The Migration and Landtaking of the Hungarians
39th Meeting of the PIAC, 17th June, 1996.
In 1996 Hungary celebrates the 1100th anniversary of the landtaking. In the following I shall first present the most important milestones leading up to the landtaking, mention the research problems involved, and point to the connections with the Altaic world. In the second part I shall offer a rough typology of the ethnogenetic processes of nomadic tribal societies in Europe and venture to determine the place of the Hungarian landtaking in the history of mediaeval Europe. In the third part of my lecture I shall remark on the changes in the celebration of the Hungarian landtaking.
1. The migration and homelands of the Hungarians
The origins and the migration of the Hungarians has been since mediaeval times a passionately debated question and not only among Hungarians. In the last century it became generally accepted that the language of the Hungarians belongs to the Uralic language family. Together with Vogul and Ostyak they formed the Ugric branch of the Finno-Ugric languages–a fact disputed only by dilettantes. On the other hand, when the Hungarians made their way into written sources they were featured and expressly labeled as Turks. Almost two hundred years after the landtaking the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII Ducas in 1074 bestowed a crown to the newly invested Hungarian King Géza I. The crown, now kept in the National Museum in Budapest, bears the Greek inscription Jeuvitsa the faithful king of the Turks. The Hungarians are called Turks in several other Byzantine and Arabic sources from the 9th century on. In other sources they are called Ungri, Hungar, Ugri, Bashkir or even Huns, Avars or Scythians. None of the many names resembles the Hungarians’ own name. We have data on the Hungarians calling themselves Magyars at least since the 8th century, but undoubtedly the name was used already much earlier. The term magyar is of Finno-Ugric origin. It consists of two parts. The first part, magy-, goes back to an earlier form, manš, which is identical with the name of the Voguls, now living in Western Siberia, and one of their two main neighboring groups, the Ostyaks. The second part, which comes from an earlier word, er, is an ethnic name with the meaning “man, creature” and was also the name of an other Ugric group. From the two groups with Finno-Ugric names and languages was formed the name of the Hungarians manš+er >magy+er > magyer (the form lacking the vowel assimilation is recorded until the 13th century) > magyar. In a lecture at the Academy of North Rheine-Westphalia I concluded that at the time of the landtaking the Hungarians were a people who spoke a Finno-Ugric language, but conducted a Turkic way of life.
Without going into the deeper past we can summarize the early history of the Hungarians as follows:
The ancestors of the Hungarians separated from the other Ugric speaking peoples about 800–500 before Christ. They lived for a brief period in the vicinity of the ancestors of the Proto Permian people, as reflected in a few but interesting loan words from the early language common with the present Zuryen and Votyak. At the time the Hungarians were already a distinct people who cultivated the land and bred animals, but also hunted on horseback and did fishing. For a period of about a thousand years they had close contacts with Iranian peoples which is reflected in the vocabulary of the Hungarian language. Some elements of agriculture and animal husbandry were taken from these Iranian groups on the Western side of the Ural mountains.
Hungarian scholars as Németh, Barczi and Ligeti claimed that the Hungarians lived together with the other Ugrian peoples in West Siberia. This claim was based on a small number of etymologies which admittedly were borrowed by Proto Ugrian from Turkic. These words would have been borrowed only in the neighborhood of the original homeland of the Turks, that is in West Siberia. A thorough investigation of these etymologies clearly indicates that they do not support these claims. Some of these etymologies are simply wrong, as H hód “beaver” ~ Turkic kunduz, H hattyú “swan” ~ T kotang, H nyereg “saddle”~ T eger. Others are valid but were taken over much later by the Hungarians on the coast of the Black Sea as H homok “sand” ~ T kumaki, H hajó “boat” ~ T kayik. There are also words which entered separately into the Ob Ugric and the Hungarian language as H ló “horse” ~ T ulag, H szó “word” ~ T sab etc. All to all the only reason for supposing a West Siberian homeland for the Hungarians did not stand up to the evidence.
The change of the way of life from a simple agricultural economy to a nomadic one had its environmental limitations. Taking into account the latest results of historical climatology and botany this could not have occurred further to the north than 50–52 degrees latitude. Weighing all data presently at our disposal the Hungarians’ change to a nomadic the way of life occurred in the 5th–6th century A.D. and at the southern part of the Urals, at the river Yayik, or Ural. This change is marked by a strong influence of Western Turkic languages predominantly, if not exclusively, of the Chuvash type, as H ökör “ox” ~ T öküz, Chuv văgăr. The changeover in the way of life lasted more than hundred years, and several groups remained even longer as agriculturists in the wooded steppe. The adaptation to the new way of life was gradual, otherwise the Hungarians would have disappeared in the ocean of Turkic speaking peoples.
The next events had to do with the migration of the Bulghar Turks from the Kuban-Don region to the Dnyeper. This occurred about 600 A.D. Earlier it was supposed that the Empire founded by Khuvrat in 630 was at the Khuban river. However after having identified the tomb of Khuvrat in Malaja Pereshchepina near Poltava on the Dnyeper river other sources also had to be revised. We can now claim that the Old Bulgharian Empire lasted until 670–675 and had its center around the Dnyeper.
The place left by the majority of the Bulghars about 600 was soon occupied by the Hungarians. They lived north of the Alans whose location is well documented. The Hungarians lived in the region between the Khuban, the Don, and the Azovian sea (the latter called the Meotis). The Alan contacts are demonstrated by such loan words in Hungarian as H asszony “noble woman, originally: princess” ~ Old Osetian axsin “princess”. Here the Hungarians came into close contact not only with the Alans but also with the Khazars, who were already in the 620s the dominant group in the region. After the Khazars freed themselves from Turkish rule, they attacked and defeated the Bulghars. Four Bulgarian groups moved to the West. The first founded the Danubian Bulgarian Empire around 678, the second joined the Avars in the Carpathian Basin, a third group migrated to Italy and is mentioned as living around Ravenna. The fourth group appeared on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. A not insignificant Bulghar group, however, accepted Khazar rule and remained within the realm of the Khazar khagan. Many of the early Turkic loan words came into Hungarian in this time, e.g. the name of the “ash tree” H kõris ~ West Old Turkic keürič or Hungarian terms of horticulture and viticulture as H gyümölcs “fruit” ~ OT yemiš.
Around the end of the 7th century the Hungarians moved westwards and occupied the territory between the Dnyeper and the Lower Danube where the earlier Western Bulghars lived. The relationship between the Hungarians and the Bulghars, both subjects of the Khazars, improved. We know how the Hungarians called this territory because two Hungarian noblemen visited the Byzantine capital around 948 and the Emperor Constantinos Porphyrogennitos or his scribes noted their story. They called the region Etelküzü. This Hungarian name had the meaning “the region within the rivers, Mesopotamia”, where Etel is the Western Turkic generic name for “river” (Turkic etil) and küzü is the Hungarian name for a region “which is in between”, i.e. the Hungarian equivalent of the Greek mezo.
The Hungarians lived in Etelküzü until the landtaking. We can not exactly say when they moved to Etelküzü but their stay had to last longer than it was earlier supposed. A greater group of loan words were borrowed here, as‘e.g. H szõlõ “wine grape” ~ T yedlig. The Bulghars, while they tried to loosen the ties with the Khazars, slowly moved towards the North. After a serious Khazar defeat by the Arabs in 737 the migration of the Bulghars towards the Volga and upwards accelerated. A group of Hungarians moved with them. Both the Volga Bulghars and the Volga Hungarians reached the Kama river around 900 A.D. The Volga Hungarians, or as they used to be called “the inhabitants of Magna Hungaria,” were visited by Ibn Fadlan, mentioned by other sources and lastly met by the Hungarian Friar Julian in 1235. In the next year both the Volga Bulghars and the Volga Hungarians were devastated by the Mongols.
The majority of the Hungarians remained in Etelküzü. The Hungarian tribal federation was ruled by a chieftain installed by the Khazars. In the middle of the 9th century he was designated as Levedi, and his tribal pasture lands were called Levedia by the Greek sources. According to Arabic sources around 870 he bore the title kündü and, though he was the legitimate ruler he had no real power. The power of the army generals, the members of the Almish–Árpád clan grew considerably. According to the Muslim sources they bore the title ǰula or ǰila. They controlled the army and the administration. The claim, however, that the Hungarians had a sacral kingship similar to that of the Khazars is unfounded and lacks any evidence.
From the year 862 on, written sources relate that the Hungarians living in Etelküzü took part in the fights and wars of Central Europe. In 862 they fought in alliance with the Moravian ruler Rastislav against the Franks, in 881 they appear at Vienna where they fought together with the Kabars (cum cowaris) against the Franks. The importance and power of the Almish–Árpád clan grew with the successful western raids and also three Kabar tribes seceding from the Khazars to join the Hungarians. A few years before the landtaking the Árpád clan dethroned the Levedi clan and concentrated power in its own hands.
In 894 the Hungarians fought in alliance with the Moravian ruler Svatopluk against the Franks and with the Byzantine Empire against the Danube Bulghars. Both military expeditions were highly successful. In fact, in 894 the Hungarians joined the Moravian–Byzantine coalition against the Danube Bulgarian–Frankish coalition.
The spring of 895 began with a military expedition of the Hungarian army under Árpád, who wanted to attack the Danube Bulghars moving down along the Tisza river. At the same time a smaller Hungarian unit attacked the Bulghars at the Lower Danube. However the Byzantine army went back on their promise to attack the Bulghars from the south, who were able to defeat the smaller Hungarian army attacking from Etelküzü.
At the same time from the east a Pecheneg army appeared. They were pushed by the Oghuz–Kimek–Kharluk coalition who in turn were defeated by the Samanid ruler. The Pechenegs could not enter the Khazar Empire proper and, most probably on persuasion of the Danube Bulghar ruler Symeon, attacked the Hungarians left behind in Etelküzü. After the disastrous Hungarian defeat in Etelküzü by the Pecheneg and Danube Bulgarian armies they could only but flee to the army of Árpád who was slowly moving to the south along the Tisza. In 895 the Hungarians occupied only the eastern part of the Carpathian basin and did not cross the Danube. That happened only in 899 when, on invitation of the Frank ruler Arnulf, they raided North Italy. The Hungarian army returned in 900, and on their way back they learned about the death of Arnulf in December 899. The Hungarian army occupied Transdanubia and moved westwards. They were stopped briefly in 902 when a temporary cease-fire between the Franks and the Hungarians deferred hostilities. However, the landtaking of the Hungarians was finished.
The pacification of the people living in the Carpathian basin went almost automatically. The Avars, most of whom converted to Christianity in the first half of the 9th century, lost their power. The Danube Bulghars and the Franks crushed the Kaganate and only small, petty rulers remained, The Turkic speaking Avars were gradually slavicized. Some of them were still bilingual when the Hungarians arrived. There is a group of loan words in Hungarian which clearly show the bilingualism of, the Avars. Such a word is e.g. H terem “great room, palace” (also in the well-known Hungarian word étterem “restaurant”) ~ Avar term, West Turkic terem.
2. Ethnogenetic processes and the Hungarian case
In the Middle Ages old people or ethnic groups disappeared and new ones emerged. In Europe roughly three types of these ethnogenetic processes can be distinguished. All can be investigated from the point of view of how they adapted to the “civilized” Roman Empire and how they could form their new feudal organization through personal and territorial bonds. Each process had several subtypes. The three main types were: the German type, the Slavic type and the Turkic type. In the Turkic case tribal confederations tended toward a centralized Empire. The Turkic type, in turn, had three subtypes, the Avar, the Khazar and the Danube Bulghar. The Khazar and the Avar processes proved to be dead ends, and both peoples disappeared. The Danube Bulghars, though retaining their ethnic identity for some time, were slowly absorbed by the Slavic majority.
The Hungarians also lived in a Turkic type of tribal confederation, their name was the Seven Magyars (H Hetümagyer) on the model of the Ten Ogurs, the Three Karluks, the Thirty Tatars, etc. We know that this tribal federation in 895 consisted of at least eleven tribes, three of them of Khazar origin. One of the most interesting questions in the history of Central Europe is, why and how did the Hungarians continue to exist and retain their language and ethnic identity while all other tribal confederations of the Turkic type disappeared as the Avars or the Khazars did or were absorbed as the Danube Bulghars. There are multiple reasons and no single cause can be selected as the main one. The scope of this lecture does not pérmit me to analyze this process. I can only point to such external factors as the role of the Khazar institutions, the small local organizations of the Slavs under Avar and Bulghar rule in the Carpathian basin, and the Frank military and Christian missionary operations. Among the internal factors the rapid dissolution of the tribal organization with the temporary strengthening of the clan system, the mixed economy with a temporarily balanced equilibrium among nomadic pastoral and relatively strong agricultural components have to be mentioned. Within a historically extremely short time the Hungarians, who finished the landtaking in about 902, founded under Steven the Saint in 1000 a Christian state which succeeded in joining the mediaeval European community.
3. The celebrations of the landtaking
Finally, a few words about the long line of celebrations of the landtaking, also called “the conquest” in some publications. The landtaking, the “ingressus ex oriente” has always been in the focus of Hungarian historical tradition. It appeared already in the middle of the 10th century, and later in the Hungarian chronicles written in Latin. It was always a glorification of the heroic past mostly contrasted with the bad and decadent times of the author of the chronicle, be that the 12th, 13th or 15th century. Though all Hungarian chronicles of the Middle Ages dealt with the landtaking, the historically verifiable data in them are very scanty. In 1896 the Hungarian Kingdom was a member-state of the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy with Franz Joseph of the Habsburg Dynasty as its king. Though he crushed the Hungarian revolution of 1848/49, the Hungarian elite reached a historical compromise with him in 1867. Under such conditions the political message of the celebrations was more or less clear. The celebration was planned for 1895 but because of problems of organization it was postponed for one year. The celebrations took place during a period of unprecedented economic and social prosperity. Many famous places which can be seen in Budapest today, Heroes’ Square, many of the Museums and other buildings, were erected in 1896. A typical product of the Millenary was the panoramic painting of the landtaking by Árpád Feszty, now kept in Ópusztaszer. The celebrations were marked by a romantic sense of nationalism without, however, attacking or discriminating against minorities. Out of the 24 peasant houses and yards in the Skanzen-type ethnographic exhibition organized in 1896 twelve demonstrated the life of the minorities. The number of inhabitants belonging to a minority in 1895 was just half of the total of the inhabitants of Greater Hungary. Many books and scholarly works were published, a profusion of paintings, sculptures and musical compositions celebrated the event. But the romantic-style paintings and sometimes pompous facades could hide only temporarily the great social and ethnic tensions that resulted in two world wars, and some of these tensions have not yet disappeared.
The celebration of the landtaking remains a political issue in most recent times. Hungarian scholars, however, do their best to keep out of these debates and concentrate on new data, on new sources and on historical reconstruction.