AT THE SOURCES OF OWNERSHIP (Historical and Anthropological Study)


Keywords: property, vision, subject, object, gifts, sociovitality.

Abstract

The advantage that the traditional cattle owner (at the beginning of the ХХ century) gave to watching his animals over money that «can only be hidden in a crate» allows us to reach the following conclusions regarding the archaic perception of ownership.

1) The fact that the original «object of possession» must always be in the field of view of his master, indicates the indivisibility of I, the lack of distinction between subject and object. There is a permanent coherent visual-communion relationship (visual field) between the conditional subject and the object, which is not desirable to disrupt, say, the killing of an animal (similarly, it is not desirable to leave the visible ancestral territory of a person). The continuity of this visual connection is an important sign of belonging to a particular society.

2) Since the vision (vision) does not yet constitute the ancient person as I (the subject), then the person seems to partake of the external visible picture of a particular kind of territory. To be a member of the lineage is to be sighted and, by virtue of sight, to partake of the flock, which is also native — «one’s own».

3) All «theirs» — people, animals, possessions — are united by common vision. In a special category are the socially significant things, which are most attracted the attention of the whole society, they seem to blend with the eyes of the collective.

4) Since social connection is first and foremost visual, and each genus-territory seems to have a «vision», due to the mutual gifting of such «things-eyes», probably a connection is established — a «common vision» between different genera-territories. Obviously, this was the true meaning of the archaic doormat of M. Moss and K. Levy-Strauss.

5) Blindness (a) deprives communion, b) equals whole-non-divisiveness (= no communion).

6) Obviously, the authorities are adjusting to the generic communion — vision — distribution (sociovitality). The lord, originally a stranger, establishes a social and visual connection with the subjugated population: he gives away gifts and is paid tribute. His «bright eyes» are considered «breadwinners» and potentially belong to society.

7) The death of the «light lord», who suddenly became dark-blind, contradicted the social principle of communion-visibility (sociovitality), and therefore required the immediate robbery and distribution of his fortune-eyes (obviously folk) — the breaking of the whole-blindness.

References

Aristofan. 1983. Komedii. Translation V. Iarkho. Moskva: Iskusstvo, 2.
Artemidor. 1991. Sonnik. Translation Ia. M. Borovskij. KIV. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 1, s. 241-251.
Barsov, E. V. 1878. Ob olonetskikh drevnostiakh. Drevnosti. Trudy Moskovskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, 7, 3, s. 213-233.
Brikhadaraniaka… 1964. Brikhadaraniaka Upanishada. Moskva: Nauka. Pamiatniki literatury narodov Vostoka. Perevody, V.
Gogol, N. V. 1847. Chetyre pisma k raznym litsam po povodu «Mertvykh dush». In: Gogol, N. V. Vybrannye mesta iz perepiski s druziami. Sankt-Peterburg: Departament vneshnei torgovli, s. 130-154.
Grishina, E. A. Makhov, A. E. 1987. Formuly v sostave teksta (k analizu novgorodskoi berestianoi gramoty N 605). Balto-slavianskie issledovaniia. 1985, s. 209-221.
Gurevich, A. Ia. 1970. Problemy genezisa feodalizma v Zapadnoi Evrope. Moskva: Vysshaia shkola.
Gurevich, A. Ia. 2003a. «Vremia vyvikhnulos»: poruganie umershego pravitelia. Odissei. Chelovek v istorii 2003: Iazyk Biblii v narrative, s. 230-243.
Gurevich, A. Ia. 2003b. Pir. In: Gurevich, A. Ia. (ed.). Slovar srednevekovoi kultury. Moskva: ROSSPEN, s. 359-360.
Kalachov, N. V. 1876. O znachenii izgoev i sostoianii izgoistva v Drevnei Rusi. In: Kalachov, N. V. Arkhiv istoriko-iuridicheskikh svedenii, otnosiashchikhsia do Rossii. Sankt-Peterburg, 1, s. 53-68.
Levi-Stross, K. 2000. Predislovie k trudam Marselia Mossa. In: Moss, M. Sotsialnye funktsii sviashchennogo. Sankt-Peterburg: Evraziia, s. 409-434.
Lukian. 1935. Sobranie sochinenii. Moskva; Leningrad: Academia, 1.
Maikov, L. N. 1869. Velikorusskie zaklinaniia. Zapiski imperatorskogo Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva po otdeleniiu etnografii, 2, s. 419-580.
Maksimov, A. N. 1997. Skotovodstvo malokulturnykh narodov. In: Maksimov, A. N. Izbrannye trudy. Moskva: Vostochnaia literatura, s. 255-278.
Malinovskii, B. 1998. Magiia, nauka, religiia. In: Malinovskii, B. Magiia, nauka, religiia. Moskva: Refl-buk, s. 19-91.
Meister Ekkhart. 1912. Propovedi i rassuzhdeniia. Translation M. V. Sabashnikova. Moskva: Musaget.
Moss, M. 1996a. Ob odnoi kategorii chelovecheskogo dukha: poniatie lichnosti, poniatie «ia». In: Moss, M. Obshchestva. Obmen. Lichnost. Trudy po sotsialnoi antropologii. Moskva: Vostochnaia literatura, s. 264-292.
Moss, M. 1996b. Ocherk o dare. Forma i osnovanie obmena v arkhaicheskikh obshchestvakh. In: Moss, M. Obshchestva. Obmen. Lichnost. Trudy po sotsialnoi antropologii. Moskva: Vostochnaia literatura, s. 83-222.
Motsia, O. P. 2000. Kniaziuvannia Volodymyra Sviatoslavycha. In: Tolochko, P. P. (ed.). Davnia istoriia Ukrainy. 3: Slov’iano-Ruska doba. Kyiv: IA NAN Ukrainy, s. 274-287.
Motsia, O. 2002. Poliany-rusy ta inshi litopysni plemena pivdnia Skhidnoi Yevropy. In: Smolij, V. A. (ed.). A sie yeho sriebro. Zbirnyk na poshanu chl.-kor. NAN Ukrainy M. F. Kotliara z nahody yoho 70-richchia. Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, s. 17-24.
Motsia, O. 2003. Kultura «movchaznoi bilshosti» epokhy Kyivskoi Rusi. Ukraina v Tsentralno-Skhidnii Yevropi, 3: Z naidavnishykh chasiv do kintsia ХVIII st., s. 35-48.
Motsia, O., Rychka, V. 1996. Kyivska Rus: vid yazychnytstva do khrystyianstva. Kyiv: Hlobus.
Pysarenko, Yu. H. 2004. Dohovir «zirin» u Lukiana Samosatskoho. Semiotychnyi analiz. Skhidnyi svit, 2, s. 68-77.
Pysarenko, Yu. H. 2009. Sotsyalnыi aspekt symvola zrenyia v arkhaycheskoi kulture. In: Shramko, Ya. V. (ed.). Aktualni problemy dukhovnosti, 10, s. 302-312.
Pysarenko, Yu. 2018. Arkhaichne spryiniattia vlady: zorova semiotyka. Filosofski dialohy, 15—16: Buty liudynoiu. Pam’iati Myroslava Popovycha, s. 211-223.
PVL. 1950. Povest vremennykh let. Moskva; Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1.
Propp, V. Ia. 1986. Istoricheskie korni volshebnoi skazki. 2-e izd. Leningrad: LGU.
Semenov, Iu. I. 1966. Kak vozniklo chelovechestvo. Moskva: Nauka.
Semenov, Iu. I. 1974. Proiskhozhdenie braka i semi. Moskva: Mysl.
Suraganova, Z. K. 2007. Traditsionnyi obmen darami u kazakhov. Avtoreferat k. i. n. Tomsk.
Curazakov, S. S. 1985. Altaiskii geroicheskii epos. Moskva: Nauka.
Tolochko, O. 1994. Obraz derzhavy i kult volodaria v davnii Rusi. Mediaevalia Ucrainica: mentalnist ta istoriia idei, 3, s. 17-46.
Tolybekov, S. E. 1971. Kochevoe obshchestvo kazakhov v ХVІІ — nachale ХХ veka. Alma-Ata: Nauka.
Freid, Z. 1991. Totem i tabu. Massovaia psikhologiia i analiz chelovecheskogo «Ia». In: Freid, Z. «Ia» i «Ono». Trudy raznykh let. Tbilisi: Merani, Vesta, 1, s. 193-350.
Freidenberg, O. M. 1998. Vvedenie v teoriiu antichnogo folklora. In: Freidenberg, O. M. Mif i literatura drevnosti. Moskva: Vostochnaia literatura, s. 7-222.
Fromm, E. 2000. Imet ili byt? In: Fromm, E. Velichie i ogranichennost teorii Freida. Moskva: AST, s. 185-437.
Shakhnovich, M. I. 1971. Pervobytnaia mifologiia i filosofiia (predystoriia filosofii). Leningrad: Nauka.
Shenkao, M. A. 2003. Smert kak sotsiokulturnyi fenomen. Kiev: Nika-tsentr, Elga; Moskva: Starklait.
Evans-Prichard, E. E. 1985. Nuery. Moskva: Nauka.
Enaff, M. 2015. Dar filosofov. Pereosmyslenie vzaimnosti. Moskva: Gumanitarnaia literatura.

Abstract views: 24
PDF Downloads: 6
Published
2020-06-30
How to Cite
PysarenkoY. G. (2020). AT THE SOURCES OF OWNERSHIP (Historical and Anthropological Study). Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 35(2), 424-430. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2020.02.35