About 
For almost two centuries the Cuman-Qïpchaq Tribal community enjoyed an unchallenged domination over the steppes of Western Eurasia, which became to be known as the Cuman Field (Dasht-i Qipchāq, Pole Polovetskoe, Cumania). However, this favorable situation dramatically changed in the first decades of the 13th c., when the advancing Mongol armies started a series of campaigns aimed at the subjugation of the numerous nomadic inhabitants of the Cuman Field. Motivated by their project for pan-nomadic empire and worried by the possible repercussions of the stubborn Cuman-Qïpchaq resistance among other steppe dwellers, the Chinggisids put every effort to impose their authority over these tribes.
The present lecture of Dr. Konstantin Golev, researcher from the Institute of History of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and adjoin researcher from the St. Kliment Ohridski University in Sofia, will examine the contrast models of behavior, adopted by the various Cuman-Qïpchaq groupings in the face of the inevitable Mongol menace.
The lecture will take place on February 14 2018 at 14.00 in the SAS Institute of Archaeology, Akademická 2 in Nitra.
The archaeology of personal identities has firmly established age, gender and status as relevant categories of investigation. Beyond the recognition that not all women and men led identical lives, however, there has been little effort to unravel the diversity of gendered lives. Women’s lives may have differed significantly according to their reproductive status – whether they were infertile, had few or many surviving children. Craft specialists of both genders may have led lives that took them away from their communities and brought them into contact with different ways of living. Similarly, medical or ritual specialists of both genders may be integral to many societies. Further, the mechanisms by which men turned into warriors are still little understood – was being a warrior part of every man’s lifecycle, was this particular identity restricted to a certain age group or class, or were other selection mechanisms at play? Some aspects of personal identity may not be gendered at all. Was gender relevant for making pots or taking care of children?