Invented Nation – Invented Tradition:
Questions about Jászkun Revival and Identity
László Kürti
Institute of Applied Social Sciences bolkurti@uni-miskolc.hu
Keywords: postsocialism, identity, regionalism, Jászkunság
There is a plethora of studies concerning identities and cultural differences of nationalities and ethnic groups in East-Central Europe. There is a general agree- ment about the autonomy of minority identity as it relates to a group’s ‘we-con- sciousness’ but a basic question remains unanswered concerning nationality history and tradition: do they automatically and integrally create ethnic, reli- gious or regional identities? Or, alternately, what roles do states and local gov- ernments play in rekindling and supporting ethnic or ethnic identity mainte- nance? My preliminary thesis is that in the past two hundred years in East-Cen- tral Europe, especially Hungary, states and governments played unquestiona- ble roles in creating, supporting or, alternately, undermining collective identi- ties. Local identity formation, not only in terms of policies and judicial matters but areas of local civil and societal concerns, has been more often than not mon- itored from above. In order to reveal the specificities and working of this pro- cess, I intend to analyze the formation of a new collective regional Jászkun iden- tity. A center of attention in the past two decades, scholars have called attention to this special phenomenon that can – for the lack of a better term – be couched in terms of regional Jászkun identity revival or Jászkun renaissance for short.1
Belonging to a national or minority community (the two terms are often used interchangeably) in Hungary has been codified in 2011; accordingly any- one who belongs to a nationality must possess „Hungarian residency,” „declare a nationality identity,” and „expresses this belonging in a specific mode and form.” Importantly, expression of political ethnonational/minority identity is possible solely on a single minority voter registration, even though the law rec- ognizes someone’s „double or multiple attachments”.2 Interestingly, while in 1990 there were eight recognized ethnic-minority groups residing in Hungary,
1 A Jászkunság identitása. Válogatott tanulmányok a kun és a jász öntudat alakváltozásairól, szerk.
BARTHA Júlia, (Kisújszállás: Kisújszállás Város, 2015); BÁNKINÉ MOLNÁR Erzsébet, „A kun és a jászkun identitás a Kiskunságban”, in A Jászkunság identitása. Válogatott tanulmányok a kun és a jász öntu- dat alakváltozásairól, szerk. BARTHA Júlia, (Kisújszállás: Kisújszállás Város, 2015) 101–152.
2 Law 2011. CLXXIX. on the rights of nationalities, 1. para., III. Chap. 11. par. 3.
today there are thirteen such communities (Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Polish, German, Armenian, Roma/Gipsy, Romanian, Rusyn, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian and Ukrainian). The Jewish communities in Hungary, as well known, do not de- clare either a minority or ethnic status, even though cultural, historical, reli- gious and linguistic specificities are well known.
Since 1990, a renewed sense of Hungarianness has been at the center of postcommunist national identity creation. Amalgamating historical elements of Hungarian tribal past, origin of which are located in Asia and Central Asia, and a folkloristic gaze toward 19th century peasant art and traditions.3 Here I ana- lyze ways in which the Jászkun regional identity has been rekindled in the towns of Jászság, Kiskunság and Nagykunság. At present, this reinvented Jászkun identity is one of the most visible signs of Hungarian identity; public monuments, coat of arms and community symbols amply illustrate this point.
Significant events are the summit of Jászkun people, and the symbolic election of the leaders (captains, as they are called historically) of the three districts.
Furthermore, on 4 February 2014 the Hungarian Parliament passed a resolu- tion identifying 6th of May – original date of signing the Redemption Diploma by Maria Theresa in 1745 – commemorative historical day of the Jászkun set- tlements.
The identity reconstruction of the Jászkuns, previously referred to as „his- torical minorities”, can be dated to 1995 when settlements celebrated the bi- centennial of the Redemption Diploma. Elites of Kiskun and Nagykun regions – in particular the settlements of Kiskunhalas, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kunszent- miklós, Karcag –, took the first steps toward re-establishing their historic iden- tity. In the Jászság region, this process was connected to the 1990 postcom- munist rearrangement of the administrative county system when Szolnok County was renamed Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County, a term that existed during 1877-1950. This precipitated the resurgence of a new Jász identity among the county’s elites, most specifically that of Jászberény.4 True, the medieval privi- leges of the Jász and Kun populations, and their regional feudal semi-autonomy within the Hungarian Kingdom, have provided ample historic foundation to re- juvenate this new identity. Another possibility concerns the prehistoric Jász (Alan, Osset) and Kun (Kipchak, Turkic) languages, both preserved sparingly in medieval fragments. Medieval Jász and Kun languages, however, ceased to exist by the 14th century, a reason why the Jászkun renaissance and identity-making
3 LászlóKÜRTI, The Remote Borderland: Transylvania in the Hungarian Imagination, (Albany: SUNY Press, 2001); LászlóKÜRTI, „Nomadism and nostalgia in Hungary”, in Memories on the move, ed. Monika PALMBERGER and Jelena TOSIC, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 217–246.
4 PETERDI Vera, „Kun származástudat a 20. században”, in Magyarok Kelet és Nyugat között: a nem- zettudat változó jelképei, szerk. HOFER Tamás, (Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 1996) 209–219.
has become a contentious phenomenon. The loss of the medieval Jász and Kun nomads’ language is a sign of assimilation; yet shifting to Hungarian language attests to their willingness to full integration into the Hungarian majority. Text, such as the Kun Pater Noster (Kun Miatyánk) and the „Kun List” (naming fami- lies in the town of Kunszentmiklós) were both conscious efforts by community elites in the 18th century to fashion a distinct medieval origin. In the 20th cen- tury, physical anthropological studies ‘proved’ Central Asian or Ossetian origin of the Jász people. For instance, Gyula Henkely measured the Jász family mem- bers in the community of Lajosmizse arguing for their dominant (“typical”) mongoloid and/or turanid morphological characteristics.5 His sample included those residents whose ancestral names appear in the 1745 Jászberény list of families (Liber Fundi). This kind of highly random selection, however, did not take into consideration Ottoman population displacement and the north-south mass migration during the Habsburg period following it. For example, in a fine- tuned research Gyula Kocsis argues how the medieval population of the Jászság during the 17-18th centuries “was most likely completely replaced by northern newcomers”.6 What is obvious from this is that equally dubious conclusions ne- gate other similar physical anthropological research among the residents of the Kunság region.
In general it can be attested that in this renaissance today residents of both the Jász and the two Kun regions proudly claim their different Asiatic heritage.
In fact, and this somewhat oxymoronic, by arguing for their medieval distinct histories proponents of the Jászkun identity strongly believe that they are
“proper” Hungarian (something akin to the Székelys’ own self-assured Hungar- ians). Another value-laden expression is their loyalty to the Habsburgs even though Vienna and the Hungarian aristocracy were quiet antagonistic to the fight for Jászkun autonomy throughout the centuries; in 1876 their regional au- tonomous status was annulled. Since the 19th century residents of the Jászkun settlements have been described as stubborn, haughty, and self-centered by the outsiders.7 This was noted by Ferenc Erdei when he described the differences between the protestant Kun and their catholic Jász neighbors: “Migrants are mostly Roman Catholic, they are excellent horticulturalists, with plenty chil- dren, and live a rather austere lives. They are not arrogant as the Kuns, they are
5 HENKELY Gyula, „Adatok a lajosmizsei jászok embertani antropológiájához”, Cumania, 2(1974) 377–410., 389.
6 KOCSIS Gyula, A Jászság társadalma, népessége, gazdálkodása a XVI–XVII. században, (Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó, 2005) 154.
7 SZILÁGYI Miklós, „A nagykun öntudat”, Regio, 7(1996) 1. sz. 44–63., 45.
for modernization, youthful and exude dynamism”.8 The Jász migrants in the Kiskunság refer to the Kuns as “country bumpkins” (“tahónak”, „pota”).
These kinds of stereotypes are mirror-images, to degrade each other equally.9 What has been a rather strange phenomenon is that this sort of Jászkun conspicuous self-identity managed to signal to their Hungarian neigh- bors how to claim a “pure” Hungarian (Magyar) identity. Nearby residents I have interviewed, in Kerekegyháza or Kunadacs, both new towns on the periph- ery of the northern Kiskunság region, questioned this conspicuous different identity emanating from their neighbors in Szabadszállás and Kunszentmiklós.
By arguing about the disappearance of the medieval Kun and Jász populations, a Kerekegyháza resident, whose ethnic label is “Slovak”, expressed: “Why are they Kun, the original Kuns died out long time ago, they can be found only in their graves”. In another town, Pusztavacs, informants did not accept the differ- ent identity of their Lajosmizse neighbors, even though their appearance ex- uded wealth and prosperity. “Maybe they say they are of Jász lineage, but only because they have had land. What about the landlord Geréby, he wasn’t Jász”, expressed one man referring to Gyula Geréby and his ancestors whose original name was Gremsperger in the 19th century.
Wealthy Jász settlers from the Jászság region migrating to the Kiskunság region to claim their land there during the long 19th century adhered to Roman Catholicism, a religion that in their mind was and continues to be the “old” and
“true” Hungarian religion. This can be seen in those settlements that were pre- dominantly populated by Jász migrants such as Ladánybene and Lajosmizse.10 Even though latter were contemptuous of the former, this had to do with abun- dance of arable land in Lajosmizse, their similar Jászság and Roman Catholic background created an alliance between them against the Protestant Kiskun neighbors. Population of both towns kept a certain distance from residents in Pusztavacs, Kunbaracs and Peszéradacs because of their previously low es- teemed serf status in contrast to the privileged Jászkun free peasants. These different historic social statuses created a symbolic vacuum between these neighbors.
Interestingly, elites of the Jászkun identity movement firmly believe that the resurgence of their newly created Jászkunness is not antithetical to Hungar- ianness even though there are obvious symbolic conflicts among the two. Pos- sessing one identity in addition to the other is anchored to certain official
8 ERDEI Ferenc, Futóhomok, (Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1957) 155.
9 On mirror-image see: Donald L. HOROWITZ, Ethnic groups in conflict, (Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press, 1985) 166–171.
10 KÜRTI László, Ladánybenei évszázadok, (Ladánybene: Községi Önkormányzat, 20182)
recognition as well as economic benefits. Settlements compete for regional, lo- cal and international recognition through for example the prestigious title
“Hungaricum”; one such state title was accorded to the town Karcag for its spe- cial mutton-stew (birkapörkölt). There are many regional dishes identified as such (for example the Transylvanian rolled-cakes, kürtőskalács, or the fish- soup of Baja), but the official recognition nevertheless elevates one commu- nity’s heritage above the others. This elevation to national fame has as its base a cultural essentialist view of heritage. Similarly, to UNESCO recognition and titles (World Heritage Site, tangible and intangible heritage) selecting few ele- ments as characteristic to an entire region or group is an obvious problem as it creates artificial hierarchies of values. In many instances, this leads to feverish invention of new customs, symbols and dress as local communities demon- strate their newfound heritage.11As is often the case, celebrating Hungarian- ness parallels regional and local feasts that end in touristic exoticism.
The conspicuous Jászkun revival today is anchored to symbolical repre- sentations of an invented tradition. As there are no more Jászkun districts, towns elect their “captains”; it often happens some of these “captains” are not from the Jászkun settlements (though the Captains Protocol of 2011 does not specify who can be elected to this position). Strangely but in light of the above not unexpectedly this new identity movement has created the exotic Asiatic
‘other’ reinforcing Hungarian historical distinction and separateness from the rest of Europe. Just as the Hungarian mythological past is recreated through new tribalism (Kurultáj, Ősök Napja), Jászkun heritage is being renewed by po- litical international relations with distant Osset and Kazakh communities, even governments. The myriad of invented customs (World Summit of Jászkun Peo- ple, the Jász Horn, the Kun and Kazakh interstate relations) amply reveal the emphasis of cultural otherness institutionalized and legitimized by many thou- sands of spectators annually. Thus, local governments and politicians are drawn more and more into this process by functioning as producers and pa- trons of these events.
Hungarian and Jászkun identity formations are parallel developments but not necessary equally so. More often than not, those settlements that cannot boast a Jászkun identity and past, could only rely on a renewed sense of Hun- garianness. This is even visible in certain multi-ethnic communities such as Kerekegyháza and Peszéradacs (today Kunpeszér and Kunadacs). Both were incorporated townships about 150 years ago; in the case of former Slovak
11 LászlóKÜRTI, „The politics of festivals: fantasies and feasts in Hungary”, in Every day’s a festival, ed. Susanne KÜCHLER and László KÜRTI and Hisham ELKADI, (Oxford: Sean Kingston, 2011) 53–82., 77.
migrant families were demanding a priest who was fluent in the Slovak lan- guage! My experience in that town proves this: although the Slovak heritage is fading even among the elderly, their identity has become predominantly Hun- garian. Non-Magyar ethnic belonging among citizens of the Kiskunság region I interviewed only exist in the minds of a few, and cultural difference only ex- pressed in term of religious adherence and cultural symbols. Even among de- scendants of Jászkun families the once proudly claimed wealthy Redemption status (the so-called “redemptus” family) are fading as time goes by; on the con- trary Roman Catholicism and the migration from the Jászság remain the most important values. An added feature is the traditionally held stereotypes: only the Roman Catholics can be true Jász. Naturally, this in untenable as 18-19th century records reveal that not only the protestants but a small number of Greeks and Jews were also part of the Jászkun interethnic milieu. The latter group only settled in large numbers in the northern part of Kiskunság in Lajos- mizse and Jászkarajenő (154 and 135 individuals at the turn of the 19–20th cen- turies) respectively, somewhat in less number in the neighboring Szabadszál- lás. However, in the Jászkun movement neither Jews nor Gypsies are considered even though both fulfilled important societal roles in the making and develop- ment of these 19th century towns.
It is certain that this new Jászkun revival has more to do with a booming sense of regionalism than with pure ethnicity per se. In the Kiskunság region, new town such as Kunadacs or Kunpeszér cannot rely on medieval Kun herit- age, only symbolically. Both were grazing lands belonging to the Habsburg aris- tocratic family (Prince Eugen of Savoy), and only incorporated as a township in 1873. After WWII, they split and became Kunadacs and Kunpeszér respectively.
In an interesting turn of events, surrounding areas were incorporated in to the National Park of Kiskunság as nature reserves (the Hodály-pine forest, Peszéradacs-grassland, Szalag-forest). With this inclusion into a protected na- ture reserve, both Kunpeszér and Kunadacs received legitimacy in being in the Kiskunság region and only in this relation can we understand the decision of Kunadacs town council to erect a wooden statue and an artificial “Kun-mound”
in 2009 to celebrate its “medieval” past.
These settlements are without Redemption history but with turbulent interethnic past and a mixture of religious history. Consequently, Kunadacs, Kunbaracs, Kunpeszér, or even Pusztavacs and Tatárszentgyörgy boast either a
‘purely’ Hungarian or a mixture of interethnic heritage. At the same time, Slo- vak, Polish, Galician and other ethnic past is largely muted. Nearby Kiskun- lacháza, Kunszentmiklós and Szabadszállás profess strong Kun while Ladánybene, Lajosmizse, Karajenő and Kocsér manifest an equally tenacious Jász heritage. Willingly supporting their efforts are cultural workers both
qualified academics as well as avid amateur historians. In Lajosmizse, the Jász identity resurfaced in the first years of 2000s as new civic associations proffer programs and maintenance of ancestral Jász heritage (Jász Archers, Jász Em- broidery Association). Astonishingly, its neighbor, Ladánybene, also populated by migrants from the Jászság (Jászladány), such an activity has been attached to the Knight of Bene (Bene vitéz), skeletal remains from the period of Conquest found accidentally in the early 19th century. The cult of Knight Bene started since 2006, with erecting a memorial on the site of the medieval Bene village.
This was followed by a naming ceremony of the local educational institution, The Knight of Bene Elementary School. The dynamic that drives this identity industry has a divisive and highly problematical aspect: political and financial attention and support are turned away from any other identity movements;
most leaders in the Jászkun movement I have been able to talk to do not con- sider similar revivals as contribution to national reawakening as significant, or meaningful.
If any conclusion can be made from this brief analysis of the complex web of postsocialist national imagery is the image of national mythmaking as it en- croaches into our everyday lives. Since the collapse of the communist state, new institutions, symbols and invented traditions have served national unity in or- der to fashion a non-communist Hungary. With the disappearance of traditional peasant culture – elements of which have provided for populist and folkloristic revivals (for example the táncház-movement) –, a new heritage industry serves both producers and consumers in their quest to express what it means to be Hungarian – with an importance difference. From above as well as below, state, church and local government supports are inevitable constituents that contin- ually feed on each other with the assistance of eager local elites. Privileged com- munities within the three regions of the Jászkunság with adequate resources and intellectual know-how provide prime examples to others to simulate and follow. László Szabó recognizes the revival in his Jászság region, as “the widen- ing of this pattern provides values to others”.12 The pattern is there to be sure but so is the crux of the problem: how much previous values are lost in this transformation and how much the newly invented rituals and symbols disguise historic realities. In other words: we do know that culture changes in complex ways continually altering social institutions and social relations together with intragenerational values and cooperation. By creating “pure” Hungarian and Jászkun identities – similarly to a remaking of Transylvanian Hungarian or
12 SZABÓ László, „A jász öntudat alakváltozatai”, in A Jászkunság identitása. Válogatott tanulmányok a kun és a jász öntudat alakváltozásairól, szerk. BARTHA Júlia, (Kisújszállás: Kisújszállás Város, 2015) 8–77., 68.
other minority identities in neighboring states – a politicized cultural mecha- nism, a new dynamic and intense societal process, characterize 21st century Hungary. However, this newly found identity and myths of belonging contrib- ute to not only a renewed sense of community cohesion, it also essentializes and disnyfies it making it more homogeneous and commercial.13
My major publications on the topic:
László KÜRTI, „Neoshamanism, National Identity and the Holy Crown of Hungary”, Journal of Religion in Europe, 8(2015) Nr. 2. 235–260.
LászlóKÜRTI, „Nomadism and nostalgia in Hungary”, in Memories on the move, ed. Monika PALMBERGER
and Jelena TOSIC, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) 217–246.
László KÜRTI, „The plow and the horse: Political turmoil in a working-class district of Budapest”, in Pal- grave Handbook on Urban Ethnography, ed. Italo PARDO and Giuliana B. PRATO, (Cham: Palgrave-Macmil- lan, 2018) 221–240.
László KÜRTI, „Trust and Legitimacy in Hungary”, Urbanities: Journal of Urban Ethnography, 9(2019) Nr. 2. 119–132.
László KÜRTI, „Dance populism: The potato principle and the new Hungarian dance craze”, in Cycles of hatred and rage, ed. Katherine C. DONAHUE and Patricia R. HECK, (Cham: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2019) 169–
194.
13 Alan BRYMAN, „The Disneyization of society”, The Sociological Review, 47(1999) Nr. 1. 25–47.
Pictures Seal of Lajosmizse
Seal of Kunadacs
Statue of King Kun László, Kiskunlacháza (2000)
