Customs of Eating and Hospitality among Nomadic Peoples of tbe Migration Period
Peter Tomka
When research into the customs of eating and hospitality is attempted, at least six types of sources must be taken into consideration in the case of equestrian nomadic peoples of eastem origin (Huns, Avars). As will be seen in this study, even this way, only Iimited results can be achieved. As a Hungarian archaeologist, I am chiefly interested in the eastem population groups that once occupied the territo ofpresent day Hungary, the scene in the Carpathian Basin which had been set by the time the conquering Hungarians arrived. The explicit aim of these investigations is to establish analogies as weil as pinpointing di erences that may contribute to our better understanding o f phenomena characterizing the Period o f the Hungarian Conquest itself. This approach also includes a nod in the direction of those who think conquering Hungarians found more than just Slavs in the territory oftheir new homeland.
It is worth devoting a few introductory words to the sources. These may be direct or indirect (and sometimes very indirect!).
5 -9 1) Literary sources conceming the period under discussion here, the
AD centuries are rather meager. There are especially few references directly relevant to the topic under discussion here. They include, however, a very special, almost unique account by rhetor Priscus conceming his diplomatic mission to the court of the Gr t Sovereign Attila.1 Other records comparable to those made by this observant, interested and, above all, apparently reliable author are available only from the l 31h century, beyond
1 P scus, .8. Exce ta de legationib , ed. de Boor, Berlin 1903, 121-155; C. D. Gordon, The Age ofAttila, Arbor 1966, 93-96.
75
the chronological boundaries of the studied period. At that time, Franciscan monks (Plano Caprini, Wilhelm Rubruquis) were on similar diplomatic missions in the great Mongoi khanates.2 These documents are frequently quoted when attempts are made to reconstruct life during the Migration Period (for text references see the study by Gabor Vekony in this volume). These accounts, however, have one major disadvantage: They can be reckoned only as very indirect sources within the context of the Period of the Hungarian Conquest. They discuss phenomena separated by at least three centuries and ten thousand kilometers from the topic of this paper. Both Franciscan travelers give a synthetic account of „Tartars“, reviewing numerous conquering and conquered peoples within the huge empire. Thus, these works not only obliterate obvious differences between these groups, but are also biased by poetic exaggerations, and the story telling capabilities of local informants. Moreover, they also contain clearly apparent misunder standings.
Fortunately, we also have at our disposal a direct literary source on the Mongols: „The Secret History of the Mongols“.3 At the end ofthis study I included, as dessert, a small portion of delicious data from this work conceming eating and hospitality. It is presented in order to illustrate that although the life and customs of 13th century Mongois were in many respects similar to those of Migration Period peoples in the Carpathian Basin, there were numerous differences as weil. Naturally, neither the report by Priscus, nor the accounts by the Franciscans, and not even „The Secret History of the Mongols“ should be considered cookbooks. Nevertheless, they may be ofuse in drawing general conclusions.
2) The second group of sources would be that of contemporary depictions. However, no direct iconographic evidence is available conceming Huns or Avars. One source that should receive attention, however, are Central Asian murals.4 They have, in fact, been equently cited in the literature. Although fragmented, wall-paintings in A asijab (that is ancient Samarkand), 6 -8 century Pendjikent, and somewhat more distantly the Uigurian Kocho and 9th century Bezeklik display ritual,
2 V der W ga , Sinica Franciscana l, Quaracchi-Firenze 1929.
3 L. Ligeti, Histoire secrete des Mongois (Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae Collecta , Budapest 1971; I. de Rachewitz, The Secrete Histo ofthe Mongols, in: Papers on the FarEastern Histo 1971-1976.
4 A. von Le Coq, Bilderatlas zur Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Mitte/asiens, Berlin 1925; T. Talbot Rice, Ancient Ar of Centrat Asia, London 1965; L. I. Al aum, tivopis Afrasabia, Taskent 1975; A. M. Belenizki, Mittelasien – Kunst der Sogden, Leipzig 1980.
76
celebratory feasts as weil as nomadic ambassadors who bring presents in small cups. These are distant analogies and far om direct. Still, they shed some light on life in the Sogd oases which were contemporary with the Avar Empire in the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 1).
3) Anima! bones brought to light during the course of archaeological excavations and evaluated by archaeozoologists may be considered a direct sourceofinfonnation.5
4) The same holds true for macrobotanical nds, the systematic study ofwhich has recently begun in Hungary.
In connection with these two groups of sources it must be pointed out that animal bones from food remains in hurials represent only one part of the food given to the deceased for the joumey to the Other World.6 Evidence for foodstuffs that contained no bone is scarce. In addition, it is not sure that such grave goods generally re ect food habits, since tradition may heavily influenced mortuary rituals. Nevertheless, this body of information is one of our most important sources. Anima! bones found at settlements, reasonably interpreted as food remains, are at least not biased by ritual considerations. (In that case, however, it is frequently the exact Stratigraphie and chronolo gical position of nds that poses numerous dif culties).
5) Food habits are also (very prudently) discussed in the historical branch of physical anthropology. Recently, a young anthropologist, Zsolt Bemert, presented such results. He compared skeletal remains of Avar males buried with and without high status belt sets. In his opinion, differences in the condition of teeth (and other skeletal features) may be attributed to variations in Ievels of nutrition. A tribute to the memory of the late Imre Lengyel must also be paid here. The biochemical analysis of the skeletons from the Avar cemetery at Bagyog – Gyürhegy, permitted him to distinguish between two groups of people. He inte reted this division as probably being the result differing food habits, i. e. differential access to nutrients. Indeed, one of these burial groups contained no bodies of privileged persons with belt sets: These all fell into the other group (which also contained people without belt sets).
5 L. Bartosiewicz, Az ällatcsontok eloszläsi rendszere avar temetkezesekben (Anima! o ering dis ibution patte s in Avar burials), Mora Ferenc m Ev nyve 1984- 1985 (Szeged 1986) 77-95.
6 P. Tomka, Archäologische Studien Ethno aphie der awarenzeitlichen Völker, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellscha Wien ! 16 (Wien 1988), 155-188, esp.
163.
77
6) Last but not least, purely archaeological methods are also of help in providing information on gastronomic cultures of the past. lt is not only ancient foods and drinks that are of interest, but also the dishes used. Vessels with special shapes can sometimes yield special information. Naturally, when studying pottery a similarly clear distinction must be made between artifactual evidence from cemeteries and Settlements. Aside from the remains of meat found in grave assemblages, beverages and non-meat dishes are represented by pottery in burials. These were either mundane „table dishes“, or storage vessels in which food could be transported during the long jou ey. Useless or fragmented kitchen refuse as weil as the aforementioned „table dishes“ may be found in Settlements. Moreover, vessels used in cooking and storage also occur, not to speak of features such as storage pits, granaries and other economic buildings important in storing food (or future food in the form of grain saved for sowing). From the viewpoint of gastronomic culture it is very important to know how food was produced. Were they keeping !arge stock or did they live as sheep pastoralists? If land cultivation was practiced or a more complex economy developed, which branch of agriculture dominated? Was animal keeping pursued in a nomadic way, with the constant search for new pastures or did it take the form of range farming that complemented land cultivation? Had hay production and stabling emerged yet?
A few generat limitations should also be mentioned. Different results can be obtained depending on which social stratum is chosen for study. Literary accounts, including that of the much valued report by Priscus, usually concentrate attention on the top Ievels of high society and contain only sporadically occurring notes conceming common people.
Archaeological sources represent almost the diametric opposite of the social scale: They usually consist of nds om simple, everyday life (by contrast, this makes fortunate high status nds even more spectacular). Moreover, conclusions also depend on the occasion being observed: Data may conce ritual occasions or eve day life. Historical reports, iconographic representations and cemeteries tend to represent the rst category, while settlement finds are more characteristic ofthe second.
Following this lengthy introduction, Iet us tu to Huns and Avars. As is the case with most mobile pastoral societies, they predominantly consumed foods of animal origin (In the case of Avars this holds especially true for the rst wave of immigrants into the Carpathian Basin). As is shown by ethnographic paral lels from the recent past (which may be considered the seventh in addition to the aforementioned six sources),
78
Mongois distinguish between two types of food. One of these is „black food“, that is meat, while the other is „white food“, a term that refers to dairy products. Similarly to all steppe peoples, Mongolian meals, especially those related to ritual hospitality were occasions of special feasting that followed a formal order depending on the time and place. It is especially noteworthy that not everybody was given an equal share of food. Some meat cuts were associated with higher social status than others and were considered special delicacies. The seating order and sequence of offering food provided good opportunities to make subtle distinctions between participants at a feast. This fact has been emphasized in all literary records from Attila’s court to the table of the Mongoi khans (The apparent neglect of such orders could sometimes cause violent con icts as is described in the Secret History of the Mongols).7 Mutton assumes a leading roJe in the diet of almost all pastoral peoples. Horse and camels were not eaten under ordinary circumstances but served as food at the time of ritual sacri ces. Beef probably represented a higher status value than mutton, although this latter was also served at grandiose feasts . Almost all litera accounts mention hunted animals and sh (it is typical, however, that their remains occur but very infrequently among the food remains added to the grave goods found in burials). Berries, bulbs and roots, on the other hand, are only mentioned rarely, usually within the context of describing poverty. Poor people consumed anything that was edible, even voles, in the case of Mongolia. As far as beverages are concemed, fermented mare’s milk, miss, assumes a leading role. This is followed by spirits distilled om milk or rice and honey beer. Naturally, the tables of high ranking people were made more attractive by serving a wealth of imported goods. Literary sources, therefore, mention wines with special affection, and one should also reckon with the use of exotic spices.
Archaeological evidence for drinking habits is available in the multitude of jugs, beakers and cups which were produced using a variety of materials and which represent a rich repertoire of forms. As has recently been pointed out by Piroska Füle,8 this richness is especially conspicuous in the artifactual material of the Hunnic Period (Fig. 2). Special examples were found in what is probably the largest known hoard from the Hunnic Empire. (This assemblage, found at the site of Szeged – Nagyszeks6s, is probably a
7 See note 3 and appendix #130.
8 P . Fü1e, D i e Keramik. Hunnische Traditionen und hunnischer Gesclunack, in: Reitervölker aus dem Osten, Hunnen + Awaren, Katalog der Burgenländsi chen Land ausstellungHalbtu 1996, Eisenstadt-Bad Vös1au 1 996, 145-146.
79
burial sacri ce).9 Golden hoops and other pieces ofdecoration from wooden cups in this hoard may be reminiscent of Attila’s drinking cup. They were found together with a Greek cup and Persian goblet, both made of electron, from which, according to reliable literary sources, high ranking guests at the feasts may have consumed their drinks (Fig. 3). A special proble is posed by the nctional reconstruction of the f ous Hunnic Period kettles.10 These usually !arge bronze vessels (50-100 cm height) were molded. Their mode of manufacture and form may be traced back to the ancient ho eland of Huns that was located near the Great Wall of China. Their distribution area corresponds to the vast regions conquered by Huns. Both their size (30- 50-100 I!) and shape indicate the possibility that they se ed in storing and sti ing liquids. lt is impossible to tell, however, whether beverages om them were served during sacri ces, funeral feasts or other celebrations. (Naturally, it is possible that they were used simultaneously for all three purposes; Fig. 4).
Avars had no reason to complain either. The 53 Iiters amphora of the Kunbabony Ieader was obviously not used to import iron nails. Similarly, amphorae of more modest sizes (c. 10 I) found at Kiskörös and Gater, or even the small spherical vessels with two bandies recovered at Däny and Tiszavasvari must have served to store wine from southe regions11 (Fig. 5). Of course, vessel types, potters‘ techniques and trade links chang during the almost 300 years Jong Avar Period in the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 6). Di erent fo s of spouted jugs ( red gray earlier and yellow toward the end ofthe Avar Period; Fig. 7), however survived.12 Find materials from the
9 N. Fettich, La trouvaille de tombe princ lre hunnique a Szeged-Nagyszeks6s, ArchHung 32 (Budapest 1953); A. Kiss, Die goldbeschlagenen Schalen der Fürsten äber von Szeged-Nagyszeks6s und Apahida 1-U, Folia Archaeologica 33 (Budapest I982), 163- 184; B. Kü i, Totenopferrunde aus Szeged-Nagyseks6s, in: Reitervölker aus dem Osten, Hunnen + Awaren, Katalog der Burgenländischen Landesausstellung Halbtu 1996, Eisenstadt-Bad Vöslau 1996,160-164.
10 l. Kovrig, Hunnische Kessel aus der Umgebung von Va alota, Folia Archaeologica 23 (Budapest 1973), 95-121; I. B6na, Das Hunnenreich, Budapest-Stuttgart 1991, esp. 140- 146, 240-241; P. Tomka, Hun üstök ( e Hun Kettles), in: I. B6na-J. Cseh- M. Nagy-P. Tomka-A. Toth, Hunok, Gepidak, Langobardok (Huns, Gepids, Lombards), Szeged 1 993,
26-27.
1 1 E. H. Toth-A. Horväth, Kunb bony. Das Grab eines Awarenkhagans, Keesk et 1 972. 12 E. Garam, A kesö avarkori korongolt särga ker ia – Die spätawarenzeitliche gelbe Keramik, Archaeologiai Ertesito 96 ( 1 969), 207-24 1 ; D. Bialekovä, Z Frage der auen Keramik aus Gräberfeld der Awarenzeit im Karpatenbecken, Slovens Archeologia 1 6 (Bratislava 1 968), 205-228; Gy. Rosner, Die Frage der Schnuckkeramik der Awarenzeit, Acta antiqua et Archaeologica, Szeged 14 ( 1 97 1 ), 9 5 – 1 04; T. Vida,
80
6 -7 centuries are especially outstanding in terms of their variability. Meta! vessels are represented by golden and silver goblets (Fig. 8), handled mugs (Fig. 9) and drinking ho s13 (Fig. 10). A nurober of kinds of glassware produced following the dictates of late Antique taste have also been recovered: Small jugs, glasses, pedestalled goblets and drinking ho s are represented in this category14 (Fig. 1 1). Pottery (rare hand1ed cups, commonly found small pots and mugs) p1aced into graves must also have been used in storing liquids. Flat pottery flasks belong to a type that offers an opportunity to carry out far reaching comparative studies ranging from irghizia to the Rhine River region, not to speak ofthe debate surrounding its origins.15 These nds also show that pottery was used not only to imitate meta] vessels but others types made from organic materials more prone to decay. lt is certain that the group ofwooden vessels was very variable. This is attested by hoop remains as weil as a few fortunate, weil preserved finds. Bronze hoops, iron handles and even pieces of wood from small, cup size, bucket-like wooden vessels are sometimes found. As is shown by bandies made from or covered with meta!, even wooden cups and jugs were made to Iook similar to their counterparts in pottery and metal.16 Meta! rims, used in reinforcing and decorating wooden drinking cups, similar to Hunnic Period nds, have also been recovered. The use of leather containers (like the analogous ethnographic examples of bags used in miss making in the East) is attested by bone spouts (also called suckers).17 In the Budakalasz
Chronologie und Verbreitung einiger awarenzeitlicher Keramiktypen, Antaeus 19-20 (Budapest 1990-1991), 131-134; T. Vida, ceramica, in: Gli avari, Udine 1995, 103- 111.
13 E. Garam, Katalog der awarenzeitlichen Goldgegenstände undderFundstücke aus den Fürstengräbe im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum, Budapest 1993; Gy. Läszl6, Etudes archeologiques sur l’histoire de Ia societe des Avars, ArchHung 34 (Budapest 1955).
1 4 E . G a r a m , A w a r e n z e i t l i c h e G l a s t r i n k g e fä s s e a u s K i s k ö r e , A c t a A r c h a e o l o g i c a
15 Gy. Rosner, Megjegyzesek avar kori kulacsok idörendje�ez – Bemerkun en �
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25 (1973), 279-288; E. Bärdos, La necropoli di
Zamärdi, in: GliAvari, Udine 1995, 151-163.
Problem der awarenzeitlichen Pilgerflaschen, Beri Balogh Adam Muzeum Evkönyve (Szekszärd 1984) 81-104.
16 E. H. Toth-A. Ho äth, op. cit. (Kunbäbony), 183-191; S.B. Sza äri, Das Gräb ld von Oroszlany und seine Stelle in der awarenzeitlichen Metallkunst, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientia m Hungaricae 32 (1980), 97-1 16.
17 Gy. Läszl6, Adatok avarsäg neprajzähoz – Bei äge Volkskunde d Awaren I, ArchaeologiaErtesito !Wl (Budapest 1940),91-98.
81
nd, direct evidence exists in the form of the remains of a leather container which could be identified by Ferenc Gyulai and his colleagues. 1 8
The hypothesis that not all vessels found in Avar graves contained beverages must also be considered. Young children or the toothless elderly at least, may have been given some sort of a mushy meal for the ete al jou ey.
In addition to the aforementioned vessel types, !arger cooking pots, storage vessels, hand-fo ed pottery kettles, Iids and baking bells are also known from Settlements (Fig. 1 2), especially om the second half of the Avar Period.19 (lt must be noted that some bronze kettles, wooden buckets with iron hoops and barreis are also known om this period). In spite of all signs pointing toward the far away grasslands of the East, Inner or Central Asia, as weil as tempting stylistic and technological similarities, this set of vessels (as weil as the variability of forms characteristic of Hunnic Period pottery) is not typical of !arge perpetually moving nomadic communities. In the case of the Huns a relatively plausible explanation for this phenomenon can be suggested. Pottery from their settlements, as weil as the bronze vessel/clay jug/glass assemblages recovered om their graves may reflect the pottery-making traditions and eating habits of conquered peoples (Goths, Gepids, Alanians, Sa atians, Suebi and Pannonians). Glassware of Pontic origin, bread remains20 found in an oven at Devin!Deveny and the barley and honey beer ( mon and medos) provided for the Byzantine ambassadors may be considered signs of such continuity.
The situation Iooks different in the case of the Avars. Another point can be made here that reconfi s our conclusions drawn om a different type of data. Apparently, the conquering Avars soon gave up their nomadic way of life. People in their agricultural villages established in the Carpathian Basin became similar to their sedentary neighbors of Germanic, Slavic or Late Antique ancestry also engaged in land cultivation. Their state organization, weaponry and traditional attire, however, remained di erent (reflecting their steppe heritage).21 Especially during the early phase of the
1 8 F. Gyulai’s paper was read in Pecs, September 28, 1 996.
19 I. B6na, VIL szäzadi avar települesek es Arpad-kori magyar falu Dunaujvarosban –
Awarische Siedlungen aus dem 7. Jahrhundert und ein ungarisches Dorf aus der Awarenzeit in Dunaujvaros, FontesArchHung, Budapest 1 9 7 3 ; Cs. Bälint, Die awarenzeitliche Si lung von Epeljes, Varia ArchHung 4 (Budapest 1 9 9 1 ).
2° K. Pieta, Die Völkerwanderungszeit in der Slowakei, in: Germanen, Hunnen, Awaren, Nümberg 1987, 383-417, esp. 408.
21 P. Tomak, Magänbeszed avarokr61 – On the Avars – a personal view, Eletünk 35 (Szombathely 1 997), 68-75, esp. 73.
82
Avar Period, but sometimes in Late Avar communities as well, animal keeping also retained a major signi cance. I wish to emphasize that nds relevant to Avar animal busband display great regional and diachronic variability both at settlements and in cemeteries.22 Without trying to intrude into the realm of archaeozoology, I must mention a personal observation here. At least as may be visually appraised during the excavations at Late Avar Period cemeteries in the Small Hungarian Plain in northweste Hungary, grave iture tends to contain diachronicalty increasing proportians of bones from pig and poultry (both chicken and goose) in addition to the usual remains of sheep and cattle. Grinding stones found in Avar viltages not only show that grain was tu ed into our but, indirectly, also indicate that bread or other sorts of food made from dough was consumed. Cereal cultivation is also evidenced by the numerous storage pits found at settlements. Neither can the semi-subterranean earthen sheds and hay storage features identified at some Settlements be considered typical nomadic constructions.23
The assumption that nomadic traditions were prese ed Iongest by the Ieaders in the top Ievels of society, is clearly illustrated by the Nagyszent mikl6s Treasure, the most glamorous hoard nd ever recovered in the Carpathian Basin. The 23 golden vessels included jugs, goblets, cups, beakers, bowls, delicacy plates and a drinking ho 24 (Fig. 13; this assemblage was sub-divided into two major sets by Gyula Laszl6). That these magnificent pieces were of Avar manufacture is no Ionger in question (The debates that remain conce their last owner and the time they were hidden). The in-depth analysis of them provided an excellent opportunity for Gyula Laszl6 to summarize the infonnation available on the dazzling feasts beld by nomadic sovereigns with references ranging from Priskhos to travellers of the Mongoi Period. I would give a Iot to be able to join a party where the table is set with the Nagyszentmikl6s Treasure …
2 2 J . Gy. Szab6, A Mä a-videki avar kori temetök ällatcsontleleteinek nehäny tanulsaga Einige Lehren aus den Tierknochen nden der awarenzeitlichen Gräber lder im Ma a Gebiet, SzolnokMe ei MitzeumokEv nyve (Szolnok 1981), 65-70.
23 P. To a, Avar kori települes Györ, Bokänyi Dezsö utcäban – Si lung aus der Awarenzeit in der Bokänyi Dezsö S asse von Györ, Arrabona 24-25 (Györ 1 988), 35-6 1 . 24 Gy. Usz16-I.Räcz, Der Goldschatz von Na szentmik s, Budapest-Wien-München 1977.
83
Appendix
The following small collection of sentences from „The Secret Histo of the Mongols“ (using the English translation by I. De Rachewitz) is grouped by topics conceming food, eating and hospitality. This selection, however, is far from complete.
#167 „Arechokedbywhitemilk
suffocated by black meat“, that is, at an old age. This quote refers to dairy products and meat.
Within the category of common food, sheep is mentioned most commonly:
# 1 9 „She was cooking some dried lamb, she gave to each of them an arrow-sha …“
# 279 Taxing order by Genghis Khan: „…every year from these people one two-year-old sheep out of every ock shall be given as a Jevy for Our soup… (i. e. for the support of the Qahan). They shall also provide one sheep out ofevery hundred sheep and give it to the poor… “
Meat soup (usually made from mutton) is a frequent topic:
# 1 24 Genghis Khan appoints the cooks. One of them, Degey, swears: „In making broth ofa two-year-old wether …
I will tend pied sheep …
And tripe will I eat.“
# 2 1 4 „When we were engaged in battle with the enemy
you did not Iet me spend the night without soup.“
# 229 „The following mo ing, the quiver-bearers, day-guards and stewards who have spent the night outside shall stay at the horse station (…) while We eat Our soup, then, they will repo to the night guards. When We have nished eating Our mo ing soup, the quiver bearers shall retu to their quivers, the day-guards to their appointed place and the stewards to their bowls and vessels.“
84
Cattle is also mentioned:
# 2 1 4 A black ox with a truncated ho was slaughtered behind the yurt for the kitchen.
Game is mentioned several times:
# 1 2 „Dobun-mergen went out hunting on the Toqochaq Heights . . .
He met a man of the Urianqqai tribe who bad killed a three-year-old deer and was roasting its ribs and entrails …“
# 54 „At that time Yisügey ba’atur was hunting with falcons . . . “
# 175 The poorly supplied army procured food by hunting: „… were moving in this way, hunting for provisions …“
Fishing occurs in
# 76 „Qasar, Bekter, Belgütei … were sitting together and were angling.“
Porridge is mentioned within the context ofthe people’s etimology in
# 46 „Barulatai … he had a big body and was a voracious eater … Qaraldai did not observe seniority when they cooked porridge.“
Naturally, drinks are amply discussed as weil:
# 85 „The thing about this was that in it, a er pouring milk, kumis was chu ed all throughout the night until dawn. As he went, he kept listaining for this sign.“
# 213 When Genghis Khan sits on the throne, he said to the cooks: „When you take your seats, you must sit so to Iook a er the food on the right and the le sides ofthese !arge kumis pitchers.“
# 232 „When the quiver-bearers distribute drink and oof, they must not
do so without permission om the supervising night-guards.“
# 245 The seven all entered and, as Teb-tenggeri sat down on the right
side of the kurois pitchers, Otchigin seized the collar of Teb-tenggeri
II
Poor people ate anything they could get hold of:
# 26 (Bodonchar) „They also picked up and ate the food Je over by the wolves …“
85
#27″Whenspringcameandtheducksbegantoarrive,hestaived his hawk 0 00 He hung the captured ducks and wild geese aii over till .. 0 “
# 28 However, he also „went to these people and drank kumis with them .. o“
# 74 Höelün „gathered wild apples and berries . . 0 “
# 76 „A shiny minnew was caught, which Bekter and Belgütei snatched away from Temüjin and Qasar“o
# 84 Höelün and his deprived family „ate bulbs dug up“ om the eartho
# 89 „Here they stayed, killing marmots and fieldmice for food.“
Goat’s milk is not considered an elegant drink:
# 1 77 (The eeing of Ong Khan is sardonicaily described by Genghis Khan):“You seized ve goats and fed yourself by milking them, and fed yourselfby bleeding your camels.“
On feasts:
#130 „. . . decided to hold a feast in the forest by the Onan .. 0 in the course of feasting, one jug of kumis was rst poured for Chinggis qahan .. o As one jug was also poured starting with Ebegei, the concubine of Sacha-beki’s father, both Qorijin-qatun and Qu’urchin qatun said „why don’t you pour beginning with me, but beginning with Ebegei?“ And they thrashed the steward Shiki’üro Being thrashed, the steward Shiki’ür said: – What sort of thing is it, your thrashing me like this, just because Yisügei-ba’adur and Nekün-taishi are dead? – So he spoke, and cried loudly“o
# 1 8 7 Genghis Khan is granting a privilege: „You, Badai and Kishiliq, shaii carry quivers and drink the ceremonial wine .. o “
# 2 1 3 H e said further „When you, the two stewards Önggür and Boro’ul, distribute food to the right and le sides,
Do not Iet it faii short
For those who stand or sit
On the right side,
Do not Iet it fall short
For those who stand in a row
Or who do not
on the le side
If you two distribute the food this way, my throat wiii not choke and my mind wiii be at rest.“
86
Finally, a datum that shows that things given for an earthly joumey corresponded, almost in every detail, to grave goods found in Migration Period burials:
# 87 „He (Sorqan-shira) set him (Temüjin) on a tawny barren mare with a white mouth, cooked him a lamb fattened on the milk of two ewes and provided him with a small and a large leather bucket. He did not give him either saddle or int and steel, but gave him a bow and two arrows. Having thus provided for him, he sent him on his way.“
Literature
A Mangolok titkos törtenete (The Secret History of the Mongois – Hungarian anslation by Lajos Ligeti), Budapest 1962.
Bartosiewicz, L. Az ällatcsontok elosz1äsi rendszere avar t etkezesekben (The dis bution systems of animal bon in Avar buria1s), Mora Ferenc Mzizeum ev nyve, Szeg (1986) 77-95.
B6na, I. – Cseh, J. – Nagy, M. – Tomka, P. – T6th, A. Hunok, gepidak, langobardok (Huns, Gepids, Lombards), Szeg 1993.
Gar , E. A kesö avar-kori korongolt särga kerämia, Archaeologiai Ertesitö 96 (1969) 207-24 1 .
Gar , E . Awarenzeitliche Glas in gef se aus Kisköre, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarom Hungaricae 25 (1973) 279-288.
H. T6th, E. – Horväth, A. Kunbdbony. Das Grab eines Awarenkhagans, Keesk et 1992. Läszl6, Gy. – Räcz, I. A na szentmik/6si kincs (The Nagyszen ik16s Treasure).
Budapest 1977.
Napkeletfe/f ezese (Discovering the East), Ed. Gy. Györ . Budapest 1965.
B6na, I. A hunok es na kiralyaik (The Huns and their great kings), Budapest 1993.
B6na, I. V . szäzadi avar települesek es Arpoo-kori magyar falu Dunaujvärosban (A seventh cent avar settlements and a Hungarian village from the Period of the ad DynastyinDunaujväros),FontesArch.Hung.Budapest 1993.
87
Nemeth, Gy. Attila hunjai (Attila’s Huns), Budapest 1 940.
Rachewitz, I. de: The Secret History of the Mongols. : Papers on the Far Easte
Histo 1971-1976.
Reitervöl r aus dem Osten. Hunnen, Awaren, Katalog der Burgenländischen
Landesausstellung, Haltbum 1996, Eisenstadt-Bad Vöslau 1996.
Rosner, Gy. Megjegyzesek avar kori kulacsok idörendjehez (Comments on the chronology of Avar Period flat asks), Beri Balogh Adam Muzeum Evkön e (1984) olda1sz ?
Szab6 J. Gy. A Mätra-videki avar kori temetök ällatcsont leleteinek nehäny tanulsäga (Some conclusions drawn from animal hone nds of Avar Period cemeteries in the Mä a Region), Szolnok Me ei Muzeumok Evkön e ( 1 9 8 1 ) 65-70.
To a, P. Kis avar neprajz (Little Avar ethno aphy), : Az öshazät61 a Kärpäto g, Budapest 1985,270-313.
Vida, T. Chronologie und Verbreitung einiger awarenzeitlicher Keramiktypen, Antaeus 19-20 (1990-91) 131-144.
88
Fig. 1 : Drawing of a mural from Pendj ikent
Fig. 2: Jug from Körösladany (Hun Period, 5 c.) 89
Fig. 3 : Gold goblet from the Szeged-Nagyszeks6s treasure (Hun Period, 5’h c.)
Fig. 4: Kettle from Törtel (Hun Period, 5’h c.) 90
Fig. 5: Amphorae: I . Dany , 2. Tiszavasvari , 3. Kiskörös , 4. Gater, 5. Kunbabony (Avar Period, 7th c. AD.)
91
m o
o
mmmuUö
Fig. 6: Hand-made vessel types (Avar Period, 6-8’h c.)
B �
‚/0a t Jd�o
Fig. 7: Yellow potteries (Avar Period, 8’h c.) 92
OO
Fig. 8: Gold goblet om B6csa (Avar Period, 7’h c.) 93
2
3
56
Fig. 9: Silver and gold mugs: 1 . Ozora, 2. Kunbäbony, 3. B6csa, 4. Kunägota, 5. Kiskörös, 6. Kirgisia (Av Period, 7 c.)
94
4
Fig. 10: Gold and silver rhytons: l . Nagyszentmikl6s, 2. Szeged-Atokhäza, 3. Kunbabony, 4. Kunbabony, 5. B6csa, 6. Maloye Pereshchepino,
7. Kunbabony (Avar Period, 7-81h c.)
Fig. l l : Glass jug om Zamardi (Avar Period, 6’h c.) – a er Bardos 95
I I
Fig. 12: Potte om Settlements (Late Avar Pe od, 8’h c.)
96
Fig. 1 3 : Gold vessel types om the Nagyszentmikl6s treasure 81h c.)
97
(Avar Period,
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