Slavery: Theory and Practice

3-13

Authors: Feruza J. Tadjieva

In this article, the occurrence and specific aspects of slavery in Khiva Khanate and the essence of slavery, and its role in social and economic life are shown. The information is given based on archival documents and sources about the strong community relations in Central Asia from ancient times and the fact that slavery relations were not at their classical level but patriarchal slavery due to the long preservation of these relations. The sources of slavery are identified in the article and the main three factors that caused slavery. Data from Russian and foreign sources and domestic sources are examined to provide information on slave markets and slave prices. The role and differences of slaves belonging to such nationalities as Russian, Kazakh, Kalmyk, Iranian, Afghan, and Azari Turks in social life are mentioned. The issue of slavery in the Khiva Khanate is one of the least studied pages of the history of not only Khorezm but also Uzbekistan. There is no conclusive research on this topic. From this point of view, the issue of studying and researching this topic is of great importance in the science of history today. One of the most important aspects of the issue of slavery in the Khiva Khanate is the question of the price of slaves brought for sale from different regions. In this article, the question of the price of slaves is analyzed based on information from written sources. During the analysis of the sources of slavery in the Khiva Khanate, the issue of the nature of slavery and its place in social and economic life was scientifically analyzed and conclusions were drawn. At the same time, based on the content and essence of the article, issues of the influence of the ethnic and social origin of slaves on their prices and attitude towards slaves in Khiva Khanate were scientifically analyzed.

57-69

Authors: Artyom Yu. Peretyatko

This article analyzes how Caucasian women were represented in the record-keeping narrative of the Russian Empire in 1792–1800. The principal source relied on in the preparation of this paper is ‘The Circassian Slave Narratives’ by A.A. Cherkasov, a collection of documents on runaways from Circassia to the Russian Empire. Most of the documents under analysis were created by Russian officers (often little-educated Black Sea Cossacks) seeking to describe to their superiors cases of mountain people crossing over to the Russian side of the border. Thus, we are talking here about spontaneous testimonies, meaning the officials had not designed to describe the traditional status of women in Caucasian society. A key focus is on the lexical representation of Caucasian women in the collection’s documents spanning the period 1792–1800. Caucasian women tend to be lexically objectivized and act as an appendix to men (e.g., the border being crossed by “a mountaineer accompanied by a woman”, rather than by “a mountaineer and a mountaineeress”; the willingness to enter Russian allegiance being articulated by a male for his entire family). In a similar way are objectivized children and servants. Most mountaineeresses’ names are not even mentioned – she is just an unnamed wife of a named mountaineer. This was not the case only in one document. In the documents, Caucasian women tend to be objectivized and are not represented as a person capable of independent action. As a rule, she crosses the border in company with her father, husband, or master. An exception is widows, although these cases actually go back to the early 1800s, when the border was sometimes crossed by families headed by widows; it is with the widows that the Russian officers would communicate, not their sons (some of whom were already adults and even had children of their own). During that time, there occurs a change in the lexical representation of Caucasian women – we now come across more of them named, with one case even including a description of a woman’s physical appearance.

86-94

Authors: Anatolii V. Honcharenko

The article is devoted to the analysis of the system of punishment of slaves in the Caucasus during the second half of the XVIII – first half of the XIX centuries. The collection of documents of the State Archive of the Krasnodar Krai, published by A.A. Cherkasov, as well as memoir sources (memoirs of F.F. Tornau, Ed. Spencer, Ad. Berger, etc.) were used as sources. The methodological basis was the content analysis method, historical-system, historical-genetic and historical-semiotic methods, synthesis, as well as mathematical/statistical method. The highlanders had three categories of slaves: unautas – the personal property of the owner, pshitli – serfs, ogi – financially dependent. Punishments were applied to the first two categories. The system of punishment included a wide list of penalties, which consisted of physical violence, namely: murder, mutilation, beatings, starvation, detention in a pit. The most common punishment was beatings, the severity of which depended on the severity of the offense. Murder was a rare punishment that was used for serious violations, in particular when using or attempting to use any violence against the owner, his relatives or guests, as well as (in extreme cases) to intimidate Russian prisoners of war slaves and captured Russian deserters-slaves. Even theft and escape were not punished by murder, although they brought a loss to the owner. Mutilation as a form of punishment was usually applied to slaves who committed theft, but it was rarely practiced, since it significantly reduced the price of a slave. Keeping slaves in a pit as a form of punishment was used for prisoners of war or deserters of the Russian army during escape attempts (in anticipation of ransom) or in cases of insubordination (along with beatings). Starvation as a punishment was usually applied to escaped or obstinate slaves and was combined with the above punishment – holding in a pit. They also practiced selling for hard work or using for hard labor.

97-102

Authors: Sergei L. Dudarev, Vladimir R. Erlikh

The article is dedicated to the memory of a scientist with wide international fame, a major organizer of science, archaeologist and historian, professor at Oxford University Gocha Tsetskhladze. A native of Georgia, G. Tsetskhladze was educated in Soviet times at the University of Kharkov (Ukrainian SSR), and then studied at the graduate school of the Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1988, among the best Soviet graduate students, he was sent to the University of Oxford (Great Britain), where he subsequently defended his dissertation for the degree of DPhil in Classical Archeology on the topic “Cultural History of Colchis (6th–2nd Centuries BC)” under the guidance of Sir John Boardman. He worked at the universities of London, Melbourne, Oxford, taught as a visiting professor at the universities of Copenhagen, British Columbia (Vancouver), Pennsylvania, Texas, Chicago, Tbilisi, Moscow (RSHU). He made presentations at various scientific European and world conferences and congresses, advised applicants for scientific degrees. Possessing wide competence and scientific authority, G.R. Tsetskhladze was a member of the editorial boards of a number of scientific journals, including “Slavery: theory and practice”, the organizing committees of the conference, etc. He worked constantly as a field archaeologist, taking part in excavations of ancient monuments in Georgia, Ukraine, Russia, was the director of an archaeological expedition in Pessinunte (Turkey). He was the organizer of important scientific platforms for discussing materials and problems of antiquity for many scientists of the world – the journal “Ancient West & East”, as well as the International Congress on Black Sea Antiquties (Pontic Congress). Their main task is to explore the ancient civilization in its contact with the barbarian periphery in the east and west of the ecumene – from Gibraltar to Phasis. The journal and the congress are very representative both geographically and scientifically, bringing together the most competent experts in the field of antiquity from around the world, which is the best memory of the ascetic activity of the deceased G.R. Tsetskhladze.