The Colture of Conquering Hungarians

The Colture of Conquering Hungarians
Istwin Fodor
Academically based, sound views concerning the character of
Hungarian culture during the Period of the Hungarian Conquest have been
put forward in historical research since the end of the last century. The
millenary celebrations (1896) in Hungary also stimulated research that
yielded an impressive body of scientific information. Written sources from
the conquest period were collected, translated and published, a collection of
l01h century archaeological finds was published, and other disciplines also
contributed long Iasting results on that occasion.1 For the first time, the
opportunity arose for scholars representing various aspects of research to
compare and discuss their opinions on the character of the culture developed
by the ancient Hungarians.
Nevertheless, forming a coherent opinion was not easy even then. By
that time it had become clear that Hungarian is not an isolated orphan in the
linguistic universe and originates neither from the language of Attila’s
people as had been thought previously but belongs to the !arge family of
Finno-Ugric languages spoken by relatively few people. In coeval
Byzantine, Arabic, Persian and Western sources our ancestors at the time of
the Hungarian Conquest are described as one group of many pastoral
nomadic peoples from the steppes. They are often referred to by the names
of these peoples as Scythians, Turks or Onogours. These two indisputable
facts presented a formidable puzzle for researchers in the last century. The
image of our linguistic relatives, who at the time populated the northern
regions of the Russian Empire, seemed rather incompatible with that of the
brave mounted warriors who bad conquered the heart of Europe. This way
of thinking is a prime example of historical Darwinism. They knew of the
accounts of Antal ReflY on the Ob Ugrians (Voguls and Ostyaks), who in
the middle of the 191 century lived in immense poverty, under conditions
1 Pauler – Szilägyi (eds.) 1900.
9
that were considered in any case primitive. Although their language was
closest to ours, these scholars found it unimaginable that ancient Hungarians
had ever pursued such a miserable way of life. This attitude, however, is
rooted in the assumption that the 19th century state of Ob Ugrians may have
reflected ancient Hungarian lifeways. Today, it is practically
incomprehensible how those excellent scholars could subscribe to such a
naive idea more fit for medieval genealogists. In a more-or-less exp1icit way
they presumed that the historical development of any nation could only be
progressive. This meant that ancient Hungarians must have lived on the
same or even on an „inferior Ievel of culture“ as 19th century Ob Ugrians
when they separated from their relatives. Readers of these scholarly studies
today may wonder why none of them hypothesized that cultural
deterioration of our linguistic relatives might possibly have taken place
following separation from the ancient Hungarians.
In order to understand their way of thinking, however, one must also
take into consideration the atmosphere of the millenary celebrations as weil
as the prevalent view of history at that time. Self-confident citizens of a
dynamically developing country had every reason to presume that the nation
evolved along a progressive course and that it would overcome the
historical handicap relative to more developed regions of Europe in the
foreseeable future. (Econornic indices massively supported this general
feeling.) In spite of apparent difficulties, the future of the nation was
perceived in a very optimistic manner. lncreasingly self-confident
Hungarian public opinion had an understandably hard time accepting the
newly discovered relations with impoverished Finno-Ugric peoples with no
independent state and who were at the time looked down upon. The
historical perspective of Hungarian aristocracy rooted in the Middle Ages
was significantly more popular. Naturally, it was not Kezai’s 1 3th century
description of Hungarian nobi1ity that they relied upon, but the Holy
Scripture of the Hungarian aristocracy, lstvan Werböczy’s Tripartitum, a
collection of laws drafted following a 16th century peasant uprising. This
work very clearly defined the privileges of the Hungarian nobility. The
glorious descendants ofHuns who won back Attila’s ancient horneland gave
rise to the Hungarian aristocracy. Others, who behaved in a cowardly
manner in this heroic fight or belonged to the subservient peoples found
here formed the lower strata of serfs. By the end of the 191h century,
however, the theory of Runnie ancestry began to spread without its social
content. It may even have been perpetuated by Janos Arany, the greatest
romantic, who during the Reform Age in the first half of the 191h century
10
strengthened the nation ’s self-confidence by references to a glorious Hunnic
ancestry. With the emergence of a public education system in Hungary, this
medieval myth became an indelible part of both historical knowledge and
the national conscience of every Hungarian citizen within the country’s
historical borders. lt is thus not an accident that the popularity of
comparative linguists who advocated the Finno-Ugric relationship, was
dwarfed by a dilettante, Armin V arnbery, who as a self-made Iinguist
advocated the Turk:ic connection. The scholars usually figured only in
newspaper cartoons.
Contradictions between the linguistic and cultural origins of
Hungarians were apparently further fueled by views prevalent in
archaeological research. The first equestrian burial from the Period of the
Hungarian Conquest was found accidentally by herdsmen at Benepuszta
near the city of Keeskernet in 1834. Fortunately, the finds have not been
lost. Most of them were taken to the Hungarian National Museum. On the
basis of Italian coins found in the grave, Mikl6s Jankovich, collector and
outstanding antiquarian, identified both the date of the burial as weil as the
ethnic affiliation of the deceased. The next burial from the Period of the
Hungarian Conquest was discovered at Vereh in Fejer county in 1853 and
was puhlished hy Jänos Erdy. River regulations, road and railway
construction as weil as industrial development have hrought to light an
increasing numher of archaeological finds, including those from the Period
of the Hungarian Conquest. A series of archaeological societies were
estahlished in the countryside, and increasing numbers of artifacts were
preserved, remained in the country and underwent scholarly analysis.
Beginning with the end of the 1860’s, a quantum leap may he observed hoth
in the numher of artifacts and of the more or less professionally excavated
hurials representing the Period of the Hungarian Conquest. Newly
discovered finds, however, were identified and evaluated following the
stereotypes of the first known, rieb hurials of conquering equestrian
warriors found at Benepuszta, Vereb, Galg6c and Szolyva. Researchers at
the time thought that it was only these cemeteries, including the hurials of a
war-like elite, represented conquering Hungarians. Hungarians, therefore,
were all weil armed warriors dressed in richly decorated attire, while poorer
10th century cemeteries of the common people, excavated at the same time,
were associated with the slaves of the Hungarians, the local Slavic
population. This was nothing hut an echo of the previously descrihed
historical paradigm.
II
Already by the time of the millennium, attempts were made to
reconcile tbe two sides and solve the apparent contradiction between the
origins of Hungarian language and culture. In the first of the ten volumes
devoted to summarizing Hungarian history, Henrik Marczali wrote as
follows: „Since the Voguls, whose language is closest to Hungarian among
the Finno-Ugric dialects, lived on the southem and central ranges of the
Ural Mountains, some would like to see them as kin to the Hungarians. In
any case, this opinion is erroneous. Julian described equestrian steppe
nomads/ not forest-dwelling mountain people. Even aside from tbis, the
language of those people could not be either Vogul or Ogur. Thirteenth
century Hungarian is a known Janguage: the “ Funeral Speech“3 somewhat
predates Julian’s joumey. It is not very different from the Janguage spoken
at present. This comparison shows how relatively little language has
changed over many centuries. Therefore, if Hungarian was indeed spoken
and understood in the Ural region (at the time of Julian), it was Hungarians
who lived there, notjust any kind of Finno-Ugric tribe“.4
Furthermore he explains that “ … Hungarians included an eastem
branch of Turks . . . “ and that their migration started somewhere in the region
of the Altai Mountains and Iead westward along the Caspian Sea and the
Caucasus mountains. „Should Hungarians have indeed immigrated from the
direction of the Ural River and southem Russia, they must have been in
contact with Ugric peoples for an extensive period of time. Contacts were
not limited to trade and warfare as was the case with the Slavs or Iranians.
Contacts must have been as constant as can only be made possible by
cohabitation. lt is natural that rudimentary populations whose political
organization had fallen apart and lost even their horneland always joined
mighty nomadic peoples. It is the power of these latter that guaranteed allies
and even subordinates. The historical fact that Turkic Hungarians merged
with some sort of Ugric tribe, more populous than their own, must have
taken place during the time when they spent a considerable length of time in
the proximity of Khazars. Numeric dominance must be hypothesized in
order to explain why the language of the politically disorganized party
became dominant in this alliance, similarly to Slavic languages swamping
2 I. e. the eastern Hungarians this friar encountered during his trip to Magna Hungaria in
1236 – author‘ s note.
3 The earliest known text written in Hungarian.
4 Marcza1i 1 8 95, 34.
12
Bulgarian, English the Saxon, French the Norman, Norman the Frankish
and Lombard the Gothic“.5
Armin Vambery stubbornly defended the Turkic character of the
Hungarian language. He considered Hungarian a mixed language, similarly
to tbe entire population. He once wrote: “ … namely, Hungarians are a mixed
group of people par excellence, a mixture wbose match would be difficult to
find in tbe field of ethnography; it is this way for tbe simple reason tbat the
bistorical development of tbis people took place on tbe border between Asia
and Europe in a region where all sorts of population elements bad begun to
stir at the time of the Great Migration before they became calm and settled
down.6 He added: “ … the basic Ugric element was oppressed by the
intellectually superior Turks, wbich Iead to tbeir Turkization … Tbe Ieaders
were Turkic in tbeir religious, political and military life, and their language
linked not only Turks and Ugrians but otber fragments of population as
weil … „. 7
As far as tbe essence of the problern is concerned, botb Marczali and
Vämbery found it incomprebensible tbat any of the Finno-Ugric peoples
could bave developed tbeir own equestrian nomadic culture. Altbougb the
idea tbat Hungarian was a language of fundamentally Turkic origin or that
it was an admixture of idioms never bad followers on an academic Ievel,
these ideas are still cultivated by amateurs today. On the otber hand, tbe
possibility of language exchange has been seriously considered by some
scbolars. In 1939, Count lstvan Zicby presumed that living in the Ural
region, ancient Hungarians speaking a Bulgar-Turkic language adopted an
Ugric language. This outdated theory was resuscitated by Tibor Halasi-Kun
in 1990. Although Halasi-Kun has not accepted Zichy’s idea that some
„developed“ Turkic peoples adopted the „backward“ Finno-Ugric language
(which would actually be historical nonsense), he suggested that nomadic
Hungarans, who were originally Turkic speakers, acquired the new language
from their Finno-Ugric speaking female folk. His basic premises, however,
were also culture-historical: „As has been stated by 1 9th century linguists,
Hungarian is undoubtedly a Finno-Ugric language. In spite of this, from the
viewpoint of their characteristic features, social structure, culture and
tradition, conquering Hungarians display features of a Turkic people in
every respect“. 8
5 Marczali 1895, 36-37.
6 Vambery 1914, 7.
1 Vämbery 1 9 1 4, 61.
8 Halasi-Kun 1990, 8.
13
Even though the theory of linguistic exchange has never been
accepted by scientific linguistics, contrasting the stereotypes of „fishinghunting,
forest-dwelling Finno-Ugric“ with „war-like, equestrian nomad
Turkic“ cultures has haunted our academic Iiterature up until the present
day. The petrification of this view probably has also been greatly enhanced
by some outstanding representatives of the intemationally respected
Budapest school of Turcology. Following World War I and the Trianon
Peace Treaty that upset the territorial integrity of historical Hungary the
superb Turcologist Zoltan Gombocz revised bis previous views and
developed a new theory concerning the circumstances surrounding the
adoption of Bulgar-Turkic loan-words into pre-conquest Hungarian.
Previously, he had suggested that influential Bulgar-Turkic-Hungarian
contacts took place in the region of the Volga and Kama Rivers between
AD 600 and 800. By the 1920’s, however, he bad shifted this scene towards
the south in the Caucasus region and dated it to the 5th to 7th centuries AD.
Thus, according to the new concept, Hungarians must have bad connections
with the Huns in these southem areas. Gombocz thereby shared the opinion
advocated by Balint H6man and could proclaim: „I too believe, that
conquering Hungarians must have taken with them some elements of the
later Hunnic myth. In other words, they brought along the belief that Huns
and Hungarians had been related, the tradition that their Grand Duke Arpad
was the descendant of Attila, the great king of Huns and that the conquest of
the Carpathian Basin was secundus introitus, the reconquest of a land that
belongs to the Hungarians due to their relation to Huns“.9 It must be noted
that although Gombocz’s new theory bad scholarly foundations, the lines
written by bim concerning Hunnic-Hungarian connections were conceived
to a great extent under the pressures of his time. This outstanding scholar
devoted hirnself to rebabilitating tbe historical and national self-confidence
ofHungarians who bad been politically humiliated in those years (Today we
know there is no reason why this should bave been done by strengtherring
the completely unfounded idea ofHunnic origins).
Another outstanding Hungarian turcologist, Gyula Nemeth published
his work entitled „Tbe formation of Conquering Hungarians“ in 1930.10 This
book has remairred influential until today although it is nothing but an
introduction to Turkic philology, the history of ancient Turkic peoples
combined with an etymological study of the names of Hungarian tribes,
nobility and personalities from the aspect of Turcology. It is a very useful
9 Gombocz 1921, 20.
10 Nemeth 1930.
14
scholarly study, but its content has nothing to do with the title, since it
concentrates on the pre-conquest Turkic connections of Hungarians and
these elements in their population which were possibly of Turkic origin.
According to Nemeth’s final conclusion: “ … among Hungarians, it is
impossible to simply speak of a ‚ruling Turkic layer‘ and a lower class
‚Finno-Ugric layer‘.
lt seems certain that following their separation from the Finno-Ugric
peoples and before the integration into the Christian cultural sphere in
Central Europe, (with exception of Alanian contacts) the Hungarians were
almost exclusively exposed to Turkic influence, i. e. maintained the closest
links with Turkic peoples. It is also evident that Hungarians integrated
numerous Turkic population elements, that Turks played a roJe in social
organization and even some of the rulers were of Turkic origins. These
ruling and non-ruling Turkic elements, however, were assimilated in a
special way by Hungarians of Finno-U gric ancestry“ .11
Unfortunately, the majority of researchers into Hungarian cultural
history have subsequently disregarded Nemeth’s finely toned description. In
fact, they hypothesized the existence of a Turkic speaking ruling layer
among Hungarians and their „Turkic-like“ culture while referring to bis
work!
The theory of the so-called „double conquest“, so popular even among
today’s amateur historians, was also conceived at the time of the
millennium. It was created by Geza Nagy, who was not only a fiery patriot
but an excellent archaeologist and historian as weiL In the previously cited
ten volume history of Hungarians he came to the following conclusions.
Onogur Bulgars had inhabited the Kubany region after AD 463 until the th
century, when their empire was destroyed by the Khazars around 670 AD.
Thereafter they fled westward, some of them to the Lower Danube Region,
while another group reached the Avar horneland that, at the time, occupied
the Carpathian Basin. These latter may have included Hungarian speaking
groups as weiL „Arpäd (Grand Duke of Hungarians) found not only
foreigners and related peoples but also Hungarians in the homeland. The
Hungarian species (sie!) predates the Hungarian conquest here. It is possible
that they bad already arrived with the Avars, However, if it was not earlier,
the immigration of Hungarians must also have begun by the last quarter of
the 7th century AD. Our legends point to the Seklers as descendants of this
11 Nemeth 1930, 298.
15
first group, and in such matters the folk memories of peoples tend to be
admirably resilient“.12
The reasoning behind this argument, somewhat surprisingly from this
great scholar, is to say the least anemic. Geza Nagy only stated that military
campaigns by Charlemagne could not have entirely exterminated A vars, and
that the name Onogur („ten ogurs“) used for Bulgarians bad also been
applied to Hungarians in coeval sources and was adopted in foreign
languages (c. f. Ungarn, vengr, Hongrois, Hungarian). However, it was
already known by the end of the last century that ancient Hungarians were
described under different names in written sources (Byzantine documents,
for example, refer to „Turks“). The term Onogur used for Hungarians may
originate from the fact that the habitation area occupied by Hungarians in
Levedia was at one time the ancient horneland of Onogur Bulgars.
(Moreover, this term bas never been accepted as a form of self-definition,
describing ethnic identity by the Hungarians alone. lt has exclusively been
used by other peoples).
Although the century old hypothesis of Geza Nagy is frequently cited
today, no one has ever considered why this author of good academic
standing should have feit compelled to put this theory forward.
Nevertheless, the reason is quite clear and lies in research history although
Geza Nagy never elaborated on the circumstances. As has been briefly
touched on before, Hungarian arcbaeologists of the late 19th century bad
only considered the burials of mounted warriors to be part of the Hungarian
heritage. Cemeteries of the common people with numerous graves but only
modest grave goods were thought to have been those of the conquered local
Slavic population. The aristocratic historical paradigm, rooted in the Middle
Ages, bad two outstanding advocates at the time. One of them was Ferenc
Pulszky, the other Geza Nagy hirnself They soon came to realize that their
views were corning up against increasingly stubborn evidence. Namely, the
numbers of poor I o•h century graves soon rose incomparably higher than
those of rieb burials. At that time, several authors theorized about the
miraculous survival of the Hungarian language in the Carpathian Basin
amongst a „sea ofSlavs“.
I think that with bis theory of double conquest, Geza Nagy tried to
reconcile the two sides of this nagging contradiction. That is, if one assumes
that part or even the majority of the local population was Hungarian at the
time of Arpad ’s arrival, the survival of the Hungarian language becomes
understandable. lt is not an accident, however, that this excellent
12 Nagy 1895, CCCLII.
16
archaeologist never botbered presenting linguistic evidence in support of bis
theory. Such evidence did not exist at the time and neither has it since
become available.
Scholars‘ understanding of the culture of pre-conquest and conquering
Hungarians was almost exclusively based on linquistic research around the
turn of the century. Points emphasized by believers of the „Turkic“ character
of our culture were apparently supported by Bulgarffurkic loan-words that
bad entered the language prior to the Period of the Hungarian Conquest.
These terms typically refer to concepts of intensive farming, spiritual life
and emergence of social organization. In light of these arguments, it is not
surprising that linguistic data contradicting this pattem were treated with
considerable scepticism. In 1 929, however, Gedeon Meszö1y, using rigorous
linguistic reasoning, demonstrated that, for example, ancient Hungarians
were familiar with horse keeping prior to Turkic contact. Terms such as 16
(horse), nyereg (saddle), ßik (bridle), ostor (whip), mizsodfo 16 (yearling)
and harmadfo 16 (2 year old) originate from the U gric linguistic period of
the language.13 However, the majority of contemporary researchers were not
able to accept his discovery, so deeply rooted was the idea that it was the
Turks who „organized“ the Hungarians into an equestrian people. This
attitude is clearly illustrated by the opinion published by Bela Gunda in
1943: “ … horse and its cultural significance may be excluded from the
ancient U gric economic life.
Hungarian Ugrians, on the other band, encountered by westem Turks
cannot be considered foragers who relied on fishing and hunting alone.
Turks, as pointed out by Gyula Nemeth in another context, would have bad
little use for such a people. From an economic point of view, foraging
Hungarian-Ugrians would have had a hard time fitting into the framework
of Turkic peoples, not to speak of the fact that nomadic Turkic peoples
wou1d have complete1y fragmented such Hungarian Ugrians in a cultural,
Iinguistic and political sense alike … In my opinion, Hungarian Ugrians (as
well as Voguls and Ostyaks associated with them) must have been a people
highly specialized in hunting, which bad already developed some affinity
for animal busbandry … „. 14
Several researchers were of the opinion that linguistic evidence put
forward by Meszöly showed only that the Ugrians were mounted forest
hunters, rather than horse breeders or anirnal keepers of any sort.
13 Meszöly I 929, 2 I o.
14 Gunda 1 943, 2 1 2-212.
17
At the end of the last century, relevant Iiterature hardly ever reckoned
with the evidence from archaeological artifacts. Starting with the end of the
19th century, however, Russian researchers published masses of
archaeological finds from the section of Eurasia where the ancient
Hungarian people may have formed and lived during the centuries when it
was in migration. A very significant school of archaeological thought
emerged in Finland (at that time, part of the Russian Empire) with
representatives such as J. A. Aspelin and A. M. Tallgren. This school had
set rather peculiar „national aims“ in terms of research: the study of the
archaeological heritage of ancient Finno-Ugrians. This is how „Finno-Ugric
archaeology“ was bom. Nevertheless, the broad scope of their investigations
included almost all of Eurasia. It is perhaps not an accident that Hungarian
archaeologists have never been involved with this research. Investigations
of ancient Hungarian history were almost identical to linguistic sturlies at
that time. The first Hungarian archaeologist to carry out extensive data
gathering in Russian museums was Bela P6sta, who traveled to Russia as a
member of Count Jenö Zichy’s third oriental expedition in 1 897-1 898. He
published the summary of his results in 1905 both in Hungarian and
German.1 5 Even today, his book remains up to date and presents numerous
excellent eastem parallels with finds in Hungary from the Migration Period
and the Period of the Hungarian Conquest . In fact a significant portion of
the collection gathered by him still awaits publication. P6sta, however,
nurtured very ambitious plans. He considered his first trip to the east and the
resulting book only a preliminary study, and perhaps it is for this reason that
he never wrote up a historical summary of his experiences (Unfortunately,
the consequences ofWorld War I prevented the realization of his plans).
In Hungary, culture historical conclusions drawn from archaeological
research in Russia were applied for the first time by Count Istvan Zichy, the
well-regarded archaeologist and art historian, who was a long time directorin-
chief of the Hungarian National Museum. Although he never had the
opportunity to study these finds in the original eastem collections, he knew
the relevant Finnish archaeological Iiterature very weil and used that
information to draft an outline of an early history of Finno-Ugric culture.
He correctly concluded that the cultural and economic development of our
linguistic relatives had halted at a certain stage of their history: „FinnoUgric
peoples may be considered to have stagnated in their original state, be
retarded in their development. Their material culture and foraging methods
were already primeval at the time they enter history. Their backwardness
15 P6sta 1905.
1 8
becomes even more obvious in comparison with Iodo-Germanie peoples.
Neither of tbem could have developed a complex social organization on
their own, attaining a higher Ievel of cultural development only under
continuous external influences. The reason foT this stagnation, however,
should not be sought in the intellectual disposition of Finn-Ugric peoples;
the explanation lay in theiT original geographical position … Obi-Ugrians,
the majority of whom live under similaT circumstances even today, have
pTeserved most characteristics of this stagnant culture.16
In recent decades, new information concerning the character and
development of ancient Hungarian culture has been primarily enriched by
results from archaeological research. With the help offered by ever
incTeasing numbers of aTchaeological finds it became possible to reconstruct
the economic and cultural status of extensive areas in Eurasia. Although not
all Tegions have been equally investigated and indeed some are still little
known, the general pietuTe that has emerged is already significantly richer
than it was half a century ago. lt is of primary importance in this regard to
identify the archaeological cultures that aTe associated with the distribution
area of ancient Hungarians in various theories. For our research purposes,
the standards are set by cultural characteristics in broader regions in which
ouT distant ancestors may also have inhabited or evidently inhabited. It must
be admitted, however, that for the time being we are poking in the dark in
this TegaTd. Aside from airy-fairy ideas of amateuT „experts“ on ancient
Hungarian history, reseaTchers in vaTious disciplines aTe close to a
consensus as regards the habitation areas of ancient Finno-Ugric peoples
and Hungarians Tespectively.
The Finno-U gric, moTe specifically UTalian, origins of the Hungarian
language make it undisputable that ouT distant ancestors cohabited with or
partially shared tbe distribution area of the ancestors of our present day
linguistic relatives. This area must have been the bToader region of the Ural
Mountains wheTe ancient history may be traced back to the 6th -5th millennia
BC in the archaeological TecoTd. It is the Temains of material culture that
bear witness that the groups from this community who occupied more
southerly regions changed from foraging based on fishing and hunting to an
economy that relied on land cultivation and animal keeping during the
Bronze Age (2nd millennium BC). This change in lifeways which attained
historical dimensions was inspired by populations to the south who spoke
lndo-EuTopean (more exactly ancient lranian) languages. In all probability,
the community of Ugric peoples, which included ancient Hungarians (in
16 Zichy 1923, 39-40.
19
addition to Obi-Ugrians – Voguls and Ostyaks), occupied the southernmost
section of the forested zone in westem Siberia, adjacent to the forest/steppe
belt east of the Urat Mountains. Anima! bones and macrobotanical remains
recovered from archaeological sites in this region leave no doubt that they
pursued animal keeping and land cultivation by that time and that they had
developed sophisticated bronze metallurgy as weil.
Thus the debate du ring the 1930’s conceming horse busbandry by our
ancestors in the Ugric Period became irrelevant. They undoubtedly kept
horses, moreover they reared cattle and sheep as weil. It is also remarkable
that a more or less similar economic development was observed among the
Finno-Ugric population groups who inhabited areas west of the Ural
Mountains at this time. Therefore, the aforementioned opinion that FinnoUgric
populations entered historical times as a homogeneous, primarily
foraging community of fishers and hunters should be considered
anachronistic as weil. Although it remains true that they predominantly
inhabited the forest belt of eastem Europe and westem Siberia, they did not
exclusively exploit that area. Groups who lived in the southem zone of this
forested region fell within the distribution range of ernerging agricultural
economies during the 2″d millennium BC. The influence of this change
reached the northemmost areas tatest but left only a few groups unaffected.
Around the gth century BC another significant economic transformation
took place on the Eurasian steppe. It was at that time that
nomadism emerged, a form of animal keeping in which, depending on local
geographical conditions, herds were grazed in different winter and summer
pastures following a cyclical pattem. This newly invented form of animal
busbandry made a more efficient exploitation of grazing capacities possible,
thereby increasing animal stocks many times over. Nomadism was based on
many centuries of experience in herding among pastoral peoples of the
steppe and became widespread in steppe and forest-steppe areas, regardless
of the ethnic or linguistic affiliations of the peoples who occupied these
regions.
The relative homogeneity of nomadic economy Iead to the
development of similarities between both the material and spiritual cultures
of the pastoral communities who inhabited this vast, open area. In addition,
in comparison with previous periods, perpetual motion greatly intensified
contacts between various groups. It is also very important that, as a result of
their relatively monocultural economy, constant trade connections with
sedentary agriculturalists became an essential need for nomadic pastoral
peoples.
20
Neither did the wide distribution of nomadic lifeways leave FinnoUgric
speaking peoples unaffected. Those who lived in the Eurasian foreststeppe
belt were particularly predisposed. To our present day knowledge,
these peoples included the southern groups of the Ugric community,
especially the proto-Hungarians. On the basis of linguistic and historical
evidence it seems quite likely that approximately in the middle of the 1st
millennium BC (during the Early Iron Age in archaeological terms), a
distinct ancient Hungarian population may have formed who called
themselves „Magyar“ as a sign of distinct ethnic and ancestral identity.
{This latter may have been related to an ancient variant of the so-called
legend of the magic deer). Although the exact circumstances under which
such an ethnic group may have emerged are not known, it must be
hypothesized that events like this took place under the influences of the
aforementioned economic changes hallmarked by the onset of nomad
pastoralism. In all probability, southem U gric population groups also
adopted nomadic economies at that time, wrule their northern linguistic
relatives maintained their previous forms of subsistence.
Ancient Hungarians may thus already have become part of the
broader community of nomadic Eurasian peoples at the time of their
ethnogenesis. Therefore, both their ways of life and culture were influenced
by the basic principles characterizing that huge commuruty. Early nomadic
peoples of the Eurasian steppe living west of the Altai Mountains, usually
spoke some variant of ancient Irani an languages. The nomadic empire of the
Scythians, whose life was documented by Herodotos, lay in the plruns north
of the Black Sea. East of this area, linguistically related Sarmatians
inhabited the regions of the Volga and Ural Rivers, while the herds of Saka,
a group similarly of Iranian origin, occupied pastures in Central Asia. The
Tuva and Altai Mountains fell within the distribution area of the so-called
Asiatic Scytruans. Within this vast region, a material culture developed that
was homogeneaus in many respects, and whose artifacts are weil known to
archaeologists. The so-called Scythian animal style became widely spread in
the decorative art of that period, and it probably reflected comparable
spiritual culture and religious beliefs wherever it appeared. Meanwhile,
smaller territorial units must also have developed their own characteristics.
Behind these local variations, it is possible that there were also ethnic and
linguistic differences. It is unlikely therefore, that this enormaus area was
inhabited by people speaking exclusively Iranian languages. Other Iinguistic
groups must also have been present there with material and spiritual cultures
21
as weil as belief systems which may have been somewhat different from that
of the aforementioned lranian peoples.
Ancient Hungarians must have been one of these peoples
distinguished by „another“ language. They probably lived in the northem
zone of the steppe belt and in the forest-steppe area of westem Siberia in the
region of the Irtis and Isim Rivers . Pastoralism in the forest-steppe area,
however, must have differed from nomadism in the open steppe in several
details. Distauces between the summer and winter occupation areas were
shorter, while sedentism and land cultivation were proportionally more
important. Another relevant factor was that this zone did not fall within the
southem area through which passed the routes of the largest nomadic
migrations. Life, therefore, was somewhat more relaxed here.
The ethnic composition of the steppe changed considerably during the
first centuries AD. Large scale migrations triggered by the Runs swept
dozens of Asiatic peoples into Eastem Europe. Although the languages of
certain population groups regularly mentioned in written sources remain
unknown, it may be hypothesized that languages of the linguistic Altai
family, especially varieties of Turkic, were mostly spoken. During the 61h
century, when the Turkic Empire emerged in Inner Asia, another wave of
migrations started in the steppe. Therefore, new Turkic-speaking peoples
appeared on the border between Asia and Europe. By this time, the
overwhelming majority of the steppe region must have become Turkicspeaking
as weil.
Being part of the nomadic cultural community, the culture of ancient
Hungarians mustered all the colors of the „pastoral universe“ of the steppe.
This particular culture, however, retained a number of special features as
weil. First, the language was radically different from the Iranian and
subsequently Turkic languages that dominated in the steppe. As far as we
know today, of the ancestors of all contemporary Finno-Ugric peoples, only
the ancient Hungarians tumed to nomadism during the studied period. They
were the only group to represent the family ofFinno-Ugric languages in the
nomadic world. Meanwhile, their ties with their linguistic relatives were
severed. Hungarians had no serious contact with Finno-Ugric peoples until
the l91h century when the Finno-U gric origins of the Hungarian language
became evident. (The essence of this Statement is not changed by the recent
discovery of data suggesting that, aside from Hungarians, other Finno-Ugric
groups may also have tumed to nomadism around the middle of the Ist
millennium BC. Some of these peoples moved into the Kama River valley
on the westem side of the Ural Mountains during the 4th century and even
22
further north to the regions of tbe Vichegda and Pecbora Rivers.
Biogeographical features bere, however, did not permit the continuation of
that kind of subsistence economy. The presence of Ugric/Ob-Ugric
inhabitants in this area could be detected until the 1 8th century in historical
sources and topographic names. Other Ob-Ugric ancestral groups remained
in the Western Siberian territory on the Baraha steppe and in the lrtis River
region and subsequently underwent Turkization. In all probability, they may
be considered the forerunners of Baraha Turks and lrtis Tartars. It is likely
that these groups maintained cultural and linguistic links with tbe ancient
Hungarians until the 6’h century AD. However, there is no evidence to
support tbis hypothesis, exactly because of tbe aforementioned historical
fate of these population groups).
Tbe culture of ancient Hungarians, tberefore assumed a steppe nomad
cbaracter prior to tbe Period of tbe Hungarian Conquest and was not simply
„Turkic“ as had long been believed. As mentioned before, for almost a
millennium tbe steppe was populated by non-Turkic speaking nomads.
Naturally, the nomadic culture of ancient Hungarians did not remain
unaltered over the one-and-a-half millennium that preceded the conquest of
the Carpatbian Basin. At present, enough information exists to sub-divide it
into two major periods.
The first period spanned a time from the middle of tbe 151 millennium
BC to tbe 6’h century AD, wben our ancestors inhabited the forest steppe
area of Western Siberia. During the first, Ionger interval in this period their
southem neigbbors were Iranian speaking peoples, the Sarmatians and
Sakas related to Scytbians. Around tbe time of Christ’s birth, ancient
Hungarians may have established contacts witb tbe Huns, wbo perbaps
spoke a Turkic language. Tbe cbaracter of tbis connection, bowever, is very
difficult to appraise on the basis of material culture remains. It seems likely,
bowever, that contacts were predominantly cultural and commercial, and
one sbould not reckon witb significant degree of mixing between the two
populations. The bypotbesis of intensified contacts is Contradieted by the
observation that, in spite of the apparently significant cultural influences,
relatively few early Iranian loan-words bave been preserved in our
language.
Tbe second period began with tbe aforementioned great migration of
the 6th century AD. At tbis time, it was not only tbe peoples of the open
steppe that began to move witb ever increasing momentum as bad been the
case during the 3rd-4th centuries AD Hunnic migrations: Some of tbe nomads
living in the forest steppe zone were also forced to leave tbeir former
23
habitation areas. Thus, ancient Hungarians also left their horneland in
Western Siberia and moved onto the westem side of the Ural Mountains to
the area between the Ural and Volga Rivers. In this territory, 6th-8th
centuries cemeteries have been discovered which display clear relationships
with 1Oth century burials of the conquering Hungarians in the Carpathian
Basin. From this region, the majority of the population moved to the Azov
Sea sections of the Volga and Don Rivers that corresponded to the former
territory of the Khazar Khanate or at least was in its immediate proximity. A
minority, however, had remained in their former habitation area, and this
must have been the group of people encountered by Julian, a Dominican
monk in 1236. Therefore he called that land Magna Hungaria, that is
Great/Old Hungary.
This second phase could also be referred to as the „Turkic Period“ of
the ancient Hungarians. It was during this time that ancient Hungarians
developed close ties with the Onogurs (Bulgarians) and Khazars. During
this period, ancient Hungarians entered the regions of the steppe world
which were most developed at the time. The Khazar Khanate had a seminomadic
state formation and a more strongly developed economic structure
than those of the peoples in the Ural region. The Khazar army also
guaranteed relative peace in the European steppe for most of the AD 81h-9th
centuries which favored economic prosperity. An improved form of plow
cultivation spread here during this period and an increasing nurober of
nomadic families in the khanate (especially the poorer kinship groups)
tumed to sedentism and more intensive forms of farming. Their winter
habitations were transformed into permanent villages of land cultivators.
This transformation process undoubtedly affected ancient Hungarians as
weiL Hungarian assimilated some 200-250 Bulgarian-Turkic loan- words
from the language of neighboring Bulgars and Khazars which are mostly
related to this more advanced type of farming. ( Words related to pig and
poultry keeping such as diszn6 [pig], serte [bristle], artany [castrated pig]
and tyUk [hen] are especially telling examples since true nomads keep
neither poultry nor pigs).
Hungarian society also underwent essential changes during this
period. Under Khazar influence and following the Khazar example, a seminomadic
Hungarian state organization was created which was
understandably similar to that of the Khazars. This was characterized with
the institution of the so-called dual kingdom led by the “ chief king“ of
divine origins called the kende and a bailiff who was the chief comrnander
of the army known as the gyula. The majority of Hungarian linguists agree
24
that the names of Hungarian tribes were also of Turkic origin. Should tbis
be really true, one may hypothesize that the tribal organization of ancient
Hungarians was also transformed under the influence of neighboring
Turkic-speaking peoples. During this period, several Turkic population
fragments also joined the Hungarian tribal alliance. lt is probable that the
Eskil Bulgarians bad joined the ancient Hungarians even earlier, and they
may weil be considered the predecessors of the subsequently formed Sekler
population group. Sometime around 850 AD, Khabars who had rebelled
against the Khazar khan, also united forces with the Hungarians: Following
their unsuccessful uprising they sougbt refuge witb Hungarian sovereigns.
Around 950 AD, the Byzantine emperor, Constantin Porpbyrogenite,
recorded that they still spoke their ancient Turkic language, although they
bad learned Hungarian by that time as weiL This means tbat they lived in a
bilingual state that preceded ethnic assimilation. The wise emperor also
documented the grave casualties inflicted on Hungarians wben warfare with
the Pechenegs bad Iead to the separation of part of their population which
subsequently moved south of the Caucasus Mountains into the Persian
frontier area. During the mid-I Oth century, these so-called Savard Hungarians
still maintained contacts with Hungarians living in the Carpathian
Basin through mediation by their ambassadors. Later, however, they were
absorbed by neighboring peoples.
In all probability, the first occurrence of Hungarian written sources
may be dated to the time when Hungarians lived in the region of the Don
River (Levedia). This is not only shown by the Bulgar-Turkic origins of the
words ir (write) and betü (Ietter sensu character) but also by Runic script on
the bone cover of a quiver found in a grave from the Period of the
Hungarian Conquest near the city of Kalocsa (Fig. l ). The characters of this
text do not belong to the long-decoded Turkic system known from Inner
Asia. They bear some resemblance to Runic inscriptions from Eastem
Europe. The same type of script was also used in the Khazar Khanate.
The relationship between Hungarians and the Khazar Khanate must
have deteriorated because the Hungarians had accepted rebelling Kabars. It
is probably for this reason that around 850 AD ancient Hungarians moved
westward to the so-called Etelköz area in the Dnieper River region, thereby
ensuring their independence from the Khazar Khanate. Somewhat later, in
862 and 881 AD, Hungarian warriors already intervened in the fight
between eastern Franks and Moravians in the area of modern day Austria.
lt was during the stay in Levedia and Etelköz areas that the material
culture whose remains are known from hurials and settlements of the Period
25
of the Hungarian Conquest developed. Early forms of the meta! mou nts used
in decorating Ieather sabrataches (Fig. 2) and female hair braid disks are
known from archaeo logical sites in the Don River region, in the northem
range of the Cau casus Mountains and the Kiev area. Parallels to lO’h century
Hungari an silversmithery may be recognized among the decorative elements
o f the so-called o ri ental silver hoards.
This means that Turkic influence on Hungarian material culture in
Eastem Europe may be considered significant and must have Iasted at least
until the Period of the Hungari an Conquest. (Linguistic influence must have
Iasted even Jonger, until the end of the I O’h century when the linguistic
assimilation of newly accepted Kabars was accomplished). When BulgarTurkic
loan-words showing this Turkic cultural influence are studied, it
must be kept in mind that some of these tenns are „unnecessary“, i. e. their
adoption did not mean significant cultural adjustments. On the other hand, it
is always very important to understand the real culture histo rical meaning of
such words. For example, the adoption of the word sator (tent) should in no
case be taken as an indication that feit tents were unknown to ancient
Hungari ans prior to contacts with neighbori ng Turkic peoples. As
pastorali sts they must have used such tents since at least the Bronze Age.
This Ioan-word probably indicates the introduction and use of a new type of
tent araund the 8’h century, characterized by a round ground plan and a
wooden grid frame. This type is widely known under the name of yurt.
Simi larly, the newly adopted word eke (plow), did not mark the first
encounter with this tillage equipment. It probably indicates the adoption of
plows equipped with a share, widely used in Eastem Europe at that time.
(Meanwhi le, the ori ginal Hungarian word for plow probably disappeared
from usage). The new word sar/6 (sickle) must have entered Hungarian, as
the new, serrated, crescent-shaped type of this implement gradually spread.
Similarly, the appearance ofthe word bUza (wheat) should not be taken as a
proof that this plant was unknown to ancient Hungarians and that they
began cultivating it only at this time, since Bronze Age wheat grain is
known from sites from the southem Ural region. l t is plausible that the share
of wheat cultivation increased among the plants grown in the Levedia
habitation area. Meanwhile, an increasing number of pastoralists must have
tumed culti vators. (It is a well-known fact that nomadic peoples usually
grow millet in the vicinity of their winter habitations). lt is very significant,
on the other h and, that there were no notewo rthy additions to the Hungarian
vocabulary related to horse keeping during this period. This shows that
nomadic pastoralism was not exposed to Turkic influences. (As i ndicated
26
above, however, such an influence may be detected in terms relevant to
sedentary forrns of animal husbandry). This fact clearly shows that
Hungarian nomadic economy, including horse keeping, did not emerge
under Turkic influence.
The conquest of the Carpathian Basin opened a new chapter in
Hungarian cultural history. The new environment did not simply mean new
neighbors speaking unfamiliar languages. Biogeographical conditions were
also new. Although the Great and Small Hungarian Plains in the Carpathian
Basin represent the westernmost section of the East European forest steppe
belt, these areas are not fit for the !arge scale nomadism practiced at that
time. Due to higher precipitation in this region, seasonal herding along the
rivers surrounded by broad floodplains became nearly impossible and lost
its significance. Within only a few decades, winter occupations developed
into permanent villages, the rate of sedentism (that bad already started in the
eastern regions) significantly accelerated here. (It is certainly not an
accident that earlier nomadic invaders of eastern origins such as the
Sarmatians and Avars also settled on the Great Hungarian Plain).
The 895 AD conquest did not simply mean that a new people, that is
Hungarians, appeared in the Carpathian Basin. They also represented a new
culture which was radically different from its predecessors in this area. In
addition, this culture not only occurred sporadically here and there but also
spread to plains and hills, wherever Hungarians settled. This new culture
cannot be regarded a straight continuation of A var culture either in its
entirety or in detail. Aside from a nurober of other arguments, this difference
alone excludes the probability of a „double conquest“ theory. (Especially the
hypothesis that masses of Avars survived until the Hungarian conquest and
that subsequently they would have decided the main developmental trend).
In the case of conquering Hungarians, hardly any of the Central and Inner
Asian features can be identified, which otherwise are so characteristic of the
Avars. Their artistic tastes and battle gear were completely different, and
their spiritual culture must have been markedly different as weil.
There can hardly be any doubt that the conquering Hungarians also
brought with then a significant nurober of agriculturalists from the East.
Aside from the aforementioned arguments, unambiguous evidence for this is
offered by great similarities between the settlement structure, building types
and even tilling equipment of the earliest Hungarians and those found in the
Don River region. Sometimes these features were actually identical. In spite
of this, however, the whole of Hungarian culture in the I 01h century may be
considered nomadic in character, since its roots reached back to the world of
27
the Eastern steppe, where their millennia-old traditions and mentality
originated.
The character of this culture is clearly illustrated by the colorful
goldsmithing work of the conquering Hungarians which is weil known from
burial finds. The sabretache plate from Tiszabezded made from gilded
copper sbeeting may actually bave been made in the Etelköz babitation area
(Fig. 3). Tbe surface of the main motif is vertically divided by a leafy
branch with a rhombus-sbaped field in the middle. A Greek cross engraved
above a leaf may be seen within this field. Tbe ancient master omamented
the upper two halves of the rhombus-shaped field, where the branches again
meet, with the image of two peacock-like dragons. The leafy branch starting
from the bottom of tbis omament symbolizes the „Tree of Life“ (also known
as „Tree of the World“ or „Tree Reaching the Sky“ in our folk tales), a
central element in the pagan mytbology of the ancient Hungarians. Tbe
cross is a motif evidently borrowed from Christianity. The peacock-like
dragons (senmvurs) are symbols used in Iranian Zoroastrism. Several
researchers interpret this combination of elements as a form of religious
syncretism, altbough my own opinion is that it was inspired simply by
ancient Hungarian shamanism. Sbamanism, however, is not a formalized
religion, but a multitude of ancient beliefs that have been accumulated in
innumerable strata throughout the millennia combining ancient as weil as
more recent elements. In their habitation areas in Levedia and Etelköz,
Byzantine missionaries familiarized Hungarians with some elements of
Christianity Tbe hope was that Cbristian symbols would help tbem get along
and bring tbem good Juck in the same way as representations of tbe pagan
„Tree of Life“ and of the peacock-like dragons of Iranian origin. There is no
reason to hypothesize therefore that the Hungarian conqueror who wore the
Tiszabezded purse was Christian. That the opposite of this idea should be
true is corroborated by the fact that, following an ancient pagan burial rite,
he was buried in the company of bis horse.
The formation of Hungarian artistic styles were elucidated by a
nurober of valuable observations by Nändor Fettich during the 1930’s. In bis
opinion, however, the most beautiful pieces of goldsmithing work were
manufactured prior to the Period of the Hungarian Conquest in Eastern
Europe, predominantly in tbe Kiev region. „The art of making purse plates
reached its climax during the last decades tbe completely developed
Hungarians spent in Levedia“.17 Until his death he did not give up this idea
and reiterated it again, for example, in bis 1973 evaluation of the famous
17 Fettich 1935, 25.
28
chieftain’s grave from Zemplen. With the increasing number of relevant
finds from both Hungary and abroad, however, the proposition put forward
by Gyula Laszl6 and Istvän Dienes gained increasing support. They
suggested that the overwhelming majority of this excellent goldsmithing
work bad not been produced in the East, but in the newly conquered
homeland. Today, there is hardly any doubt that they were right. In the East,
only certain elements of this art and forerunners of these objects can be
found. The style itself really started flourishing in the Carpathian Basin. The
prosperity of this art was given great impetus by the significant amounts of
precious metals that were imported into Hungary as booty after their vicious
military incursions and provided the basis for the rapidly growing wealth of
chieftains and their military entourages.
Although there are no two pieces of art from the Period of the
Hungarian Conquest that are identical, the character of this art is
surprisingly uniform. This observation seems to contradict reports in written
sources that claim that conquering Hungarians did not form an ethnically
homogeneous group and that there were various foreign population groups
among them (Kabars, Seklers and Khalizes). Reviewing the uniformity of
this art, it must be hypothesized, however, that the populations that joined
the Hungarians soon culturally and then linguistically assimilated with
them. The culture of the conquering Hungarians largely reflects what Zoltän
Kodäly discovered in folk music: „Even if researchers can prove that
Hungarians as a people were composed of ten splinters, the soul of
Hungarians is the same from Somogy to Szatmär and Csik to Nitra“. 18
Moreover, it may be added that the frequently advocated opinion conceming
the mixed nature of the conquering Hungarians is erroneous. These people
should not be regarded as an incongruent ethnic conglomerate, since there is
no evidence to support this view. One may thus hypothesize that the
conquering Hungarians were no more „mixed“ than population groups in
that period in general.
Gyula Läszl6 was the first to unambiguously demoostrate that the
apparently monotonous floral pattem, the so-called palmetta motif, which
was widespread in the Hungarian art of the conquest period, is not a simple
omament designed only to fill in blank spaces. This is backed up by the
entire Hungarian culture and belief system of the time. It is for this reason
that precious meta! objects of foreign origin stolen during their raids never
occur in their graves. One may thus conclude that such objects were not
used during their lives either, but melted down. It seems obvious that artistic
18 Kodäly 1975, 33.
29
representations of westem taste would have been alien to them, while the
decorative motifs used in the artistic creations of their own master
goldsmiths became telling symbols. Naturally, this content relevant to the
belief system was not directly reflected in the objects themselves: It was
revealed only by research into the Hungarian language as weil as in
comparative ethnography. Thousands of elements in the belief system of
ancient Hungarians have been preserved until the present day. The „Tree
Reaching the Sky“ in our folk tales is nothing but the „Tree of Life“ also
known as the „Tree of the World“ that links the various strata of secular life
(central, upper and lower worlds). This tree is symbolized by the palmetta
bunches woven into an endless net on the surface of sabretache plate (Fig.
4). Sometimes, this floral pattern depicts the magic tree so unambiguously
(for example on the discs from Särospatak; Fig. 5) that one can have no
doubt conceming its symbolic meaning. In another example, the tree was
depicted upside down, pointing toward the Lower World (Fig. 6). The
meandering design running below the rim of a silver bowl from Ketp6 is
also very instructive. The late master placed a tiny tree in the middle of this
design, indicating the actual meaning of the floral design (Fig. 7). Among
the braid disks designed for female hair, a bird’s head with a hooked bill can
sometimes be seen on the tip of the tree branches (Fig. 8 and 9). This is
nothing but the miraculous eagle who carried privileged newborn babies
(shamans and sovereigns) down from the tree who is enthroned at its top. A
horse-like animal with talons and decorated with floral patterns is another
motif that commonly occurs on disks. A leafy branch grows out of its back.
This may be looked upon as the container of the shaman’s soul which,
mounting the „Tree of Life“, reaches the seven-layered heaven, the empire
of gods and ghosts. (In one of our folk tales, the youngest son, a shaman,
climbs to the peak of the „Tree of Life“ riding horses with silver, golden and
diamond coats).
The radial pattern shown on disks with ancient decorations
corresponds to the sun as it turns around the sky. This Ornament is also
frequently interwoven with floral elements (Fig. 1 0). (The Biharkeresztes
specimen is decorated with a swastika that ends in palmetta leaves.) The sun
that gives and maintains life, is also shown on disks from the Don region,
which may be considered the forerunners of Hungarian disks. One should
also remernher that the sun was probably the symbol of both the Khazar as
weil as the supreme Hungarian chief, who were considered to be of
heavenly origin. The name of the supreme Hungarian sovereign
(distinguished by the terms Kende of kündü) also originates from the Turkic
30
tenn for sun: ‚kün ‚. The eagle, considered the „Bird of the Sun“ (called turul
in Hungarian on the basis of its Turkic name) is also present in the art of the
Period of the Hungarian Conquest. In addition to the well known Rakamaz
disk, it is neatly depicted on a belt mount from Karos (Fig. 1 1 ) and on the
disks found in the Zemplen area (Fig. 12). It is known from Hungarian
chronicles that according to the genesis myth of the Arpad Dynasty, the first
Hungarian Sovereign Airnos was bom to Emese who had been impregnated
by a turul bird.
Among the depiction of animated creatures one also finds the stag, the
magic animal of Hungarian genealogy, depicted on a strap-end from Törtel
(Fig. 1 3). The eagle and the stag are extremely ancient elements in the art of
nomadic peoples and may be easily identified in Scythian art as weil. It is
most likely that these animals, endowed as they are with special powers,
have been present in Hungarian mythology at least since the time of the
ethnogenesis of the Hungarians.
In addition to masterpieces of goldsmithing, the graves of conquering
Hungarians also contain objects which are reflections of ancient mythology
and spiritual culture. Ancient types of shrouds as weil as symbolic skull
trepanations bear witness to the dualistic soul perception of ancient
Hungarians („body-soul“ and „shadow-“ or „free-soul“). Mortuary behavior,
including the burial of the skull and foot bones of the riding horse following
a feast, are all indicative of a belief in the „Other World“. Some fortunate
finds have Iead us to the remains from graves devoted to shamans. Bone
stick handles carved in the shape of owls‘ heads were found at Hajdudorog
(Fig. 14) and Szeghalom. lt is the Szeghalom find that shows that such
artifacts must have decorated a shaman’s stick at the time of their use. In
Hungarian folk tradition, owls are considered shamanistic, magic birds who
indicate approaching death and take the souls of the dead away.
Archaeological remains and artistic representations have the potential
to reveal thousands of details conceming spiritual culture. Decoding their
ancient meanings, however, must be attempted by using comparative
analyses. One may also justifiably wonder whether this artistic style was
available only to the privileged and whether the common people understood
little of this symbolism. This idea is contradicted by the fact that the same
motifs appear on carved bone while woodcarvings which must have rotted
over time were probably similar as weil. Indirect data from artistic objects
show that their poorly preserved organic components must have been
decorated with a similar wealth of patterns. Fringe-designs visible in the
upper section of the Szolyva sabratache-plate make it evident that the
3 1
goldsmith in this case was imitating leatherwork (Fig. 4). Fine lines along
the leaf-edges on another sabretache plate from Turkeve are reminiscent of
ancient applique pattems in textile (Fig. 15). This is why the culture of
conquering Hungarians should be considered largely uniform among both
high ranking and common people. The roots of that culture Iead us quite
clearly to the East.
The I Oth century is one of the most dynamically changing periods in
Hungarian history. This holds equally true for economy, society and culture.
By the middle of that century, when the devastating military incursions into
neighboring countries had to be halted and a complete network of sedentary
agriculturalist settlements had come into existence, the elite of nomadic
society had lost both its social prestige and economic significance. Geza the
Great Sovereign channeled the future development of his people in a
European direction. The spread of Christianity and the developing new
society changed the character of Hungarian culture as weiL The colorful
eastem artistic style disappeared, ancient beliefs were suppressed and, even
if gradually, Hungarian culture assumed a European face. This was the price
of survival and continuing development, although some elements of that
ancient culture have remained stubbomly imprinted in the popular memory
for over a millennium.
References
Fettich, N. 1935. A honfoglal6 magyarsäg müveszete (The art of conquering Hungarians).
Ars Hungarica I I .
Gombocz, Z . 1921. A bolgär kerdes es a magyar hunmonda (The Bulgar question and the
Hungarian Hunnic myth). Magyar Nyelv 17: 20.
Gunda, B. 1943. A neprajz es a magyar östörtenet (Ethnography and Hungarian ancient
history). In L. Ligeti ed. A magyarsag östörtenete (The ancient history of Hungarians).
Budapest.
Halasi-Kun, T. 1990. A magyar-török rokonsägr61 (On the relation between Hungarians
and Turks). Historia 2: 8-10.
Kodäly, Z. 1975. A zene mindenkie (Music belongs to everyone). Budapest.
Marczali, H. 1895. A vezerek kora es a kirä1ysag megalapitäsa (The period of chieftains
and foundation of the kingdom). In S. Szilägyi ed. A magyar nemzet törtenete (History of
the Hungarian nation) I. Budapest.
32
Meszöly, G. 1929. Mi6ta 1ovas nep a magyar? (When did the Hungarians become
horsemen?). Nepünk es Nyelvünk 1: 205-214.
Nagy, G. 1895. Magyarorszäg törtenete a nepvändorläs koräban (The history of Hungary
during the Migration Period). In S. Szi1ägyi ed. A magyar nemzet törtenete (History ofthe
Hungarian nation) I. Budapest 1895.
Nemeth, Gy. 1930. A honfog1a16 magyarsäg kialakuläsa (The formation of Conquering
Hungarians). Budapest.
Pauler, Gy. – Szilägyi, S. (eds.) 1900. A magyar honfoglalas lcUtföi. (The sources of the
Hungarian conquest.) Budapest.
P6sta, B. 1905. Regeszeti tanulmanyok az orosz foldön (Archaeo1ogische Studien auf
russischen Boden). Budapest – Leipzig.
Vämbt\ry, A. 1914. A magyarsag bölcsojenel (At the crad1e of Hungarians). Budapest.
Zichy, I. 1 923. A magyarsäg östörtenete es muveltsege a honfogla1äsig (The ancient
history and culture of Hungarians until the Conquest Period). A magyar nyelvtudomany
kezikönyve l/5, Budapest.
Zichy, I. 1939. Magyar östörtenet.(The Hungarian prehistory.) Budapest.
Bibliography
Ancient cultures of the Uralian peoples.Ed. Hajdu, P. Budapest 1 976.
The Ancient Hungarians. Exhibition catalogue. Ed. Fodor, I. Budapest 1996.
Bartha, A.: Hungarian Society in the