CAPITOLUL-UNGURI-SECUI-VLACHI-SAXONES.docx

8/10/2019 CAPITOLUL-UNGURI-SECUI-VLACHI-SAXONES.docx

1/5

12. 3. The ethnicity of the population in the churchyard cemeteries from Transylvanian Basin From the beginning of the 20th century on, culture and ethnic identity were interpreted

according to the widely accepted theory of Gustav Kossina, who stated that geographical units arecharacterized by unified cultures and these indicateethnic entities (K OSSINA1936, 315; K OSSINA1911). Later the central-eastern European experts who adopted Kossinas original theory debased it toa vulgar level.1 It is also dangerous that in many cases a particular ethnicity is considered a biologicalor linguistic formation and not as the sociological construction of a historical-chronological problem.It is also telling that our archaeologies hardly paid any attention to the rethinking of ethnicity.2 Fromthis theory of Kossinasarcheological cultures have grown, whose counterparts are the modernnational cultures , which were developed during the construction of nations in the 19th century. Thisway a modern concept has been thrust upon population structures which have nothing to do with it(mainly because of the chronology of their development). So when experts talked about the elementsof the Glina or Coofeni cultures bringing back to our mind the 20th century Romanian national- political unity, mentally they had in mind the institutional structures of the modern state because theymeant by this term all the elements of the material culture that were common in this area. This way ofthinking makes it possible for the archaeologist to reach different people who lived long ago, based onthe elements of this archeological culture, different migrations and international relations can be

reconstructed, and they can understand the process of the ethnogenesis of various people. However,the unity of an archeological culture is not Kossinas invention, but the mental construction of the19th century, and if we may say so, it is only Kossinas development, behind which a modern myth,the myth of national unity, is lurking (BOIA 1999, 157). Such a myth of unity is created by the socallednational culture .

Certainly, the relation betweenmaterial culture and ethnos is much more complicated.3 Therelation between ethnicity and material culture (in this case archaeological culture) is mobile,unstable, and fluid. One cannot clearly identify in tombs the remains of individuals belonging to oneethnic group or the other. It is not ethnical identities detectible in the archaeological inventory butvarious distinctive cultural archaeological signs, traditions, relations, and blending that can usually beonly indirectly related to different identities. One must also say that any human being can have severalidentities, so we only subjectively choose ethnical one, such as Avar or Hungarian conqueror because in any other given period of time some other identities could have been more important thanduring the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We mention that no population mentioned in narrativesources in the Carpathian Basin in the early medieval period can be associated or identified with anyanthropological type or types, and no anthropological type can be associated with any ethnic group.

So it can be seen that the archaeological finds give us little possibility to express clear cutethnic interpretations. However, it may be assumed that by the 12th century, in the valleys of theMure/Maros andSome/Szamos, due to the 10th and 11th century immigrations and the sociological processes of acculturation and assimilation generated by the institutions of the polifunctional 10thcentury nomadic state and the 11th century Christian kingdom, we can talk about a Hungarianentity. Certainly, knowing medieval realities, this terminology must be used with care, aware of thefact that the entity itself underwent major changes during 300 years (from 896 to 1200). What wasmeant by Hungarian in the 10th century and what was meant by it in the 12th century were twodifferent realities. The cultural origins of these immigrant acculturised-assimilated Hungarian populations must have been varied, colourful, which is shown by the fact that besides the Hungarian place names, a considerable amount of them can be traced back to Slavonic origins. In archaeologicaldiscussions, the population of the Slavonic cremation burials has somehow been neglected, although based upon the place names, it seems clear that those who organised the state in the 10th and 11thcenturies, must have contacted this people. From the 10th century, the times before the network ofsettlements was established in the area of the River Szamos, we only have data about the cemeteries

1 It has been said in lots of studies from the 60s to these days thatnecropola aparinea populaiei proto -romne i se dateaz n secolele V VII . A good analysis on the documentational foundation of thesetheories, see HARHOIU 2004, 149 167.2

The issue of ethnos has been discussed both in Hungarian and in Romanian archeology: NICULESCU1997, 63 69; CURTA2004, 525; BLINT2006, 277 347; LZRESCU2008, 5577; NICULESCU2011, 5 24.3 On the classification of these systems see: JONES 1997, 106127.


2/5

of some political-military centres, so there are grounds to suppose that the population of the 7th 9th century cremation burials(Dbca, Jucu, Someeni)was partly integrated by the new conquerors inthe 10th century, on the other hand, in the 11th century the kingdom started a new wave of gradualimmigration similarly to that in the Maros valley, which was accompanied by the establishment ofChristian institutions. In our opinion, the early Hungarian place names in Northern Transylvania can be connected to the population that migrated here in the 11th century as we dont know of any typical10th century cemetery of common people in this area. We have reasons to suppose that the cemeteriesof the population of cremation burials can be dated up to the end of the 10th century, similarly to Littleand Great Poland, where cremation burials were carried out as late as the beginning of the 11th century. (JADEWSKI 1949, 91 191; MIKIEWICZ 1969, 241 302; ZOLL-ADAMIKOWA 1979; ZOLL-ADAMIKOWA 1998, 227 238). Having investigated the area of settlements that has been mapped basedupon the excavated cemeteries in the valley of the Little Szamos and its side valleys, the conclusioncan be drawn that churchyard cemeteries exactly indicate the places of settlements outlining thenetwork, which was established in the 11th century by the Hungarian Kingdom, based upon earlierfoundations. The place names allow us to suppose a considerable amount of Hungarian speaking people.4

In these settlements different social classes can be assumed. Monasteries provide a good

example of this, (FGEDI 1991, 58 59; WERBCZY 1990, 269: Titulus CXXXIII. 8. ; MAROSI 1999,15; SZAKCS 2004, 75), whose ethnic characteristic was secondary and we would not encourageanyone to make such analyses.

Although it seems that the forced search for ethnicity in the middle reaches of the RiverMaros and the valley of the Small Szamos in the western half of the basin, which revolved aroundchurchyard cemeteries but led nowhere, is drawing to an end (GLL 2011, ?), the situation in theeastern and south-eastern parts of the basin is completely different. In this area there is a war ofnumbers going on concerning whether particular cemeteries can be classified as Szkely or Germanic.The system of criteria set up by experts applying theretrospective 5 method, which is based on theDarwinist conception6 or the method ofgemischte Argumentationen , has two basic features: 1.Szkely cemeteries are rich in furnishings, in contrast with this, 2. Germanichospes cemeteries have poor furnishings and in the latter ones there are somemummy-shaped graves, which are considered

ethnic characteristics. (IONI 2010, 389390). The first problem with this theory is that it does nottake macroregional funerary fashion into account, which can be connected to different elites in thefirst phase of its catching on, but any social segment can copy them, especially when it does not incurany cost such asmummy-shaped graves .7 Several different kinds of misconceptions have to berefuted: 1. the Germanichospes population was not homogeneous (and therefore it had nohomogeneous identity), and the community that was later namedSaxon , received its community legalstatus from the Hungarian Kingdom at the beginning of the 13th century (Aranybulla 1224); 2.a. Froman archaeological point of view, the theory of the line between the rich and the poor outlined abovecannot be held as the cemetery inDrueni, which has been categorised ashospes , does not have any poorer furnishings than those in Doboka-Area IV or A. Tamass Garden or the necropolis in Moreti or the cemetery inAvrmeti, which is in the Szkely Land but had at least as poor furnishings as thecemetery excavated in Feldioara; 2.b. The debate has not yet been decided in the case of thecemeteries in Petfalva and Zabola, which have been cited as examples of cemeteries with rich gravefurnishings, and these were the cemeteries of Hungarian, Szkely and Slavonic border patrols (BENK 2010, ?); 2.c. However, it has to be noted that in the cemetery inMoreti, which has been classified asSzkely, the excavated cemeteries show some characteristics of Western-European fashion (such ashair pins, which were characteristic of western hairstyle) which can be connected to immigranthospes (!!); 3. Based upon historical and demographic data, one cannot talk about a Saxon Land in the 12th

4 In this sense we can cite the chronicle form Echternachi:according to this chronicle countless Hungarians were killed by Tatars until they passed throughthe Mese Gates towards the Hungarian Great Plain.5 The criticism of theretrospective method, in connection with the so called Orient preference: BLINT 1999,13 16; BLINT 2004, 246 252; BLINT 2007, 545 567.6

A detailed criticism on Darwinism, see: K UHN 2006.7 As we have already pointed out the rise in the popularity of horse burials after the Hungarian conquest mighthave been such an example of funerary fashion. GLL 2010, 303, Fig. 18.


3/5

century, let alone the identification of cemeteries as the formation of Saxon entity is the result of along historical process (K RIST 2004, 185203), the area that later became known as Saxon Land inSouthern and North-Eastern Transylvania was inhabited by communities of different ethnic groups( Hungarians, Szkelys, Vlachs, Slavs);8 4. The mummy-shaped graves and the tombs built of bricks and stones excavated in the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom show such diversity (just a fewexamples: Frumueni/Schndorf/Szpfalu/Seredin, Szentes, Tui/Ttfalud/Totfalu, Esztergom-Zsidd, Szombathely, Budapest, Kna, Eger, Kaposvr, Babcsa), (Molnr 2005, 110; Trk 2005, Fig. 5) which cannot be connected to thehospes exclusively, it can rather be interpreted as a 12th centurymacroregional funerary fad . We also have to bear it in mind that: 4.a. We must ask the question how precisely the cemeteries concerned were excavated: apart from the precise excavation carried out byIstvn Mri in 1944 in Cluj, there is no cemetery north of Alba Iulia where exact observations have been made!! Among the 577 graves excavated inDbca Area IV, the shape of the grave wasregistered only in one case, it was registered in two cases in Cluj-Calvaria, and in the cemeteries inDbca-A. Tamas Garden, Moldoveneti-Unitarian church, Gilu and irioarathe shapes of thegraves have not been documented at all; 4.b. in vast ranges of the Carpathian Basin, the shapes ofgraves have not been preserved in the sandy soil. Cemetery IIIII in Karos is a good example of this,where no grave shape could be documented (R VSZ 1996).

The ethnogenesis of theSzkelys is also the result of a long legal and political process. Our personal opinion is that the formation of this entity as a separate one in the Middle Ages can beconnected to the social processes accompanying the westernisation that took place in the 11th century in the Hungarian Kingdom. During this process some groups could retain their military privileges, and on the other hand, they received new rights according to the new conditions. Similarlyto the Saxon ethnicity, Szkely ethnicity consisted of heterogeneous elements both in anthropologicaland in linguistic aspects. Due to the analyses carried out by Lrn Benk, it is known that it coveredvery heterogeneous language groups (BENK 1999, 114116;K RIST 1996, 6668), but we cannottell anything about their anthropological features as this kind of research has not yet been startedexcept for two cemeteries. In our opinion, the formation of their ethnicity was also due to the kingdomand similarly to the Saxons, it was due to their privileges and their historical appearance can be datedto the 11th century. The most important evidence of this is that there is no mention of the Szkelys in

the written sources in the 11th century (K ORD 1994, 623), so this group as an entity is unknown to thewritten sources. It was not just the Szkelys who formed an entity, the nobility with their western

origins as a social class that existed in the Middle Ages as a separatenatio , was also formed as a resultof some social processes and the political and institutional systems of that age. This opinion of ourscan also be supported by negative evidence: in the 11th century written sources several ethnic groupsare mentioned (Pechenegs, Germanic and Italianhospes ): for instance, the Pechenegs were firstmentioned in the army of Andrew I in his war against Henry III, on the western border land of thekingdom (TTH 1994, 101). The question may arise: if the Szkelys were incidentally mentioned onthe western border land in the first quarter of the 12th century, how come that they were not known inthe 11th century? It seems that the only logical explanation is they did not exist as a social or political-military-legal entity.

Our written sources on Vlach entity,9 similarly to those on Szkely entity, are dated later thanthe 11th century. However, in contrast with Szkely ethnicity, in the case of Romanian entity, onecannot talk about a group with unified legal status. On the other hand, the appearance of entity inTransylvania is not the result of the development of legal and political institutions, but a northsouthmigration of some groups of the already existing entity, which is revealed by two sources that are notarchaeological ones:

1. Written sources clearly show a migration of Romanian groups from the south to the northfrom the 10th century to the 13th century (BNA 1988, 107194;TTH 1988, 46106;SCHRAMM1997; K RAMER 1999/2000, 105163;STROBEL 20052007, 61166; ): a. the earliest sources

8 The best evidence of this is that most place names in the area that later became the Land of the Saxons are ofeither Hungarian or Slavonic origins. K RIST 2004, 196197. 9

Until the 19th century the name Romanian , denominating an entity did not exist, therefore any ethnonym ofthis kind cannot be found in the written sources of this era. However, as a negative connotation has beenattached to the name Vlach, we use the name Romanian, although it is ahistoric.


4/5

mentioning Romanians as an entity in the Balkans are dating from the 10th century (Skylitzes,Kekaumenos) (GYNI 1945, 96180; GYNI 1947, 155173); b. in later times only some 12th centuryByzantine sources report on the existence of Romanian groups north of the Danube (NikhetasKhoniates, Kinnamos). It may be important to note that in the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom nomention of any Romanian population was made prior to the 13th century (K RIST 2004, 226).According to the analyses of the sources, it can only lead us to one possible interpretation: this population must have appeared in the 12th century, as it seems impossible that a political entity likethe institutions of the Hungarian Kingdom were not informed about a population living in its territoryor they forgot to mention them for approximately 200 (!) years, and then in a moments notice theinformation sources began to give a huge amount of data about this population in the 13th century.

2. The analysis of 11th 13th century place names (toponyms) show a picture completely inaccordance with that given by the written sources: a vast majority of 11th -13th century place names iseither of Hungarian or of Slavonic origin (approximately 90%), even in such regions asFogaras/Fgra in Southern Transylvania, which became an outpostof the Romanians (e. g.rps/Arpa, Fldvr/Feldioara, Szombatfalva/Smbta, Fogaras/Fgra). It means that theRomanian speaking groups settled down next to or in the place of Hungarian communities. It alsoindicates that these could not have been massive huge groups of immigrants as it must have left some

imprints on the place names.Although in the second half of the era investigated by us (approximately 11501250) we cantalk about Romanian populations in Southern Transylvania, it is not true for Northern Transylvania,where neither the written sources nor the place names indicate the presence of any Romanian population (K RIST 2004, 236).

It is also important to note that the legal status of the Romanian groups participating in the S- N migration was considerably different, which clearly shows that this migration was gradualconsisting of several stages. The first wave of migration was organised by the royal institutions, whichis supported by the fact that these groups had military-border patrol statuses (for instance a Romaniancontingent fighting in Bulgaria is mentioned in 1210 ERDLYIOKMNYTR 1997, 37), whose legalstatus cannot be compared to those of the Szkelys and the Saxons, who achieved some privileges, butit was very different from the staus of those who arrived with later migratory waves. In later times,

from the turn of the 13th -14

th centuries on, these groups were settled down not by the king but by thenobility, therefore we cannot assume any privileged status of these groups as it was the holy right of

the king only. In this aspect the status of the Romanians in Transylvania was completely differentfrom that of thehospes or the Szkelys. Inour opinion, it can only be explained by supposing that onlythe earliest immigrant groups of the Romanians received privileges, and the members of the SouthTransylvanian nobility came from these groups and it also explains why Romanian nobility is knownonly in South Transylvania. Later immigrants (who mainly settled down in the lands of the nobility)could only achieve a lower social staus. However, this analyses presents the possibility of anotherinterpretation which has not been taken into consideration by historiography: is it possible that thefirst Vlach groups became the elite of the entity and later Romanian immigrations were supported bythese Romanian groups?

In this short survey, which is mainly based on written sources, we can draw the conclusionthat from the mid-10th century until the Mongolian raid, we can assume several waves of variousimmigrating populations coming from different directions (east, west, north, south). These populations became communities with separate entities in Transylvania, due to the much or lesser privileges granted by the kingdom.

The following conclusion can be drawn: according to the present archaeological data base,whose research level is categorised by Sebastian Brather as1 the question, as to which cemetery can be considered Hungarian, Saxon or Szkely in Southern or South-East Transylvania (BRATHER2006,27, Fig. 1),CANNOT be answered.

As it can be seen, following our theoretical approach, it is difficult to draw any conclusions onthe ethnic identity of the populations in these necropolises. The elite of a political-military structureruled a society by using symbols of different nature (ASSMAN 1992). In the case of the 11th 13th century cemeteries it can firmly be stated that its elite was the political-military elite appointed by theHungarian Kingdom and his king. The common traditions of the population living in fortresses,


5/5

villages is impossible to identify by archeological means, based on comprehensive archeological findsfrom the 11th13th centuries Carpathian Basin.

As a result, in most cases it is not ethnic realities but the illustration or symbolisation of socialstatuses that can be detected. Certainly, it cannot be excluded that in particular cases the difference insocial statuses may be closely connected to different ethnicity, but it is impossible to detect them inmedieval churchyard cemeteries by archaeological means. In the county centres and in the castleshousing different religious institutions such as Alba Iulia, Cluj-Mntur, Dbca populations ofheterogenous origins may have concentrated, which is referred to in the sources too. In smallsettlements there are more chances that the population was homogenous, but this can neither be proved nor refuted for the puritanism of the graves.

CAPITOLUL-UNGURI-SECUI-VLACHI-SAXONES.docx

Documents

Transcript of CAPITOLUL-UNGURI-SECUI-VLACHI-SAXONES.docx