| Popis: |
The author offers an overview of the terms existing in historiography for the nomadic societies of the Eurasian steppes in the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. According to the author, the definition of “militarized” communities does not apply to nomads whose combat skills were not the result of militarization conducted by the authorities, but grew out of the lifestyle itself. The author uses the comparative method by means of comparing the main institutions of European civilization, on the one hand, and ones of the nomadic world of Eurasia, on the other. The important role of linguistics of the 18th–19th centuries in the establishment of scientific criteria for the ethnic classification of humankind is noted. The author pays attention to the interference of politics in modern disputes about the historical heritage of the nomadic Iranian-speaking tribes (Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans) using the example of litigation around the fate of “Scythian gold” (Crimean museums). The humanitarian character of historical research, the connection with the literary form of presentation is emphasized. The author consistently rejects insufficient terms and concepts that use analogies with European feudal society (“chivalry”), are based on linguistic or ethnic unity (Scythians, Alans), forms of political organization (“empire”) or level of social development (“barbarism”). The term “nomads” still remains the most acceptable. |
