On the History of Family Organization

CHAPTERS

Family Organization

Linguistics and archeology have brought to light many new details, especially during the last decades, about the Magyar family at the earliest periods. It can be determined on the basis of archeological finds that in the course of the second millennium B. C. the patriarchal form gradually became stronger and that by the end of the period it had even become predominant. This is the reason why matriarchal elements appear only fragmentarily in Hungarian traditions and even then only in the rarest instances.

The Hungarian terminology of family organization goes back largely to the Finno-Ugric period. The original meaning of ős (ancestor) in the 12th century is still apa (father), with the following terms, still in use: atya (father), anya (mother), fiú (son), öccs (younger brother), atyval (stepfather), fial (stepson)–the last two originally compound words, now known only through historical sources–árva (orphan), férfi (man), férj (husband), feleség (wife), meny (daughter-in-law), vő (son-in-law), ipa (father-in-law), napa (mother-in-law), ángy (elder brother’s wife). The following were added in the Ugric period: apa (father), leány (daughter) (originally a compound), iafia (also an original compound at present meaning distant relative). Larger units with collective names also belong to these: rokon (relative; its original meaning is “near”), had (troop), szer (kin), vér (blood). It seems apparent from this survey, which cannot be called complete, that the Magyars, along with the Finno-Ugrians, lived in families that at this time already were patrilineal. This terminology also shows that we are reckoning with a special version of the extended family. We can also be sure they belonged in clans. It is quite certain that as they became a people of the steppes, and as they came into closer contact with various Turkic peoples, the extended family organization and patriarchal characteristics became more and more marked.

The cemeteries that are being excavated in growing numbers tell {55.} a great deal about family organization in the 10th century, immediately following the Conquest. Large family burials can be observed among some of the wealthy in the cemeteries, consisting of 15 to 20 graves, usually forming a single line. These contain parents, children, and grandchildren who belong together through blood lineage. The oldest man led the community descended from him and his wife and, because of his role, was buried in the centre; around him were laid the members of the patriarchal extended family in the order of their rank, age, and sex. However, at the same period the nuclear family, in the modern meaning of the term, can also be found among the wealthy, where the sons, after founding their own family, received their share of the inheritance and moved to the land gained in this way. There were many advantages to this system. First of all, they spread over a larger territory the stock which could easily be damaged by epidemics, robbery and natural disasters, and so reduced these dangers. Secondly, one member of the family always represented the interest of the family in different places. Such a division plays an important role even in the origin myth of the Magyars. The first-born sons of Ménmarót, Magyar and Hunor, in the story of the mythical stag “departed from their father and moved to a separate tent”; later they moved on looking for suitable quarters for themselves on land farther away. The youngest son always stayed with the aging parents, and, after his father’s death, could step into his inheritance. We can also find remnants of this custom in folk tales, and basically this remained of the characteristic features of Hungarian family organization until the most modern times.

18. Matyó family
Mezőkövesd

{56.} During the last decades more and more cemeteries of the common people and servants from the period of the Conquest have been and are being excavated. In these the graves appear in small groups, in interrupted rows, and separated from each other. In spite of the relatively small number of relics it is possible to ascertain significant differences in wealth. Modern research proves that the extended family form involved only one part of the wealthiest layer of the Magyars of the Conquest, while the majority of the common people must have lived in small family units.

Written sources tell us a great deal, although not in great detail, about questions of medieval family organization. Thus, for example, the laws of Ladislas I, at the end of the 11th century, differentiated in respect to taxes between grown sons who lived in their father’s house in a common household with him and those who had their own dwellings. This, however, can be found not only amongst the common people, but amongst the landed nobility as well, who, in order to keep the land together, had not partitioned their holdings, although in some cases certain large families among them also fell apart into small families.

Researchers examining the composition of 17th-century peasant families in the north-western corner of the linguistic territory came to the conclusion that the form of the family is correlated most closely with the size of its wealth. If the wealth is so great that it requires many working hands, equipment, and animal stock, then the extended family can care for it more effectively. However, in cases where the land was of small extent, so that the extended family could in no way have existed on it together, we come upon small families. Accordingly, we can state that the extended family is an organization which adapted to the economic conditions in every period, and although it contains many ethnic elements in its form, its existence, disappearance, and reoccurrence was primarily regulated by the necessity resulting from the extent of the land and size of the animal stock.

In many places in the 19th century the extended family survived on lands held in villeinage, a survival facilitated by the landlords’ attempt to prevent the fragmentation of peasant property. The number of such peasant families grew increasingly less from the second half of the 19th century, but in some places this form of family survived right to the middle of this century, thus providing an opportunity to study its form and character in different parts of the linguistic territory.