2 74 Conclusion
is examined by G. Györffy with regard to the Magyar economy in Pannonia.25
G. Markov gives various examples of combined stock-breeding and agriculture.
He believes that farming, handicrafts and trade played a larger or smaller role
in the nomadic economy that was otherwise dominated by stock-breeding.26
His conclusions indicate that in this regard there is no significant difference
between the eastern and the western parts of the Eurasian Steppe.
According to T. Noonan, the theory about the dependence of the steppe
communities on their sedentary neighbors is inapplicable to the Khazar
Khaganate. He compares the Khazar economy with the typically nomadic
economy of the Pechenegs and the Cumans from the same territory and arrives
at the conclusion that various nomadic peoples who inhabit the same territory
during different time periods can develop very different economies. Of signifi-
cant importance as well is the presence or lack of a sufficiently strong and cen-
tralized state apparatus.27 Since large numbers of the Pechenegs and Cumans
had a mixed (stock-breeding and agricultural) economy before migrating to
Europe, this conclusion needs additional clarification.28
The fragmentary archaeological data shows that some of the Pechenegs and
the Cumans engaged in agriculture even after their migration to Europe (in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries). The possible role of the remaining seden-
tary Saltovian population should also be noted. Sources tell of urban (settle-
ment) centers, subject to the Cumans and located in the steppe zone (along
the Severski Donets), as well as in the Crimea. Similar centers were also cre-
ated by the Kievan Rus’-dependant alliance between the Oghuz (Torks) and
the Pechenegs in the Ros’ Region. The Cumans were bound to the Chernihiv
principality.29 An important factor determining the development of the steppe
statehood and economy is the symbiosis that these steppe tribes formed with
the Rus’ principalities in the forest-steppe zone.30
his work Kochevye gosudarstva ot gunnov do man’chzhurov (Moscow, 1997) remained
unattainable for me.
25 Györffy 1975, quoted from Noonan 1995–1997, 254.
26 Markov 1976.
27 Noonan 1995–1997, 293–294.
28 The economy of the Kipchaks in the Kimek State is defined as semi-sedentary (Kumekov
1972, 88). On the Pechenegs and their ties to the late period of the Dzhetyasar culture
(with a mixed economy) along the lower reaches of the Syr Darya, see Vainberg 1990,
100–103, 283–285, and 292–293; Levina 1996.
29 On the Cumans and the Pechenegs in Europe, see Pletneva 1958, 1981c, 1973, and 1990;
Stoianov 2006a, as well as the works of P. Golden in Golden 2003.
30 On this issue especially, see Gumilev 1997, 21–23 and 38–40, as well as Stoianov 2006a,
175–177. Although it is completely logical, Gumilev’s theory on the symbiosis between the