Structures and Forms of Existence

chapter 4 Structures and Forms of Existence 4.1 Introduction This chapter deals with a sphere that is both wide-ranging and extremely hard to define, a sphere usually referred to as culture. It is not possible to ascertain in full the characteristics of the Pechenegs’ culture. The fragmentary nature of written and archaeological sources allows us only to outline the most charac- teristic elements of the culture that grew out of the Pechenegs’ nomadic lifestyle and shaped the quality of this steppe people’s relations with their settled neighbours. The Pechenegs remained nomads throughout their existence as an inde- pendent people. Their contacts with sometimes highly developed agricultural communities undoubtedly influenced them, but did not radically change their way of life. Neither the starkly different natural conditions of their new home nor close relations with other culturally dissimilar communities – two factors that often put nomadic groups on a path to sweeping cultural change – had a significant impact on Pechenegs until the mid-11th century. We can point to two other nomadic communities, the Volga-Kama and Danube Bulgars, as examples of groups that underwent a process of acculturation and sedentarization due to such factors. As a result of events which took place in the mid-7th century, the Danube Bulgars were forced to leave the Black Sea steppe and relocate to the Lower Danube. They ultimately settled in today’s north-eastern Bulgaria. Recent research shows that the Volga-Kama Bulgars did not reach the mouth of the Kama River, where it flows into the Volga, until the mid-8th century.1 In their new homelands, both nomadic groups met a settled population whose culture differed from theirs. In the case of the Volga-Kama Bulgars, these were Finno-Ugric peoples living in forests where they hunted and Alano-Sarmatian agricultural communities.2 The members of the Danube Bulgars led by Asparukh, in turn, came into contact with Slavic agricultural peoples who were dominant in terms of numbers.3 In both cases, the necessary conditions 1 Cf. Chapter 2 of the present book. 2 Tryjarski 1975 183; Fakhrutdinov 1984, 14–26; Zimonyi 1990, 64–83. 3 Tryjarski 1975, 271–273; Kurnatowska 1977, 89–90; Beshevliev 1981, 179–181; 1984, 60–61; Wasilewski 1988, 35. © Aleksander Paroń and Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004441095_006 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.Aleksander Paroń - 9789004441095 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 10:39:23PM via free access 128 chapter 4 existed for dynamic cultural exchange between the politically dominant but less numerous nomadic groups and the rest of the local population. For both Bulgar groups, a change in their geographical environment played a vitally important role in intensifying the process of sedentarization.4 This was particularly true for the Volga-Kama Bulgars. When they settled in their new home- land, which was full of forests, swamps, and rivers, they were forced to reduce the role that pastoralism played in their economy. Its place was taken in part by activities that were completely alien to such nomadic communities (e.g., fishing, harvesting honey, etc.).5 However, this process of acculturation was arduous and progressed slowly. An important role in delaying acculturation, especially in the beginning, was played by the nomads’ conscious attempts to maintain their cultural distinction, as well as their hostility towards the indige- nous local peoples. The example of the Danube Bulgars shows that the process of overcoming this hostility could take centuries; we can observe a phenomena that allows us to assess the progress of this process only in the early- 9th century.6 Distrust towards outsiders and their cultural milieu sometimes took the form of a cultural conservatism that manifested itself in an attach- ment to the ‘old ways of life’, despite the fact that these practices sometimes had no practical value in the new living environment. Yet this conservatism was not absolute and did not rule out the possibility of adopting foreign cultural models.7 In the case of the Danube Bulgars, a sentiment for their old lifestyle, which seems to have been reflected in hybrid dwellings that combined the features of a yurt and a basin house,8 was accompanied by a willingness among their elites to incorporate cultural novelties. The second generation of Bulgar monarchs, for example, were already beginning to borrow methods for demonstrating power from the Byzantine empire.9 Borrowings of this kind were incorporated into their existing pagan system of values. Therefore, the disintegration of their former cultural universe, which could function only in 4 For general information on the sedentarization process in nomadic communities: Khazanov 1978, 119–126; 1984, 198–202; 1990, 1–15. Khazanov describes cultural change in nomads as a case of ecological change par excellence. 5 Tryjarski 1975, 192–194; Fakhrutdinov 1984, 27–36. 6 This mainly concerns the internal policies allegedly pursued by Khan Krum (802/803–814), who is believed to have sought to strengthen the role of Slavs in the governance of the Bulgarian State and to place them on an equal footing with the Bulgars. Tryjarski 1975, 276– 277; Beshevliev 1981, 264; 1984, 131; Halperin 2007, 88–89. 7 On this phenomenon in general: Paroń 2009, 43–54. 8 These are dated to the 8th and 9th centuries: Waklinow 1984, 93. 9 Atanasov 1999, 32–46; Havliková 1999, 407–420; Stepanov 1998, 247–254; 2001, 6–7, 13; Ziemann 2007, 307–308; Fiedler 2008, 169–188, 191–193, 193–196. Aleksander Paroń - 9789004441095 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 10:39:23PM via free access Structures and Forms of Existence 129 a steppe milieu, was accompanied by a process of identity formation in which older traditions continued to play a considerable role. Similar phenomena can be observed in the case of the Volga-Kama Bulgars. Although in the early 10th century their lifestyle became largely sedentary,10 in the account of Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who visited their capital, we can find a wide range of information that indicates the ruler of Volga-Kama Bulgaria still had strong attachments to his people’s former nomadic lifestyle.11 Therefore, although powerful factors promoting change were at work, the nomads’ process of acculturation may have been a slow one and may not have resulted in a complete and immediate rejection of their previous identity. For the Pechenegs, the chances of experiencing such radical cultural change were more limited. Unlike the Bulgar groups, the geographical conditions in their new surroundings did not differ significantly from their previous home in the Transvolga Region. The Black Sea steppe offered excellent conditions for extensive pastoralism, which comprised the foundation of a nomadic economy.12 Moreover, their contacts with other cultural communities were much less intensive. Nonetheless, during their time on the Black Sea steppe, the Pechenegs may have subjugated settled communities associated by archaeologists with the Balkan-Danube culture (so-called Dridu culture).13 The Pechenegs most likely extended their rule over this people, who inhab- ited western Wallachia and Moldavia. Particularly close contacts might have been established with them in the Lower Dniester region, north of the Danube Delta, from the Lower Prut in the west to the Cogîlnic in the east, and also in the lands between the Prut and Siret Rivers.14 It cannot be ruled out that the local population provided the nomads with farming products and handicrafts. Some items could have been given as tribute,15 and others exchanged through barter. It is assumed, however, that factors such as differences in their economy, lifestyle, social organization, and spiritual culture fostered separation between them.16 The nomads and settled population therefore apparently lived side by side rather than together. While it cannot be ruled out that the two communities developed some sort of modus vivendi, the early 11th century marked its 10 Tryjarski 1975, 191. 11 A most remarkable fact is that the ruler of the Volga-Kama Bulgars lived and received foreign emissaries in a yurt. ibn Fadlan: ibn Fadlan, 218/219, 228/229; Zeki Validi Togan 1939, 41–42, 64. 12 Cf. Chapter 1 of the present book. 13 Diaconu 1975, 235; Spinei 1986, 103. 14 Spinei 1975, 274; 1986, 224, 226 (maps 1–2); Dobroliubskii 1986, 24 (fig. 1). 15 Diaconu 1975, 235; Spinei 1975, 273; 1986, 103. 16 Spinei 1975, 276; 1986, 104. Aleksander Paroń - 9789004441095 Downloaded from Brill.com10/07/2021 10:39:23PM via free access 130 chapter 4 end, as the agricultural population began to withdraw to upland and wooded areas that were more difficult for the nomads to reach.17 External cultural contacts were facilitated by the fact that the Pechenegs controlled an area that contained important trade routes and shared a bor- der with Byzantium. However, the relations created by these circumstances remained sporadic in nature. In addition, the quality of the contacts between the Pechenegs and neighbouring countries often were not conducive to fruit- ful cultural exchange. Periods of peaceful cooperation recorded in written sources were interwoven with raids and bloody conflicts. Yet, there is reason to believe that there were instances of close contacts with neighbouring communities. One of the most interesting remarks on this issue comes from a work by Ibrahim ibn Yaqub. He lists a number of peoples, among them the Pechenegs, and claims that they spoke the language of the Slavs due to their close relations with them.18 This statement is very hard to believe. Perhaps Tadeusz Kowalski was correct when he claimed that this should be interpreted from the perspective of Ibrahim ibn Yaqub, i.e., from the perspective of a merchant.

Load more