Antu: al of the Worl Ach Cong (© 307) Who Was First? Nationalism in Slovak and Hungarian Archaeology and History Eduard Krekovié, Department of Archaeology, FiF Comenius University, Gondova 2, 818 01 Bratislava, Slovakia E-mail: eduard krekovic@fphil.unibask ABSTRACTS: This paper critically examines several examples of theories, which represent polemical Hungarian and Slovak positions, and consider the socio-historical and conceptual roots of problematical contrasting interpretations. Slovaks ‘and Hungarians (Magyars) lived until 1918 in a common state for about 1000 years. Today, archaeologists and historians working in different ‘counties are concerned with different questions and offer very different interpretations of the past. A case in point is the issue of the arrival of Slavs and Magyars to the Middle Danube region. Although it is, in general, agreed that the Magyars came into the region over 350 years after the arrival of the Slavs, some Hungarians scientists emphasize a so-called “double occupation” of homeland having to do with relationships between the Magyars and the Huns. In contrast, we can find in the Slovak archaeological literature arguments concerning the “presence” of Slavs in the territory of Slovakia already in the fourth century (or even earlier), that is, before the Huns. Résumé: Dieser Beitrag bietet eine kritische Bewertung von einigen Theorien, welche die ungarischen und slowakischen Streitpositionen reprasentieren sowie eine Reflexion Uber die sozial - historischen und konzeptuellen Wurzeln von den problematischen Gegeninterpretationen, Die Slowaken und Ungar (Magyaren) hatten im Jahre 1918 bereits ein tungefahr 1000-jzhriges Zusammenleben in einem gemeinsamen Staat hinter sich. Die Archdologen und Historiker von einzelnen Landern beschaftigen sich heutzutage mit verschiedenen Fragen und bieten sehr unterschiedliche Interpretationen der Vergangenheit. Das betrfft 2um Beispiel auch die Ankunft der Slawen und Magyaren im Mitteldonaugebiet. Obwohl man allgemein zustimmt, daB die Magyaren diese Region mehr als 350 Jahre nach der Ankunft der Slawen erreicht haben, einige ungarische Forscher betonen die sog. ,Doppeleinnahme’ der Heimat, die mit den Beziehungen zwischen den Magyaren und Hunnen zusammmenhiingt. Deshalb kénnen wir in der siowakischen archdologischen Fachliteratur Argumenten begegnen, © 107 Worl Arkaba Conroe RESEARCH 5960 EDUARD KREKOVIE die mit der ,Anwesenheit’ der Slawen auf dem Gebiet der Slowakei bereits im 4, Jahrhundert (oder sogar noch friéher) rechnen, dh. vor den Hunnen. KEY WORDS Nationalism, Archaeology, History, Hungary, Slovakia SCHLUSSELBEGRIFFE: Nationalismus, Archiologie, Historie, Slowakei, Ungarn Introduction: Coming to terms with the past is one of the most important challenges in post-communist countries, as well as in the West. The purgative effect of such reflections is ideal if they are written by someone with relevant expe- rience. My background puts me in a privileged position to engage with the topic of nationalism as seen in Slovak and Hungarian scientific literature. 1 ‘would like to emphasize the word scientific—I am not concerned with the type of discussion that might appear in popular literatuce. Nationalism as a topic in the scholarly literature of Europe appears to have been abandoned about 20 years ago. In the European literature, his- is connected mostly with the name of G. Kossina and the later fascist ideology. In the 1980s, some papers appeared which critically evalu- ated nationalistic interpretations in the past: WAC in Southampton and the volume Archacological approaches to cultural identity (Shennan 1989) were important in this regard. However, the split of the eastern block in the beginning of 1990s and the rise of new states made this theme even more acute. During the previous communist period the dogma of “proletarian internationalism” prevailed. This was understood as a brother- hood of all workers regardless of state boundaries. In this context it was considered inappropriate to attack “brother-countries” from a nationalistic position even though historical conflicts from the past had not been resolved. After 1989, free scientific research and writings became possible, and consequently nationalistic opinions re-appeared. This is understand- able, especially in the case of new states, who were responding to the need to find a new identity, ing that found in history and archaeology. In archaeology, two publications about nationalism presented reactions to a new situation (Kohl and Fawcett 1998; Diaz-Andreu and Champion 1996). It might be regarded as a positive sign that after the tragic events that occurred in the former Yugoslavia attention was paid to nationalistic approaches in archaeology there as well (Babié 2002). In addition, as earlyNationatism in Slovak and Hungarian Archaeology and History 61 as 1990 K, Kristiansen (1990) drew attention to the question of nationalism in a forming European Union. In this paper I challenge the opinions of researchers from Slovakia and Hungary on claims about nationalism concerning roughly the second half of the Ist jum AD. It is an interesting fact that nobody is dealing with these problems so far (probably because itis a delicate topic which concerns some colleagues still living). The only attempt on the Hungarian side comes from Cs. Balint (1997) who-stated that Hungarian archaeology has been wrongfully accused of promoting nationalism (without, however, providing an adequate discussion on the topic). This was a missed chance and instead of a serious analysis we have a mere maintenance of nationalism. Various forms of nationalism, ranging from innocent patriotism to chauvinism, have been part of archaeology since it began to be accepted as asscience. And as Diaz-Andreand and Champion (1996, p. 3) point out, without nationalism archaeology or the study of the past might have never advanced beyond the status of a hobby or a pastime. Therefore, the nation- alism of the 19th century, as seen in the modern nations constituted in Central Europe, should not to be denounced—it was simply a feature of that period. In this I have only moderate nationalism in mind, fee of any chauvinistic and racist extremes, and my concern is not with the begin- rings of nationalism, but rather with nationalism as seen during the past 50 years. A Little Bit of History In order to understand the challenges that face the interpretation of a common Slovak—Hungarian past, 1 shall state some basic historical facts concerning the settlement of the Middle-European region (the so-called Carpathian Basin), During the Migration Period, the Fluns reached this ter- ritory from the east at the beginning of the 5th century. At the start of the 6th century the Slavs (the ancestors of Slovaks and other nations) began to appear; in 567 came the Avars (a nomadic nation from Asia); and finally in 896, the Old Magyars (or Hungarians). Let me dwell a little further on the topic “Magyars” because it is sometimes misunderstood. The alliance of the Old Magyars was created by seven tribes of different origins, with the one called Megyer dominating the later medieval state. Several tribes spoke the Ugrofinnish language, others some Turkish dialects. The term “Hungarian” comes from the name of the Turkish tribe Onoguri, with whom the Magyar tribes kept in very close contact. The problem is that modern Hungarians do not distinguish the terms Hungarian and Magyar—they know only the name Magyar. Most other languages, however, use the term Hungarian, But not all.that is Hungarian is automatically Magyar. At the end of the 10th62 EDUARD KREKOVIC century the territory of present Slovakia became part of the Hungarian Kingdom, and while the inhabitants (with the Magyars forming the ruling layer) were termed Hungarians (natio Hungarica) in ethnic reality they were Magyars, Slavs (later Slovaks), Croats, Germans, Rumanians and so on, The Hungarian Kingdom was not organized ethnically (nor was any other medi- eval state) and this situation was common until the 18th century. Then, during a period of rising nationalism an opinion emerged among some of the Magyars that the Slovaks were descendants of an ethnic group captured by the Old Magyars in the 10th century, and this was used to support an argument that Slovaks should not have the same rights as the Magyars Here lies the origins of the SlovakHungarian antagonism, traces of which we can sce up to the present time. Because of the limited extent of this paper I cannot follow these traces in detail, but rather I shall outline some typical examples. Let me finish by saying that the Slovaks and Hungarians lived more than 1000 years in one state (the Hungarian kingdom and later the “Austro-Hungarian Monarchy”) until 1918, at which time Czechoslova- kia, Hungary and other states were established. Who was First? This question rises naturally in response to a discussion on the advent of new ethnic groups from the East. Hungarian nationalism of the 19th cen- tury was not able to reconcile itself with the idea that the Magyars were the last who reached the Middle Danube, As a result, Hungarians records of medieval chronicles, which contained the legends of the close relation- ship between the Huns and Magyars were revisited. One anonymous chronicler from the beginning of the 13th century had said that Attila the Hun and the Magyar chiettain, Arpad, had descended from the same line- age. We do not know where he got his information from, but the error wwas probably caused by the then European sotirces sometimes using the names Hun, Avar and Magyar interchangeably. This is not surprising, since in western Europe all the eastern nomadic groups were lumped together or thought of as being similar. Significantly, if the Magyars could be con- nected to the Huns by the nationalistic historians of the 19th century, modern Hungarians could lay claim to the territory of the former “Hun Empire” or at least its centre, which would antedate the arrival of the Slavs to the same region, Old ways of political thinking are sometimes still professed by contemporary politicians. It is necessary, however, to empha- sise how petty this arguing is. The question of which nation appeared on a certain territory first should not be a concern today. It is better to accept historically formed boundaries and to abandon the politics of “historicalNationalism in Slovak and Hungarian Archaeology and History 63 Hungarian research in the 20th century refuted the thesis of Hunic-Hungarian relationship, on the basis that it was not supported by evidence. However, some archaeologists stil follow this theory, though in a more developed form. Some scholars have asserted the idea of a Hun-Avar-Magyar settlement continuity. According to Harmatta (1951, pp. 3-4), some Huns did not return to southern Russia after the defeat of, ‘Attila’s sons (454 AD), but persisted in Central Europe until the coming of the Avars (in 567), and later these Hun-Avars met the Old Magyars (in 896). The most well-known representative of this stream of thought, Laszlé (1974, p. 182), believed emphatically that together with the Huns some Magyars also came to the Carpathian Basin. Laszlé even revived the idea of an affinity between Attila and the Avarian and Magyar chieftains. But since the Hun—Avarian continuity could not be proved, Liszl6 developed a new theory that the Slavs and Avars appeared in the Carpathian Basin more or less synchronously, and the so-called second Avarian wave of AD 670 was created by the Magyars. According to Liszlé, the 9th century chieftain Arpad, leader of Old-Magyar tribes, found large groups of Magyars settled in Central Europe (Lasal6 1974, pp. 194-209). Such opinions naturally caused controversy and a response in Slovak archaeology and history studies (and in other countries) where it had been documented that the Slavs reached present-day Slovakia before the Huns. Several authors were adamant that the first Slavs began to appear at the end of the 4th century (because of the presence of Slavic-like pottery) and that the Huns came in the second wave (Totik 1971, pp. 163-165; Ruttkay 2000, p. 69). Others argued that by the Roman Period (Ist~4th century AD) there was some symbiosis of Slavonic and Germanic tribes in Slovakia (though no relevant evidence supports this claim) (Caplovié 1998, 62} Other historians do not doubt the advent of the Slavs in the 6th century; however, they identify them as being already Slovaks (Kucera 2000, pp. 5-6). It must be said, that in traditional historic and linguistic research the earliest evidence for Slovaks starts at the 11th century (or probably later). Extreme opinions have revived some old theories regarding the Slavs in the Middle-Danubian Region (Maéala 1995, p. 64). The most extreme was the former communist director of the Archaeological Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences Chropovsky (1998), who, basing his research on the analyses of the Russian linguist O. Trubatshov, claimed that Sla- vonic tribes appeared during the Baden culture in the Eneolithic or Cop- per Age (this culture existed in the Carpathian Basin in the 4th millenium BC and Trubatschov argues that the proto-Slavic language originated in this period). Here is a clear example of where uncritical linguistic research can lead us, particularly when equating language with ethnicity. Hungar-64 EDUARD KREKOVIC ian researchers have been equally erroneous. For example, even though the first reliable written records about the Magyars start around the begin- ning of the 9th century, Béna (2000, p. 9) states that the Hungarian (Magyar) language and people had a 1500- to 2000-year-old history behind them. Some Other Problems Besides the question of who first colonised the Carpathian Basin, Slovak and Hungarian researchers have developed other theories, equally unproven. One of these concerns the cultural standing and significance of ethnic groups. Because nomadic pastoralists were once regarded as under-developed, some Hungarian archaeologists have tried to push this feature back to the Old Magyars (Béna 2000, p. 13). Some even suggested that the highland Slavs ‘were hunter-gatherers and that only under the influence of the Hungarians and Germans did they begin to practise farming (Deér 1943, p. 127). Then again, there is the claim that the Slavs are the largest ethnic group in Europe, thus playing an important role in world history since prehistoric times (Chropovsky 1998, p. 36). It is apparent that there is a quantity versus quality interchange at stake; however, the size of an ethnic group does not necessarily mean superiority in quality in regard to the group's contribution to world culture, science and so forth. Another area of dispute concerns the coexistence of the Slavs and Avars. ‘The Avars came to the Carpathian Basin in 567 and in a short time con- quered Slavs, occupying the territory of southern Slovakia. Some cemeteries in southwestern Slovakia have been classified by Hungarian archaeologists as Avarian, but by the Slovaks as being a mixture. One particularly curious claim is that most of the individuals buried were Sls who had adapted Avarian clothing, taken on their equipment and lived partly the Avarian way of life, but had not lost their own ethnic identity (Cilinski 1998, pp. 43-44). ‘The evidence upon which this argument is based is not clear. There are also several important contentious questions related to Great Moravia in the 9th century. This was an archaic state situated mainly on the territory of the later Czechoslovakia bordering on the south with con- temporary Hungary. The southern and eastern border of the area has been marked out distinctly by Slovak and Hungarian research. It is true that, according to written sources, there were some Slavs living in Pannonia (the western part of Hungary of the later period) before the advent of the Magyars in the year 896; however, it is not very likely they really belonged to Great Moravia, Magyars conquered these Slavs in the beginning of 10th century. The population numbers of these Slavs is also the subject of dispute: while Hungarian archaeologists estimate these numbers to beNationalism in Slovak and Hungarian Archaeology and History 65 small, Slovakian archaeologists gauge them to be large. The disintegration of the Great Moravian State is also of interest since it was caused, in part, by the Old Magyars. Some misunderstandings occur in the interpretation of written records. Hungarian archaeologists and historians have tried to legitimise the Magyar invasion of the Middle Danube by arguing that the Great Moravian rulers invited them to help in fights against the Franks (a nation of Germanic origin which inhabited the territory of the western part of Central Europe). This process, however, also would have to have been sealed by a convention (Béna 2000, p. 13), and is refuted by Slovak research, Another example of contradictory interpretations relates to an entry from the Alamanic annals. concerning the battle between the Mora vians and Magyars in 902. According to Béna (2000), Arpid’s troops beat the Moravian ruler Mojmir Il, who is said to have perished there. But itis the Moravians to whom Slovak historians ascribe the victory (Ratko 1988, p. 125) Conclusion 1 could continue, since there are abundant nationalistic views of history on Doth sides, which are typically 19th and 20th century discussions. This pro- motion of nationalism is not the problem, but rather an ethnocentric inter- pretation of history. Every nation interprets history according to its own needs and as a result it is difficult to write an absolutely objective history. However, ethnocentric and nationalistic interpretations should be refuted and in the future replaced by tolerance, empathy or a. whole-European n if an “objective” historical interpretation itself is only a fiction, il important that "each case must be examined by minimal univer= sal standards which requires: ..that the construction of one group's national past is not to be made at the expense of another.." (Kohl 1988, P.8). It would be best to eliminate discussions of nationalism early in the education process, ie. in schools. Only the long-term process of educating 1 young generation can bring a substantive change of attitude. This process should be supported by politicians. Happily, the first steps to the writing of a common Hungarian-Slovak history text-book for high school students are already being taken, This text-book should include a discussion of some of the problems mentioned here as well as other areas of recent Hungarian and Slovak history which might be even more important. While there are many controversial questions being negotiated at present, let us hope that the work of historians in both countries is a success.66 EDUARD KREKOVIC References Babig, 8 2002. Still Innocent After all these Years?, In: P.F. Biehl, A. Gramsch and ‘A. Marciniak (eds.), Archaologien Europas/Archaeologies of Europe (pp. 308-321). Manster/New York: Waxman, Balint, Cs. 1997, Wegierska archeologia i nacionalizm. In Wegrzy ~ Polska w Europie Srod- owe), Historia ~ Literatura, pp. 254-259. Wyd. PSB, Krakéw. Bana, 2000. A Magyarok& Euripa a 9 - 10, sziadban, Hist Gaplovié, D. 1998. Viesnosraloeké olen Slovensa, Academic Electronic Press, Bratislava. , Budapest. ‘Chropovsky, B. 1998, Niekoiko poznimok k problematike enogenézy Slovanov, Studia archaco- logica Slovaca mediaevalia 1:38—42. Gilinska, Z, 1998. Zakladné problémy stidia historického vjvoja na juznom Slovensku v 7.8. storoti, Stulia archaeologica Slovaca mediaeval 1:43~48. Deér, J 1943. A honfoglald Magyarsig, Ins L. Ligeti(ed.) A. Mugyusi 123-153), Budapest: Franklin tirsulst, (op. Divz-Andreu, M. and T. Champion 1996. An introduction, In: M. Diaz-Andrew and T. Cham fam an Archaeology in Europe (pp. 1-23). Bould n (eds.), National- Westviey Press Harmatta, I 1951, Introduction, In Regéscv#sanulncinyok a Ki35i lau fonuvesseg tbrénet hnez, edited by N. Fettich, pp. 3-8. Akadémia, Archacologia Hungarica 31, Budapest Kobi, PAL. 1998. Archaeology in the Service of the State: Theoretical Considerations. In Natianalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by Kohl — Faweett, pp. 3-18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kohl, PLL. and C. Faweet (editors) 1998, Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archacolugy, 2nd extn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kristiansen, K. 1990, National Archaeology in the Age of European Integration, Antiquity 64:835-838,Nationatisny in Slovak and Hungarian Archaeology and History 67 Kugera, M, 2000. Introduction. In Slovaks in the Central Danubian Region in the 6th to 10th ‘Century, pp. 5-6. Slovenské nérodné museum, Bratislava. Lisl, Gy. 1974, VérteseAléstl Pusetaszerig. Budapest: Gondolat. Matala, P. 1995, Emogenéza Slovanov v archeolégit. Kosice: Slovo. Ratko’, P. : : 1988. Slovensko v dobe Velkomoravske). Kosice: Vichodoslovenské vydavatelstvo. Rattkay, A. 2000. Slavs in the Central Danubian Region from the 8th Till the 11th Century and the Beginnings of the History of the Slovak Nation: In Slovaks in the Central Danubian Region in the 6th 10 10th Century, pp. 67-92. Slovenské nérodné museum, Bratislava Shennan, S. (editor) 1989. Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. Unwin Hyman, London. Totik, A. 1971, Prichod Slovanov. In Slovensko I. Dejiny, pp. 156-172. Tatran, Bratislava,