In the beginning of the I Millennium BC on the territory of ancient Central Asia a special ethno-political union of nomadic people was formed, known in ancient Persian sources as the Saka haumavarga. They are most often referred to as Sakas, who worshiped or prepared the sacred drink of haoma. This article systematically investigates the process of formation and historical development of the ethno-political union of the Saka haumavarga as one of the most powerful associations of ancient nomads in Central Asia. Special attention is also paid to the issue of various features which formed this group of nomads. In addition, the aim of the study was to examine the influence of external factors on the integration of pastoral populations in isolated mountainous areas of Pamir-Alay as this phenomenon is poorly understood. The process of formation of ethno-political education of the Saka haumavarga was rather lengthy - supposedly having been completed at the turn of the 7th - 6th centuries BC. In the second half of the 6th century BC the Saka haumavarga are occupied by the Achaemenid Empire and forced to pay taxes and supply military contingents of the Persian kings. Around the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries BC they are freed of their subordination. After the conquest of Central Asia by Alexander the Great, they establish a variety of relations with the Hellenistic states. Despite cool relations with the Greco-Bactria, there is evidence of the presence of mercenaries from the Saka haumavarga within the troops of this Hellenistic kingdom. At the turn of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC as a result of military activity of the Greco-Bactrian kings, a reduction of territory of this Saka haumavarga union commences its gradual decline. The final collapse of this ethno-political group occurs towards the end of the 2nd century BC, as small independent tribes of local nomads are known to be the only inhabitants of the Pamir-Alay territory at this point in time.

The article examines the history of the doctrine of passive obedience in England during the Stuart period. Traditionally weak financial and legal basis for royal absolutism in England forced monarchs to rely thoroughly on ideology. The concept of passive obedience promoted by the loyal Anglican clergy was one of the key elements of the absolutist ideology of the 17th century. This doctrine was employed as a counterbalance to revolutionary resistance and monarchomach theories embraced by protestant dissenters and papist recusants alike. During the course of the century the doctrine was embraced by numerous representatives of the Church of England’s establishment, including, but not limited to, John Donn, Roger Maynwaring, George Hickes, Edmund Bohun and many others and disseminated via an array of sermons and pamphlets. One component of the doctrine: non-resistance, was particularly stressed. Several political, social and economic factors conditioned the employment of this doctrine. The first instance of its pronouncement followed the failure of the Gunpowder plot and the necessity to refute catholic contractual theories. Charles I saw the doctrine of passive obedience as both the means to maintain social peace and promote fiscal interests. The new impetus the doctrine gained in the later years of the Restoration: an attempt to integrate it into the ‘ancient constitution’ failed, yet the doctrine of passive obedience was taken up as the chief ideological tool by the Anglican church and employed as a mighty instrument of suppressing resistance and dissent. The Glorious Revolution weakened the grasp of the doctrine in the minds of the English, though by no means killed it. Yet, the regime erected by the Convention of 1689 and strengthened by William of Orange claimed as much of its legitimacy in revolutionary resistance. Thus, henceforth the ideas of passive obedience and non-resistance could not be used as the sole basis of legitimate power in England.

The article addresses the main aspects of Kazakhstan’s state policy relating to historical and cultural heritage, namely, with respect to a gradual socially significant transition from heritage actualization to exploration, which represents a new trend in research. At present, the country’s historical and cultural heritage includes over 25,000 immovable historical, archeological, and architectural monuments, as well as monumental art sites. Based on the analysis of the representative historiographical resources and the state periodical press materials, a quantity and quality assessment was carried out regarding the outcomes of independent Kazakhstan’s policy on exploring its heritage at both domestic and international level. The “Cultural Heritage” project launched in 2004 is a unique national strategic project that portrays the state approach to culture and the exploration of cultural heritage. State program “The Sacral Geography of Kazakhstan” also plays an important sociocultural role. In the south Kazakhstan region alone historical and cultural objects have all been registered, including a unique cultural and historical megalopolis - the city of Almaty with a huge tsar necropolis. The President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. A. Nazarbaev describes this policy as one of the cornerstones of national identity preservation. The mission of the Republic of Kazakhstan alongside the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, collaboration with foreign countries, and a contribution to the development of an ambitious international project “The Great Silk Road” also play an important role in preserving and actualizing its cultural heritage. The state policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan of exploring its historical and cultural heritage should be recognized as rewarding and effective in terms of the preservation and actualization of cultural heritage, national consolidation, and Kazakhstan’s integration into the global cultural space.

The article presents the results of an analysis of collections and works written by the Old Believers in the 17th - 18th centuries, in order to find out how they used fragments from the works of their ideological opponents. Attention is drawn to the fact that the first generation of defenders of the Old Believers has used quotations from works written in defense of the church reform in order to refute the argument justifying the changes introduced into the rite and the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church. This method, inherited from Ancient Russia became traditional for the Old Believers. Gradually they began to use parts from the writings of official church representatives to substantiate their point of view on controversial issues. Analysis of the collection of preparatory materials for the «Dyakon Answers» gave an opportunity to understand how the theoretical basis for such an attitude to fragments from opponents’ materials appeared. An analysis of the relevant texts of the collection made it possible to show that a fragment was usually taken out of context and interpreted according to the goals of the Old Believers. As a result, quotes from the works of opponents turned into arguments supporting the Old Believers' point of view in discussions. The texts were quoted «word-for-word», without context but with the appropriate interpretation. «Evidence» was selected in accordance with special principles, for example, «according to the ancient Saints» or «enemies are correct in saying». It was stressed that the enemies were doing it «involuntarily» and «unwillingly». All this allowed the Old Believers to use fragments from anti-Old Believer works in authors writings and collections as authoritative arguments to confirm their interpretation of the church reform initiated by Patriarch Nikon.

This paper explores the development of the Russian cotton industry and export of its cotton fabrics in the first half of the 19th century. At a time when religion and ethnicity were a key basis for people, communication naturally proceeded between groups which shared religion and ethnicity and so Asian merchants assumed the trade between Russia and Asia between the 18th - 19th centuries. This was a commercial base for Asian merchants, operating businesses across borders. As Russia increased its trade with Asian regions, it used the commercial network of Asian merchants in neighboring countries. After power sources in Russia’s cotton industry shifted from natural energy and animal power to fossil fuels, faster transportation was realized on a larger scale. This trend of transformation radically changed Russia’s trade with Asia and heavily influenced the commercial network of Asian merchants.

The investigation is dedicated to the comparison of serfdom in Russia and slavery in America made by Russian travelers taking part in the public debate on the possible abolition of serfdom in Russia in the late 1850s. The travelers published their voyage notes in highly rated newspapers and magazines, such as «Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti», «Sovremennik», «Otechestvennye zapiski», «Russkii vestnik» and «Morskoi sbornik», trying to do it simultaneously with their experience abroad, concerned about the urgency and importance of their contribution towards wider discussion. At the same time, imperial censorship did not allow them to share their thoughts directly, so authors would refrain from direct naming of issues or criticism of the government. The purpose of the article is to show how the American experience, expounded and shared by the Russian travelers, enriched the public debate on the abolition of serfdom in Russia in the late 1850s, persuading the sceptics, and suggesting a new angle of vision to the upholders of the emancipation of Russian serfs. One of the most important factors that determined the interaction between the authors and readers about slavery in America was the censorship. Despite rumors about the possible abolition of serfdom, which spread immediately after the coronation of Alexander II, the censorship on the topic didn’t abate immediately. In the second half of the 1850s numerous decrees were published, contradictory and inconsistent, that reflected either indecision of the government, reaction, or most careful encouragement of the public initiative. Therefore as the rules of the game were constantly changing, the authors had to make use of many circumlocutions and hints, avoiding direct naming of what they were in fact writing about. By the end of the decade however, social excitement triumphed over confused censorship.

The crisis of the statehood in Russia in 1917 revealed the inability of traditional political institutions to execute its primary responsibilities which allowed new participants into the arena of the political struggle. One of these was the new army having appeared as a result of mass mobilization, however much different from a typical pre-war full-time army with its personnel, structure and its place in state life. In early 1917 the state and attitude of the army was similar to that of the general societal population, in particular the unpopularity of both the war and the political leadership of the country. The army participation was essential to the February Revolution victory. The Petrograd infantry revolt within military ranks defined the final success of the coup in the capital, and the Supreme Commander’s Headquarters agreed with the opposition and became an organizer of the Emperor recantation. Revolutionary changes gave an impulse to the politicization of army life. Soldiers’ and sailors’ anti-military ambition growth led to the rapid decline of discipline and fighting efficiency. In the summer of 1917, a number of generals headed by general L. G. Kornilov offered the government a number of proposed strong measures directed towards the recovery of discipline within the country and army. The intention to put in place a steady regime in the interests of continuing the war could not be coordinated openly, therefore it obtained a conspiracy nature between the Provisional Government and the Supreme Commander’s Headquarters. The realization of it became impossible in the absence of the participants’ mutual confidence and respect. The breakdown between them became the cause of the August political crisis and future radicalization of internal conflict. Military contingents became the main military power of the October Revolution in Petrograd. Soldiers’ and sailors’ conviction in justice of revolutionary reorganizations and waiting for the coming peace resulted in their increased influence for determining political direction.

The article aims to fill the existing gaps within the national historiography related to the condition and behavior of socialist parties of Russia during one of the crucial stages of the civil war in the East of the country: during the defeat of Kolchak’s regime and the establishment of the bodies of the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat. This task is solved on both empirical and conceptual levels. In the first case, new factual materials found mainly in newspaper periodicals in central and local archives were introduced into scientific discourse. These materials make it possible to give a general idea of events, motives and causes which determined firstly an active participation of the majority of factions and groups of socialists in Siberia during the overthrow of Kolchak, and secondly the transition of their extreme left elements and groups to communist positions. On a conceptual level two main conclusions are made in the article. Firstly, it is stated that between late November 1919 and early January 1920, all principal towns of Siberian provinces except Omsk were reconquered by rebels prior to the arrival of the Red Army. Such a fast and almost bloodless overthrow of Kolchak’s power in most large administrative centers of Siberia is explained by an active participation of socialists in the struggle against the White Guard regime, by a spontaneous formation of the «United Revolutionary Front» throughout various separate local territories. Secondly, it is argued that the affiliation of some socialists with the RCP(b), and especially self-liquidation of the whole Menshevik and SRs groups of different directions and their transition to the communist party played a tremendous significance. Among them, there were many qualified specialists, experienced executives and simply educated people. In Siberia where the organization of the RCP(b) was inconsiderable in number and experienced a critical shortage of staff, they mitigated the difficult situation by their participation in creating and functioning the restored bodies of the Soviet power.

The article considers the correspondence of emigrants with the party center in Soviet Russia in 1920-1925 as a historical source. These materials are currently almost unknown to researchers and have not been introduced into scientific circulation. The purpose of the article is to describe the state of the problem research, key documentary publications and research by Russian and foreign authors. The importance of secret correspondence is noted as a source due to the availability of information that is not reflected in other materials. Systematic correspondence with overseas Socialist party centers in Russia began in 1921, the most active correspondence was in 1921-1922, 1923, while later the intensity of correspondence reduced. The greatest attention in correspondence was paid to cooperation of party work in Russia and in emigration, the press, quantity and geography of local subordinated organizations in Soviet Russia, program and tactical questions of the Socialists-Revolutionaries. The most discussed topics in 1922-1923, were the trial of leaders of Socialist-Revolutionaries in Moscow, the protection of foreign SRS defendants and counter-propaganda campaigns in European countries. Finally, the correspondence contains interesting information about the conflicts within the Bolshevik leadership, and the daily life of the population of Soviet Russia during the NEP period. The correspondence of the foreign delegation of the SR party with the leading party centers of Soviet Russia is a valuable and diverse historical source. These materials significantly complement our understanding of the Socialists-Revolutionaries in the first half of the 1920s. In addition, they contain important information about the political and socio-economic situation in Soviet Russia during this period.

The article considers the process of formation of industrial activity of the Southern Kuzbass Corrective Labor Camp of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs. The chronological framework of the study is set between 1947-1948. Particular attention is paid to the development of the road infrastructure of the camp and additional areas of production activities such as timber processing and agriculture. The main issues of material, housing and food security for convicts are also examined. The main activity of the camp was logging. The camp was located in the south of Kemerovo Oblast in the Gornaya Shoria district. The Southern Kuzbass Corrective Labor Camp was established based on resolution № 409 of the Council of Ministers dated 1 March 1947 and replaced the previously existing Southern Kuzbass Logging Trust. At first it was difficult to undertake a major restructuring of the principles of economic activity which were inherited by the camp from the Southern Kuzbass Logging Trust. Although the workforce of the Southern Kuzbass Corrective Labor Camp was based primarily on the use of forced labor, civilian workers still continued to work there. Difficult working conditions, harsh climate conditions, spatial dispersion of manufacturing sites, supply issues, lack of human resources along with inflated state plans led to significant difficulties in the labor camp. The camp was in desperate need of warm clothing for the prisoners, special tools, food, personnel and paramilitary protection for spare parts and fuel for vehicles, traction power, and so on. However, the amounts of procurement, transportation and removal of wood by the camp was significantly higher than previous results of the Southern Kuzbass Logging Trust. This allows us to conclude that the use of forced labor resulted in the increase of overall volume of logging in Kuzbass and reduce the need for timber in coal mines.

The article examines the issue of increased volume of military and military-technical assistance of the USSR to Afghanistan for about a year and a half - from the end of spring of 1978, when the April Revolution took place in Afghanistan, until the end of 1979 - up until the date of the entry of a limited contingent of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. Based on released top secret Soviet documents, the Soviet Union increased its military and military-technical assistance to Afghanistan becoming increasingly involved in its internal events. During the course of a year from spring 1978 until the spring of 1979 Soviet military assistance to Afghanistan increased very gradually. The number of requests by the Afghan leadership for increasing Soviet military assistance rose sharply after the Herat insurgency, which took place in March 1979. The size of Soviet military and military-technical assistance had grown significantly since the spring of 1979, also after the Herat insurgency. However as is evident from the analysis of Soviet documents, the Soviet Union chose not to resort to direct military intervention for a long time, withstanding the persistent requests of Afghan political leaders not only for providing more military assistance, but also for direct military intervention and the sending of troops. Nevertheless, the result of this ever-increasing military and military-technical assistance to Afghanistan was the Soviet military’s intervention in the civil war of a country. According to the author, Soviet involvement during the events in Afghanistan through the provision of military and military-technical assistance in ever-increasing amounts was due, not least, for the fear of losing a loyal ally on the southern borders of the USSR.

The study objective was to analyze scholars’ and publicists’ views of the Soviet era on the development of the collective-state farming system during two decades after World War II. The key aims were to reveal the influence of ideological and political attitudes of the supreme authority on researchers’ opinion, similarities and differences in the views of historians, economists and publicists regarding the issues. Collective farm peasant problematics have dominated scientific literature. The works of economists of the 1960-1980s have highly assessed «destalinization» of the collective farming system of the mid-1950s and substantiated the necessity of using cooperative starters and market mechanisms on farms. Historians in their fundamental works on this subject published in the second half of the 1980s have cautiously evaluated the agrarian “destalinization” by N. S. Khruschev and paid tribute to the Stalinist strategy of collective farming. State farming issues became popular due to large-scale construction of state farms developed under the guidance of N. S. Khruschev in the second half of the 1950s. During the period of his leadership (1953-1964), researchers gave this undertaking a high appraisal, however after 1964 critical judgments started appearing in the works of scientists, primarily regarding the policy of transforming collective farms into state ones. During the years of Perestroika, the attitude of scholars and publicists towards the Soviet system became more critical from the supreme power. There was an opinion that the collective-state farming system was never and would not be an effective economic mechanism due to incurable «generational traumas» of past experiences. Opponents of this opinion argued that it lost its fundamental shortcomings in the post-Stalin period, and continued to have a future.