2 introduction
it’ have a very dynamic nature and, in fact, form the ground for the self
identification and for the development of one’s self culture. Moreover,
exactly that self culture discovers and defines its specific features and
peculiarities only in the process of understanding the foreign/other cul-
ture and in communication with it. We can therefore accept as valid
that one’s own culture is created by uniting two possibilities: the first
one consists of the ability to discern the Self from the Other and the
other’s culture; the second one—to open the Self for the Other and
the other’s culture; it is nothing more but a dynamic balance between
‘openness’-‘closeness’ towards the Other.^2
Such issue requires an interdisciplinary approach and, as a con-
sequence, the use of various methodologies and research methods,
because the notions of Other and its representations are often variable
quantities just as the Other is a variable quantity too. However, the
Other is not only the foreigner (a representative of another tribe/state)
but also someone from ‘another’ social group, religion, culture, sex/
gender, etc.^3
The present study aims at bringing light, by means of comparison,
on problems that have not been paid enough attention by historians.^4
Until now, it has been the notions of the Other (the “barbarians” being
implied) of the sedentary civilizations which usually have been a sub-
ject of analyses and interpretations, a fact that results from a number
of objective reasons.^5 One of the most important reasons is related to
the existence of an ancient written tradition among sedentary societ-
ies such as ancient Greece, Persia, China, the Roman and the Byzan-
tine Empires providing the opportunity of accumulation of enough
amount of information to make the description of the notions and
the images of the Other and the otherness far easier. However, here I
(^2) See, Odissei 1993. Obraz ‘drugogo’ v kul’ture, Moscow, 1994, 5.
(^3) Odissei 1993 [1994], 7.
(^4) This is explicitly declared by, Seaman 1991, 3. One of the exceptions is, Litavrin
1986, 100–108, but here, too, the analysis is centered mainly around examples taken
from the Slav-speaking countries; Litavrin also touches upon important questions that
refer to methodological issues. The study of Golden 2003, has different purposes and
the author is not indeed interested in questions such as ‘identity’ and ‘otherness’. 5
The literature on this question is considerable. For instance see, Hartog 1980
(the same in English—1988); Ahrweiler 1998, 1–15; Angelov 1994, 18–32; Angelov
- As regards the question about the notions of ‘Other’, on the level sedentarists-
sedentarists, and that of the Westerners towards the Byzantines in particular, see,
Wickham 1998, 245–256.