INTRODUCTION
Over the last two-three decades the problem of alterity (and the closely
related problem of identities^1 ) has turned into a much-debated issue.
This study is another proof of its importance. The real image or the
notion of the Other is created most of all in a dialogical interaction
with me or us. In this very case it reflects the situation ‘we vs. them’
since it is a basic one for the pre-modern (or traditional) societies that
used to create their (self )notions mostly on the mental horizons and
markers for the identification of the own and other/foreign set by the
community and the traditions. The dichotomy is of great assistance
to traditional societies, who typically employ ideologies distinguishing
them from other communities, in order to build a sense of self-iden-
tity. It is especially true for the ones I have designated as “significant
neighbor(s)”, i.e. the societies which were stronger and more advanced
as far as economy, politics, and culture are concerned. They are the
ones who serve as a mirror—when one is looking at them, one finds
out who one actually is. This way they also generate problems for they
urge one to compare and/or compete with them, to develop together
with them as well as to change and learn more about oneself by learn-
ing more about the others.
In the philosophy-driven anthropology, drawing a border between
self and other (sometimes the other is considered as a threatening
foreigner) is related to the problem of the position of the person in
the environment. However, humans create their ‘own places’ not only
in the natural environment; humans aspire to create their own micro-
cosmos where the complex relations between ‘I’ and ‘you’ and ‘he/she/
(^1) The literature referring to the essence, construction mechanisms, etc. of different
identities is in fact enormous. Axiomatic in this field are the well known books of
E. Gelner, A.D. Smith, and B. Anderson but they touch mostly upon problems con-
cerning national states’ building in the Modern period. For us, and for the purposes of
this study in particular, more appropriate seem books that deal with the Middle Ages
and their characteristics and peculiarities. For instance see, “Concepts of National
Identity in the Middle Ages”, published in Leeds (1995), and also: Geary 1983, 15–26;
Geary 2002; On Barbarian Identity 2002; Pohl 1991, 39–49; Pohl 1998, 15–24; Pohl
1998b, 17–69; Reynolds 1998, 17–36. But we should bear in mind that these books
and articles deal mostly with Europe! For the purposes of this study, Kovalev 2005,
220–253, is an interesting article which deserves special attention.