As the final bibliography shows, the author of this volume has already published many linguistic, archaeological and ethnological studies on the early history of the Hungarians. The present volume completes the lengthy work of András Róna-Tas as professor of Early Hungarian History at the Szeged University. The author does not consider his book "as a scholarly monograph. Its aim is to inform rather than to argue" (p. XVIII). We think that just this fact gives a high importance to this volume. Various studies of the Hungarian scholars are hardly accessible to foreign readers because are written in Hungarian. The author summarized the results of most of them into a comprehensive reference book, which is the final product of the lectures given at the Szeged University. The book also reflects the cooperative work of the Szeged Proto-History Research Group, led by the same Róna-Tas (p. XIV).
Besides the preface, the acknowledgements and the translator's notes, the book contains four parts and seven appendices. There are no footnotes, but each chapter is closed with a critical bibliography entitled "Notes".
The first part is dedicated to the sources of the Early Hungarian History The author explains in the introduction what this concept means. He argues that the former term 'prehistory' is not so proper for the period when the Hungarian people was born (p. 3-5). The discussion around the significance of 'ethnos' is very important. The author defines 'ethnos' as "a historically evolved group with a common semiotic system, whose members consciously distinguish themselves from other ethnic entities, and which possesses a permanent self-designation" (p. 6). The semiotic systems are the language, the culture, the burial customs, the costume etc. Apart from these constituent elements, the 'ethnos' has some formative elements, like the common territory, the common political organization and the common religion. Consequently, the purpose of any ethnogenetical inquiry is not to establish the origin of a people, but its formation, i.e. the study of a diachronic process (p. 12). These general statements are useful for the research of any early medieval people. However, they seem to be more accurate for a nomadic people, because the common territory should be considered as a constituent element for a sedentary one. The introduction also examines the chronological framework of the study. The author emphasizes the contribution of the natural sciences in establishing the chronology, together with the evidences furnished by numismatics, archaeology and linguistics (p. 16-39).
The sources are presented according to the interdisciplinary approach claimed at the beginning of the second chapter. The main place is given to the written sources, but the author has also made comprehensive reports on the linguistic, archaeological, ethnographic and anthropological sources of the Early Hungarian history. The author's purpose is to overview "the area bounded by the Eastern European steppe and forested steppe belt, the Ural mountains and river, the region defined by Caucasus, the Black Sea and the eastern side of the Carpathians", i.e. the area involved in the history of the pre-Conquest Hungarians (p. 45). Each category of written sources is introduced by a general presentation of its milieu (Byzantine, Islamic etc.). In some cases maps are showing the extension of those states and civilizations. The didactical aim of this book has made necessary this kind of presentation. It would be useless to mention here all the sources surveyed by Róna-Tas in view to gather items concerning the Hungarian early history. Some remarks are still necessary.
We consider that the section about the Hungarian sources written in Latin would need more explanations on the real significance and historical context of the so much discussed Anonymus's Gesta Hungarorum. First, the king whose former notary was the so-called Anonymus is not identified with Bela III (1172-1196) by all the researchers. The author does not mention the other presumable dating, after Bela II (1131-1141). This is not a futile problem, because an earlier chronology of this source can change some conclusions drawn from it. The identity and the date of the author of Gesta Hungarorum are still disputed. Second: the long debate about the historical reliability of Anonymus is not remembered here, although some Hungarian historians gave trust to this source for some events of the Hungarian conquest. For instance, the great Hungarian Byzantinist Gyula Moravcsik has shown that several details from Gesta Hungarorum can enlighten the circumstances of the Bulgarian-Hungarian relations in the early 900-ies. He admitted the existence of some legendary heroes mentioned by this source, even they are not recorded elsewhere. 1In his turn, the orientalist L. Rásonyi gave full trust to the relation of the war against the Blaci of Transylvania. 2It is true that Róna-Tas says that "the work can be used only very occasionally for direct information regarding the conquering Magyars, and then only with the greatest care" (p. 59), but he does not show which are these suitable pieces of information. In another place of his book, Róna-Tas agreed that "many elements of these stories preserve memories which, subjected to expert historical analysis, can be "converted" to actual historical facts" (p. 340). No remarks are made about the value of the second Hungarian Gesta, written by Simon of Keza in 1285.
The author reserved a very small place for the Hungarian Latin sources of the early Hungarian history, most probable because are late in comparison with the Byzantine or Arabic sources. However, this small attention seems to be a mean to avoid the controversies implied by the criticism of Anonymus. The same can be said about the greatest problem of this source: the Romanians' presence in Transylvania in the period of the Hungarian conquest. Róna-Tas made no remark in his book on this very discussed item, albeit he occasionally mentioned the cohabitation of the Széklers with the Vlachs (Romanians) in the mountains, recorded by Simon of Keza (p. 437). Among the various peoples of the Eurasian space and of the Central Europe which established contacts with the Early Hungarians, the Romanians seem to be the single which are not mentioned in this book. If the author believes that Romanians came in Transylvania during the 12th or 13th century, than he was obliged to express and argue this opinion, because some of the sources he used contain references to this people (not only Anonymus and Simon of Keza, but also the Primary Russian Chronicle and Moses of Horene).
Another major source of the early Hungarian history is the language. The author has identified the primary homeland of the Uralic tribes by a comparative study of several borrowings from Indo-European, Turkic and Mongolian language groups. The homeland was located in the basins of the Volga and Kama rivers, near the middle range of the Ural Mountains. From this area the Uralic tribes spread around 4000 BC. One group was the Finno-Ugrian, from which derived the Ugrians. The separation of these ancestors of the Hungarians can be placed around 2000 BC. The Ugrians preserved close contacts with the Iranian language after 2000 BC, as can be inferred from various word borrowings. The Turkic influence concerns the warfare, the cattle breeding, and the agriculture. The early Hungarians received Turkic words during their participation at the Bulgar and Khazar empires. The existence of some agricultural terms shows that some of the ancestors of the Hungarians were sedentary into a certain period (p. 93-116).
The next category of sources is provided by the archaeology. A. Róna-Tas emphasizes how difficult is to attach "each archaeological culture, group of finds or objects to a given people" (p. 116). The objects made by wandering craftsmen like weapons, harness, and implements are testifying only "economic channels and trading contacts, but nothing about the movement of peoples" (p. 119-120). This means that only the funeral findings are able to give some light on ethnic matters. Such a cemetery was found at Bolshie Tigani near the confluence of Volga and Kama. Its Hungarian origin seems to be sure (p. 120-123).
The author supposes that the burial sites of Frumusica, Probota, Grozesti and Bucharest-Lacul Tei in eastern and southern Romania are the relics of some Hungarian garrisons posted here after the conquest of the Carpathian basin (p. 118-119, 353). Such Hungarian garrisons could exist outside of Carpathians only when the whole Transylvania was integrated in the Hungarian kingdom. This happened in the second half of the 12th century, when Moldavia was under the Cuman domination. In that age the eastern Carpathian range was defended by the Szeklers who moved in this area around the mid 12th century. A Hungarian control post was indeed found at Piatra-Neamt-Bâtca Doamnei 3, but this has no relation with the supposed Hungarian burial sites remembered by A. Róna-Tas. I. Fodor and C. Bálint previously ascribed those graves to Hungarians, but they had considered them as relics of the period before the Conquest, which seems more likely 4. We should remark that their Hungarian origin is not always sure. According to V. Spinei, none of the graves could be ascribed to Hungarians 5, but we agree a Hungarian origin for Bucharest-Lacul Tei. A comparison with the Pecheneg funeral sites has shown its different features 6. On the other hand, two early Hungarian simple cordiform belt bosses were found in Wallachia and Moldavia. The piece from Sultana comes from the grave 14, with an inventory from the early 10th century, while that of Danesti was found into a 9th-10th centuries settlement. Both are very simple and this suggests they were local imitations 7. We thus see that the problem of the early Hungarian relics in Moldavia and Wallachia remains open.
The author also deals with the archaeological landscape of the Middle Danubian area in the 8th-9th centuries. He resumes his already published interpretation of the treasure found at Sânnicolaul Mare (former Nagyszentmiklós). The Turkic runiform signs suggest a date during the second half of the 8th century, but various pieces of the treasure are showing several moments of accumulation and use. This runiform writing was used in the Avar khanate and survived after the Hungarian conquest (p. 127-133). The author also describes the funeral ritual of the Hungarian conquest period. He points out the differences between the military escorts and the common people (p. 134-138).
The ethnographic sources provided by the Khazar and Mongolian societies were also examined with the purpose to find analogies for the Early Hungarian society and religion (p. 140-153). Finally, the anthropological sources are giving interesting information. It is remarkable that "95% of the Hungarian people belong to the European group" (p. 161). This means that the conquering Hungarians were soon assimilated by the population they had found in the Carpathian Basin. The author is right when he observes that: "the smaller groups fighting each other would have sought protection with the Magyars, and in doing so, joined them. The 12th and 13th centuries toponyms show that place names were rapidly Hungaricised. This was primarily due to political and religious reasons, and was not related to ethnicity, nor the size of the population" (p. 159). The present Hungarian people evolved thus from the synthesis of all the populations who adopted the Hungarian language. This process can be compared with the Romanization that unified through language different conquered peoples.
The second part of the book is dedicated to the relatives and neighbors of the Early Hungarians. The linguistic studies have shown that Hungarian language belongs to the Uralic family, which is divided into five groups. The author presents each of these languages evolved from the Urheimat located nearby the Ural Mountains (p. 171-185). He did the same for each linguistic family that established contacts with the ancestors of the Hungarians. No ultimate solution was given for the location of the initial Indo-European area. However, Proto-Indo-European has not a very important significance for the history of the Uralic languages, because only Tocharian and Iranian were involved in the contacts with the latter family through Turkic languages. Very helpful are the maps presented within these pages (p. 187-199). The next Indo-European people remembered in this chapter are the Alans. The author considers that nothing proves an Alanic migration from Caucasus to the area of the Saltovo-Mayak culture (p. 202). However, some finds from Bulgaria are showing the contrary (the Alanic elements took part at the Proto-Bulgarian migration towards the Danube) 8. The most important neighbors of the early Hungarians were the Turkic peoples. Their history is outlined in the following subchapters (p. 203-239). This part of the book can be considered a summarized history of the Eurasian steppe between 4th and 10th centuries AD We should observe that the author used only the literary sources for his research, albeit archaeology can improve the knowledge of the Hunnish, Avarian or Proto-Bulgarian migrations. The presentation of the neighbors of the early Hungarians ends with the southern, western and eastern Slavs (p. 239-247).
In the fifth chapter (Eurasia in the 9th and 10th centuries, p. 251-267) the author presents the historical background of the Hungarian migration from the Eurasian steppe to Central Europe. He rightly points out that the stirrup improved the nomadic forces in the clash with the European warriors (p. 251). The Avars took full advantage from this, but they failed to resist in front of the Frankish and Bulgarian aggressions. A. Róna-Tas suggests that the Avar political organization resisted until the mid 9th century. This can hardly be proved. It seems that he tries to establish a kind of continuity between Avars and Hungarians in Pannonia. Pannonia was indeed a multiethnic area in the 9th century, but the author ignores the remnants of the Christian population of Roman origin that survived in small zones near Keszthely and Pécs (p. 263-266) 9.
The third part of the book begins with a long discussion about the ethnic names given to Hungarians by themselves or by foreigners (p. 271-313). The linguistic competence of Róna-Tas gives perhaps its best proof in this chapter. He classifies the ethnic names in self-designations and external designations and he further examines all the names attested in the sources, from 'Turks' to 'Magyars'. The most important contribution is the etymology of the word Magyar. The author considers that the name Magyer evolved from two separate ethnic names, Maj and Er, which belonged to two peoples that fusioned into a new ethnic entity. Therefore, the self-designation of the Hungarians "suggests that the Magyar people emerged from the merger of two Finno-Ugrian, or more precisely Ugrian, groups". This name existed at least since the 8th century (p. 305-306). The name Hungarian was given by the Slavs most probable during their cohabitation with Hungarians west of Dnieper and it comes from the name Onoghur, which means "Ten Oghurs" (p. 282-287). On the other hand, the real Onoghurs were present in the Avar khanate; their name was attested by some 9th century Western sources (p. 284-285). A special remark should be made on the name Bashkirs bore too by the Hungarians (p. 289-294). A Romanian orientalist has shown that this name survived in the Romanian language as a scornful word applied to Hungarians (bozgor) and also that some Bashkirs lived in Transylvania until the 13th century 10. The next chapter (the seventh) deals with the consecutive homelands of the Magyars and their migration from the southern Uralic area to the so-called Atelkuzu (Etelköz). Very important are the general remarks on the reasons and features of the migrations fulfilled in the Eurasian space:
The Magyars became an ethnic entity in the region between Volga and the Ural Mountains. They moved to the Don-Kuban steppe at the end of the 6th century, when the latter area was abandoned by the Proto-Bulgarians. Here the Magyars became subjects of the Khazars. They next took the region west of Dnieper from the Proto-Bulgarians who were defeated by the Khazars around 670 (p. 319-324). This area is known as Etelköz (Atelkuzu). The eighth chapter presents the two centuries Hungarians life in the Etelköz and their migration to the final homeland, Pannonia. The origin of the name Etelköz is discussed in other chapter (p. 413). The new idea put forward by Róna-Tas is that Hungarians occupied this area located between Dnieper and Danube much sooner than is usually admitted: just after 670 (p. 326). In fact, we think that he has no other proofs than a kind of logic of facts. He argues that the western tribe of the Khazar confederation (i.e. Magyars) immediately occupied the place former mastered by Asparukh, in the same way as the Pechenegs will later occupy the same area when the Hungarians left it in their turn. One could remark that the Magyars were forced to do this by the Pechenegs, while Proto-Bulgarians freely decided to move southwards. Such a long Hungarian presence in the steppe area between Lower Danube and Dnieper does not fit with the existing archaeological evidence. It seems more likely that the region between Danube and Dniester was a buffer zone between Bulgaria and the Khazar empire, sometimes controlled by Bulgaria 11. As Róna-Tas points out (p. 328-329), the information furnished by Gardizi should be dated after 870 (this source speaks about the location of the Magyars near a Christian people called Vanandars, which are the Bulgarians). It is true that the Ungroi helped in 839 the Bulgarian army in the war against the Byzantine prisoners settled down in southern Wallachia, but this action was fulfilled near the Danube's mouths, into a zone that is not very far from Dniester. On the other hand, these warriors could also be identified with the Onoghurs. However, it seems more likely that the separation of the Hungarian and Khavar tribes from the Khazar khanate took place in the second half of the 9th century, when this state declined. The occupation of the former Bulgarian territory west of Dniester could be placed just in these circumstances 12.
The Pechenegs summoned by Bulgaria in 895 drove the Magyars away from the Etelköz. The events are well known. Róna-Tas argues that a part of the Magyar tribes already crossed the Carpathians by the Verecke pass when the bulk of the people was forced to take refuge in the Carpathian Basin. In this way began the Conquest (p. 330-332).
As concerns the Conquest, Róna-Tas embraced the old theory that the Hungarians led by Arpad entered in Transylvania through the passes of the Eastern Carpathians. He considers that they conquered this region from the Bulgarians who mastered the salt mines from the southern Transylvania. This opened the first phase of the Conquest, which was followed by the extension west of Tisza after 898 (p. 332-338). The author does not use archaeological data in supporting this theory. In fact, archaeology suggests another way for the Hungarian penetration in Transylvania: by northwest, i.e. through the Portile Mesesului pass. The earliest Hungarian finds in Transylvania are coming from Cluj and Alba Iulia. Both sites are located far from the Eastern Carpathians, but quite close to Portile Mesesului 13.
The establishment of the Hungarian society in the Carpathian Basin is presented in the ninth chapter (p. 339-371). During an evolution achieved at the beginning of the 11th century, they turned from a nomadic life to an European-like statehood. The author examines the social and political structure of the tribal confederation, the economy, the religion and the culture. The knowledge of the Hungarian society in the 10th century is mainly based on the data furnished by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. The confederation was led by a prince, by a supreme military commander (gyula) and also by the kharka who ruled over the subjected peoples. The confederation was composed from seven Magyar tribes and other three of Khavar origin (unified into a single one). The Khavars represented the avant-garde of the confederation because they became its last members. The Arpad's tribe was the centre of a structure composed from three circles: the Magyar tribes, the Khavar tribes and the subjected populations (from which the author remembers only the Slavs). The Hungarians took from the Slavs some words related to the political organization (király, ispán, megye).
No traces of a sacral or dual kingship are attested in the age of Conquest. The alleged killing of Almos in Transylvania could not be interpreted as a ritual regicide (p. 344). We should remind here that the tradition about the death of Almos in Transylvania (recorded by the 14th century Hungarian chronicles) resulted from a confusion between the name 'Septem Castra' ('Transylvania') and the seven fortresses remembered by Simon of Keza near Hung. The later chroniclers understood the reference to the seven fortresses as an allusion to the new name given for Transylvania during the 14th century ('Siebenbürgen', 'Septem Castra') 14.
The economy of the conquering Hungarians was mainly based on cattle-breeding, but the existence of a kind of agriculture seems to be proved by some specific words of Turkic origin (p. 360-364). We consider exaggerated the assertion that the word árok ('ditch') shows that Hungarians had an irrigation system (p. 363).
As concerns the religion, several data suggest that Christianity began to spread even before the Conquest, but into a small extent (p. 364-369). The greatest part of the population kept its pagan beliefs until the official baptization ordered by King Stephen I. The tenth chapter (The integration of the Magyars within Europe - p. 373-383) intends to explain how Hungarians became a European people. In fact, the author thinks that "the Magyars have always lived in Europe, if we take as the border of Europe (...) the Ural Mountains" (p. 373). Yet, the real problem is the accommodation with the European type of civilization, sedentary and Christian. The author examines the three types of ethnic integration known in the early Middle Ages (German, Slavic and Turkic) in view to illustrate the special features of the Hungarian integration. Unlike the Avars, the Hungarians were able to form a state and a European people because they excluded the local Slavs from any military activity and because they were not confronted with a unified political organization in the Carpathian Basin (p. 380-381). These conclusions seem to be right, but the role played by the Christianization in the unification of the people and also in the state building should not be neglected. It is known that the slavization of the Proto-Bulgarians was completed only after the conversion to Christianity. We thus consider that the Hungarian ethnogenesis was not achieved during the 10th century.
The results of the whole research are summarized in the final chapter of part three (p. 385-391), but the book continues with a fourth part dedicated to several special problems. Very helpful for any foreign scholar is the "overview of the study of ancient Hungarian history", which presents the main results of the last decades of archaeological, historical and linguistic researches (p. 395-411).
The next chapter (XIII) explains how the traditions written down in De Administrando Imperio and in the Hungarian chronicles have distorted the oral historical traditions with the purpose to legitimate the power of the Arpad's clan (p. 413-422). Similar problems are dealt in the next chapter. He shows that the Western historical traditions about Huns and Attila influenced the Hungarian chronicles. The descent from Attila was the best way to legitimate the Arpadian dinasty (p. 423-427).
In the fifteenth chapter, the author turns his attention to a Hungarian group that remained in the Kama-Volga region until the 13th century. In fact, the information recorded by the monk Julianus in 1236 does not prove that this was the initial homeland of the Magyars. The supposed Hungarian words in Bashkirian are of Bulgar origin and they do not prove cohabitation with the ancient Magyars in that area (p. 429-436).
The last chapter (XVI) is focused on the so-called "Székely runiform script" (p. 437-444). Albeit the earliest known inscriptions ascribed to this people living in Transylvania are from the 15th century, many historians supposed a connection with the script remembered by Simon of Keza, who said in 1285 that Szeklers learned to write from the Vlachs (Romanians), when they lived together in the mountains. A. Róna-Tas avoids any comment on this passage, but he thinks that the Szeklers inherited a runiform script of Turkish origin (perhaps from the Avars), which was later influenced by the Greek, Slavic and Latin writings. This seems possible, but other data can explain the tradition recorded by Simon of Keza. In fact, it is possible that the Hungarian chronicler had in his mind not a real writing, but a tallier script used by the shepherds ( rovasiras in Hungarian, raboj in Romanian). A Romanian ethnographer found significant analogies between the Szekler inscriptions and the signs used by the shepherds on their tallies. Of course, the medieval Szekler inscriptions represent a more sophisticated and later stage of this runiform script 15. In the final note of this chapter, the author claims that "there are no conclusive arguments in favour that the Székely group would be of non-Hungarian origin" (p. 444). However, we think that he was obliged to comment the other existing opinions.
There are some minor mistakes in the book. The name of the Lombard duchy is 'Benevento', not 'Benvenuto' (p. 123). The discovery from Malaya Pereshchepina is not the grave of Kuvrat, but a simple treasure (p. 217) 16. The right date when Asparukh crossed the Danube is fall 680, and not 679 (p. 227). The conflict between the Serbs and the so-called Timociani in the early 9th century is a confusion. Timociani were not located around Sirmium and in Slavonia, but in the area between Timok and Morava rivers (p. 242). The translation of the Greek inscription on the Byzantine crown sent to King Geza is wrong: krales Tourkias means "King of Hungary" (Tourkia), not "King of the Turks" (p. 277). The Hungarian inroad against Walandar (Develtos ?) recorded by Masudi (p. 291) is not certainly dated in 932, as Róna-Tas wrote. An earlier date in 917 was too supposed 17.
The book is closed with seven appendices: a large bibliography, a "chart of rulers" (Byzantine, Bulgarian, etc.), a very helpful chronological index, two general indexes, and the list of maps, figures and plates, followed by the list of their sources. In sum, András Róna-Tas has achieved a very important work, which will be a reference one for the eastern European early medieval history. The criticized problems does not lessen its value, but some of them are showing that even such studies of high scientific level continue to admit (tacitly or not) the unproved and political biased theory that Hungarians came in Transylvania before the Romanians.