Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:27:39.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Contest for Priority: Nineteenth-Century Place-Name Etymologies of Transylvania at Large

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2020

Ágoston Berecz Open the ORCID record for Ágoston Berecz [Opens in a new window]
Ágoston Berecz*
Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna, Austria and Budapest, Hungary Center for Advanced Study, Sofia, Bulgaria
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article identifies place-name etymologies as a powerful tool in constructing national spaces. Since place names derive from one language or another, often visibly so, competing nationalisms have used them to support territorial claims. This strategy may appear trivial, but it dates back no further than the Romantic period. The article traces the story of how, by the end of the nineteenth century, suggested place-name origins had become building blocks of two opposed visions of Romanian ethnogenesis. In a context of competing nation-building, these scholarly reconstructions were thinly disguised statements about whose ancestors had lived first in Transylvania—defined here in a broad sense as the eastern, Romanian- and Hungarian-speaking parts of the contemporary Kingdom of Hungary—and therefore who was entitled to political sovereignty. Place-name derivations had been little more than rhetorical ornaments until nationalist scholars seized on them following the 1848 revolutions. It was later still, in response to the questioning of Romance-speaking continuity in Dacia, that a positivist generation adjusted them to the principles of comparative linguistics and onomastics, the latter devised by German scholars for the study of national antiquities. With some refinements, the two views are still held today as the legitimate versions.

Keywords

historical priorityhistoric rightsnational historiographiesonomasticsplace names
Type
Article
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , March 2022 , pp. 316 - 333
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Association for the Study of Nationalities

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anonymus, Bak, János M., Rady, Martyn C., and Veszprémy, László. 2011. Gesta Hungarorum Anonymi Belae Regis Notarii [The Deeds of the Hungarians]. Budapest: Central European Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Atanasovski, Srđan. 2019. “Producing Old Serbia: in the footsteps of travel writers, on the path of folklore.” In Rethinking Serbian–Albanian Relations: Figuring Out the Enemy, edited by Pavlović, Aleksandar, Draško, Gazela Pudar, and Halili, Rigels, 22–38. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azaryahu, Maoz, and Golan, Arnon. 2001. “(Re)naming the landscape: The formation of the Hebrew map of Israel 1949–1960.” Journal of Historical Geography 27 (2): 178–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baár, Monika. 2010. Historians and Nationalism: East-Central Europe in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bariț, George. 1872. “Despre numele proprie, gentilitie, geografice, topografice, straine si romane.” Transilvani’a 5: 1–4.Google Scholar
Békés, Vera. 1997. A hiányzó paradigma. Debrecen: Latin Betűk.Google Scholar
Benkő, József. 1999. Transsilvania specialis, 2 vols. Bucharest: Kriterion.Google Scholar
Berecz, Ágoston. 2020. Empty Signs, Historical Imaginaries: The Entangled Nationalization of Names and Naming in a Late Habsburg Borderland. New York: Berghahn Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boia, Lucian. 2001. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Budapest: CEU Press.Google Scholar
Borovszky, Samu. 1883. A dákok: ethnographiai tanulmány. Budapest: Hornyánszky.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 2015. Grounds for Difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipariu, Timotei. 1869. “De latinitatea limbei romane.” Archivu pentru filologia si istoria 3: 404–413, 427–433, 444–448, 467–474.Google Scholar
Cohen, Saul B., and Kliot, Nurit. 1981. “Israel’s Place-Names as Reflection of Continuity and Change in Nation-Building.” Names 29 (3): 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Franz. 1914. “Aufgaben der heutigen Ortsnamenforschung.” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 17: 210–216.Google Scholar
Csánki, Dezső. 1890–1913. Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, 5 vols. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.Google Scholar
Czuczor, Gergely, and Fogarasi, János. 1862–1874. A magyar nyelv szótára, 6. Pest: Emich.Google Scholar
Deletant, Dennis. 1992. “Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: the case of the chronicler Anonymus.” In Historians and the History of Transylvania, edited by Péter, László, 67–85. Boulder: East European Monographs.Google Scholar
Densusianu, Ovid. 1898. Urme vechi de limbă în toponimia românească. Bucharest: Göbl.Google Scholar
Densusianu, Ovid. 1901–1938. Histoire de la langue roumaine, 2 vols. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Doina, David. 1980. Limbă și cultură: română literară între 1880 și 1920; cu privire specială la Transilvania și Banat. Timișoara: Facla.Google Scholar
Domokos, Péter, and Paládi-Kovács, Attila. 1986. Hunfalvy Pál. Budapest: Akadémiai.Google Scholar
Dunlop, Catherine Tatiana. 2015. Cartophilia: Maps and the Search for Identity in the French-German Borderland. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egli, J. J. 1886. Geschichte der geographischen Namenkunde. Leipzig: Brandstetter.Google Scholar
Frőhlich, Róbert, Kuzsinszky, Bálint, Nagy, Géza, and Marczali, Henrik. 1895. Magyarország a királyság megalapitásáig, 2nd ed. Budapest: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Haubrichs, Wolfgang. 1995. “Namenforschung in Deutschland bis 1945.” In Namenforschung: ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik, vol. 1, edited by Eichler, Ernst, 62–85. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heufler, Ludwig Ritter von. 1854–1856. Österreich und seine Kronländer: Ein geographischer Versuch. Vienna: Grund.Google Scholar
Hitchins, Keith. 1977. Orthodoxy and Nationality: Andreiu Șaguna and the Rumanians of Transylvania, 1846–1873. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál. 1877. Ethnographie von Ungarn. Budapest: Franklin.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál. 1878. A rumun nyelv. Budapest: Franklin.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál.1881. Die Ungern oder Magyaren. Vienna: Prochaska.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál. 1883. Die Rumänen und ihre Ansprüche. Vienna: Prochaska.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál. 1886. Neuere Erscheinungen der rumänischen Geschichtsschreibung. Vienna: Prochaska.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál. 1890. Az aranyos-széki mohácsi nyelvemlékek. Budapest: Magyar Tud. Akadémia.Google Scholar
Iordan, Iorgu. 1978. Istoria lingvisticii românești. Bucharest: Ed. Științifică și Enciclopedică.Google Scholar
Jakab, Elek. 1888. “Erdély ország-nevei.” Századok 32: 65–71.Google Scholar
Jottrand, Maxime. 2017. “La frontière linguistique en Belgique et dans le Nord de la France de Godefroid Kurt (1847-1916): Historiographie de l’origine d’une controverse.” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 95 (2): 369–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Lajos. 1988. Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára, 2 vols. Budapest: Akadémiai.Google Scholar
Kniezsa, István. 1943. “Keletmagyarország helynevei.” In Magyarok és románok, vol. 1, edited by Deér, József and Gáldi, László, 111–313. Budapest: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Kramer, Johannes. 2008. Italienische Ortsnamen in Südtirol: Geschichte – Sprache – Namenpolitik. Stuttgart: Ibidem.Google Scholar
Kranzmayer, Eberhard. 1934. “Zur Ortsnamenforschung in Grenzland.” Zeitschrift für Ortsnamenforschung 10: 105–148.Google Scholar
Kühebacher, Egon. 1996. “Namenpolitik in mehrsprachigen Ländern und Staaten.” In Namenforschung: ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik, vol. 2, edited by Eichler, Ernst, 1802–1810. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
Liakos, Antonis. 2008. “Hellenism and the Making of Modern Greece: Time, Language, Space.” In Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by Zacharia, Katrina, 201–236. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1993. Etymology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maniu, V. 1878. Studii asupra scrierei profesorului Dr. I. Iung intitulata Romanii si românii din tierille dunarene: studii istorico-ethnografice. Bucharest: Societatei Academice Romane.Google Scholar
Maniu, V. 1884. Zur Geschichtsforschung über die Romänen: Historisch-kritische und etnologische Studien. Reschitza: Pocrean.Google Scholar
Marienescu, At. M. 1891. “Sufixele esti și iste in numele de localități românesci.” Familia 27: 187, 200, 210–211, 234, 246, 258, 270, 282, 294, 348, 330.Google Scholar
Marienescu, At. M. 1895. Studiu despre celți și numele de localități. Caransebeș: Tipografiei diecesane.Google Scholar
Marti, Roland. 2015. “‘L’ossuaire des Slaves?’: Les traces de la Slavia (submersa) en Allemagne.” Mémoire(s), identité(s), marginalité(s) dans le monde occidental contemporain 13. https://journals.openedition.org/mimmoc/2102. (Accessed August 25, 2020.)Google Scholar
Mentz, Ferdinand. 1916. “Die Ortsnamenverdeutschung in Elsaß-Lothringen.” Zeitschrift des allgemeinen deutschen Sprachvereins 31: 40–46.Google Scholar
Mitu, Melinda, and Mitu, Sorin. 2014. Ungurii despre românii: Nașterea unei imagini etnice. Iași: Polirom.Google Scholar
Mitu, Sorin. 2001. National Identity of Romanians in Transylvania. Budapest: CEU Press.Google Scholar
Möckesch, Martin Samuel. 1867. Beweise für die celtische Abstammung der Walachen oder Romänen, besonders derer, welche im Großfürstenthume Siebenbürgen leben. Hermannstadt: Steinhaußen.Google Scholar
Moldován, Gergely. 1899. “Alsófehér vármegye román népe.” In Alsófehér vármegye monographiája 1: 723–1048. Nagy-Enyed: Nagyenyedi.Google Scholar
Mureșianu, Mircea. “Toponimia geografică: dovadă remarcabilă a vechimii populației autohtone în spațiul Rodnei.” Arhiva Someșană, third series, 1 (2002): 413–422.Google Scholar
Nădejde, Ioan. 1884–1885. “Teoriea lui Roesler: Studii asupra stăruinței Romînilor în Dacia Traiană de A. D. Xenopol.” Contemporanul 4: 108–114, 148–154, 199–194, 250–259, 340–351, 427–439, 497–501, 546–550, 605–612.Google Scholar
Nagy, János. 1879. A székelyek scytha-hún eredetűsége és az ellenvélemények. Kolozsvárt: Stein.Google Scholar
Obermüller, Wilhelm. 1868–1872. Deutsch-keltisches, geschichtlich-geographisches Wörterbuch zur Erklaerung der Fluss- Berg- Orts- Gau- Völker- und Personen-Namen Europas, West-Asiens und Nord-Afrikas in allgemein wie insbesondere Deutschlands nebst den daraus sich ergebenden Folgerungen für die Urgeschichte der Menschheit, 2 vols. Berlin: Denicke.Google Scholar
Ogris, Alfred. 1976. “Zur Geschichte der Kärntner Ortsnamenforschung.” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur 20 (2): 81–92.Google Scholar
Orbán, Balázs. 1888. “A székelyek származásáról és intézményeiről.” Értekezések a Történeti Tudományok köréből 13: 3–30.Google Scholar
Ornea, Zigu. 1998. Junimea și junimismul. Bucharest: Minerva.Google Scholar
Ortvay, Tivadar. 1882. Magyarország régi vízrajza a XIII-dik század végéig, 2 vols. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia.Google Scholar
Pastrnek, Fr. 1892. Bibliographische Übersicht über die slavische Philologie, 1876–1891. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Pauler, Gyula. 1899. A magyar nemzet története az Árpádházi királyok alatt, 2nd rev. ed., 2 vols. Budapest: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Pesty, Frigyes. 1857. “Magyar helynevek.” Magyar Sajtó October 26, 1857.Google Scholar
Pesty, Frigyes. A helynevek és a történelem. 1878. Budapest: M. T. Akadémia.Google Scholar
Pesty, Frigyes. 2012–2015. Pesty Frigyes helynévgyűjteménye, 1864–1865: Székelyföld és térsége, 4 vols. Budapest: Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, and Sepsiszentgyörgy: Székely Nemzeti Múzeum.Google Scholar
Petriceicu-Hasdeu, Bogdan. 1972–1976. Etymologicum magnum Romaniae: dicționarul limbei istorice și poporane a românilor, 3 vols. Bucharest: Minerva.Google Scholar
Petrovici, Emil. 1942. “Continuitatea daco-romană și slavii.” Transilvania 73: 864–878.Google Scholar
Petrovici, Emil. 1943. “Toponimie ungurească în Transilvania medievală.” Transilvania 74: 113–130.Google Scholar
Pletzing, Christian. 2006. “Die Politisierung der Toponymie: Ortsnamenänderungen in den preußischen Ostprovinzen während des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Wiedergewonnene Geschichte: zur Aneignung von Vergangenheit in den Zwischenräumen Mitteleuropas, edited by Loew, Peter Oliver, Pletzing, Christian, and Serrier, Thomas, 263–277. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Popu, Gavril. 1869. “‘Inceputulu principatului romanescu’ de Dr. Robert Roesler.” Familia 5: 265–267, 277–279, 289–291, 301–303, 313–315.Google Scholar
Roesler, Robert. 1866. “Dacier und Romänen: Eine geschichtliche Studie.” Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 53: 9–92.Google Scholar
Roesler, Robert. 1871. Romänische Studien: Untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Romäniens. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Șirianu, Russu, Ioan, . 1904. Românii din statul ungar: statistică, etnografie . Bucharest: self-published.Google Scholar
Schramm, Gottfried. 1981. Eroberer und Eingesessene: geograph. Lehnnamen als Zeugen d. Geschichte Südosteuropas im 1. Jahrhtsd. n. Chr. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.Google Scholar
Șimon, Nestor. 2007. Dicționar toponimic. Cluj-Napoca: Napoca Star.Google Scholar
Smith, Anthony D. 1999. Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, George R. 2008. Names on the Land: A Historical Account of Place-Naming in the United States. New York: New York Review of Books.Google Scholar
de Hațeg, Stoica, Nicolae, . 1981. Cronica Banatului, 2nd ed. Timișoara: Facla.Google Scholar
Szabadi, Ernő-Loránd. 2020. “Udvarhelyszék helységneveinek alakulása a különböző közigazgatási átszervezések és kulturális törésvonalak tükrében, a kezdetektől napjainkig.” Pro Minoritate 2020 (1): 81–113.Google Scholar
Szabó, T., Attila. 1944. “A magyar helynévkutatás a XIX. században.” In Az Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet évkönyve 1943, vol. 1, 181–264. Kolozsvár: Minerva.Google Scholar
Tacke, Felix. 2015. Sprache und Raum in der Romania: Fallstudien zu Belgien, Frankreich, der Schweiz und Spanien. Berlin: Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, Richard. 2010. Rome’s World: The Peutinger Map Reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teodori, Dimitrie. 1859. Logojul, altcum Lugos și Lugas, își trage numele său dela latinul Locus (locul). Timișoara: Hazay.Google Scholar
Tims, Richard Wonser. 1966. Germanizing Prussian Poland: The H-K-T Society and the Struggle for the Eastern Marches in the German Empire, 1894-1919. New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Tocilescu, Gr. G. 1880. Dacia inainte de Romani: cercetari asupra poporeloru carii au locuitu tierile romane de a stang’a Dunarii, mai inainte de concuista acestoru tieri de cotra imperatoriulu Traianu. Bucharest: Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Toma, Ion. 2015. 101 nume de locuri. Bucharest: Humanitas.Google Scholar
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1991. “Language and the Making of Place: A Narrative-Descriptive Approach.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81 (4): 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vida, Károly. 1852. Elmélkedések a magyar nemzet viszontagságainak története felett. Pesten: Lukács.Google Scholar
Vladár, Zsuzsa C. 2013. “A gyök fogalma az európai nyelvészetben és a Czuczor—Fogarasi-szótárban.” In II. Czuczor—Fogarasi-konferencia: “Ha szabad a magyart a magyarból magyarázni,” edited by Horváth, Katalin, 69–81. Budapest: Magyar Művészeti Akadémia.Google Scholar
Weithmann, Michael W. 1994. “Interdisziplinäre Diskrepanzen in der ‘Slavenfrage’ Griechenlands.” Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 30 (1): 85–111.Google Scholar
Xenopol, A. D. 1884. Teoria lui Rösler: studii asupra stăruinței Romănilor in Dacia Traiană. Iași: Tipografia Națională.Google Scholar
Xenopol, A. D. 1885. Une Enigme historique: Les Roumains au Moyen-Age. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Xenopol, A. D. 1888–1893. Istoria romînilor din Dacia Traiana, 6 vols. Iassi: Goldner.Google Scholar
Xenopol, A. D. 1896. Histoire des Roumains de la Dacie Trajane: depuis les origines jusqu’à l’union des principautés en 1859, 2 vols. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Xenopol, A. D. 1914. Românii și Austro-Ungaria. Iași: Goldner.Google Scholar
Wolff, Johann. 1879–1880. “Deutsche Ortsnamen in Siebenbürgen.” In Programm des evangelischen Unter-Gymnasiums und der damit verbundenen Lehranstalten in Mühlbach (Siebenbürgen) für das Schuljahr 1878/9, 3–48 and 1879/80, 3–36. Hermannstadt: Krafft.Google Scholar
Wolff, Johann. 1881/1891. “Deutsche Dorf- und Stadtnamen in Siebenbürgen.” In Programm des vierklassigen evangelischen Gymnasium und der damit verbundenen Elementarschule in Mühlbach (Siebenbürgen) für das Schuljahr 1880/81, 3–30 and 1890/91, 3–31. Hermannstadt: Krafft.Google Scholar
Yoshioka, , Jun. 2007. “Imagining Their Lands as Ours: Place Name Changes on Ex-German Territories in Poland after World War II.” In Regions in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and Present, edited by Hayashi, Tadayuki and Fukuda, Hiroshi, 273–287. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar

Archival Sources

Országos Széchényi Könyvtár (National Széchényi Library, OszK) (Budapest) Manuscript Collection FM1 3814/A.Google Scholar