12. 3.

The ethnicity of the population in the churchyard cemeteries from Transylvanian Basin
From the beginning of the 20
th
century on, culture and ethnic identity were interpreted
according to the widely accepted theory of Gustav Kossina, who stated that geographical units are
characterized by unified cultures and these indicate ethnic entities (KOSSINA 1936, 315; KOSSINA
1911). Later the central-eastern European experts who adopted Kossinas original theory debased it to
a vulgar level.
1
It is also dangerous that in many cases a particular ethnicity is considered a biological
or 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
From
this theory of Kossinas archeological cultures have grown, whose counterparts are the modern
national cultures, which were developed during the construction of nations in the 19
th
century. This
way 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 elements
of the Glina or Coofeni cultures bringing back to our mind the 20
th
century Romanian national-
political unity, mentally they had in mind the institutional structures of the modern state because they
meant by this term all the elements of the material culture that were common in this area. This way of
thinking makes it possible for the archaeologist to reach different people who lived long ago, based on
the 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 the
19
th
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 so
called national culture.
Certainly, the relation between material culture and ethnos is much more complicated.
3
The
relation 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 one
ethnic group or the other. It is not ethnical identities detectible in the archaeological inventory but
various distinctive cultural archaeological signs, traditions, relations, and blending that can usually be
only indirectly related to different identities. One must also say that any human being can have several
identities, 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 than
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We mention that no population mentioned in narrative
sources in the Carpathian Basin in the early medieval period can be associated or identified with any
anthropological 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 cut
ethnic interpretations. However, it may be assumed that by the 12th century, in the valleys of the
Mure/Maros and Some/Szamos, due to the 10th and 11th century immigrations and the sociological
processes of acculturation and assimilation generated by the institutions of the polifunctional 10th
century nomadic state and the 11th century Christian kingdom, we can talk about a Hungarian
entity. Certainly, knowing medieval realities, this terminology must be used with care, aware of the
fact that the entity itself underwent major changes during 300 years (from 896 to 1200). What was
meant by Hungarian in the 10th century and what was meant by it in the 12th century were two
different 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 archaeological
discussions, 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 11th
centuries, must have contacted this people. From the 10th century, the times before the network of
settlements 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 that necropola aparinea populaiei proto-
romne i se dateaz n secolele VVII. A good analysis on the documentational foundation of these
theories, see HARHOIU 2004, 149167.
2
The issue of ethnos has been discussed both in Hungarian and in Romanian archeology: NICULESCU 1997, 63
69; CURTA 2004, 525; BLINT 2006, 277347; LZRESCU 2008, 5577; NICULESCU 2011, 524.
3
On the classification of these systems see: JONES 1997, 106127.
of some political-military centres, so there are grounds to suppose that the population of the 7
th
9
th

century cremation burials (Dbca, Jucu, Someeni) was partly integrated by the new conquerors in
the 10
th
century, on the other hand, in the 11
th
century the kingdom started a new wave of gradual
immigration similarly to that in the Maros valley, which was accompanied by the establishment of
Christian institutions. In our opinion, the early Hungarian place names in Northern Transylvania can
be connected to the population that migrated here in the 11
th
century as we dont know of any typical
10
th
century cemetery of common people in this area. We have reasons to suppose that the cemeteries
of the population of cremation burials can be dated up to the end of the 10
th
century, similarly to Little
and Great Poland, where cremation burials were carried out as late as the beginning of the 11
th

century. (JADEWSKI 1949, 91191; MIKIEWICZ 1969, 241302; ZOLL-ADAMIKOWA 1979; ZOLL-
ADAMIKOWA 1998, 227238). Having investigated the area of settlements that has been mapped based
upon the excavated cemeteries in the valley of the Little Szamos and its side valleys, the conclusion
can be drawn that churchyard cemeteries exactly indicate the places of settlements outlining the
network, which was established in the 11
th
century by the Hungarian Kingdom, based upon earlier
foundations. 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, 5859; WERBCZY 1990, 269: Titulus CXXXIII. 8. ; MAROSI 1999,
15; SZAKCS 2004, 75), whose ethnic characteristic was secondary and we would not encourage
anyone to make such analyses.
Although it seems that the forced search for ethnicity in the middle reaches of the River
Maros and the valley of the Small Szamos in the western half of the basin, which revolved around
churchyard cemeteries but led nowhere, is drawing to an end (GLL 2011, ?), the situation in the
eastern and south-eastern parts of the basin is completely different. In this area there is a war of
numbers going on concerning whether particular cemeteries can be classified as Szkely or Germanic.
The system of criteria set up by experts applying the retrospective
5
method, which is based on the
Darwinist conception
6
or the method of gemischte Argumentationen, has two basic features: 1.
Szkely cemeteries are rich in furnishings, in contrast with this, 2. Germanic hospes cemeteries have
poor furnishings and in the latter ones there are some mummy-shaped graves, which are considered
ethnic characteristics. (IONI 2010, 389390). The first problem with this theory is that it does not
take macroregional funerary fashion into account, which can be connected to different elites in the
first phase of its catching on, but any social segment can copy them, especially when it does not incur
any cost such as mummy-shaped graves.
7
Several different kinds of misconceptions have to be
refuted: 1. the Germanic hospes population was not homogeneous (and therefore it had no
homogeneous identity), and the community that was later named Saxon, received its community legal
status from the Hungarian Kingdom at the beginning of the 13
th
century (Aranybulla 1224); 2.a. From
an archaeological point of view, the theory of the line between the rich and the poor outlined above
cannot be held as the cemetery in Drueni, which has been categorised as hospes, does not have any
poorer furnishings than those in Doboka-Area IV or A. Tamass Garden or the necropolis in Moreti
or the cemetery in Avrmeti, which is in the Szkely Land but had at least as poor furnishings as the
cemetery excavated in Feldioara; 2.b. The debate has not yet been decided in the case of the
cemeteries in Petfalva and Zabola, which have been cited as examples of cemeteries with rich grave
furnishings, 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 in Moreti, which has been classified as
Szkely, the excavated cemeteries show some characteristics of Western-European fashion (such as
hair pins, which were characteristic of western hairstyle) which can be connected to immigrant hospes
(!!); 3. Based upon historical and demographic data, one cannot talk about a Saxon Land in the 12
th


4
In this sense we can cite the chronicle form Echternachi: according to this chronicle countless Hungarians
were killed by Tatars until they passed through the Mese Gates towards the Hungarian Great Plain.
5
The criticism of the retrospective method, in connection with the so called Orient preference: BLINT 1999,
1316; BLINT 2004, 246252; BLINT 2007, 545567.
6
A detailed criticism on Darwinism, see: KUHN 2006.
7
As we have already pointed out the rise in the popularity of horse burials after the Hungarian conquest might
have been such an example of funerary fashion. GLL 2010, 303, Fig. 18.
century, let alone the identification of cemeteries as the formation of Saxon entity is the result of a
long historical process (KRIST 2004, 185203), the area that later became known as Saxon Land in
Southern 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 few
examples: 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 the hospes exclusively, it can rather be interpreted as a 12
th
century
macroregional 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 by
Istvn Mri in 1944 in Cluj, there is no cemetery north of Alba Iulia where exact observations have
been made!! Among the 577 graves excavated in Dbca Area IV, the shape of the grave was
registered only in one case, it was registered in two cases in Cluj-Calvaria, and in the cemeteries in
Dbca-A. Tamas Garden, Moldoveneti-Unitarian church, Gilu and irioara the shapes of the
graves have not been documented at all; 4.b. in vast ranges of the Carpathian Basin, the shapes of
graves 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 (RVSZ 1996).
The ethnogenesis of the Szkelys 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 be
connected to the social processes accompanying the westernisation that took place in the 11
th

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. Similarly
to the Saxon ethnicity, Szkely ethnicity consisted of heterogeneous elements both in anthropological
and in linguistic aspects. Due to the analyses carried out by Lrn Benk, it is known that it covered
very heterogeneous language groups (BENK 1999, 114116; KRIST 1996, 6668), but we cannot
tell anything about their anthropological features as this kind of research has not yet been started
except for two cemeteries. In our opinion, the formation of their ethnicity was also due to the kingdom
and similarly to the Saxons, it was due to their privileges and their historical appearance can be dated
to the 11
th
century. The most important evidence of this is that there is no mention of the Szkelys in
the written sources in the 11
th
century (KORD 1994, 623), so this group as an entity is unknown to the
written 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 separate natio, was also formed as a result
of some social processes and the political and institutional systems of that age. This opinion of ours
can also be supported by negative evidence: in the 11
th
century written sources several ethnic groups
are mentioned (Pechenegs, Germanic and Italian hospes): for instance, the Pechenegs were first
mentioned in the army of Andrew I in his war against Henry III, on the western border land of the
kingdom (TTH 1994, 101). The question may arise: if the Szkelys were incidentally mentioned on
the western border land in the first quarter of the 12
th
century, how come that they were not known in
the 11
th
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 than
the 11th century. However, in contrast with Szkely ethnicity, in the case of Romanian entity, one
cannot talk about a group with unified legal status. On the other hand, the appearance of entity in
Transylvania is not the result of the development of legal and political institutions, but a northsouth
migration of some groups of the already existing entity, which is revealed by two sources that are not
archaeological ones:
1. Written sources clearly show a migration of Romanian groups from the south to the north
from the 10th century to the 13th century (BNA 1988, 107194; TTH 1988, 46106; SCHRAMM
1997; KRAMER 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 of
either Hungarian or Slavonic origins. KRIST 2004, 196197.
9
Until the 19th century the name Romanian, denominating an entity did not exist, therefore any ethnonym of
this kind cannot be found in the written sources of this era. However, as a negative connotation has been
attached to the name Vlach, we use the name Romanian, although it is ahistoric.
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 century
Byzantine sources report on the existence of Romanian groups north of the Danube (Nikhetas
Khoniates, Kinnamos). It may be important to note that in the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom no
mention of any Romanian population was made prior to the 13th century (KRIST 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 like
the institutions of the Hungarian Kingdom were not informed about a population living in its territory
or they forgot to mention them for approximately 200 (!) years, and then in a moments notice the
information sources began to give a huge amount of data about this population in the 13th century.
2. The analysis of 11
th
13
th
century place names (toponyms) show a picture completely in
accordance with that given by the written sources: a vast majority of 11
th
-13
th
century place names is
either of Hungarian or of Slavonic origin (approximately 90%), even in such regions as
Fogaras/Fgra in Southern Transylvania, which became an outpost of the Romanians (e. g.
rps/Arpa, Fldvr/Feldioara, Szombatfalva/Smbta, Fogaras/Fgra). It means that the
Romanian speaking groups settled down next to or in the place of Hungarian communities. It also
indicates 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 can
talk 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 (KRIST 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 gradual
consisting of several stages. The first wave of migration was organised by the royal institutions, which
is supported by the fact that these groups had military-border patrol statuses (for instance a Romanian
contingent fighting in Bulgaria is mentioned in 1210ERDLYI OKMNYTR 1997, 37), whose legal
status cannot be compared to those of the Szkelys and the Saxons, who achieved some privileges, but
it was very different from the staus of those who arrived with later migratory waves. In later times,
from the turn of the 13
th
-14
th
centuries on, these groups were settled down not by the king but by the
nobility, 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 different
from that of the hospes or the Szkelys. Inour opinion, it can only be explained by supposing that only
the earliest immigrant groups of the Romanians received privileges, and the members of the South
Transylvanian nobility came from these groups and it also explains why Romanian nobility is known
only 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 another
interpretation which has not been taken into consideration by historiography: is it possible that the
first Vlach groups became the elite of the entity and later Romanian immigrations were supported by
these Romanian groups?
In this short survey, which is mainly based on written sources, we can draw the conclusion
that from the mid-10
th
century until the Mongolian raid, we can assume several waves of various
immigrating 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 as 1 the question, as to which cemetery can
be considered Hungarian, Saxon or Szkely in Southern or South-East Transylvania (BRATHER 2006,
27, Fig. 1), CANNOT be answered.
As it can be seen, following our theoretical approach, it is difficult to draw any conclusions on
the ethnic identity of the populations in these necropolises. The elite of a political-military structure
ruled a society by using symbols of different nature (ASSMAN 1992). In the case of the 11
th
13
th

century cemeteries it can firmly be stated that its elite was the political-military elite appointed by the
Hungarian Kingdom and his king. The common traditions of the population living in fortresses,
villages is impossible to identify by archeological means, based on comprehensive archeological finds
from the 11th13th centuries Carpathian Basin.
As a result, in most cases it is not ethnic realities but the illustration or symbolisation of social
statuses that can be detected. Certainly, it cannot be excluded that in particular cases the difference in
social statuses may be closely connected to different ethnicity, but it is impossible to detect them in
medieval churchyard cemeteries by archaeological means. In the county centres and in the castles
housing different religious institutions such as Alba Iulia, Cluj-Mntur, Dbca populations of
heterogenous origins may have concentrated, which is referred to in the sources too. In small
settlements there are more chances that the population was homogenous, but this can neither be
proved nor refuted for the puritanism of the graves.