Feasting and Hospitality among Eastern Nomadic Peoples

Feasting and Hospitality among Eastern Nomadic Peoples

G bor Vekony

According to a paraphrase by Owen Lattimore, „the pure nomad is a poor nomad“. Should this statement be generalized, it is hardly possible to speak of feasting in the case of nomads, including easte nomadic peoples, since anyone who is poor cannot afford to spend too much on hospitality. Information is available, however, which demonstrates the contrary. This is in part the case because nomads were not necessarily poor, or even if they were, their special way of life allowed them to become rich and sometimes even the mighty rulers of entire empires. It has also been observed that in tribat societies, sometimes considered poor by mode weste standards, special efforts are made to set aside wealth for feasting and ceremonial purposes, sometimes beyond the actual economic means of such peoples. Naturally, such reserves may be very modest and even monotonous due to the small variability of the material goods of many nomadic societies. Various dairy products are typical examples of a simple raw material which can be transformed into a limited nurober of products. This purported poverty of nomads, however, may not necessarily represent reality, since the „pure nomad“ as such has never existed. This image was created by impoverished pastoral groups who have been marginalized in early mode and mode societies in the 201h century. Even if „pure nomads“ appeared earlier, they must have had a similarly marginal way of life, sometimes outside the greater society.

From the viewpoint of our topic this means that if no people can be identi ed as „pure nomads“, „purely nomadic“ feasts and forms of hospitality do not exist either. One should consider, however, the description of lifeways led by the Ungari (i. e. conquering Hungarians), as described by Regino, a priest in Prüm, a contemporary living during the

61

Hungarian conquest. His records provide a good amework for reviewing nomadic ways of feasting and hospitality. According to Regino, the Ungari procured eve day food by „venatu ac pastione“, that is, hunting and pasturing (as the latter word is translated instead ofpiscatione, concurring with Henrik Marczali and Samu Szadeczky-Kardoss). Without resorting to complex explanations, Iet us presume that in accordance with this Statement, wealth acquired by hunting and stock keeping was accumulated for the purposes ofholding ceremonial feasts.

Within this framework, extreme individual cases have been recorded.

Some nomadic „courts“ in Asia perpetually feasted, while others, such as the Yürüks in Anatolia and the Balkans, eat meat no more than three-four times a year, on special ceremonial occasions or when animals su er fatal accidents. The Yürük example also shows how the timing of feasts is determined. In recent times, they live in an Islamic cultural environment so that these occasions also coincide with Islamic religious holidays. The traditions of other nomadic peoples in Asia re ect similar Islamic in uences and therefore, in pa , they also follow the same regime of religious events. In the case of Asiatic Turkic peoples, an older feast adopted from the Persians and Iranian peoples of Central Asia is of outstanding signi cance. This is nooruz, i. e. New Year celebrations held at the time of the vemal equinox. In addition to the New Year and holidays with Islamic origins, wedding celebrations, childbirth (especially ofboys), and funerary feasts are also important ceremonial events. Other feasts are held irregularly within the context of special occasions. Such an example is worth citing from „The Secret History of the Mongols“. hen the Uruuts, Mangkuts and Koogkotans joined Genghis Khan, „Genghis Khan was pleased to see that so many people came to him. Therefore Genghis Khan, her majesty Höelün, Kassar, Sacha-beki ofthe Djurkin clan and Taichu decided to hold a feast in the black forest by the Onon“.1 Meanwhile a form ofhospitality also exists which cannot be considered stricto sensu feasting. Cohabiting kinship groups of the Kirghiz (bir atanyn baldary – children of the father), live in close friendship and prepare umiss in the same using mares‘ milk gathered separately. Each moming the call is heard: „Kelgile, qymyz icki/e!“ (Come and drink kumiss!), and the day starts with communal umiss drinking. Aside from this example (which is a form of hospitality but belongs to the inner Ayil subsistence tradition), and irregular/opportunistic celebrations, weddings, nera – and birth ceremonies may be considered the most important social occasions when feasts are held. Although the

I SHM 130.

62

aforementioned New Year celebration has Persian!Iranian roots, its precursors may be related to an even earlier Iranian in uence.

Another occasion should also be mentioned in relation to feasting schedules: the time of great autumn hunts. Chinese sources reveal that San­ Yu, the Hiung-Nu ruler organized a !arge scale, joint hunting with his warriors every fall. These chases naturally ended in tremendous feasts. This type of hunting, however, also served as a form of military exercise, when warriors not only practiced the use of w ponry but also coordinated action by various army units. Aside om easte nomads, these kinds of megahunts (which could also be called „state-level military exercises“) were also practiced by Assyrians and Sasanids, however, there is little doubt that the custom had its roots in nomadic tradition. The father of written history, Herodotos described how the Scythians (who o en considered the prototypes of nomadic peoples), se ed as hunters for King Kyaxares of the Meds (at the very beginning of the 6th centu BC). They bad a reputation as excellent bowmen. Herodotos also recorded that before the mighty army of Dareios, King of Persia, attacked European Scythians, these latter organized a great bunt, that is, held military exercises before the war. Large scale hunts directed by a single individual were still practiced by the Buryats around the tu of this century. lt is also possible that this form of hunting was k.nown by the Kirghiz as weil, since the Kirghiz Manas-epos mentions that he organized a bunt with 600 bowmen, who killed 700 moufflons. Organized hunting and game distribution were also practiced by the Turkic peoples of Tuva and Altai.

The food served at feasts that followed these great hunts must have been predominantly the meat of the slaughtered game. The meat of wild animals, however, could also be procured by individual hunters or smaller oups. These hunts were also accompanied by various sorts of hospitality. Participants in the event shared the game by a descending order of age. The oldest member of the hunting party received the mp and ribs (uca). The next cut to be handed out included the thighs (san), followed by the ont legs (qol) and other parts of the carcass. In this system of meat distribution, the one who killed the prey received the head, stomach, hide and brisket (töS). The lungs and intestines were fed to the dogs. As will be discussed later, a similar rank-ordered distribution was recorded at formal feasts as weil.

Even individual hunters were not supposed to keep the entire game to themselves. On the way home, hunters o en were greeted by acquaintances yelling the words ralga baa r, e-e, mergen , and ra/ga which all

63

guaranteed that hey would receive their fair share. Therefore sometimes the hunter arrived home empty handed. More often, the best cuts were lost, since if the one yelling ra/ga (sorloga in Mongolian) was older than the hunter he had to be given the best bits. If there was anything le of the prey by the time the hunter retu ed home, it was cooked and all inhabitants of the ayil were invited to join the meal.

Edible innards, as weil as part of the meat, were usually already consumed during the hunting trip. In this case, some pieces of meat were put into water, boiled with the carefully cleansed stomach of the animal and nally suspended above cinders.

Meat for the purposes of feasting, however, was not only procured through hunting. Domestic stock were also important providers of meat. High-ranking, wealthy Oguz elders in Asia had masses of animals slaughtered during the Middle Ages. These included horses, cattle and sheep. As was usual with Turkic peoples, they preferred horse esh, although the number of sheep killed could be ten times higher. The nurober of animals consumed at a Central Asian Kazakh funerary feast could be as high as 500 at the tu of this century. These numbers also included 150 horses, although if the local info ant is to be trusted, the number of guests to be fed was 5,000.

Cooking in !arge kettles was a widespread way of preparing meat.

Herodotos had already described how the Scythians cooked in !arge, communal kettles. This method is also known among the Osethians, descendants of the Alans, who withdrew into the Caucasus Mountains. The Kirghiz cooked meat in so-called „nine-hands“ kettles. These were so !arge that they could accommodate either a quarter of a horse or an entire sheep. However, other ways of preparing meat have been recorded as weil. During the Middle Ages, the Oghuz of Central Asia were observed barbecuing venison on spikes. The meat was seasoned using black pepper, onions and garlic. The mode of cooking practiced during hunting trips has already been mentioned. The variant practiced by the Kirghiz included tossing hot stones (tas qazan) into the rumen ofthe prey, using it as a water container. Another ancient form of meat preparation deserves attention as weil. The Kirghiz in the Pamir region removed the intestines of a freshly slaughtered, unskinned lamb and sewed the animal’s fat tail into the body cavity. The carcass was then placed into a repit with cinders at its bottom and buried under a thin layer of earth. Another re was lit over the top of this deposit, thereby cooking the lamb for a carefully de ned period of time. The meat thus absorbed all the body juices and fat. Yet another variety of this method was

64

recorded at tbe tu of the centu . In that case, the cinders le by the re set above the cooking pit were buri by stones and dirt. The lamb, however, was taken out of the pit only the following day. Sometimes salt and black pepper were added to the meat.

The same cooking method was employed by the Karluks of Central Asia who slaughtered a lamb, sheep or goat and then sewed its salted meat i nto the animal’s skin. They then set a re i n a 50-60 cm deep pit and, a er a while, placedthepackagecomposedofmeatandfatwithintheskinintothe pit. The pit then was covered with earth. In order to I et excess steam escape, a reed was stuck through the skin which vertically extended above the surface of the soil. This meal, called qumma §ursa, was cooked all day long. Asimilarmeatdish,kujukebabymadebyTurksinAsiaMinor, isprepared in a manner that hardly differs from the aforementioned technique. This form of meat preparation has been known in the Caspian area since the 12th century. Abu Hamid al Gamati wrote as follows: „In this land, people bunt gazelle.Tbemeatofthepreyischoppedup,wrappedintheskin, fastenedto a reed pipe and then the skin together with the meat in it is buried in the black soil. It is cooked there, while the froth leaves through the pipe as is usual when cooking vessels are used. Once the oth has all gone, the meat will be tender. When it is taken out of the earth, the skin is i ntact and the meat is cooked bot.“ Although according to al Gamati, the meat is cooked bygeothermic activityintheBakyarea,tbemethodofpreparationisexactly the same as was described i n the case of Karluks. The same form of cooking h a s s u r v i v e d i n A z e r b a ij a n a s w e i l .

Among the beverages, fermented mare’s milk, kumiss, has a distinguished position both in everyday life as weil as during feasts and visits. The peculiar way in which Scythians milked their horses and prepared this drink from their milk bad already been described by Herodotos. Tbis tradition has disappeared among Iranian peoples of Scythian ancestry. The few examples of kumiss preparation, such as that of the Osethians, developed under Turkic i n uence. During the Hunnic Period, however, Attila’s guests drank wine, and according to the description by Priskbos rhetor, people also prepared barley and honey beer here. Turkic khans treated the Byzantine ambassadors with wine, while Bulgars living in the great bend region of the Volga river o ered honey beer to their guests. On the other hand, drinks made exclusively from milk were served at the feasts ofthe Central Asian Oguz people. They gave tbeir guests drinks made from tbe milk of mares, camels or sheep. Of tbese, umiss was most

commonly offered to guests but ayran, a kind of milk serum mixed with 65

water was also drunk. Four kinds of beverages were consumed in the courts of Mongoi khans: wine, karakumiss, honey beer (bal) and spirits (darassun). Naturally, these were given to guests as weil. More recent sources mention chiefly dairy products and the spirit araq. It remains a question when this Iatter was incorporated among the drinks of easte nomads, although it was already known during the Mongoi Period. The generally used name is of Arabic origin which means that one should not reckon with its appearance before the second half or the end of the 8 century. In connection with d nks, it should also be noted that water played a very important roJe in their preparation. In a direct sense, therefore, it is not true that „nomads do not drink water“. Water was not only used in making dairy drinks, but as weil in the preparation of boza, a beverage also known by the Cumanians who settled in Hungary. Bulgars occupying the Balkan Peninsula also seem to have been familiar with this millet . Inscriptions from the Nagyszentmikl6s Hoard also show that umiss and some sort of a spirit were consumed in our region.

Having reviewed the times of feasting and the main types of foods and beverages served, it is worth mentioning the way invitations were made. Whether the feast or visit was associated with a wedding, birth or neral, it natural l y started with an invitation. The only exception may be the occasional or sometimes continuous drinking binges of Mongoi khans. The Oguz of Central Asia sent out official invitations, while in the case of Bashkirs and Kazakhs less formal types of invitation were recorded. The organizer of a feast could invite bis relatives and iends, who in tu involved their own relatives, iends and acquaintances. Thus, the crowd of guests sometimes grew into a faceless mass of people. Richly decorated yurts were erected for the guests, in which small tables were set up with dishes. With the exception of kumiss, the host provided everything for the feast. Kumiss, however, had to be provisioned by the guests themselves. Since the host and his family would not bave been able to serve everybody at such great occasions, some guests were selected as helpers. These helpers were each given at least one horse following the feast. Visits and feasts of various sizes had their well de ned rules. Descriptions of Byzantine and Arabic ambassadors reveal the oldest data on these traditions. Some of them are worth briefly reviewing. A record by Priskhos rhetor is at the top of this Iist. Although it is widely known, it is cited here to introduce other descriptions: “ . . . Tatulus came .. with the message that Attila bad invited both of us [Maximinos and Priskhos] for a meal, and the time of this meal would be around the ninth hour of the day. Having waited until that time,

66

we and the ambassadors of the Weste Roman Empire showed up for the meal; we stood on the doorstep across from Attila. According to their customs, the cup-bearers gave us goblets so that we could toast Attila before we took our seats.

Following this, we drank om the goblets and approached the chairs on which we were supposed to sit during the meal. The chairs lined the room’s walls on both sides. Attila sat in the center on a couch with another couch behind it. From there, steps Iead to his bed …

The rst seat during the meal was to Attila’s right, while the second was placed on his le ; we were seated here, but a Scythian elder, Berikhos, sat in front of us. Onegesios sat to the right of the king’s couch. The two sons of Attila sat across from him, since the oldest sat on his father’s couch, at some distance from him, on the edge … Once all of us had settled, the cup-bearer came and gave Attila a goblet ll ofwine.

He took the goblet and toasted the rst man, who stood up to receive this honor and was not supposed to sit back before he tasted the wine or emptied the goblet and retu ed it to the cup-bearer. Everybody present toasted Attila the same way: they accepted the goblet and following the toast, tasted its contents. And, as Attila had honored the second in line and all the others, it had became our tu and he toasted us as weil.

Having honored all ofus by his toast, the cup-bearers withdrew. Now others camed to place tables, rst in front of Attila, then in front of us, with three to four or even more people at each table. Everybody could help themselves from the food placed on their table, however, the seating order had to remain undisturbed. Attila’s servant entered rst with a plate ll of meat; he was followed by those who served us and put bread and all sorts of food on our table. The other Barbarians and we were given ne delicacies. Attila, however, was served nothing but meat on a wooden plate . . .

Having eaten the food served on the rst plates, all of us stood up, and those who were standing did not sit back until they had emptied the next goblet of wine given to them to the health of Attila in the previously described order. Having toasted him in this manner, we again took our places and the second dish was placed on our tables.

Having eaten this food as weil, we similarly stood up, drank and sat back in our places again. In the evening torches were lit, and two Barbanans entered across from Attila. They sang their own songs about Attila’s victo es and glorious battles …

Since we knew that the rest would spend the whole night feasting, we le to make sure that we would not be involved in too much drinking …“

67

In connection with this description by Priskhos and Attila’s feast one should note that this form of hospitality bore little resemblance to the feasts of easte Turkic oomads in later times. Parallels to feasts starting in the late mo ing and Iasting until dawn are more typically among the pastimes favored by lranian, Parthian and Sasanid rulers. The feast described here, however, represents a mixture of various elements, as is suggested by the separate food se ed to Attila. Secondary sources ordanes) also reveal that at one of bis weddings he drank too much and that at the time of bis burial, mou ing was combined with a tremendous orgy ofeating and drinking.

Little is known of early Turkic feasts. Zemarkhos visited the Turkic khan as a Byzantine ambassador in 569 AD. He wrote: „… Therea er they started eating, and the whole day was spent feasting in the tent which was made for him [Sizavulos, tbe Turkic khan] usiog artistically colored silk fabric. Although they drank wine, it was not tbe kiod people press om grapes in our country, sioce tbeir land does not bear this kind of fruit, it does not grow there. Tbey loaded themselves with some sort of a sweet, Barbarian drink. Then they le to tbeir accommodations. Next day, they gathered in another tent, which was covered and decorated with silk fabric in the same way, and in which sculptures of various shapes stood. Sizavulos sat on a coucb made completely from gold. Golden jugs and pitchers aod even barreis were placed in tbe middle of the tent. Following another feast, there was drinking in which they told and listened to everything that was necessary and left … Sizavulos … invited the ambassadors of Romans and Persians to a feast. Wheo tbey arrived, Sizavulos paid greater honor to the Romans and bad them seated on a shinier couch … „.Z

In connection with the feasting and eating ofTurks, it is again Persian and concomitant Chinese influences that must be reckoned with. On the other band, this description is in sharp contrast with a Chinese source, Pei­ si, compiled in the middle of the 6th century. Although tbis report does not conce Turks but the Kao-Kü, ancestors of the Uygur people, it relates tbe following: „On the day the womao is taken away, men aod women grabbed horse milk and chunks of cooked meat from each other’s haods. When tbe bost invites guests, tbere is no ranking among them. They sit in a group in front of the round tent drinking and feasting all day. Sometimes they are even invited to stay ove ight and take the woman away only on the following day.“ Even if certain points in this report are exaggerated, it may indeed have been more characteristic of early easte nomads thao the aforementioned Byzantine descriptions.

2 MEH 77, 78; Boor 193, 194.

68

It is unknown what the „sweet, Barbarian drink“ mentioned by Zemarkhos as a substitute for wine was. Later, the Uygurs called wine sü g, sücüg, that is „sweet“, although Volga Bulgars used the same term, sücü, for honey beer. Fermented mare’s milk i. e. miss also has a sweetish avor. It is also possible, therefore, that the source refers to it. One cannot rule out the possibility either that it was rice spirit that the Barbanans drank.

A detailed description ofTurkic hospitality is provided by Ibn Fadlan who visited the Volga Bulgars as the ambassador of the Baghdad kalifa in AD 922. This entire report is worth quoting here:

„[the Bulgar king] … sent four sovereigns, who were his subordinates, with their children and brothers to greet us. They received us, and having offered us bread, meat and millet, they joined us. When we approached the king to a distance of no more than two parasangs, the king hi self came to greet us. When he saw us, he got off his horse and leaned on the ground to praise God and thank him. Then he showered us with silver coins from the sleeves of his clothes and had tents erected for us in which we dwelled … We stayed in the tents designated to us until Wednesday. Meanwhile the sovereigns and noblemen of his count gathered in order to Iisten to the reading of the khalifs Ietter. Finally, on Thursday we opened up the two carpets brought with us, placed the saddle sent for the horse onto the animal, and dressed him into black celebratory clothing covering his head with a turban. When I handed the khalifs Ietter over, the king read it out standing, in spite of his corpulent stature, and he did the same with the Ietter of the Ieader Hamid ben el-Abbas, while his servants showered us with silver coins. We took the rest of the presents and handed them over to him. We also dressed his wife, sitting near him as was customary, in decorative clothing. Therea er he invited us into his tent, where he sat on a throne covered with golden fabric. On his right sat his chieftains, while his sons were seated in front of him. We took our places on his le . He ordered a

table to be set in front of him, on which fried meat was served. He then carved off a piece and ate it, then he cut and ate a second and third bit as weil. He offered, however, the fourth bit to ambassador Saussen, who immediately had a little table placed in front of him. This is in accordance with local custom there: Nobody starts eating before having been offered food by the king. However, the person receiving the first piece, is given a separate table. The king gave food to the next sovereign, who then had another table placed in front of him. And this went on, until all the guests present had their own tables. Everybody thus ate alone at separate tables. Once the feast was nished, we could take le overs with us to our dwelling.

69

Before we le , however, the king treated us witb honey beer, called sidju in that country…“

The details described in the report by Ibn Fadlan are quite reminiscent of the protocols followed by feasting Turkic and Mongoi nomads until mode times. The Bulgar king hi self handing out food is a weil known custom in otber places as weil. Beyond the seating order, this description t e i l s u s l i t t l e a b o u t p o s s i b l e o t h e r rul e s , s u c h as t b o s e g o v e m i n g t h e distribution of meat. A change occurred in mode seating order as is sbown by more recent data. Namely, the place of the highest ranking, most respected guest became the right side of the host. In this early ex ple, Ibn Fadlan and his company (seated to the left) were, after all, the ambassadors of the khalif, and Almus, tbe king of Bulgars bad just submitted to bis power. Moreover, similarities may be discovered in the seating order described here and tbe one mentioned in connection with Attila’s feast.

Feasting protocols and pattems in meat distribution are not mentioned here accidently. During the feasts (toj, bajram, n) of the early medieval Oguz people, seating order was dete ined both by descent and economic status. A member of the kban’s clan sat in the middle, with representatives and members of the „older“ clan to his right and those of the „younger“ clan to the le . It is however, not only their place that was strictly determined but also the types of cuts they were given. According to the description of the Persian Rashidu-Din, those sitting on the right side received the right scapula, i. e. the right „front ham“, then the meaty ribs from the animal’s right side. People seated on the le were given the animal’s le side, the le thigh and the rump. A similar meat distribution pattem has already been discussed in relation to hunters‘ prey. Even in the sketchy descriptions by Rashidu-Din one may observe differences between the Kirghiz and Oguz conventions of meat distribution. lt seems certain that, in this regard, several traditional forms existed not only in different peoples, but even within the same population group. Abulghazi, a 17th century chronicler describes a completely different meat distribution patte which went as follows:

The sheep’s head and backhone were given to the kban who sat in the middle. The rst person to bis right was given the upper portion of the animal’s right thigh. The second person ate the animal’s right front leg. The third received the right hip and rump. No data is available on the fourth person seated to the right. The fi h was given the femur. The sixth received the right scapula. The frrst person to the le was given the le femur. The second received the left rump and hip of the animal. The third received the lower le leg. No data is available on the meat given to the fourth person on

70

the le . The h person received the animal’s le ont leg. The sixth was given the le scapula.

Abulghazi’s data are not recon rmed by other sources. It may be seen, however, that the system described by Rashidu-Din, as weil as the prey­ distribution pattems of Kirghiz hunters were different. In certain Kirghiz areas, the head is considered the most precious part of a sheep’s body and the same holds true for some of their northem groups. On the other hand, in the lssik Köl region, the order is hip bone, i. e. rump, head and leg or rib. The ranking in Tien Shan is rib, hip bone and head. Among the northe Kirghiz, it is the elders and respected guests who receive the animal’s head. If a horse is served during the feast, the uca is considered the most precious cut. This corresponds to the hip region between the eigth vertebra and the tail. Rib is in the second place in value, although in the Tien Shan region qar ga, a piece carved out of the rib and thigh respectively, is considered the second best cut. Women were given the sheep’s tail and the short part of the rump.

must also be mentioned that types of butchering followed by the nomads differed from carcass partitioning as it is practiced today which makes comparisons dif cult. The ranking of cuts by status value must have had a iong tradition, even if one cannot always nd correspondences between data from various areas. With a little bit of exaggeration one may say that this tradition is as old as hunting and the prehistory of animal keeping. Even ifthis long tradition is disregarded, it may almost certainly be said that the Chinese reference to disorganized Kao-Kü eating habits, that is the grabhing ofmeat from each other’s hand, is erroneous.

Simiiarly to regulated meat distribution, offering drinks also had its rank-dependent rules at nomadic feasts. This order has aiready been mentioned during the description of Attila’s feast. Another source cited previously, „The Secret History ofthe Mongols“ provides additional details on the way beverages were offered. Ofthe feast held by Genghis Khan in the black forest by the Onon one may read the following: „… As they were eating there, one goblet ofwine was poured out starting with Genghis Khan, her majesty Höeiün, Kassar and Sacha-beki, before the others were served. Then another goblet of wine was distributed starting with Ebegey, the ‚little mother‘ (stepmother) of Sacha-beki. At this point, Koridjin-katun and Kuurchin-katun asked: Why they do not pour for me rst? Why should they pour for Ebegey rst? Therefore they beat the cook“. Other trouble also surfaced during this feast, although such problems were probably common during such drinking binges. In order to understand the rank order, one

71

sbould know that Höelün was the mother of Genghis Khan, Kassar bis younger brother and Sacha-beki was the most respected member of the group of Djürkin who took part in this feast. The order became upset at the point when it reacbed the Djürkin women, since pouring the drinks should have Started there with Koridjin-katun and Kuurchin-katun. The reason, however, was not the fact that, as opposed to the Turks, Mongois allowed women to participate in their drinking feasts. This marked a ndamental di erence in their social organizations. The root of tbe trouble lay in the fact that the rank order itself was not constant but open to change, as is also sbown by the fate of numerous Turkic and Mongolian dynasties and empires.

The drinking order of Mongois is described in detail by Willemus Rubruk, the ambassador of Charles IX, king of France, who visited them between 1252 and 1255:

„When they get together for drinks, first they spill some of the drink toward the idol above their lord’s head, then in the direction of all other idols. Tberea er, one of the servants (minister) leaves the building with a goblet ll of wine and spills the wine three times towards the south, bending his knee at every movement. This is performed in bonor of re. Repeating the same movement in the direction of the east honors the skies, while the gesture made toward the west is a tribute to waters. Finally, spilling wine to the north the same way is addressed to the dead. When tbe Iandlord gets a hold on the goblet, he spills some liquid onto the ground prior to drinking, thus honoring the eartb. When he is drinking on horseback, some of the beverage is spilled on the horse’s neck or mane.

Once the minister has spilled the drink in all four directions, he retu s into the house where four other servants are waiting on the alert, holding two goblets and a plate. They are in charge of handing over the drink to their Iord and bis wife who is sitting on the same couch. An entire store packed with containers of all sorts of drinks and goblets stands by the entrance.

During the winter they prepare excellent beverages om rice, millet, wbeat and honey which are as clear as wine. They also have wine sent to tbem om distant areas. During the summer, they pay attention to nothing eise but kumiss. Ku iss is always kept in the house near the entrance. By it stands a boz player with his lyre-like instrument… When the Iord of the house starts drinking one of the servants yells: „Ha!“ and the musician plucks a string on the boz. During great feasts, everybody claps hands and dances to tbe boz. Men dance before the Iord wbile women dance in

72

ont of his wife. When the Iord stops drinking, the musician yells again as before and stops playing. Then everybody there, men and women alike, start avidly drinking in competition, in quite an ugly manner.“

It should be taken into consideration that this description was recorded by a European, who may have disregarded details that would have been important to the Mongols. However, even this way, it is remarkable that by the middle of the 1 31h century the rules of feasting followed in the time of Genghis Khan bad changed. From the data of Rubruk it is also clear that, even if there was an order in drinking among people, no such regulations existed for drinks. At least Mengü Khan asked the ambassadors whether they wanted to drink wine, darassun, rakumiss or bal.

What can be said then, having b e y reviewed data conceming feasting and hospitality practices of the eastem nomads? First, many ne details bad to be omitted such as the offering of presents that followed hospitality, as weil as the archery, wrestling and horseback riding contests associated with such feasts. The ch Osethian material could not be discussed in detail, and within the topic of feasting attentions focused only on meat and beverages. Therefore, this survey is far from complete. At least, however, light has been shed on some aspects of traditional feasting and hospitality among eastem nomads, who are slowly disappearing in the obscurity ofthe distant past.

Literature

The topic discussed in this paper has not yet been summarized either in Hungarian or other Janguages. Not even smaller details of the proble have been discussed in the Hungarian literature. Therefore, a Iist of sources in Hungarian and relevant Iiterature are listed here:

A bizanci irodalom is tiikre ( e small speculum of Byzanthian literature). Budapest 1974.

Abu-H mid ai-Ga ati utazasa Kelet- es Közep-Europaban 1131-1153 (Abu-Hamid ­ Gamati’s Voyage in Eastem and Central Europe 1 131-1153). Budapest 1985.

Boor, C. de, Excerpta de /egationibus. Berlin 1 903.

Laszl6, Gy. A honfog/a/6 ma ar nep e/ete ( e Life of Conquering Hungarian P ple). Budapest 1944.

73

Uszl6, Gy. – Racz, I. A na szentmik/6si kincs (The Nagyszentmikl6s Treasure). Budapest 1977.

MEH = A ma arok elodeirö/ es a onfogla/asr61 (The Ancestors ofHungarians and the Hungarian Conquest). Budapest 1958.

N a p k e l e t fe e d e z e s e ( D i s c o v e r i n g t h e E a s t ) . E d . G y ö r , G y . B u d a p e s t 1 9 6 5 .

R6na-Tas, A. Nom ok nyomaban (In the Tracks ofNomads). Budapest 1 9 6 1 .

SHM = The Secret History of the Mongo/s. English anslation b y J . d e Rachewitz. In: Papers on the Far Easte Hsi tory 1971-1976; Ligeti, L., Histoire secrete des Mongois (Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae Collecta I). Budapest 1971.

74

Tender Meat under the Saddle

Customs of Eating, i ing d Hospitality among Conqu ing Hung ians d Nomadic P pl

MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ

SONDERBAND VII

=

STAMRA

(Studia archaeologica mediae recentisque aevorum Universitatis Scientiarum de Rolando Eötvös nominatae)

ED ITED BY JOZSEF LASZLOVSZKY

VOLUME II

Tender Meat under the Saddle

Customs of Eating, Dri ing and Hospitality among Conquering Hungarians and Nomadic Peoples

In Memo of G laUszl6 (1910- 1998)

Edited by J6zsef Laszlovsz

ems 1998

The articles have been part of a conference organized by the College of Commerce, Catering and Tourism, the Society of Old-Hungarian Culture, and the Department of Medieval and Postmedieval Archa logy, Eötvös

Lorand University, Budapest (October 1 0- l l , 1 996). Translated om Hungarian

by Alice M. Choyke and Läszl6 Ba osiewicz
Cover illustration: The seven chiefs of the Hungarians (detail),

J. Thur6czi, Chronica Hungarorum, Brünn 1486.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten – ISBN3-901094105

Herausgeber: Medium Ae m Quotidianum. Gesellscha zur Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Kö ermarkt 13, A – 3500 Krems, Österreich. – Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8 – I0, A -1050 Wien.

Table ofContents

Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Istvän Fodor, The Culture ofConquering Hungarians ……………………………. 9

J6zsefLaszlovszky, Research Possibilities into the History

and Material Culture ofEating, Drinking and Hospitality

during the Period of Hungarian Conquest …………………………………. Gabor Vekony, Feasting and Hospitality

among Eastem Nomadic Peoples ……………………………………………… Peter Tomka, Customs of Eating and Hospitality

among Nomadic Peoples of the Migration Period …………………….. Mik16s Takacs, How Did Conquering Hungarians Prepare and Serve

their Food? …………………………………………………………………………….. Ferenc Gyulai, Archaeobotanical Sources in Investigating the Diet

44

6 1

75

98

ofConqueringHungarians . . . …….. ….. ………………………………………. 120 Laszl6 Bartosiewicz, Mobile Pastoralism and Meat Consumption:

an Archa zoological Perspective ………………….. ……………………… 1 57

5

Preface

1996 was the year of millecentennial celebrations of the Hungarian conquest. Many scholarly conferences and popular progr e s were organised for this occasion. The theme of this volume was the topic of a programme organised by the College of Commerce, Catering and Tourism, The Society for Old-Hungarian Culture and by the Department of Medieval and Postmedieval Archaeology, Eötvös Loränd University, Budapest. The rst part of the programme was the conference on the archaeological, historical and natural scientific researches on the customs of food consumption of the Hungarian conquest period. These papers are representing a new approach as weil an upswing in the study of eve day life and material culture. Thus, the study of archa logical food remains and the research on the culture of conquest period Hungarians were relevant contributions for the organisers to the 1996 millecentenary celebrations in Hunga . The conference was not only li ted to the 9 – 1 0 century conquering Hungarians, but also was concemed with the pastoral nomads om the Migration period and the Middle Ages.1

The scholarly progra e of the conference was followed by an exhibition on the archaeological food remains and nds, on the objects of nomadic peoples from early mode period and on mode art objects inspired by these ancient cultures.

The most exotic part of the programme was the dinner organis by the college. This was an attempt to help this institution to create standards for historical tourism and experimental pro ammes. The special feature of this dinner was the cooperation between scholars of historical studies and specialists of catering and tourism. Particular attention was paid to the authenticity of ingredients nown from historical sources and

1 The rst version of some of the papers presented at this conference w published in Hunga an. „Nyereg alatt puhi uk“. Vendeglat i es et zesi szo sok a honfog/a/6 ma aro al es a rokon kultUraju lovasnepeknel. Szerk. szlovszky, J. 6magyar Ku1tUra 10 (1997) különsz . = Tudomänyos Közlemenyek II. Keresk e , Vendeglät6ipari ldegenforgalmi Föiskola, Budapest 1997.

7

archaeological evidence), while the modes of preparation and se ing were obviously suited to mode equipment, conditions and contemporary tastes. We regarded this experiment an important step in the cooparation between scholars and specialists of historical tourism, since dilettant reconstructions of conquest period every day life were also present in the programmes of 1996.

The title of this volume refers to that strange ancient, but o en present day, understanding of the customs of „barbars“ or nomadic peoples which has also influenced scholarly studies for a long time. Ammianus Marcellinus om the 4 century wrote: „the Huns . . . eat meat om all so s of animals, which they place on their horse’s back under their thighs thereby making it tender and warm.“ A part of this observation is interesting for the ancient history of food consumption or animal husbandry, either reflecting the practice that horsemen took some sort of dried meat with them on long rides, or recording another practice to eure the horses‘ back with pieces of raw meat. The other part of this sentence is just an example for the topoi of „civilised people“ as they misinterpreted some customs of the „barbars“.

We dedicate this volume to the memory of Gyula Laszl6, professor of archaeology, who was the most important gure in Hungarian archaeology to introduce a new approach: to see the people and their life in the archaeological nds and objects. His pioneer work The Life of the Conquering Hungarian People is regarded by the authors of this volume as a Standard for those who want to reconstruct the past.

8

J6zsef Laszlovszky