC. e., reports that the king

7 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Moesia in the I-II centuries A.D. Moscow, 1951, p. 7; ee same. Tribal Union of the Getae under the leadership of Burebista (I century BC). - Vestnik drevnoi istorii (VDI), 1955, N 2; Blavatskaya T. V. Zapadnopontiskie goroda v VII-I vv. B.C. M. 1952, p. 172; Kruglikova I. T. Dacia in the era of Roman occupation. M. 1955, p. 34 Fedorov G. B. Population of the Prut-Dniester interfluve in the first millennium AD-Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR, 1960, N 89, p. 50; Mokhov N. A. Moldavia of the Feudal era. Chisinau. 1964, p. 64-65; his own.

Essays on the history of the formation of the Moldovan people. Chisinau. 1978, p. 27; History of the Moldavian SSR. Chisinau. 1982, pp. 24-25; et al.

8 Izvoare privind istoria României, I. De la Hesiod la Itinerarul lui Antoninus. Bucuresti. 1964; Izvoarele istoriei României, II. De la anul 300 pina la anul 1000. Bu curesti. 1970; Musat M. Foreign Sources and Testimonies about the Forebears of the Romanian People. Collection of Texts. Bucuresti. 1980, a. o.

9 Daicoviciu С Asezarile dacice din Muntii Orastiei. Bucuresti. 194; Crisan I. H. Ceramika daco-getika. Bucuresti. 1969; Daicoviciu H. Dacii. Bucuresti. 1972; Оlteanu St. Aspecte ale sivilizatiei geto-dacice in lumina cercetarilor recente. - Revista arhivelor, 1979, N 2; Epoca clasica a civilizatiei daco-getike. - Revista de istorie, 1980, N 3; Miclea J., Florescu R. Stramosii romanilor. Vestigii milenare de cultura si arta Geto-dacii. Bucuresti. 1980; Decebal si Traian. Daco-romanii, 1, 2. Bucuresti. 1980.

10 Flosa O. Contributu la cunoasteria tezaurelor de argiut dacice. Bucuresti. 1956; Preda C. Monedele geto-dacilor. Bucuresti. 1973; Clodariu J., Relatii comerciale ale Daciei cu lumea elenistica si romana. Cluj. 1974; Mitrea B. Monedele sj viata economica a geto-dacilor in timpul lui Burebista. - Revista muzeelor si monumentelor. - Muzee, 1978, N 6, a. o.

11. A. The current state of the question of substratum elements of the Romanian language. - Balkan studies, Sofia, 1966, II / I; Kaluzhskaya I. A. The problem of autochthonous elements of the Romanian language. In: Antique Balkanistics and Comparative Grammar, Moscow, 1977; Neroznak V. P. Paleobalkan languages, Moscow, 1978, pp. 195-208; Russu I. I. Limba traco-dacilor. Bucuresti. 1967.

12 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Elements of Thracian culture in traditional art and folklore of Moldovans. - Sovetskaya etnografiya, 1974, N 6; ee same. To the problem of ancient heritage among the Southern Slavs and Eastern Romanes. - Soviet Ethnography, 1978, N 3; Spataru G. I. Historical Moldavian folk drama. Chisinau-1980; Pop M. Calusul. - Revista de etnografie si foiclor, Bucuresti, 1975, N 1.

page 60

Persians, " before reaching Istra... first he conquered the Geth... the Getae, the bravest and most honest of the Thracians, offered armed resistance to the king, but were immediately subdued "(Herod., IV, 93). Herodotus knew nothing about the Getae and especially the Dacians, who lived north of the Danube (Istra): "No one can say for certain what tribes live further north of Thrace. The regions beyond Istria are apparently uninhabited and boundless" (Ibid., V, 9).

Among the Thracians, including the Getae, who lived south of the Danube, social stratification already led to the separation of the tribal nobility, who made war booty the main means of their enrichment, from the mass of ordinary community members. "A person who spends his time in idleness is held in high esteem by them. On the contrary, they treat the farmer with the greatest contempt. They consider the life of a warrior and a robber to be the most honorable " (Ibid., V, 6). These laconic but rather definite messages from Herodotus make it possible to imagine a society in which, in the words of Fr. According to Engels, "war and organization for war are now becoming regular functions of popular life," and are a characteristic feature of "tribal society developing into a military democracy." 13
In the Geto-Dacian burial grounds of that time, there are burials of soldiers with weapons, numerous household items, ornaments, dead horses, etc. In some burial grounds, warrior burials accounted for up to 30% of all burials .14 In areas close to the Western Pontic Greek cities, some particularly rich burials have been discovered (the burial grounds of Ajigiol, Zimnich, Fekau, Telitsa, etc.), sometimes even in stone crypts, with a large number of expensive items, especially weapons: apparently, the graves of tribal leaders. 15 For this period, however, it is still characteristic that usually the burials of soldiers and leaders are not geographically separated from other burials, thus not emphasizing their social isolation from the main mass of simple, but still free community members. However, some burial grounds were probably already separate burial sites of a military-aristocratic ancestral group. In the Zimnich burial ground with its mounds (this in itself is quite a rare phenomenon for a mass of non-burial mounds), most burials contained iron spearheads, bronze arrows, bronze, silver and even gold jewelry, household items, etc. As is often the case in other Geta burial grounds of that time, there are no non-essential burials here .16
The steady development of property and social differentiation in the era of military democracy was accompanied by the creation of tribal unions. In the second half of the IV-beginning of the III century BC, tribal associations were established among the Getae north of the Danube. Somewhere near Istria, the "king" of the Istrians (rex Istrianorum), apparently the head of the Geta union of tribes living near the mouth of the Danube, came out against the Scythians of Atea in 339 BC .17 Some of these tribal alliances were able to successfully resist the advance of the Macedonian power. In the 20s of the IV century BC, it is believed that the Getae defeated Voi-

13 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 21, p. 164.

14 Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Archeology of Romania, Moscow, 1973, p. 152.

15 Melyukova A. I. Scythia and the Thracian world. Moscow, 1979, pp. 123, 127, 133-134. Tribal leaders, the richest representatives of the tribal aristocracy, owned artistically executed ceremonial gold, silver and Bronze battle helmets, which are known from random finds and burials in Geta burial grounds of the IV-III centuries BC. (Berciu D. Arta traco-getica. Bucuresti. 1963, pp. 77 - 97).

16 Sapaturile arheologice de la Zimnicea (Studii, 1949, N 1; Vuple R. Asezari getice din Muntenia. Bucuresti. 1966, p. 20.

17 Blavatsky T. V. Uk. soch., pp. 86-87.

page 61

Under Zopyrion, the viceroy of Alexander the Great in Thrace (18), and at the beginning of the third century BC, the head of the Geta tribal alliance Dromichetes twice defeated the army of the Macedonian king Lysimachus, capturing him. Dromichaetes could not decide the fate of Lysimachus alone and had to persuade the assembly of soldiers to release the prisoner (Diod., XXI, 12, 3). This episode, according to T. D. Zlatkovskaya, shows the Geth "tsar" only in the role of one of the most influential members of the National Assembly - the main social and legal institution of the period of military democracy.

Apparently, by the time of Dromichet, the Getae had reached the level of large tribal alliances .19 Sources do not allow us to determine which Geth tribes were included in this alliance under the leadership of Dromichet. There is no reason to believe that this intertribal association was made up of all the Geta tribes in the vast area of their settlement from the Istra (Danube) along the borders of the Herk Forest (from the area of present-day Budapest to the Carpathians), along the Carpathians to the Tiras River (Dniester) and south to the Hem (Balkan Mountains) and the Asai River (modern Osym), a right tributary of the Danube, in the west (Thucyd., II, 96; Strab -, VII, 3,2; Dio Cass., LI, 27; LXVII, 6; Ovid. Ex Ponto; Tristia) - Nevertheless, this ethno-social community of Geth tribes was powerful enough to inflict a major military defeat on the Greeks . 20 A. I. Melyukova suggested that the center of the tribal association headed by Dromichetes was located in the forest-steppe zone of Geth settlement between the Dniester and Siret. Here, in the IV-III centuries BC, the bulk of the Geta population was concentrated and a large number of ancient settlements emerged, which were not only defensive, but also socio-economic centers .21
The disintegration of primitive communal relations and the transition to a class society in the era of military democracy among the Getae took place on the basis of certain shifts in material production and economic life. In the fourth and second centuries BC, the culture of the Getae rose to a new level, while experiencing the influence of the southern Thracians and especially the Greek cities of Western Pontus. In agriculture, the iron-tipped ralo, sickle, and hoe have spread, and metallurgy and ironworking, pottery, and, apparently, jewelry are developing in the craft. The rest of the production facilities, including some ceramic ones, still retained their domestic character. Trade between the Geto - Dacian world, the southern Thracians, and the Greek cities is growing, and commodity-money relations are beginning to play an increasingly important role, spreading also within the Geto-Dacian tribes, which began to mint their own coins sometime in the late fourth and first decades of the third century BC22 .

Geto-Dacian silver coins were initially represented by only one type, which imitated the Macedonian tetradrachms of Philip II, 23 and may have been minted by a union of tribes headed by Dromichetes. Then, in the second half of the third and second centuries BC, various types of Geto - Dacian coins appeared, characteristic of certain areas of the Carpathian-Danubian lands. They were probably issued by large tribes or unions of tribes, for they are usually worn by a large number of people.-

18 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 20 - 21.

19 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Vozrozhdenie gosudarstva u thraciytsev [The emergence of the state among the Thracians]. Moscow, 1971, pp. 221-222.

20 Zlatkovskaya T. D., Polevoy L. L. Ancient settlements of the Prut-Dniester interfluve of the IV-III centuries BC and questions of the political history of the Getae. In: Ancient Thracians in the Northern Black Sea Region, Moscow, 1969, pp. 56, 57.

21 Melyukova L. I. Uk. soch., pp. 237-238.

22 Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., pp. 123-124, 128-129; Preda S. Moneda antica in Romania. Buruesti. 1969, p. 20.

23 Preda C. Monedele geto-dacilor, pp. 407 - 408.

page 62

but on the South Thracian, Celtic and other tribal coins, the names of the leaders were not indicated, and even in contrast to the South Thracian names of the tribes 24 . The coinage of Geto-Dacian coins arose primarily from the needs of developing internal trade, which also experienced external Greco-Thracian and Celtic economic influences, since the areas of the bulk of finds of these coins, in fact, are limited to tribal territories.

In the second half of the third and first half of the second century BC, there are about ten types of coins that are more or less definitely attributed to the Getae, which belonged to tribes or associations of tribes located in the south-west of the Carpathian-Danubian lands, in present-day Oltenia, possibly also Dobrudja. In the second half of the second and early first centuries BC, more than ten types of Geto-Dacian coins were minted, mainly in four centers-apparently by large tribal unions that occupied relatively large territories, mainly in present-day Transylvania (the upper and middle Mures valley with its tributaries), Oltenia and Muntenia25 . However, in the first and even in the second periods, not all Geto-Dacian tribes and associations of tribes throughout the entire area of their settlement and the Carpathian-Danubian lands issued their own coin. The minting of the coin was a sign of distinguishing from the mass of related North Thracian tribes those who were ahead of others in terms of economic and socio-potestar development, which prepared for the emergence of larger intertribal formations.

Along with the spread of the Geto-Dacian tribal coin in the Carpathian-Danubian lands in the IV-II centuries BC, Greek coins were widely circulated. The impressive number of coins of that time found in the Carpathian-Danubian lands is explained not only by the development of trade and money circulation, but also by the accumulation of wealth in hoards as a result of military looting, payment received by Geto-Dacian mercenaries from Hellenistic basileis and cities, tribute to the Greek cities of Pontus, who bought off attacks by Geto-Dacian detachments, ransom, given for prisoners, etc. 27 .

"The appearance of the Geto-Dacian chekasha of its own can serve as evidence of the intense disintegration of the tribal system, which was powerless against the victorious march of money" 28 . The minting of coins by individual tribes or tribal unions and the absence of it among other Geth tribes indicates the uneven socio-economic development of these tribes at different times, the emergence and collapse of short-lived tribal unions , 29 which is typical of the era of moderate democracy.

24 Rarely found on South Thracian and Celtic tribal coins, proper names are believed to have belonged to the heads of tribal unions. (Zlatkovskaya T. D. The emergence of the state among the Thracians, from 68-70, 194-198; Philip J. Celtic civilization and its heritage. Prague, 1961., pp. 137-138; Preda C. Monedele geto-dacilor, p. 408.

25 Preda C. Monedele geto-dacilor, pp. 407 - 432.

26 Potestarnaya vlast - vlast, not yet separated from the people in a classless society, including military democracy (see Bromley Yu. V. Sovremennye problemy etnografii, Moscow 1981, pp. 12-13).

27 Preda С. Moneda antica in România, pp. 11 - 16, 18 - 19, 29 - 32; Mitre a B. Op. cit., p. 4.

28 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 21, p. 113.

29 Bromley Yu. V. Essays on the theory of ethnos, Moscow, 1983, p. on Classics of Marxism showed that military democracy, intertribal associations existed for a long time and passed through four stages in their development. At the first, early stage (the Burebista intertribal union probably dates back to the end of this period), these associations easily broke up and were temporary in nature (see Marx K. Synopsis of the book "Ancient Society"by Lewis T. Morgan. - Archive of Marx and Engels, vol. IX, p. 89; see also Averkiev Yu. P. On the place of military democracy and the history of the Indians of North America. - Soviet Ethnography, 1970, N 5, p. 43; etc.)

page 63

In the same era, along with the usual open settlements, large fortresses, well fortified for their time with powerful earth ramparts, wooden structures and deep moats, appeared, many of which became strongholds and shelters of the tribal aristocracy that separated from the people. Among the Geto-Dacians, ancient settlements appeared in the IV-III centuries BC, which coincides with the time of the first mentions in the sources of the Geta "kings", unions of tribes that created entire systems of fortifications, such as Butuchen, Poyan, etc. 30 . In the future, those of them that survived the Celtic and Bastarnian invasions (III - II centuries BC) gradually become not only military-political and, apparently, religious, but also economic and cultural centers during the gradual transition to the creation of the Geto-Dacians of their own statehood.

After Dromichet, the sources mention the names of other Geta "kings" - tribal leaders or heads of not so large unions of tribes: in the III century BC - Zalmodegik, at the turn of the III - II centuries BC - Remax and Zoltes 31, in the middle of the II century BC-Orol and possibly Rubobost (Trogus Pompeius XXXII, 3, 16). The sources do not provide any information about the social status of these individuals, except that the Hetman ethno-social formations they headed played a significant role in the political history of the Northwestern Black Sea region32 .

In the first half of the first century BC, a new significant figure appeared on the historical stage of the Geto-Dacian world - the "king" Burebista, 33 of whom Strabo reports: "Leading his people... He exalted him so much by exercise, abstinence from wine, and obedience to commands that in a few years he created a strong authority" (Strab. VII, 3, I) 34 . Many Romanian authors, referring to further economic and social changes in the Geto-Dacian society, the nature of power and foreign policy actions of Burebista, consider the association headed by him to be a state and even centralized political entity that has absorbed all the Geto-Dacian tribes

30 Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., p. 124; Nikulitse I. T. Gety IV-III centuries BC in the Dniester-Carpathian lands. Chisinau. 1977, p. 130.

31 Рiррidi D. M. Istros et les Gétes au III-e siécle av. noire ére. - Studii clasice, 1981, III; Daicoviciu H. "Regatub lui Rhemaxos. - Asta Musei Napocensis, 1967, IV.

32 Blavatsky T. V. Uk. soch., pp. 152-156. A number of authors, however, use the episode of Orol's shameful punishment of soldiers who unsuccessfully fought the Bastarnae to prove the use of their sole power allegedly against their subjects (see Rosu L. Consideratii au privire la structure societii dacice tnainte de Burebista. - Revista muzeelor si monumentelor. Muzee, 1978, N 3, p. 52). However, first of all, attention should be paid to the nature of punishment, which is usually of a legal communal nature: soldiers had to sleep with their heads at the" feet " of the bed and serve their wives. The "king", by his power, only set in motion the custom used in the community and tribe.

33 Different dates of Burebista's nomination are justified: 70-60 years of the first century BC (Parvan V. Op. cit., pp. 78-79), after 62-61 years. (Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Getae under the leadership of Burebista, p. 84). Modern Romanian historiography places Burebista's creation of a" centralized state " around 70 BC (VuIpe R. Getul Burebista-conductor di intregului neam geto - dac. - Studii si comunicari, Pitesti, 1968, p. 41), around 82 BC (Daico viciu N. Cronologia regilor daci. In: Unitate si continuitate in istoria poporului român. Bucuresti, 1968, pp. 66 - 70; Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 85 - 102; ejusd. Statul dac condus de Burebista, pp. 1216 - 1218; Musat M. Op. cit. An Intro ductory Study, p. XXII; a. o.).

34 Quoted from the translation in Izvoare privind istoria României, I. p. 237. There are other translations that are less identical to the original text, where the concept of "command" ("prostagma") is translated inaccurately - "law" (see, for example, Crisan I. X., Glodariu I. The boldest among the Thracians. In: Romania. History pages. Bucuresti. 1980, p. 32).

35 Daicoviciu С. Dacii din Muntii Orastiei; Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 76 - 91; Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 491 - 495; a. o.

page 64

and vast territories far beyond their settlement: from the Middle Danube in the west to the Lower Dnieper in the east and from the Northern Carpathians in the north to the Staraya Planina (Balkan Mountains) in the south. However, as some of them admit, the available written and archaeological sources do not allow us to form a sufficiently definite idea of "the character of the Dacian state" 36 .

In the first century BC - the beginning of the second century AD, that is, in the period immediately preceding the conquest of Dacia by the Romans, its material culture and economy took a significant step forward. Iron production has reached a particularly significant level. In agriculture and handicrafts, specialized tools are created for cultivating the land (a special type of Geto-Dacian rahl with an iron tip and a stalk, hoes, pickaxes, etc.), harvesting (sickles, scythes, etc.), sets of blacksmiths (hammers, hammers, pliers, chisels, anvils), locksmiths (chisels, punchers files, drills, etc.), jewelry, carpentry (skobels, axes, chisels, adzes, saws, knives, drills), stone-making (wedges, chisels, hammers), and other tools. Dacian curved swords, arrowheads and spears were made of iron, as well as many ornaments (fibulae, etc.), harness items (Psalms 37, bits), etc. The extraction of copper, silver and gold in the Carpathian Mountains created a reliable raw material base for the development of jewelry and the manufacture of bronze products .38 Geto-Dacian toreutics, with its original style and rich ornamentation (a treasure trove of silver vessels from Seungkreien, etc.), was particularly flourishing.Pottery is finally singled out as a separate branch of craft, although home-made tableware is still a significant phenomenon . Thus, among the Geto-Dacians in the first century BC - the beginning of the second century AD, at least seven to eight industries became handicrafts. Among them, those that are associated with the extraction and processing of metals are particularly distinguished.

Despite the variety of agricultural tools that has appeared, which has contributed to some intensification of agricultural labor, the main ones-ralo, sickle, scythe-still change relatively little in their technical characteristics during the III century BC. e. - the beginning of the II century AD. e., the system of agriculture uses subsection and perelog, a constant set of crops is cultivated: wheat, millet, barley, rye, legumes, grapes, hemp, etc. 41 . Apparently, animal husbandry is also dominated by extensive forms, among which pasture cattle breeding prevails: Dacian camps-sheep pens were found in the Oreşti Mountains, and in other places of the Southern Carpathians - caves-shelters for cattle dating back to that time. The herd is dominated by sheep 42 .

In the fourth century B.C. and the beginning of the second century A.D., the Geto - Dacians experienced the second great social division of labor, between handicraft and agriculture, which was gaining momentum by the end of the period,

36 Daiсоviсiu H. Dacia de la Burebista, p. 79.

37 Psalms - part of a horse's bit in the form of two vertical rods, each of which was placed at the ends of the bit.

38 Рореsсu D. Exploatarea si prelucrarea metalelor in Transilvania pina la contropirea romaria. -Studii si cercetari de istorie veche, 1951, N 2; Оlteanu St. Op. cit.

39 Torevtika-jewelry technique of manual relief processing of artistic metal products: chasing, embossing, processing of cast products.

40 Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., pp. 144-150.

41 Demchenko N. A. Agricultural implements as a material for studying the ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Moldavian people. In: Materials and research on archeology and ethnography of the MSSR. Chisinau. 1964, pp. 47-49, 54, 59; Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., pp. 149, 152; Neamtu V. La technique de la production céréalière en Valachie et en Moldavie jusqu'au XVIIIe s. Bucuresti. 1976, pp. 49 - 51, 175 - 177, 236 - 238.

42 Daiсоviсiu H. Dacii. Bucuresti. 1965, p. 131; Mitrea B. Op. cit.

page 65

in the last two centuries. However, all attempts to prove the existence of a particularly significant turning point, a leap in the Dacian economy to the first half of the first century BC, i.e., to the emergence of the "power" Burebista 43, are inconclusive. The Geto-Dacian culture of the first century BC-the beginning of the second century AD dates back to a total of 44, the most significant achievements of the Dacian civilization, the flourishing of its military-political, religious, and trade and craft centers are most likely at the end of the first century AD, on the eve of the Roman conquest of Dacia 45 . Even the appearance among the Geto-Dacians of oppidums-quasi-urban settlements (Sarmizegetusa), which are characteristic of the Western European "barbarian" world on the eve of the formation of early-class state formations, 46 also probably refers to this time and is associated with a similar level of socio - economic development.

Supporters of the existence of the Burebista" power " place special emphasis on the changes in monetary circulation at the turn of the II - I centuries BC, associated with the spread of the Roman coin. Mesmerized by the impressive weight ratio of the coin found in the second half of the second and early first centuries BC (about 18 thousand copies) and the first century BC - first century AD (about 30 thousand copies), some researchers have come to the conclusion that the transition to a "widespread monetary economy" in Dacia is taking place at the turn of the second century BC.-I century BC and reaches one of its maxima already in the first half of the first century BC, i.e. during Burebista, when at least 70 of the 278 known hoards of Roman denarii were buried .47 However, to explain this phenomenon in the monetary circulation of Dacia, it is necessary to use relative economic estimates rather than absolute ones.

According to the average estimates, the mass of coins found on the territory of ancient Dacia in 1977, which were circulated in the second half of the second century-the beginning of the first century BC (about 4450 copies of tetradrachmas of Macedonia, Prima and Phasos, and about 13 thousand copies). drachmas of Dyrrachium, Apollonia, and Western Pontic Greek cities) amounted to approximately 120-130 kg of silver, and the Roman denarius in finds of the first century BC - the first century AD (about 30 thousand copies).-about 117-120 kg of silver, i.e. it is either equal or even decreased. If we take into account that some of the coins that were in circulation in Dacia before the first century BC continued to be in use later, until the end of the first century BC48, as well as the almost equal ratio of individual coin finds to the mass of coins in the hoards of both periods, then it becomes obvious that there are no significant changes in II century BC-I century AD The rate of development of monetary circulation in Dacia and other areas of the" barbarian " world adjacent to the borders of the Roman Empire did not differ 49 .

43 Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 41 - 49; Rоsu L. Op. cit.

44 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 127 - 199; ejusd. Epoca clasica a civilizatieti daco- getice. - Revista de istorie, 1980, N 3; Lupu N. Die dakische Zivi-lization und ihre Beziehungen zur romischen Welt im 1. Jahrh. u. Z. - Forschungen fur Volks- und Landeskunde, 1977, N 2. "Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 127 - 199, 285 - 287.

46 Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., pp. 139, 153; Filip Ya. Uk. soch., pp. 116-129, see also pp. 93-95.

47 As of 1977 (see Mitrea B. Op. cit.; Chirila E., Ror J. Tezaurul monetar de la Sinpetru. - Apulum, VII/I, 1968, pp. 166-167; Cisap J. H. Burebista si epoca sa, p. 46. 48 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, p. 191.

49 Tacitus mentions the existence of money circulation among the barbarians, whose territories were adjacent to the borders of the Roman Empire. He writes that money circulation among the Germans existed mainly in foreign trade, while in the internal regions trade was barter: "However, those closest to us know the price of gold and silver because of their use in trade and understand some of our coins, giving preference to others of them. Living in simplicity and in the old way, they confine themselves to barter. The Germans accept-

page 66

The absolute predominance of the money supply buried in hoards over individual finds is also significant: from 17 to 18 thousand copies. coins of the second half of the II - beginning of the I century BC are only about 200 isolated finds, outside the hoards, and, accordingly, in the I century BC - I century AD, about 400 - 500 out of 30 thousand are outside the hoards, i.e. in both cases more than 98% of all coin finds were contained in the hoards. In this connection, we should recall the words of Karl Marx that hoards as "reservoirs of treasures serve both as diverting and driving channels for money in circulation" and regulate the saturation of the circulation sphere of the circulating money supply. Hoarding of treasures is particularly characteristic of societies "where a well-established circle of needs corresponds to a traditional and self-consumption mode of production" .50 In the Geto-Dacian society of the second century BC - the first century AD, the coin undoubtedly acts mainly as a treasure, so not all treasures were buried because of the danger that threatened their owners, because how can we explain that in a relatively safe time for the country's population, Burebista, his victorious campaigns far beyond the borders of the Russian Empire? In Dacia, almost a quarter of all known treasures of the first century BC - first century AD were buried on its territory (70 out of 278). V. M. Massov rightly warns researchers against exaggerating the role of trade and the nascent monetary circulation in the life of primitive society, especially at the stage of decomposition. The low level of nascent commodity production leads to the isolation of exchange property in the form of money, which performs the function of treasures and does not go into trade. 51
Foreign and internal trade of the Geto-Dacians with the ancient world developed and contributed to the decomposition of primitive communal relations, deepening property and social differences. However," what this process of decomposition leads to..., "Marx pointed out," depends not on trade, but on the nature of the oldest mode of production. " 52 The character of this old mode of production among the Geto-Dacians was determined by the decaying primitive communal system, which entered the period of military democracy in transition to the class-state system, accompanied by the creation of large intertribal associations.

The northern branch of the Thracians - the Geto-Dacians-by the time of Burebista had already gone quite a long way to form tribal associations, which appeared, broke up and reappeared. At the end of the second and beginning of the first centuries BC, numismatic materials establish the existence of at least four such Geto-Dacian tribal formations that minted their own coins. It is assumed that the Aninoasa - Dobresti coin type, common in the southwestern part of the Carpathian-Danubian lands, between the Danube, the Olt River and the Carpathian Mountains, belonged to a Boer tribal union known from written sources. The type of Geto-Dacian coins Radulesti-Petela-Gerelush, which are found in the central part of the Carpathian plateau, in the valleys of the Mures and Tarnava Mare rivers, was minted by the Rataceni tribal association. The Vyrtesu - Bucharest and Dumbraveni - Ipotesti types belonged respectively to the-

only the old-fashioned coinage, known for a long time, is accepted as payment, such as those with jagged edges and those with a chariot with a paired team. They take silver much more readily than gold, but not because they are addicted to it, but because it is easier and more convenient for those who buy simple and cheap goods to pay with silver coins" (see Tacitus Cornelius. Soch. in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow 1969, p. 355). "Now we will teach them (the barbarians. - Author) accept money, " he writes further (ibid., p. 360).

50 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 23, pp. 141, 145.

51. V. M. Exchange and trade in the primitive era. - Voprosy istorii 1973, N 1, p. 89.

52 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 25, part I, p. 364.

page 67

according to Piefigam, a union of tribes formed between the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube and the Yalomitsa and Olt rivers, and Sienam - a tribal formation located north-east, between the Carpathians, the Danube, the Lower Prut and Yalomitsa 53 . In connection with these observations, it is particularly important to conclude that these four tribal associations formed the Burebista "power", the basis of its power and at the same time the source of its subsequent disintegration into the same four components .54
The" kingdom " of Burebista seems to have been an amalgamation of four Geto-Dacian tribal unions: the Boers, Ratacenes, Piefiges, and Sienes, but outside of it there were 55 other Geto-Dacian tribes or tribal unions known from written sources: the Kotenes, Kaukoenes, Potugatenes, Biefs, Saldenes, Crobizeses, and others. which may have been subordinated to this association, as well as a number of neighboring Neget tribes. According to Strabo, Burebista "subjugated most of the neighboring population to the Getae, and even the Romans began to fear him" (Strab., VII, 3, 11). In any case, written, archaeological, numismatic and other sources do not allow us to assume with sufficient certainty that the association of Geto-Dacian tribes, headed by Burebista, covered the territory of Dacia I century BC-I century AD from the Tisza to Siret and from the Northern Carpathians to the Balkan Mountains (Str ab. VII, 3, 1-2; Ptolomacu., 111,8,1-2) - The space occupied by the four mentioned Geta tribal associations and outlined by the concentration of finds of the corresponding types of coins and their coinage covers only the south-western, central and southern parts of modern Romania. There is no reason to include in this territory even neighboring areas occupied by "Geta-subordinate" tribes, because in the era of transition to the class-state system, the subordination of the defeated tribes did not yet mean their territorial inclusion in the tribal association of the victors.

Studies of the Ghetto conquests under Burebista allowed T. D. Zlatkovskaya to show that these were devastating raids for the purpose of plundering, capturing prisoners, and receiving ransoms, accompanied by the physical destruction of those tribes that could pose a danger .56 This is reported by sources: Burebista, "having crossed the Danube and plundered Thrace-as far as Macedonia and Illyria-ravaged the Celts, who were mixed with Thracians and Illyrians" (Strab., VII, 3, 11); " Dacians attack (besiege) Thrace and Pontus "(S. vet. XLIV, 6) Burebista completely destroyed Boev... and the Taurisci" (Strab., VII, 3, 11). The territory of settlement of the Boii and Taurisci between the Middle Danube and the Tisza after the Geta campaigns turned into a "desert of battles" for many years (Ibid., VII, 1, 5; P1 I p., IV, 146). "Part of the territory mentioned above was turned into a desert by the Dacians as a result of a war in which they defeated the Boii and Taurisci "(Strab., VII, 5, 2). " In the reign of the Goths (Getae) Burvisty (Burebisty)... the Goths (Getae) ravaged the lands of the Germans "(lord an. Getica, 67). Olbia, Istria, Odessa, and probably other cities of the Western Pontus were destroyed and looted.

But there is no evidence that Burebista tried to somehow consolidate and develop economically and politically conquered areas, leave their governors or governors there, and establish a systematic exploitation of the preserved and subordinate population, which was typical of early state formations and even tribes-

53 Preda С. Monedele geto-dacilor, p. 431.

54 Ibid, p. 432; Сrisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 48 - 49.

55 See the largely successful and convincing localization of tribes in the Carpathian - Danubian lands by V. Parvan according to Ptolemy: Parvan V. Op. cit., pp. 247-250.

56 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Getae, pp. 88-90.

page 68

unions that were on the eve of the creation of such entities 57 . Sources do not allow us to speak convincingly about the expansion of the borders of the Burebista "power" from the Middle Danube (the area of present-day Budapest) to the Bug Estuary, from the Northern Carpathians to the Greek Western Pontic colony of Apollonia (present-day Sozopol), where Geto-Dacian detachments visited in their distant military enterprises. Archaeological finds of Geto-Dacian industrial and residential structures, objects, as well as written sources about Geto-Dacians in the Middle Danubian Lowland, in the Northern Black Sea region, in the north-west of the Balkan Peninsula58 can only serve as evidence at best of their settlement among the aboriginal population of these territories (if these objects did not enter there by trade or other means). 59 , but not as proof of the establishment of Burebista's authority over them, much less their inclusion in his " kingdom." Moreover, the sources do not allow us to speak reliably even about the inclusion in the" kingdom " of Burebista of all the tribal Geto-Dacian lands 60 located outside the territories of the four tribal associations that formed it, which minted their own coin. Strabo , whose reports are considered by some to be the main evidence of the complete unification of all the Geto-Dacian tribes, 61 writes that Get Burebista became the head of his people, created a strong power and subordinated most of the neighbors to the Getae. Knowing about the Dacians, distinguishing them geographically ("the Marisos River flows through their country" - Mures) from the Getae, who lived in the lower part of the Danube ("The lower part of the river-Danube-up to Pontus, along which the Getae live"), Strabo first of all probably meant them when talking about the neighboring with the Geth population (Strab., VII, 3, 13). In the light of what has been said otherwise, there are also lines from the decree in honor of Acornion of Dionysopolis (mid-1st century BC), where it is stated that the "king" Burebistos ("the greatest among the kings of Thrace") owned all the territory on this side of the river (Danube) and on the other side of the river, i.e., the lands belonging to where the Getae lived in the Lower Danubian Lowlands, a part of the Dacians who inhabited the Carpathian Plateau could become part of the neighboring population subordinate to Burebista.

The nature of military enterprises, which is inherent in all peoples who were at the military-democratic stage of their development, corresponded to the peculiarities of the social system of the Geto-Dacians of Burebista's time, which, however, can be traced mainly by indirect indications of sources, The property stratification in the Geto-Dacian society of that time clearly appears in the difference between rich and poor burials of Geto-Dacians. Dacian burial grounds (Moigrad), in Nakhod-

57 Ibid., pp. 89-90; Neusykhin A. I. Pre-feudal period as a transitional stage of development from the tribal system to the early feudal. In: Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv [Problems of the history of pre - capitalist Societies], Moscow, 1968, pp. 602-604.

58 См. Сrisan I. H. Statul dac condus de Burebista, pp. 1218 - 1225.

59 Soviet researchers of Thracian antiquities in the Northern Black Sea region attribute their distribution not only to the possible settlement of the Getae here from about the second century BC, but also to their economic and cultural connections with the Scythian-Sarmatian and ancient world of the Black Sea coast up to the mouths of the Bug and Dnieper (see A. I. Melyukona On the border between the Scythians and getami. In: Ancient Thracians in the Northern Black Sea region, p. 80; Vyazmitina M. I. Thracian elements in the culture of the population of ancient settlements of the Lower Dnieper. - Ibid.; Marchenko K. K. Thracians on the territory of the Lower Pobuzhye in the second half of the VII-I centuries BC-VDI, 1974, N 2); Shelov D. B. Western and Northern Black Sea region in the ancient era. In: Antique Society, Moscow, 1967, p. 222.

60 Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 1217 - 1218.

61 Ibid., p. 1217.

62 Grako B. N. Materials on the history of Scythia in the Greek inscriptions of the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor. - VDI, 1939, N 3 (18); Cisap I. H. Bure bista si epoca sa. Bucuresti, 1975, 1977. (Here we are talking only about Balkan Thrace, in the Greek sense!, i.e. Burebista was the "greatest" among the "kings" of this region, and by no means all the Thracian "kings").

page 69

rich hoards of gold and silver objects that appeared in the first century BC (Synkreieni, Serexau, Surcea, Balanesti) and also had great artistic value, various sizes of hoards of silver coins 63, etc. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of tribal nobility was accompanied by its separation into a socially isolated, privileged elite among free tribesmen. Jordanes, with reference to Dion Chrysostomus (I c. AD), reports that "the Tarobo-stesei, later called 'pilleates', were noble among them, and both kings and priests were appointed from among them", and explains further: during the Burebista, "pilleati... they covered their heads with tiaras (caps), which we call pilleus in another way... the rest of the people... kapillati (bare-headed)" (lordan. Op. cit, 40, 71-72). That is, Geto-Dacian society was divided into two social strata: the nobility, who wore felt caps (pilleus), and the common people, who went bareheaded 64 .

However, the sources do not allow us to form a clear idea of whether the process of separation of these main social strata of Geto-Dacian society in the first century BC reached the level of their formation as antagonistic classes: owners of fixed assets of production who did not participate in productive labor and used the following assets:

the labor of dispossessed slaves or economically dependent tribesmen, who in large numbers have become only users of the means of production. Weakly reasoned opinions were expressed that at the time of Burebista, Geto-Dacian society was going through the initial period of slave ownership, 65 or was on the path of forming a slave-owning system and slaves were not yet its main productive force, which was recognized as free, non-noble farmers, shepherds and artisans .66 A certain judgment about the relation of the mass of common people to the means of production among the Getae makes it possible to form a well-known passage from Horace's ode: There are also inflexible Getae who have undisturbed plots of land. They bring free fruits and a harvest of loaves. And it is undesirable to cultivate the field for more than a year. When the work is done, the Substitute renews an equal share of the work .

T. D. Zlatkovskaya showed the scientific significance and reliability of this valuable source, which indicates the existence of communal land ownership among the Getae of the first century BC, with a collective field ("not once surveyed plots of land") and land plots allocated for short-term use, for a year, by lot to individual patriarchal families. The Geta neighborhood-large-family community, apparently, was only at the initial stage of disintegration, the appearance of temporary separate family land ownership, which later passed into permanent and, finally, private, hereditary. This important conclusion is confirmed by a wide range of materials drawn by T. D. Zlatkovskaya from the Thracian world during the formation of class society and statehood, found in written sources

63 Мacrea M., Rusu M. Der dakische Friedhof von Porolissum und das Problem der dakischen Bestattungsbräushe in der Spatlatenezeit. - Dacia, 1960, IV; Floсa O. On. cit., pp. 32 - 34; Florescu R. L'art des Daces. Bucureijti. 1969; Mitrea B. Op. cit.

64 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Getae, p. 86.

65 Daicoviciu С. Dacii din Munfii Orastiei.

66 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 79 - 83.

87 Zlatkovskaya T. D. On the issue of communal land ownership during the formation of class society (based on Thracian materials). - Soviet Ethnography, 1970, N 5, p. 52.

page 70

and archaeological observations 68 . It is further developed by another conclusion that in Burebista's time the Getae class formation process went a long way and they already had a layer of nobility, apparently claiming hereditary replacement of places in the hierarchy of tribal governance, 69 up to the transfer of "royal" power by inheritance, turning it into a political institution separated from the people.

Such an attempt to establish "royal" autocracy must have been made by Burebista, who was undoubtedly an outstanding Geta tribal military leader, who managed to unite under his rule not only the Geta tribes, but, apparently, also part of the Dacian, Celtic, Illyrian, South Thracian and other tribes of the Carpathian-Danubian lands adjacent to the Getae. A decree in honor of Acornion calls him "the first and greatest of the kings of Thrace," 70 that is, among the other tribal leaders, some of whom were united under his rule. But Burebista did not have the full extent of sole power, sharing it with the priest Dekenei, who concentrated in his hands two of the three main functions-high priest and judge. "In order to keep the people in subjection, he took Dekenei to help him...... interpreted the will of the gods. And after a while, he (Dekenei) was considered a god." "And soothsayers were worshipped... as in our time Deceneus, who prophesied to Burebista "(Strab., VII, 3, 11; XVI, 2, 39).

Dekenei, with the help of Burebista, who had military administrative authority, began to introduce new customs among the Getae, which were in the nature of laws. It seems that Strabo, speaking of the rise of the Getae by Burebista, and more specifically by Dion Chrysostomos (Jordan), speaks in a muffled voice about this general Geta legislation, which opposes tribal customs and is intended to consolidate a new political organization: "By instructing them in ethics, he (Dequenay) curbed [their] barbaric morals... he forced them to live in accordance with nature, according to their own laws, which, when written down, are still called "belachins" (lordan Op. cit., 69). Having acquired more power ("Burvista... he gave him almost royal power"), Dekeney became famous among them as a miracle worker and commanded not only the lesser (simple, ordinary), but even kings" (Ibid., 67, 71). He began to interfere directly in the administration (Ibid., 71-72), possibly taking over the "royal" power after the murder of Burebista, who died in the mid-40s of the first century BC as a result of a rebellion (Strab., VII, 3, 11), apparently subject to him "kings" and tribal aristocracy.

About the nature of Burebista's power and the social structure of the tribal association, which he headed, sources do not allow us to form a definite idea. Strabo, speaking about this, uses the ambiguous term "arche" - power, administration, empire, domination, perhaps the state, etc., which is interpreted differently in modern literature. 71 It seems that under Burebista, the Getae were just beginning to develop a single-person royal power, accompanied by a struggle between military leaders, priests and nobles, and the tribal formation led by Burebista was only the first, but unsuccessful attempt to create a primary state.,

68 Ibid.; her own. The emergence of the state among the Thracians, pp. 82-92.

69 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Getae, pp. 86-87.

70 Translation by G. G. Mateescu (Anuarul Institutului de istorie nationala, 4, CIuj, 1926-1927, p. 323).

71 "Kingdom" - in the sense of a tribal association headed by a leader (Greek - "basileus" - "king") (3 l a t k o v s k a I t. d. Tribal Union of the Getae, p. 88), "empire"- state (Daioconiciu H. Istoria României. I. Bucuresti 1961, p. 287), "dominion" - state, power (Vulpe R. Op. cit.,), state (Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, p. 77), "dominion" - state (Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 79, 187-209); see the Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary, vol. I. Moscow, 1958, p. 243.

page 71

faced with the resistance of the priesthood, tribal leaders, and the aristocracy 72 .

Geto-Dacian society, being in the first century BC at the stage of military democracy, was not yet prepared for the perception and consolidation of state principles, it did not mature social, class forces that needed state power, were able to create and maintain it, although there was undoubtedly a tendency to this. After Burebista's death, his "kingdom" was divided into four, apparently the same ones that were included in it, "kingdoms" - alliances of tribes, 73 and by the turn of our era, by the time of the Emperor Augustus, as Strabo reports, there were already five (Ibid., VII, 3, 11). that is, the tribal rather than territorial division of society was still preserved, there was no power apparatus and a permanent army separated from the people, taxes 75 - distinctive features that Engels considered defining for the state 76 . Under Burebista and after him, tribal coinage continued, but now it imitated the Roman republican system : and this important sign of sole state monarchical power - the coinage of the rulers ' own coins - was absent among the Geto-Dacians. The abandonment of tribal coinage of various types that were in circulation before the first century BC, and the transition to imitation of the Roman Republican one, does not yet find a satisfactory explanation 78 . However, the absence of their own coins of the Geto-Dacian "kings" is evidence of the tribal coinage that persisted in the first century BC.

The forcible removal of Burebista-the bearer of new tendencies of sole "tsarist" power-did not mean, apparently, a complete return to the former tribal order. His "kingdom" collapsed, and in some parts of the Geto-Dacian world, the rule of the tribal military-priestly aristocracy was again established. However ,the" military-democratic", potestar form of governance of society continued its way to the state, political power, which united

72 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Getae, p. 87; Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., p. 151. L. E. Kubbel drew attention to the fact that in a potestar society, such as the society of military democracy, the balance between the functions of military and civil authorities, on the one hand, and the priesthood, on the other The other one is most often violated, as in this case among the Geto-Dacians under Burebist, in favor of the latter (Kubbel L. E. Potestarnaya i politicheskaya etnografiya. In: Studies on General Ethnography, Moscow, 1979, p. 262).

73 Crisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, p. 49.

74 Indirectly, this can be seen from the remark of Dion Chrysostomus (Jordanes) that " Decenaeus... he commanded not only lesser (ordinary, ordinary) people, but even kings" (lordan. Op. cit., 71), i.e., the leaders who remained at the head of the corresponding tribal associations, which may have been part of the great Geto-Dacian union under Burebista.

75 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Geth, pp. 88-91. 76 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 21, pp. 170-171.

77 In the Geto-Dacian settlements of the first century BC (Tilisca, Ludesti, Brasov - Transylvania, Poiana - Moldova), coin stamps were found during excavations with exact images of Roman Republican denars engraved on them. There are more denarii found in Dacia (including apparently almost indistinguishable copies) than in Thrace, Pannonia, Germany, and even Gaul (Preda C. Monedele geto-dacilor, pp. 345-352).

78 This may have been due both to the economic circumstances associated with the massive spread of the good Roman Republican coin in the first century BC in the lands north of the Lower Danube, which displaced the Greek and degraded local tribal coin, and to the unifying tendencies during the Burebista (see also Mitre a B. Moneta republicans romana si unitatea lumii geto-dace. In: Unitate si continuitate in istoria poporului roman). In this case, K. Preda (Op. cit., pp. 345-346) quite rightly warns against exaggerating the economic significance of the appearance of such a large mass of Roman coins in Dacia, as if reflecting the extensive trade relations of the Geto-Dacians with the Roman world (L u p and N. Aspekte des Munzumlaufs im vorromischen Dakien. - Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte. Munchen, 1967, XVII), "a high monetary economy", "the economic base of the Geto-Dacian population that has acquired development", which has no precedent anywhere in the " var-

page 72

in the hands of the monarch, the sole functions of civil administration, military leadership and judicial proceedings are performed. This is possible for the leaders of one of the tribal associations within the Carpathian plateau. Apparently, Dekenei, who ruled here after Burebista's death, also did not yet have full power, having given up one of its most important functions - military - to the tribal leader, and only Komosik "was their king and high priest... and he judged the people with the highest justice." Op cit., 73). Perhaps this report should be seen as an indication of the gradually increasing removal of the common people from government, the beginning of the separation of public power from the people, and the emergence of sole tsarist power, which is already characteristic of pre-state military-hierarchical and military-oligarchic societies. 79
At the same time, there are indications in the sources that "royal" power among the Geto-Dacians, apparently, begins to become a hereditary privilege of a special aristocratic clan. Among the" kings " of the Dacian tribal formation on the Transylvanian plateau are mentioned Skorilo, his brother Durpanei, who in 87 AD transferred power to his nephew Decebalus, son of Skorilo 80 . Moreover, sources do not report anything about the participation of the people, even nominally, in the transition of" tsarist " power from one person to another. True, judging by the episode described by the Roman author Frontinus (I century AD)" the leader of the Dacians " (dux Dacorum) Skorilo had to persuade his" compatriots " (popularium-perhaps even "common people") not to interfere in the civil strife in Rome (Front., I. 10, 4).

Decebalus gained power in the complex and threatening environment of the growing advance of the Roman Empire, which undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of its sole principles. Judging by the reports of Dion Cassius, whose work is the main source telling about the Roman conquest of Dacia, Decebalus independently made and implemented vital decisions for the Dacians. After winning a series of victories over the Romans, the Dacians were finally defeated by a Roman army in 88 at Taye, in present-day Banat. Sending an embassy to the Roman emperor Domitian, headed by his brother Diegus, Decebalus concluded a peace in 89 on favorable terms for himself from Rome, under which he even received subsidies and artisans (Di Cass., LXVII, 7, 2 - 4; 10,2,3). Yet Decebalus, like Burebista, at least at the time of the Battle of Taie, seems to have shared power with a certain Vezina, "who succeeded Decebalus in rank" (Ibid., 10, 2). In the same source, we find that during the next Daco-Roman War 101 -102 years. Decebalus sent an embassy to the Emperor Trajan, which did not consist of" komatians", i.e., the "Komatians". the commoners (the capillati-the bare-headed ones of Dion Chrysostom), as before, and the noble Dacians - the very best of the " pilleates "(Ibid., XLVIII, 9, 1). However, the common communes, along with the nobility, still take some part in state affairs under Decebalus.

In the bloody battle of Taie in 101, and then in 102, already on the outskirts of the capital of Decebalus, Sarmizegetusa, the Dacians were defeated and made peace on difficult conditions for them. Among the latter, according to Dio Cassius, were the obligations of Decebalus to return

Monedele si viafa economics a geto-dacilor in timpul lui Burebista (Mitrea V. Monedele si viafa economics a geto-dacilor in timpul lui Burebista, pp. 10-11). In this regard, we recall that even during the period of circulation of the Roman coin and its local imitations, the overwhelming mass of coin finds is contained in hoards, which, on the contrary, indicates the sluggishness of monetary circulation: the coin acts mainly as a treasure (see above).

79 Neusykhin A. I. Uk. soch., pp. 601-604; Lashuk L. P. Vvedenie v istoricheskuyu sotsiologiyu [Introduction to Historical Sociology]. Issue 2. In: Concrete problems of Historical Sociology, Moscow, 1977, pp. 26-28 and 105-106.

80 Daioconvin N. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 97-104.

page 73

weapons and military siege engines, as well as military masters, to hand over deserters from the Roman army and henceforth "not to accept a single fugitive, not to take into the service of a single soldier of the Roman Empire, since he attracted many brave people to himself by various tricks" (Ibid., 9, 4-6). The flight of Roman soldiers to Decebalus is also reported by another source (Siudas., IV, 669). Thus, sources indicate that Decebalus created detachments of foreign service people - the prototype of the standing army, one of the most important state institutions. Nevertheless, its main military force consisted of the masses of ordinary people, who, as contemporary images show (Trajan's column in Rome, the monument near Adamklisi in Dobrudja), went to fight in everyday Dacian clothing, often with a bare torso, which especially distinguished them from the armored soldiers of the Roman regular army. It was an armed people 81 . In strengthening the defense of the country Decebalom also noticeable single organizing principle. Under him, apparently, the construction of a powerful, well-thought-out system of fortresses was completed, the beginning of which was laid, as experts believe , even Burebistaya. This large-scale construction, however, was carried out by free communists (there is no evidence of the widespread use of slave labor), probably with the participation of Roman military craftsmen presented to Decebalus in the world of 88, and captured Roman soldiers found in one of the Dacian fortresses captured later by Trajan.

Decebalus, according to Crito, creates his own administration-governors over "those who work the land with oxen", "those who graze cattle", as well as "those who surround the king were appointed in the fortress" (5,2), which contributed to the centralization of "royal" power. Based on the distribution of Dacian fortresses of Decebalus ' time, we can make some judgments about the territory of his "kingdom", which covered the southern part of the Carpathian plateau and, apparently, the adjacent foothill areas to the east and southeast, between the Carpathians and the Siret River, and to the south of the Carpathians. 83 The opinion about the wider boundaries of Decebalus ' "kingdom" is not reasoned by anything 84 . However, there is no doubt that the main core of this Dacian political entity was located in the southwestern part of the Carpathian plateau, in the mountains of Orestia, where the main and largest Dacian fortresses were concentrated, protecting their capital Sarmizegetusa. The main Roman forces were usually sent here along the Timish, Jiu and Olta valleys during the Daco-Roman wars of the late first and early second centuries AD.

Despite the peace concluded with Rome, Decebalus is preparing for a new war: "Collects weapons, receives fugitives, rebuilds fortifications, sends envoys to the neighbors "(neighboring tribes) (Dio Cass., LXVIII, 10, 3). The new Daco-Roman war of 105-106, which was particularly fierce, ended with the complete defeat of the Dacians and the death of Decebalus, who committed suicide. The Romans captured the vast riches that Decebalus had buried - gold, silver, valuable objects, as well as herds of cattle, weapons, and many prisoners (Citon 1; Dio Cass., LXVIII, 14, 1-5). Dacia Decebala was finally conquered, and most of it, if not all of the territory of the "kingdom", became part of the empire as the province of Dacia Trajan: the Carpathian plateau (within the current historical region of Ardal), the land between-

81 Zlatkovskaya T. D. Tribal Union of the Getae, pp. 90-91; Daicoviciu C, Daicoviciu H. Columna lui Traian. Bucuresti. 1967; Flоresсu F. I. Monumentul de Adamklissi Tropaeum Traiani. Bucuresti. 1961, pp. 573 - 574.

82 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 76 - 77, 285 - 286, 336 - 337.

83 Glоdariu I. Sistemul defensiv al statului dac si tntinderea provinciei Dacia. - Acta Musei Napocensis, 1928, XIX, pp. 24 - 30, 34.

84 Diacoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, p. 285.

page 74

between Mures, Tisza, Danube and Carpathian Mountains (Banat) and to the west of the river. Jiu (part of Oltenia) 85 . The lands between the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube, east of the Jiu River, were added to the Roman province of Lower Moesia. In 118-119, the Romans were forced to abandon almost all of this territory, gaining a foothold on Limes 86 east of the Olt river, then-2-along the line of the Carpathian Mountains to the Somesh River, along the Western Mountains and the Mures and Tisza rivers, creating two provinces-Upper and Lower Dacia 87, where intensive Romanization took place.

So, the concentration of "royal" power and its inheritance by a special clan of tribal Geth - Dacian nobility, the high degree of autocracy of Decebalus, who, in addition to performing military-administrative and judicial functions, apparently, was also the high priest of the state , the appearance of permanent military detachments from newcomers in the service of the "king" and, possibly, the emergence of a new state. units of free Dacians (druzhina), the creation of local administrations (apparently for the corresponding territorial units) from those close to the "tsar" to manage peasant communities of ploughmen and shepherds, the appointment of military commandants of fortresses, whose duties may also have included monitoring the receipt of various fees in favor of the" tsar " 89 - everything this corresponds to the signs of the formation of statehood shown by Engels, such as the territorialization of a disintegrating tribal organization, i.e., the division of "subjects of the state into territorial divisions", "the establishment of a public authority that no longer directly coincides with the population organizing itself as an armed force"," citizens 'contributions - taxes" 90 necessary for maintenance this public authority. There are changes in the character of the Decebalus 'power, which, especially in times of war," strengthen the power of the supreme commander, as well as of his subordinate generals; the customary election of their successors from the same families gradually increases... becomes hereditary

85 Мacreа М, Viata in Dacia romana. Bucuresli. 1969.

86 Limes (Latin for "border") - the borders of the Roman provinces or the provinces themselves, or their sections surrounded by earthen ramparts, castrums (military camps), fortresses, towers.

87 Rikman E. A. Some issues of Romanization of the population of the Left Bank of the Lower Danube in the first half of the first millennium AD In: Slavianovoloshskie svyazi. Chisinau. 1978, pp. 49-51, see map on page 57.

88 During the excavation of the sanctuary at Sarmizegetusa, a large clay cult bowl was found with the Dacian inscription in Latin letters: "DECEBALUS PER SCORILO", which is considered evidence of Decebalus ' performance of high priestly functions (Dai sovjciu C. si col. Santierul arheologic Gradistea Muncelului - Blidarul . - Studii si cercetari de istorie veche, 1955, N 1 - 2, pp. 201 - 204).

89 Crito, Trajan's personal physician, reported the obviously exaggerated size of the Decebalus treasure discovered by the Romans: "Trajan delivered to the Romans five million libres of gold, double the amount of silver, and besides, bowls and costly things beyond all estimation "(loann. Lijd. De mag., II, 28). Even if arbitrarily reduced by 10 times, these treasures (165,500 kg of gold, respectively more than 330 thousand kg of silver) are also huge (Russu I. I. Comorile regelui Decebal. - Sargetia, 1966, IV); the source of their origin, apparently, was not only gold and silver mining in the Carpathian Mountains (Moghiar N., Olteanu St. Din istoria mineritului in Romania. Bucuresti. 1970, pp. 45-46), but also levies from the population of the country, as well as forced tributes from neighboring peoples in favor of the" tsarist " power. In this connection, we recall the news of Dio Cassius about the proposals of Decebalus regarding the terms of peace with Domitian (so that "every Roman should give Decebalus two obols annually"), and then about the large sums paid by Domitian to Decebalus at the conclusion of peace and later up to the beginning of Trajan's reign (Dio Cass. LXVII, 7, 4; LXVIII, 6, 1). It can be assumed that the annual tribute of two obolas demanded by Decebalus was a common poll tax, levied by this time also from the subject Dacian population in favor of the" royal " power and, apparently, designed to symbolize in this case also the submission of the Romans to Decebalus. It should be noted that this condition was proposed by Decebalus before the Roman victory over him at Taye in 88.

90 Ma rks K. and Engels F. Soch. Vol. 21, pp. 170-171.

page 75

power that is first tolerated, then demanded, and finally usurped; the foundations of hereditary royalty and hereditary nobility are laid. So the organs of the generic system... they are transformed from instruments of the people's will into independent organs of domination and oppression directed against their own people. " 91
However, the common people of the Dacians (Komati) were still an armed force at the time of the Decebalus and took some part in government along with the nobility (pilleati); rural communities still apparently owned their own land and were directly dependent on the "royal" administrators, although probably a private one is already appearing property 92 . The existence of social strata of the privileged nobility and the common people does not yet indicate a sufficiently advanced process of class formation. This is also indicated by the nature of slavery among the Geto-Dacians, by this time noted by sources: Ovid's report about the capture of the inhabitants of Tom by barbarians (Getae and Sarmatians) (Ovid. Nasо. Trist., II, 200; III, 10, 60), " the Thracians tattooed the children of the nobles, and the Getae-slaves "(Artemidor, 1, 8) 93 , captured by the Dacians Roman prisoners were kept in the fortress and, apparently, were used for state needs under Decebalus (Dion Cassius), " everyone roda domestic slaves of the Geth " 94 . The captives left in the possession of the" tsar " and domestic slavery testify to the still weak development of slave ownership among the Dacians, which did not become the dominant form. The main productive force in Dacian society at the time of Decebalus remained the free communes (komati) 95, subject to the authority of the "king" and his administrators.

In modern Romanian science, there is an idea based on the recognition of the "Asian" mode of production as the basis of a "special" formation, 96 that the Geto-Dacian society of the Burebista - Decebal era had all its features: there were social classes and weakly expressed slavery, communal and private land ownership, the state with three characteristic functions (taxes, external debt, etc.). military robbery, community service) 97 . In discussions and special works, Soviet historians confirm with concrete facts the Marxist periodization of historical development and changes in socio-economic formations, the absence of a special "Asian" mode of production in the course of the movement of social history, the transition from primitive communal to primary class formations - slave-owning or feudal.

The transition to an early class society usually begins at the stage of military democracy. The experience of modern Soviet and foreign Marxist historical and sociological science has shown that in their evolution tribal associations of the era of military democracy have passed two stages:

91 Ibid., pp. 164-165.

92 This is how the famous inscription of the second century AD about the possessions of the peasants of the village of Puteridavas (vicanos Buteridavenses) should be interpreted in connection with other comparative historical parallels from the Thracian world. (Zlatkovskaya T. D. The emergence of the state among the Thracians, pp. 90-92).

93 VDI, 1948, N 1, p. 262.

94 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista la cucerirea romana, p. 80; Suidae Lexicon, IV, 617. In: Izvoarele istoriei României, II, Bucuresti, 1970, p. 703.

95 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, p. 83; Сrisan I. H. Burebista si epocasa, pp. 216 - 217.

96 Сhesenaux I. Ou est la discussion sur le mode de production asiatique? - La Pensee, 1965, N 122; Вanu I. Sensuri universale si diferente specifice in filozofia Orientului antic. Bucuresti. 1967; Constantinescu M. Modul de producfie tributal si ortntuirea tributala. - Probleme economice, Bucuresti, 1972, N 11; Воdor A. Structura societafii geto-dacice. In: Studii dacice. Gluj - Napoca. 1981; Daicoviciu H. Societatea dacica in epoca statului. - Ibid.

97 Daicoviciu H. Dacia de la Burebista, pp. 82 - 91; Сrisan I. H. Burebista si epoca sa, pp. 209 - 217; a. o.

page 76

the stage. At the first stage, tribal alliances were formed, which were characterized by fragility and had the main goal of temporary, destructive, predatory seizure of land suitable for agriculture and cattle breeding, establishing control and collecting taxes from trade centers; they are characterized by a fairly simple socio-potestar system of power: a people's assembly, a meeting of nobles, elders and tribal leaders, a fragile and unstable "royal" ("royal") power of a military leader elected by the national assembly from a noble family. At the second stage, large tribal associations appear, preserving the division into smaller groups of tribes and also including a part of disparate tribes of other ethnic origin, which are already striving to seize and develop land for a long time; the social structure becomes more complex and the political system begins to develop: the separation of the tribal nobility from the mass of free people as privileged land owners who use labor semi-free and non-free; strengthening the role of military leaders of squads and strengthening the positions of "royal" ("royal") power, elected only by a meeting of the nobility from a certain noble family 98 . Describing this stage of development of the military democratic system, Engels writes:: "Since the time of Caesar, alliances of tribes have been formed; some of them have already had kings; the supreme commander, like the Greeks and Romans, has already sought and sometimes achieved tyrannical power. Such successful usurpers, however, were by no means unlimited potentates; but they were already beginning to break the fetters of the gentile system. " 99

In the continuous evolution of societies of military democracy, these stages do not necessarily appear in pure form. Therefore, in an attempt to trace the genesis of the Geto-Dacian political organization, given the very limited range of sources, it is not always possible to clearly determine the place of its specific forms in this evolution, categorical judgments and exaggerated definitions should be avoided. Judging by the materials currently available to science, the" kingdom " of Dromichet was a tribal organization (union of tribes) that was at the first stage of the development of a society of military democracy. The Geto-Dacian society of Burebista's time still largely retained the features of the first stage (the fragility of tribal unification, the temporary seizure of land and control over shopping centers, the instability of "tsarist" power), but already acquired the features of the military democracy system at the second stage of its development (a large association of tribes - a union of tribal unions, which included, in addition to the Geto-Dacian tribes, there are also tribes of other ethnic origin; a noticeable social stratification with the allocation of the Tarabost nobility, the desire of the military leader-the "king" for full sole power, but never achieved by Burebista, etc.). Nevertheless, there are still significant ambiguities in the development of the economy and social system of the Geto-Dacian societies of the third and first centuries BC

Bearing in mind the universality of military democracy as the initial transition stage to the formation of a class society and the political organization of its management, it should also be taken into account that ancient peoples could make the transition from tribal structures to one of two antagonistic class formations - slaves.-

98 Neusykhin A. I. Uk. soch., pp. 597-603; Averkieva Yu. P. Uk. soch., pp. 33-35, 44-45; Andreev I. L. On the nature of social relations in the era of transition from primitive communal to class society. - Soviet Ethnography, 1971, N 2; Khmelinsky V. M. On the concept of military democracy. - Ibid., 1973, N 4; Lashchuk L. P. Uk. soch., pp. 40-43; Herrmann I. Militerische Demokratie und die & UUML;berggsperiode zur Klassengesellschaft. - Ethnographisch- archaologische Zeitschrift, 1982, N 1; Sellnow I. Gentile und politische Institutionen im Prozess der Staatsent-stehung. - Ibid., 1983,N 1; a. o.

99 K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. Vol. 21, pp. 142-143.

page 77

military democracy, which is dominated by military-hierarchical and oligarchic forms that immediately precede the slave-owning or feudal state .10 At this stage of the evolution of tribal associations, there is a need for the appearance of an" additional military force"to consolidate the privileges of the seceding tribal elite: to strengthen the sole power of the military leader ("tsar"," king"), based on the squad 101 . However, it was a society that still retained a formally egalitarian organization, inscribed in the structure of a tribal hierarchical or military-oligarchic type.

Such a society, continuing its evolution in the framework of the decaying pre-class formation, has already gone quite far along the path of social stratification, accompanied by an increase in contradictions between social groups. The deepening of these contradictions and the "pressure of external (usually military) circumstances" brought to life " new social structures of the organization of social order and power, designed to serve the entire tribe, but also opening up the opportunity to rise above the people and strengthen the ruling elite, which increasingly claims a certain part of the total social product. In the latter case, it is already the birth of an early-class society with primary statehood. " 102 To this stage, which directly developed into the political and state structures of class society and was on the threshold of them, scientists refer the " nome states "of the ancient East, apparently the Odrisian" kingdom "of the Thracians, the" tribal reigns "of the Slavs, the" barbarian kingdoms " of Western Europe, etc. - the rudimentary, most primitive forms of statehood. 103 Describing this level of socio-political development along the path of class formation and the development of state principles, Engels wrote that the tribes that reached it "had the same organization of government as that which was developed by the Greeks of the heroic era and the Romans of the era of the so-called kings... It was the most developed management organization that ever existed

100 Bromelova Yu. V.Sovremennye problemy etnografii, p. 191; Andreev I. L. Sistemno-geneticheskiy analiz i problema smena formatsiy [Modern problems of ethnography]. Voprosy filosofii, 1972, No. 4, pp. 66-67; Lashuk L. P. Uk. soch., pp. 104-105 (see also the works of B. D. Grekov, A. I. Neusykhin, I. M. Dyakonov, L. E. Kubbel, etc.).

101 Berzin E. O. Some issues of the emergence of early class formations. In: Obshchee i osobennoe v istoricheskom razvitii stran Vostoka [General and Special in the historical development of the countries of the East], Moscow, 1966, pp. 68-69. A number of authors have recently called such potestar-political structures of power "chiefdoms" and consider them as immediately preceding the state organization (see Kubbel L. E., Ethnic communities and potestar - political structures of pre-class and early-class society. In: Ethnos in Pre-class and Early-class Society, Moscow, 1982, pp. 128-130).

102 Lashuk L. P. Uk. soch., p. PO-111.

103 Diakonov I. M., Yakobson V. A. "Nome states", "territorial kingdoms", "polis", "empires". Problems of typology. - VDI, 1982, N 2, p. 3-6; judging by the final conclusions of T. D. Zlatkovskaya about the nature of the social and political system of the southern Thracians, the Odris kingdom of the V-IV centuries BC was probably a military - oligarchic entity at the stage of transition to an early-class political and state structure ( Zlatkovskaya T. D. The emergence of the Russian Empire in the Middle Ages). states among the Thracians, p. 254). B. D. Grekov called" political formations of the state type " tribal reigns that existed among the Eastern Slavs on the eve of the emergence of the Old Russian state (Grekov B. D. Selected works. Vol. II. M. 1959, pp. 95-96; see also Lovmyansky G. Osnovnye cherty pozdneplemennogo i rannegostatnogo stroya slavyan [The main features of the late tribal and Early state system of the Slavs].

In: The Formation of Early Feudal Slavic States. Kyiv. 1972; Korolyuk, V. D. Main problems of feudal statehood and nationality Slavs of Eastern and Central Europe. - Ibid., pp. 218-219; Rybakov B. A. Kievan Rus and Russian Principalities of the XII-XIII centuries, Moscow, 1982, pp. 258-284; Neusykhin A. I. Essays on the history of Germany in the Middle Ages. In: Problemy evropeyskogo feudalizma [Problems of European Feudalism], Moscow, 1974, pp. 224-229.

page 78

it could have developed under the generic system... the gentile system was coming to an end; it was being destroyed, and the state was taking its place." 104
The Geto-Dacian society and the organization of its administration in the time of Decebalus seem to be the closest to this stage of the domination of the military-oligarchic form of power, which developed into an early class statehood, but did not yet possess all the attributes associated with a solid state formation .105 There was an intensive class formation: the division of society into privileged nobles ("pileati. These are their most respected people") and the common people ("komati... they had the least influence") (Dio Cass., LXVIII, 9, .1-Petr. Patz. Exc. de leg. 6, 4), which may have already been economically dependent to some extent on the emerging ruling class. The emerging state apparatus, the public power that does not coincide with the people (the "royal" squad, the organization of regular troops, the commandants of fortresses and the local administration), was designed not only to strengthen the defense capability, but, apparently, to largely ensure the interests of the military-oligarchic regime within the country, the strength of the "royal" power, which became a hereditary privilege a specific clan. At the same time, the bulk of the direct producers were still personally free komati, who were not completely excluded from the management of society and formed an armed people.

V. I. Lenin emphasized that "the state, as a special apparatus for forcing people, arose only where and when the division of society into classes appeared"; "slaveholders and slaves - the first major division into classes"; " when... the existence of this class of slaveholders was consolidated, and in order for it to be consolidated, it was necessary, to make the state appear " 106 . The deepening of social inequality, as in the Geto-Dacian society before the Roman conquest , is only a further movement of this society along the path of class formation. The existence of two main full-fledged, free social groups that stand out quite clearly, in the presence of a poorly formed stratum of royal and domestic slaves in the "barbarian" societies of Europe at the beginning of the first millennium AD, " does not allow us to interpret them as established classes of class society... it is possible and necessary to speak about the emergence of new social groups in the depths of a barbaric society, which will later develop into classes. " 107 The tribal nobility, which was becoming a dominant, exploiting class, as its wealth and influence grew, needed the institution of the State to strengthen and secure its position. 108 The Geto-Dacian nobility, represented by its "representative" - the "tsar" - began to create a state apparatus of administration and coercion, public power, and a "tsarist" administration, separated from the people and organized, one must think, on a territorial principle; one of its main functions was probably to collect taxes or other forms of levies, which led to the creation of a new state. It was one of the main prerogatives of representatives of the central government in the local109 . In the ambivalent Geto-Dacian society of Decebalus 'time, early-class or pre-class relations were formed, and his "kingdom" was a transition to the earliest rudimentary form of state organization in ancient Dacia, while it was still preserved.

104 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 21, pp. 143-144.

105 Fedorov G. B., Polevoy L. L. Uk. soch., p. 151.

106 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 39, pp. 69, 70, 73.

107 Neusykhin A. I. Svobody i svobody v varvarskikh pravdy (Ocherki evolyutsii varvarskogo obshchestva na territorii Zapadnoi Evropy v V-VIII vv. AD) [Property and Freedoms in the Barbarian Truths (Essays on the evolution of the Barbarian society in Western Europe in the V-VIII centuries AD]. In: Problemy evropeyskogo feudalizma, p. 209.

108 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 39, p. 73.

105 See K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 21, p. 171.

page 79

a number of features characteristic of the last stages of the existence of pre-class society, in particular, the period of military democracy. Such social organizations in Soviet historical science are called proto-states, or pre-states .110
Objectively presented materials of the history of the Geto - Dacians of the fourth century BC - the beginning of the second century AD do not allow us to judge in detail the forms of economic and socio-political development of Geto-Dacian society during the period of decomposition of tribal and early class relations, especially to state categorically that already under Burebist in the first half of the first century BC. A slave-owning centralized state was formed and fully formed, which included the local political formations of the Geto-Dacians that preceded it and the vast territories conquered by this state from the Middle Danube to the mouth of the Bug and from the Northern Carpathians to the Balkan Mountains - a kind of "world empire" similar to the ancient Eastern and ancient powers. Having extremely limited and specific sources at their disposal, historians can only assume that it was a confederation of Geto-Dacian and other tribes, moreover, formed, apparently, not by all the North Thracian tribes of the Carpathian-Danubian lands, led by Burebista, after whose elimination this confederation immediately broke up into its constituent parts. tribal groups. Numerous and long-distance campaigns of Burebista were aimed not at seizing new territories, but at ensuring the receipt of loot, ransoms, tributes, which are characteristic of military democracy as sources of enrichment for the tribal nobility and military leaders - "kings".

Only by the time of the Decebalus did the internal, objective conditions for the emergence of rudimentary forms of early-class pre-state or proto-state organization develop. Just like the Burebista tribal confederation, which did not form on the entire territory of the settlement of the Geto-Dacian tribes, the "kingdom" of Decebalus, crushed by the Romans, never completed its formation into a state. A rigorous scientific approach to the history of socio-political forms of social organization in the Carpathian-Danubian lands should also take into account ethno-cultural changes in the population of these lands: the appearance of a romanized population after almost two centuries of Roman rule in part of the territory of Dacia, included in the empire; then, with the arrival of Slavs and Romano - Slavic contacts in the Carpathian-Danubian lands, the emergence of a new ethnic community - Volokhs; separation from the mass of Volokhs due to the Volosh-East Slavic and Volosh-South Slavic contacts of two East Roman nationalities: Moldavian and Volosh sh . The emergence of these nationalities took place together with the formation of feudal classes and statehood. The Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which emerged in the 14th century, were the first fully developed aboriginal states in the Carpathian-Danubian lands.

110. V. M. Lenin's ideas on the non-uniformity of the historical process and problems of the history of the ancient world. In: Methodological and philosophical problems of History. Novosibirsk. 1983, p. 95; Bromley Yu. V. Sovremennye problemy etnografii [Modern problems of ethnography], p. 190.

111 See Bromley Yu. V., Korolyu k V. D. Slavs and Volokhs in the Great Migration of Peoples and feudalization of Central and South-Eastern Europe. In: South-Eastern Europe in the Era of Feudalism. Chisinau. 1973; Zelenchuk V., Mokhov N., Sovetov P. Etnogeneza poporului moldovenesk [Ethnogenesis of poporului moldovenesk]. 6/4; La obyrshia prietenii sekulare. Chisinau. 1983.

page 80

Permanent link to this publication: