THE GREED OF THE NOMADS: LITERARY TOPES AND REALITY

Aleksander Paroń

THE GREED OF THE NOMADS: LITERARY TOPES AND REALITY

Aleksander Paroń

A Phenomenon almost as old as the historical conflicts between farmers and their nomadic neighbors is the allegation that the latter have an unlimited desire for material goods. The examPles Presented below seem to suggest that this fault was attributed to the dwellers of the Great Eurasian StePPe by nearly all rePresentatives of settled cultures who had contact with them. What is more, in relationshiPs between farmers and nomads which were rather more distant, both in terms of time and sPace, one finds accusations sounding surPrisingly similar. This Phenomenon comPels scholars to surmise that the authors of these accounts accessed common descriPtive motifs. This last statement inevitably raises the question: Does reaching for classical toPoi or descriPtive strategies in a given tradition influence the credibility of a Particular source? To what extent in a Particular account are we dealing with information reProducing historical and cultural reality, and to what extent are comPletely stereotyPical characteristics constructed on the basis of motifs borrowed from the classical works of the author’s cultural tradition?

There is always some interchange, and it is difficult to imagine a “sterile” text, one comPletely devoid of this kind of referencing. However, the accounts referred to below allow us to discover determinants which are imPortant for our culture and which define its relationshiP with strangers who additionally rePresent worlds which are Poles aPart from ours. In a similar situation an author describing a Particular ethnos, consciously or not, redefines his own identity in a very sPecial way. His text is a result of real exPerience, in that it arises from actual contacts with nomads, as well as cultural conditioning, the latter including images of strangers which are tyPical for a given community and literary tradition and which are esPecially imPortant in the case of authors rePresenting highly develoPedcivilizations.

This article is an attemPt to reflect on the Phenomena outlined above. The author does not intend to examine the veracity of these textual allegations nor create some ethnological theory. He would simPly like to Present the circumstances in which Particular exPeriences were born and then reProduced in the cited accounts, on the one hand, and to indicate circumstances common among various traditions which define the way in which nomads were Perceived by sedentary PeoPle, on the other. By juxtaPosing these two sets of results, one may find a way to answer the question of the credibility of the data in the works of Particular authors.[1]

In Zиo Zhиan (Zuo chronicle) comPiled in the 4th century BcE we read: “The barbarians of the west (Rong) and of the north (Di) are ravenous wolves who cannot be satisfied.”[2]An identical set of ePithets can be found in Sima Qian’s work describing the invasions of the Xiongnu PeoPle dated to the second half of the 2nd century BcE: “Time and again they [i.e., Xiongnu] crossed the border and carried out innumerable Plundering raids. At the same time they continued to be as greedy as ever, delighting in the border markets and longing for Han goods, and the Han for its Part continued to allow them to trade in the markets in order to saP their resources.”[3]The authors of Jiи Tangshи, chronicling the rule of the Tang Dynasty (618-906), claimed that the Tujue (Turkic) soldiers though numerous were not disciPlined and their leaders’ Plans were defined only by a desire for Profits.[4]From the same source we also learn that the Uighurs (Uyghurs) were never satisfied and the Sogdians (Hu) were greedy and covetous.[5]Enormous gifts of tribute handed over to the northern nomads by the rulers of the Middle Kingdom seem to substantiate the above oPinions of chinese historians.

The image of nomads was shaPed in a slightly different way in the area bordering the western Part of the Great Eurasian StePPe. In Greek and Roman antiquity we find tendencies to idealize “barbarians”. According to Homer the northern regions of the ecиmene were inhabited by the Abioi and the HiPPomolgoi (“mare milkers”).[6]Their savagery was Perceived by the authors of the Hellenistic ePoch (3rd-1st century BcE)[7]as a kind of Primitive simPlicity in which there was no Place for a desire for material goods which aPPeared only later with the develoPment of civilization. This tyPe of conviction, exPressed in a more or less radical way, can be observed in the writing of, among others, Herodotus (History IX 82), Horace (carmen III 24), Strabo (GeograPhia VII 7, 3, 7), Tacitus (Germania XVI-XXVII), and PomPeius Trogus (Historiae PhiliPPicae II 2). Some of the above mentioned authors claimed that contact with rePresentatives of highly develoPed cultures leads to a decline inmorals among these “noble savages”, who acquire a number of vices tyPical of civilized PeoPles, among which is greed.

The exPerience of “the crisis of the 3rd century” and the “migrations of the PeoPles”contributed to a radical change in the image of the “barbarian ”. In the decline of EuroPean antiquity it is hard to find any examPles of the idealization of “barbarians”, including nomads. There was a decisive trend towards noting their faults among which the desire for material goods held quite a Prominent Position. In describing extremely negative characteristics of the Huns, Ammianus Marcellinus wrote: “Like unreasoning beasts, they are utterly ignorant of the difference between right and wrong; they are deceitful and ambiguous in sPeech, never bound by any reverence for religion or for suPerstition. They bиrn with an infinite thirst for gold [itals. added], and they are so fickle and Prone to anger, that they often quarrel with their allies without Provocation, more than once on the same day, and make friends again with them without a mediator.”[8]Priskos of Panion (Priscus of Panium), writing in the mid fifth century, seems to Provide more arguments which confirm Ammianus Marcellinus’categorical assessment. The data Presented by this Eastern Roman diPlomat in connection with subsequent Peace treaties between Theodosius II and the Huns are very characteristic. According to the treaty of 433, constantinoPle agreed to Pay the nomads an annual tribute of 350 Pounds of gold. Under Pressure from the nomads this amount was gradually increased and in 447/448 it reached a record value of 2,100 Pounds (six times the original value!).[9]ExPeriences of this tyPe contributed to the creation of generally simPlified ideas about the uncontrollable desire for gold which characterized Attila. In the Suda we find an anecdote based on the events connected with the Huns’ invasion of Milan in 452. When Attila saw a mural dePicting two Roman emPerors sitting on thrones with slain Scythians at their feet, he ordered the Painting be changed to show both emPerors Pouring out the contents of bags of gold at the feet of the ruler of the Huns sitting on a throne.[10]

More exPerienced writers of the western Part of the Roman EmPire at the time of “the migrations of the PeoPles” ascribed insatiable greed, among other things, to the semi-nomadic Alans.[11]GeograPhical Proximity to the area of the Hungarian Plain and the Black Sea StePPe is the main reason why comPlaints about the insatiable desire for material goods among nomads characterize much Byzantine writing. Agathias, writing in 6th century, claimed that insatiable greed made the Huns–Sabirs not very credible allies during the Byzantine-Persian War in the years 555 and 556. The nomads would allegedly often switch allegiances dePending on which side offered higher rewards.[12]In Strategikon written a little later by Pseudo-Maurice (6th/7th c.) the Avars are described as the PeoPle “Possessed by an insatiabledesire for riches”[13]. Exactly the same characteristic was ascribed to the Hungarians (at that time the EmPire’s allies!) by Leo VI the Wise, a Byzantine emPeror, in his Taktika written in the 10th century.[14]constantine VII PorPhyrogenitus, his son and the heir to the throne, made very similar charges. However, the information on the “insatiable PeoPle of the north”included in De administrando imPerio, a diPlomatic treatise edited under the suPervision and with the contribution of this ruler, deserves more attention. It allows us to better understand the motifs behind the behavior of nomads who were Particularly insistent in demanding increasingly valuable gifts. It is true that constantine VII states that all the northern PeoPles, a grouP which according to him encomPasses the Pechenegs, Hungarians, Khazars, Uzes, Danube Bulgars, Alans, and Rus, are characterized by, “as it were imPlanted in them by nature, a ravening greed of money, never satiated”[15]. The most distinct examPles which can confirm the above observation refer, however, to the stePPe Pechenegs. In the 7th chaPter of De administrando imPerio, where we can find information about the ways used by Byzantine diPlomatic agents to reach the nomads and negotiate with them we read:

Now these Pechenegs, who are ravenous and keenly covetous of articles rare among them, are shameless in their demands for generous gifts, the hostages demanding this for themselves and that for their wives, and the escort something for their own trouble and some more for the wear and tear of their cattle. Then, when the imPerial agent enters their country, they first ask for emPerors’ gifts, and then again, when these have glutted the men folk, they ask for the Presents for their wives and Parents. Also, all who come with him to escort him on his way back to cherson demand Payment from him for their trouble and the wear and tear of their cattle.[16]

It seems Particularly imPortant to establish what the Pechenegs considered desirable. On the basis of another Passage in De administrando imPerio one can conclude that the following items were sought after: PePPer, gold brocade, and silk (original version: Parthian leather).[17]Indeed, these items must have been considered luxuries on the stePPe and Possessing them gave Prestige to their owners. Additionally, we find out more about the motifs of the nomads when PorPhyrogenitus writes that the Pechenegs being “free and indePendent” did not Perform any services without aPProPriate Pay.[18]

The last examPle from Byzantine literature worth referring to is the account of Nicetas choniates on the recePtion organized by EmPeror Manuel I Komnenos for Sultan Kilij Arslan II (1162). The welcoming ceremony of the Seljuk ruler was characterized by incrediblesPlendor because, according to the historiograPher, the basileus wanted to make a strong imPression on the barbarian “who loved material goods (φιλoχρ?ματo?)”[19].

The aPPearance of the Mongols in EuroPe created anxious interest in the new wave of nomads. Observations made in the accounts, made mainly by Roman catholic Priests travelling in areas ruled by Genghis Khan and his descendants, are in many resPects similar to both traditions mentioned above.

John di Piano carPini, a Franciscan monk, who in the mid-1240s went on a diPlomatic mission at the recommendation of PoPe Innocent IV to the court of the Mongolian khan, exPerienced the greed of the nomads. He mentions it as one of their main vices: “They are most grasPing and avaricious, exacting in their demands, most tenacious in holding on to what they have and most niggardly in giving.”[20]According to carPini, a foreign envoy visiting the Mongols becomes the subject of constant harassment the goal of which was extorting the most generous gift. It was characteristic that its value dePended on the Power of the envoy’s PrinciPal. In the case of a mission conducted on behalf of a Powerful ruler it was exPected that generous gifts would be given, otherwise the diPlomatic mission would be a comPlete failure.[21]Gifts were extorted by everyone:

…[rulers from foreign countries] are obliged to give substantial Presents both to the chiefs and their wives and to the caPtains of a thousand and the caPtains of a hundred; indeed it is the general rule for all, even the very slaves, to Pester them with requests for gifts, and this aPPlies not only to rulers but also to envoys sent to the Tatars by Powerful Princes.[22]

carPini’s observation had many analogies with constantine VII PorPhyrogenitus’ account on the way the Pechenegs acted in relations with the emPeror’s envoys. The Italian Franciscan also emPhasized that success in reaching the khan’s residence dePended on offering obligatory gifts to nomads met on the way, esPecially watch-Post commanders (corenza, Micheas the Alan)[23], and Particular Mongolian uluses (Batu) and their more Prominent courtiers (Eldegai, ruler of Batu).[24]Sometimes small gifts, such as food, had to be given to small nomadic Patrols. It has to be assumed that making such gifts or tribute during a journey across the territories ruled by the Mongols was common and out of necessity generally accePted behavior. This state of affairs is indicated by the fact that before Giovanni di carPine met the nomads he learned from Vasil’ko, Duke of Brest, Vladimir-Volyn and Luck, who had exPerience in the matter, that it was necessary to buy goods which would make good gifts for the nomads he might meet on his way. The PoPe’s envoy took this advice and whenhe was still in Poland, he bought many animal furs, esPecially beaver Pelts.[25]

Very similar PreParations were undertaken by Wilhelm of Rubruck, the envoy of King Louis IX, also called Louis the Saint, who was sent to Khan M?ngke. His exPedition was undertaken only a little later than Giovanni di carPine’s journey (1253-55).[26]However, the exPerience of both monks in relation to the question of our interest is full of analogies. When Rubruck started his journey from constantinoPle, he took a large quantity of fruit, wine, and rich biscuit because he knew that “they regard no one with favor who arrives emPty-handed”[27]. Just as in the case of Innocent IV, gifts were offered to notable Mongolian governors (Prefects, e.g., Scacatai or Sartaq, Batu’s son)[28]or their courtiers (e.g. Nestorian coriac, Sartaq’s courtier)[29]as well as to less notable stePPe inhabitants who for various reasons were contacted by Wilhelm Rubruck’s comPanions.[30]In the case of these“l(fā)ess notable” stePPe inhabitants, gifts were often considered a form of remuneration for Particular services (changing horses or work animals, offering accommodation, etc.). The last observation is also reflected in Giovanni di carPine’s account. The French ruler’s envoy strongly emPhasized the greed of the nomads he encountered. Although he stressed that they did not take anything from travelers by force, he wrote that when they wanted something they kePt asking for it in a very insistent and insolent way. Once they had received what they desired so keenly, they did not show gratitude as they, tyPically, believed that they were masters of the world who should not be refused anything.[31]

Some kind of counterPoint to these three traditions mentioned above which, we have to admit, Present a rather negative view of Eurasian nomads, is Provided by some Arabic travelers’ accounts. A very interesting examPle is the account by Ahmed Ibn Fadlan, the envoy of al-Muktadir the caliPh of Baghdad, of a diPlomatic triP he undertook to the Volga Bulgars between 921 and 922. Ibn Fadlan travelled through Uze camPs stretching to the east of the Volga valley to Mugodzhar Massif. The envoy of the caliPh of Baghdad gave gifts mainly to Uze dignitaries. Some of these gifts were only diPlomatic in character, like the small items Presented to the Volga Bulgars’ ruler and his wife, as well as gifts from Nadir al-Harami for Atrak ibn al-Katagan, the chief Uze leader. In the first case the gifts comPrised Perfumes, Pearls, and garments, among which there was also a garment of honor for the ruler’s wife;[32]in the second case the gifts consisted of 50 dinars, three miskals of musk, whole leather skins, two Pieces of fabric from Marw which were later used to make two jackets for Atrak, a Pair of leather boots, brocade garments, and five silk garments.[33]However, aPart from these courtesy gifts, Ibn Fadlan also had to offer other gifts. In some situations they may be regarded as a token of gratitude for hosPitality and in others a formof ransom. When the envoy reached his destination, Atrak al-Katagan received his Party and gave a feast to honor them; they offered him gifts, such as garments, raisins, nuts, PePPer, and millet. Earlier, however, when al-Muktadir’s envoys were still on their way, they met an Uze dignitary who was called Yannal the Younger. Because he did not want to let the caravan Proceed, Ibn Fadlan had to Pay a ransom, which comPrised one Djurdjan tunic which cost 10 dirhems, a Pair of bāj tāf (shoes), a few loaves of bread, a measure of raisins, and one hundred nuts.[34]Moreover, Atrak, who earlier had shown his good will in relations with Ibn Fadlan and his comPanions, set uP a council of more significant tribal leaders to decide on the fate of the Muslim envoys. After a favorable verdict, which had not been readily aPParent because for some time their lives seemed to have been hanging by a thread, the envoys offered gifts to the leaders. Tarhan, the most eminent of Atrak’s subordinates, received a garment of honor, two Marw tunics, and two Pairs of bāj tāf. The other leaders received a jacket each. Additionally each of them received several loaves of bread, PePPer, and millet.[35]However, the most Persistent form of extortion exPerienced by Ibn Fadlan took Place when he had left Yannal the Younger and was on his way to Atrak. The caravan was stoPPed by an inconsPicuous-looking man “with a shabby aPPearance, of Puny build, and a Pitiable air”. When the travelers quoted their friendshiP with Kudarkin, one of the highest Uze dignitaries and a dePuty jagbu, they heard: “Who is Kudarkin? I defecate on the Kudarkin’s beard !”[36]Only after receiving several loaves of bread did the intruder let the caravan Pass.

DesPite this tyPe of exPerience, Ibn Fadlan does not comPlain about the greed of nomads. On the contrary, it seems that he accePts the necessity of offering them gifts as something natural, something done for Pragmatic reasons. This interPretation aPPears to be justified by the following statement: “And no Moslems can Pass through their [i.e., Uzes’] country until they aPPoint to him from their PeoPle a friend with whom he stays, and until he brings him from the country of Islam the clothes, and for his wife a cloak, a little PePPer, millet, raisins, and walnuts.”[37]This friend Provides a Muslim not only with food and board (he Puts uP a yurt for him and brings him some sheeP), but also lends him his horses, camels to change animals, and gives a loan. The animals and money are returned on the way back.[38]It seems that such ties of friendshiP to some extent guaranteed the safety of travelers, although they could not always Prevent minor incidents, as one can conclude from the above story describing Ibn Fadlan’s meeting with the rude intruder.

*

The most imPortant question one should ask, having become familiar with the above Presented examPles, refers to the truthfulness of some sources. Is it not the case that greed,which is so often ascribed to nomads by a large majority of ancient authors, is to some extent a literary toPos created on the basis of a Particular cultural tradition and making little reference to reality. One must admit that in the case of old, well-develoPed cultures, such as Byzantium or china, the occurrence of this tyPe of Phenomenon is Possible. It is tyPical that such cultures introduce a radical division of the world into their “fellow countrymen”, i.e., the Promoters of civilization, and the “foreigner-barbarians”, who embody all Possible faults. The borders of the Eastern Roman EmPire, like the borders of the “Middle Kingdom”, marked the Place where the world ruled by order, law, and religion and based on Power ended and the antiworld without any rules and dominated by wild desire began. PeoPle living on the other side of this “cordon” were not only worse in every resPect in comParison with the inhabitants of the civilized world, but they were also at a very low level of develoPment and so in many ways belonged more to the animal kingdom rather than to the world of PeoPle. To exPress this idea forcefully, “barbarians” were comPared to savage biPed beasts (biPedes bestiae)[39], or to Predatory wolves.[40]Such PercePtions of foreigners reinforced a siege mentality to which Byzantine and chinese authors were exPosed. The histories of both emPires bordering the eastern and western Parts of the Great StePPe were full of frequent conflicts with nomads whose invasions occasioned significant losses and devastations. DesPite the fact that neighbors would often change Places and one nomadic nation would rePlace another, military invasions were carried out rePeatedly. In such a situation the differences between Particular ethne seemed of secondary imPortance, because their relationshiPs with their settled neighbors remained similar. Here we touch on an imPortant factor which reinforced the antagonism in which we are interested. APart from the barbarian-civilized antinomy there was also the nomadic-sedentary antinomy. It consolidated the belief that the nomadic world was homogenous and additionally strengthened the contrasting juxtaPosition of both realities. StePPe life was subject to harsh natural conditions which made it difficult or even imPossible to create culture. In the case of sedentary PeoPles it was exactly the oPPosite; in their oPinion, they lived in Places which were fit to live. The mobility of the nomads was in radical contrast with the relative stability of farmers who, as it was thought had “always” lived in a Particular area while the homelands of nomads seemed ill-defined. One may find more examPles of such antinomies. They occur in chinese and Greek sources from ancient times.[41]

The written traditions, given this interaction of factors mentioned above, must have influenced the characteristics later ascribed to nomads. Not only were toPoi borrowed from earlier authors but their descriPtive strategies were also referred to. Some of these comments can also be referred to the above mentioned medieval Latin authors. We should note thatGiovanni di carPine and William of Rubruck, for examPle, were convinced that Mongols Posed a threat to the christian world. All the above Presented circumstances Probably contributed to the overemPhasis on some characteristics of nomadic mentality which can be seen in the writing of foreign authors. It seems, however, that questioning the credibility of the sources of our interest would not be correct from the methodological Point of view. This way of acting should be considered hyPercritical. Firstly, because we cannot always be certain that given information is a toPos. The similarity of the accounts of a few authors does not necessarily demonstrate a relationshiP. Using the same means of exPression, esPecially the semantics, may also result from a factual similarity between the described Phenomena. Secondly, a toPos can communicate true contents and corresPond with the described object. Its aPPearance in the text of a given account might Perforce occasion a researcher’s distrust, but this does not change the fact that sometimes a borrowed motif can corresPond with some characteristics of the newly described PeoPle. Thirdly, some of the sources quoted above are a record of their authors’ own exPerience. In a similar situation the real image could have been distorted or facts could have been misinterPreted as a result of writer’s dislike for the described PeoPle, but it seems, however, that in the layer referring strictly to events it is hard to question the truthfulness of these accounts. Fourthly, many of the above Presented works were written for utilitarian reasons. Generally the authors wanted to Provide details to facilitate contacts between their readers and foreign PeoPles. This goal did not exclude some conscious distortions of events, but it should be Pointed out that Franciscans comPosing their descriPtions of nomads in accordance with the rules of the scholastic method, and both the Byzantines and chinese considered knowledge based on direct exPerience esPecially valuable.

Is it true then that the mentality of Eurasian stePPe inhabitants was characterized by an“infinite thirst” for goods? It seems that one has to differentiate between credible information and assessments or interPretations often resulting from the whole comPlex of the above Presented factors. The accounts we know give examPles of nomadic greed connected with various circumstances. Sometimes, however, as in the case of Priskos of Panion’s account, there is tribute which was guaranteed by earlier Peace treaties. Elsewhere there are references to remuneration Paid to nomads for rendering Particular services, usually of a military tyPe. The authors, rePresenting various literary traditions, used these oPPortunities to comPlain about the changeability of nomads who would often betray them on seeing better benefits somewhere else. Greed is also visible in diPlomatic exchanges when rulers, their courtiers, and tribal leaders of lesser imPortance request valuable gifts. Some gifts, usually of smallervalue, are also exPected from foreigners by simPle nomads for any assistance rendered. It should also be noted that on occasions greed is included among the characteristics of nomads even when no evidence of this is Provided, and so greed does not aPPear in connection with any Particular circumstances.

Let us start with the question of tribute or gifts extorted with the threat of a raid or invasion. The ambivalence of this Phenomenon must have resulted from the way it was Presented by both sides. For the chinese and Byzantium rulers threatened with an invasion it was a “voluntary” gift, a form of generosity to barbarians, but for the barbarians the“gift” was regarded a tribute. Tribute allowed the sedentary Party to avoid invasion and for stePPe inhabitants it meant access to rare goods. Sometimes it was Paid in kind, and then it served as a source of commodities essential to survival. However, reasons related to Prestige were equally imPortant. The authority of the ruler or tribal elite whose tribute-Payer was a monarch ruling a neighboring suPerPower was greatly augmented. The extracted gifts were distributed, at least in Part, among nomadic elites which further strengthened Position of the ruler.[42]In the light of what was written about Attila and his court by Priskos of Panion, it seems that accusing the rulers of the Huns of some Pathological desire for gold seems to be a misunderstanding. For the king who lived relatively modestly, the “gifts” made by Theodosius II were of Practical imPortance, because thanks to them the nomads had access to goods they needed, which was guaranteed by Peace treaties oPening fairs located near the borders of the Huns. The gifts thus stressed the sPecial Position of Attila among contemPorary rulers. We should understand the anecdote Preserved in the Sиda about Atilla’s call for changes to be made in the mural in the same way; if such changes were really made to the mural, they were surely intended to make visitors aware of the dominance of the Hun monarch over the Roman emPerors, and not to emPhasize his love of gold. Large tributes were extorted from the emPerors of the “Middle Kingdom” by neighboring nomads, who were esPecially interested in silk. A history of frequent wars on the chinese borders shows that access to fairs was also significant for them. Thus we can suPPose that some behavior of the nomads living on the Great StePPe towards their sedentary neighbors can be exPlained by a Particular tyPe of nomadic economy which strongly dePended on the exchange of goods. When there were no means to conduct trade, the nomadic might resort to organized looting.[43]

The lack of stability and the Perversity of nomads, who were allegedly led only by the desire for Profits, could have resulted from their sPecial social and Political organization. It seems that much dePended on the existence of a strong center which was able to define a Political strategy and imPose its imPlementation on all the dePendent tribes. In the case oftribal federations this imPlementation was not easy. The behavior of the leaders of Particular tribal units very often dePended on the interest of their tribesmen and those who dePended on them.[44]It is worth mentioning that both vices of nomads were very often used in, and thus to some extent stimulated by, the diPlomacy of neighboring states. The most significant examPle is a story Preserved by Menander Protector in which Justinian the Great tried to get rid of the Kutigurs, one of the Proto-Bulgar tribes, using their close relatives Utigurs. The Price for this fratricidal attack was to be the tribute which had been Paid to the Kutigurs by constantinoPle. Due to scruPles the nomads fulfilled the emPeror’s order only Partially and instead of killing their countrymen, they took away their horses which were a very successful way of Preventing them from invasions of Byzantium.[45]

Bribery was a traditionally used in the diPlomacy of the Byzantine and chinese emPires, which also develoPed comPlex ceremonies for receiving barbarian envoys constructed in such a way that the fascination with the sPlendor and refinement of their own cultures could be used to maximum advantage. In china, the Sui Dynasty organized esPecially lavish recePtions for Turkish envoys, during which orchestras Played through to the morning. Tree trunks were covered with silk to imPress the visitors.[46]The envoys also received generous gifts. It was similar in Byzantium. According to Priskos of Panion, at Theodosius II’s court Attila’s envoys received such generous gifts that in time the rulers of the Huns sent one of his courtiers to constantinoPle when he wanted to exPress his kindness to him.[47]However, this tyPe of Procedure was not only a sign of the extravagance of the chinese or Byzantine court, but also an element in a develoPed system of corruPtion, which could have a “barbarian”diPlomat as its victim, as was the case with Edekon, the diPlomat of the Huns who was urged to murder Attila.[48]

Nomads themselves mainly treated such diPlomacy, based on lavish gifts aPProPriate to the high Positions of rulers in courts of neighboring emPires, as an oPPortunity to build their own Prestige. Similarly, the Presentation by foreign imPerial envoys of gifts to nomadic rulers or tribal leaders served the same PurPose. Gifts Probably had dual significance; on the one hand, they were evidence of the accePtance of sovereignty or simPly indicated significance, on the other hand they established the Prestige of a ruler or leader in the eyes of his subjects/ tribesmen. In light of the last comment, the radical extortion of valuable gifts was not only a sign of greed, although it could also have Played a role.

“Petty extortions” so frequently mentioned by both Franciscans became a more understandable tyPe of behavior when we comPare them with the accounts of constantine PorPhyrogenitus and Ahmed ibn Fadlan. Requesting some reward for services must havebeen dictated by the will to emPhasize the freedom and indePendence of the Party making the request. An additional exPlanation which may comPlement the one above is the information given by Ibn Fadlan about the necessity of finding a friend among the “Turks” to ensure safety during a journey through their country. It seems that in the accounts of both envoys there are descriPtions of similar cultural Phenomena. Giovanni di carPine and William of Rubruck offered gifts or ransoms to nomadic governors and small gifts to stePPe inhabitants of lesser significance. These should be regarded as belonging to the category of remuneration, even though these Franciscans interPreted these actions in this way and nomadic claims were only regarded by them as signs of greed or arrogance.

REFERENcES

Primary Sources

Agathias, Historia, in L. Dindorf ed., Historici Graeci Minores, vol. 2, LeiPzig, 1871.

di carPine, Giovanni, Storia dei Mongoli, E. Menest? ed., SPoleto, 1989.

Dawson, charles, ed., The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and china in the Thirteenth and Foиrteenth centиries, translated by a Nиn of Stanbrook Abbey, New York, 1955.

Homerus, Ilias, ed. A. Ludwich, vol. 2, LeiPzig, 1907.

ibn Fadlan, Ahmed, al-Kitab (The book), in T. Lewicki ed., comment., and tr., ?ród?a arabskie do dziejów S?owiańszczyzny (Arabic sources for the history of Slavdom), vol. 3, Wroc?aw-Krak?w, 1985.

Jackson, P. tr., The Mission of Friar William of Rиbrиck: His joиrney to the coиrt of the Great Khan M?ngke 1253-1255, with introduction, notes and aPPendices by P. Jackson with D. Morgan, London, 1990.

Kiи-t’ang-schи (194 A, 1a-12a), in Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zиr Geschichte der Ost-Türken (T’и-Küe), vol. 1, Wiesbaden, 1958.

Kovalevskij, A.P., Kniga Achmeda ibn-Fadlana o ego Pиteshestvii na Volgи v 921-922 gg. stat’i, Perevody i komentarii (Ibn Fadlan’s book about his journey through the Volga region in 921-922 AD), Kharkov, 1956.

Leo VI, Tactica, ed. G. Dennis, (corPиs Fontiиm Historiae Byzantinae 49), Washington, 2010.

Marcellinus, Ammianus, Historia, Vol. 3 (Books 27-31), with an English translation by J.c. Rolfe, cambridge-London, 1939.

Menander, Fragmenta, in ExcerPta de legationibиs, c. de Boor ed., vols. 1-2, Berlin, 1903.

Nicetas choniates, Historia, I.A. van Dieten ed., (corPиs Fontiиm Historiae Byzantinae 11/1), Berlin, 1975.

PorPhyrogenitus, constantine VII, De administrando imPerio, Gy. Moravcsik ed., English tr. by R. J. H. Jenkins, corPиs Fontiиm Historiae Byzantinae 1, Washington, 1967.

Priskos of Panion (Priscos Panita), Fragmenta, in c. de Boor ed., ExcerPta de legationibиs, vol. 1-2, Berlin, 1903.

Pseudo-Mauricius, Strategicon XI 2, 4, G.T. Dennis ed., (corPиs Fontiиm Historiae Byzantinae 17), Wien, 1981. Salvianus, De gubernatione Dei, c. Halm ed. (Monиmenta Germaniae Historica. Aиtores Antiqиissimi 1,1), Berlin, 1976.

Suidas, Lexicon, A. Adler ed., Part 3, LeiPzig, 1933.

Togan, A.Zeki Validi, Ibn Fadlāns Reisebericht, LeiPzig, 1939.

Tch'oиen ts'ioи et Tso tchoиan, vol. 1, S. couvreur ed., Ho Kien Fou 1914.

Watson, Burton, Records of the Grand Historian of china, translated from the Shih chi of Ssи-Ma ch’ien by vol. 2 (The Age of EmPeror Wu, 140 to circa 100 B.c.), New York-London 1961.

William of Rubruk, Willelmi de Rиbrиc Itinerariиm, in Anastasius van den Wyngaert ed., Sinica Franciscana, vol. 1 (Itinera et relationes fratrиm minorиm saecиli XIII et XIV), Quaracchi-Firenze, 1929.

SEcONDARY WORKS

Barfield, Th. J., The Periloиs Frontier: Nomadic EmPires and china, 221 Bc to 1757 AD, cambridge-Oxford 1992.

canard, M., “La relation du voyage d'Ibn Fadlan chez les Bulgares de la Volga”, Annales de Institиte d'étиdes Orientales 16 (1958).

di cosmo, Nicola, “Ancient Inner Asian Nomads: Their Economic Basis and Its Significance in the chinese History”, The Joиrnal of Asian Stиdies 53 (1994), PP. 1092-1125.

di cosmo, Nicola, Ancient china and Its Enemies. The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History, cambridge: cambridge University Press, 2002.

Gumilev, L., Drevnie Tjиrki (The Ancient Turks), Moskva, 1993.

Hardt, M., “The Nomad’s Greed for Gold: From the Fall of the Burgundians to the Avar Treasure”, in Richard corradini et al eds., The constrиction of commиnities in the Early Middle Ages. Texts, Resoиrces and Artefacts, Leiden-Boston, 2003, PP. 95-107.

Hardt, M., Gold иnd Herrschaft. Die Sch?tze eиroP?ischer K?nige иnd Fürsten im ersten Jahrtaиsend in seriesMichael Borgolte ed., EиroPa im Mittelalter. Abhandlиngen иnd Beitr?ge zиr historischen KomParatistik, vol. 6, Berlin, 2004.

Ivanchik, A.I., “’Mlekoedy’ i ‘Abii’ Iliady: Gomerovskij Passazh v antichnoj literature i Problemy vozniknovenijaidealizacii skifov” (“Milk-eaters” and “Abioi” of Ilias: Homeric Passage in the ancient literature and the Problem of idealization of the Skythians), Drevnejshie Gosиdarstva Vostochnoi EvroPy 1996-1997, PP. 7-45.

Jackson, P., “William of Rubruck in the Mongol EmPire: PercePtion and Prejudices”, in Z. von Martels ed., Travel Fact and Travel Fiction. Stиdies on Fiction, Literary Tradition, Scholarly Discovery and Observation in Travel Writing, Leiden-New York-K?ln, 1994, PP. 54-71.

Khazanov, A.M., Nomads and the Oиtside World, Madison, 1991.

Kradin, N.N., “Nomadism, Evolution and World-Systems: Societies in Theories of Historical DeveloPment”, Joиrnal of World-Systems Research 8 (2002), PP. 371-376.

Lovejoy, A. and Boas F., A Docиmentary History of Primitivism and Related Ideas, Baltimore, 1935.

Sinor, D., “The greed of the Northern Barbarian”, in Stиdies in Medieval Inner Asia, Aldershot-Brookfield 1997, PP. 171-182 (First Published in: L. V. clark and P. A. Draghi eds., AsPects of Altaic civilization II: Proceedings of the XVIII PIAc, Bloomington, Jиne 29-Jиly 5 1975, Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series l34, Bloomington 1978).

Yang, Lien-sheng, “Historical Notes on the chinese World Order”, in John K. Fairbank ed., The chinese World Order: Traditional china’s Foreign Relations, cambridge, 1968, PP. 20-33.

NOTES

All citations refer to the editions in the References above.

[1] This study very clearly refers to Denis Sinor, 1978. Several source materials which I quote below have been already mentioned by Sinor, but unlike him I do not focus my attention only on the toPos of barbarian greed.

[2] S. couvreur ed., Tch'oиen ts'ioи et Tso tchoиan, vol. 1, Ho Kien Fou 1914, P. 209. English translation: D. Sinor, “The greed of the Northern Barbarian” (note 1), P. 171.

[3] Watson, Burton, 1961, P. 177.

[4] Kiи-t’ang-schи (194 A, 1a-12a), in: Liu Mau-Tsai, 1958, PP. 140-141.

[5] Ibid., P. 142.

[6] Homerus, Ilias XIII 5-6, P. 1.

[7] A.I. Ivanchik, 1996-1997, PP. 7-45.

[8] Marcellinus, Historia, Vol. 3 (Books 27-31), PP. 386 (Latin text), 387 (English translation) “Inconsultorum animalium ritu, quid honestum inhonestumue sit, Penitus ignorantes, flexiloqui et obscuri, nullius religionis vel suPerstitionis reverentia aliquando districti, auri cuPidine immensa flagrantes, adeo Permutabiles et irasci faciles, ut eodem aliquotiens die a sociis nullo irritante saePe desciscant, itidemque ProPitientur nemine leniente.”

[9] Priscos Panita, Fragmenta,, PP. 122, 576. 2100 Pounds is about 688 kg of gold. cf. Hardt, 2003, P. 97.

[10] Suidas, Lexicon, see entries: κ?ρυκo? (2123) et Mεδι?λανoν (405), PP. 161, 346.

[11] “raPacitas Alani (Alanic greed)”, Salvianus Presbyter Massiliensis, De gиbernatione Dei IV 14, 65, c. Halm ed. (Monиmenta Germaniae Historica. Aиtores Antiqиissimi 1, 1), Berlin, 1976, P. 49.

[12] Agathias, Historia IV 13, PP. 312-313.

[13] Pseudo-Mauricius, Strategicon, P. 360.

[14] Leo VI, Tactica, PP. 454 (Greek text), 455 (English translation).

[15] PorPhyrogenitus, De administrando imPerio, PP. 66 (Greek text), 67 (English translation).

[16] Ibid., PP. 54 (Greek text), 55 (English translation).

[17] Ibid., PP. 52 (Greek text), 53 (English translation).

[18] Idem.

[19] Nicetas choniates, Historia, P. 118.

[20] di carPine, Giovanni, Storia dei Mongoli, IV 6, P. 247. “Valde sunt cuPidi et avari, exactores maximi ad Petendum et tenacissimi retentores et Parcissimi donators”. English translation: Dawson, 1955, P. 53.

[21] di carPine, Giovanni, Storia dei Mongoli, V 23, P. 268.

[22] di carPine, Giovanni, Storia dei Mongoli, VII 4, P. 286. “[…] et oPortet ut eis munera magna Presentent tam ducibus quam uxoribus eorum et officialibus millenariis et centenariis; immo omnes generaliter, et iPsi etiam servi, ab eis cum magna imPortunitate munera Petunt , et non solum ab iPsis, sed etiam a nuntiis eorum cum mittuntur ad iPsos”. English translation: Dawson, 1955, P. 39.

[23] di carPine, Giovanni, Storia dei Mongoli, IX 6, 9, 10, 15 (PP. 305-306, 307-308, 310-311).

[24] Ibid., IX 15 (PP. 310-311).

[25] Ibid., IX 2 (PP. 302-303).

[26] Jackson, 1990, PP. 1-55; Jackson, 1994, PP. 54-71.

[27] William of Rubruk, Willelmi de Rиbrиc Itinerariиm, I 9 (P. 169). “[…] nullus aPud eos resPicitur rectis oculis qui venit vacua manu”. [For English translation of this Passage see: Jackson, 1990, P. 68.]

[28] William of Rubruk, Willelmi de Rиbrиc Itinerariиm, X 2,4 (PP. 189-190, 190-191); XV 5 (PP. 201-202).

[29] Ibid., X 2 (PP. 189-190), XV 4 (P. 201).

[30] Ibid., X 1 (P. 189), XII 4 (P. 194).

[31] Ibid., IX 3 (P. 189). “Verum est quod nichil auferunt vi, sed imPortune valde et imPrudenter Petent quod vident, et si dat eis homo Perdit, quia sunt ingrati. RePutant enim se dominos mundi, et videtur eis quod nichil debeat eis negari ab aliquo; si non dat et Postea indigeat servitio eorum, male ministrant ei”.

[32] Ahmed ibn Fadlan, al-Kitab, P. 99.

[33] Ibid., P. 96. cf. Togan, 1939, P. 29.

[34] Ibid., P. 94; Togan, 1939, P. 26. The translators T. Lewicki and A.Z.V. Togan both considered Pāj tāf to be akind of shoe. A.P. Kowalewski and M. canard see Pāj tāf as a kind of textile Produced on a foot loom. See: Kovalevskij, 1956, P. 186, note 234; canard, 1958, P. 74, note 126.

[35] Ibn Fadlan, al-Kitab, P. 97; Togan, 1939, P. 31.

[36] Ibn Fadlan, al-Kitab, P. 95. Togan’s translation is more cautious: “[…] ich Pfeife auf Kudarkins Bart !”(Togan, 1939, 32), P. 26). cf. A.P. Kovalevskij, 1956, P. 128: “Ja isPrazhnjajus’ na borodu Kjudarkina”; M. canard, 1958, P. 74: “Je chie sur la barbe du Kudherk?n”.

[37] Ibn Fadlan, al-Kitab, P. 93.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Marcellinus, XXXI 2, 2, P. 380.

[40] According the old traditional chinese geograPhy the most remote Parts of the world were usually inhabited by barbarians, wild animals and evil sPirits. comParing “barbarians” with animals was an old and longlasting tradition in china. The character for the name of the Northern Barbarians (Di) was usually recorded with the dog radical, the name of the Southern Barbarians (Man) with the worm radical. cf. Yang Lien-sheng, 1968, P. 27.

[41] See: di cosmo, 2002, PP. 93-126; Lovejoy and Boas, 1935.

[42] cf. M. Hardt, 2003, PP. 95-107; M. Hardt, 2004, PP. 42-44, 175.

[43] On the nomadic economy, see: Khazanov, PP. 15-84. For a different interPretation, see: di cosmo, 1994, PP. 1092-1125; Yang Lien-sheng, 1968, PP. 167-174.

[44] On the sPecial features of the nomads’ socio-Political organization, see: Barfield, PP. 8-9; Kradin, PP. 371-376.

[45] Menander, Fragmenta, PP. 170-171.

[46] Gumilev, 1993, PP. 146-147.

[47] Priscos Panita, Fragmenta, P. 579.

[48] Ibid., PP. 579-581.