Who „Owns” the Past (History, Traditions and Folklore)? Competing for the Local Traditions in Gyimes1

EEM Judit BALATONYI

Judit BALATONYI

WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)? COMPETING FOR THE LOCAL TRADITIONS IN GYIMES1

INTRODUCTION – SUBJECT AND PURPOSES OF THIS PAPER Th e Romanian Gyimes Valley,2 according to Zoltán Ilyés, similarly to the examples of Kolozsvár3 or Arad,4 is an active fi eld of collateral nation building and competing narratives. Th is is where „Prince Csaba”5 and the „Miorita’s fi eld”;6 the Székely snow-capped

1 Th e study was supported by the OTKA Grants No. T49175 („Local religion, folk belief and religious folklore in Gyimes”, head researcher Éva Pócs). 2 Th e Gyimes Valley, on the area of the Trotuş riverhead is populated by three large communities: Gyimesfelsőlok (Lunca de Sus), Gyimesközéplok (Lunca de Jos) – belong to Harghita County and Gyimesbükk (Ghimeş-Făget) – which belongs to Bacau County. Th e inhabitants of Gyimes Valley are Székelys (Szeklers) on the one hand and Romanian migratory shepherds from Mol- dova on the other hand (G. Vámszer 1940; B. L. Spotts 2008; C. Mititelu 2008; D. Ichim 1983; D. Ichim 1987). Th ere are also Roma people: 1. so-called familiar / domestic Gypsy who own houses and land; 2. the domestic Gypsys (our Gypsy) are distinguished from the itinerant vendor („peri- patetic”) communities who arriving to the area, and the other heterogeneous Roma ethnic sub- groups as well who live in marginal position. 3 Cluj-Napoca (Cluj County, Romania) 4 Arad (Arad County, Romania) 5 We do not possess any confi rmed evidence regarding the life of Prince Csaba. His life has been lost in the shadow of legends. According to Simon Kézai who recorded the Csaba-saga, Prince Csaba’s father was Attila Th e Hun. Aft er Attila the Hun had died, an internecine war broke out, and Csaba lost and ran away to Byzantium. On the triumphal way (Milky Way) was wait for the return Prince Csaba with his legion. Other legends say that Prince Csaba led his folk from the Balkan to the historical territory of Hungary. According to several theories, the character of Csaba originated from the combination of not only one, but at least three persons (about the Csaba-Saga see eg. Gy. Grexa 1922. 159–161; Gy. Győrff y 1948; I. Dobos 1977). Th e stature of Prince Csaba has turned into the part of the identity reinforcement legendary of the Székely people. He is the central fi gure of the Székely national anthem. Until 1944 the Feast of Prince Csaba was a military festival. His is the lead role of István G. Nagy’s rock opera, the world pre- mier of which was on 20th August 2011 in Gyergyószárhegy (Hargita County). 6 Th e basis of the mioritic space-conception is an old Romanian pastoral ballad: the Mioriţa (’Th e Little Ewe’). According to Ambrus Miskolczy’s treatise the ballad became the most important source of the Romanian national self-recognition. Th e text of the ballad became sacralized. Th e

216 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)? mountains and Lucian Blaga’s Romanian „plai”7 meet (Z. Ilyés 2006a.: 61). Meet, yet not quite. Th is is where the Millennium border (extending at the outskirts of Gyimesbükk) is an important ethnic and national symbol both for the local and non-local Romanians and Hungarians. Close to this border, the Romanian and Hungarian heroes killed in the war are commemorated, and the Romanian „Festival Rusalia” and the Hungarian Pentecost Festival are organized year aft er year (see J. Balatonyi 2012: 707–749). Th ese competing discourses and collateral identifi cation processes determine the interpretation and representation of the three constructions of the past (the local history, folklore and tradition) particularly. Th e past and the local traditions stressed in relation to the present gain various interpretations.

In this paper I would like to demonstrate the symbolic competition for the past of Romanians and Hungarians of Gyimes through a more complex example. Basically, I examine the social, political role of the changing, competing memory-constructions of a con- crete historic event, the Romanian-Hungarian peasant revolt of 1934 from two kinds of research perspectives: on the one hand on the basis of primary and secondary sources8 I aim to give the main features of the socio-historical construction of the memories dated from the 1960’s; on the other hand on the basis of the folklore festivals interwoven with the anniversary of the peasant revolt and other symposiums until quite recently, embedding the local phenomena in global social correlations. I will examine these kinds of symbolic fi elds of traditionalism and representation, which are served and still serve sometimes the Romanian or the Hungarian nation-building, sometimes the local, ethnical occupation of local traditions. I approach the present from the past. To interpret the remembrances and folklore festivals I will present the important phases of the event of peasant revolt not as an exclusive historical event but more like a delineation of competing interpretations and local, decentralized stories. I am also eager to know if the memory of the event has any relevance to the present, and if it does, to what extent it has been ethicized. With all these, I would like to reveal the context-dependence of local memory (local history, traditions, folklore) and for whom the memory of the outbreak of peasant discontent in Gyimes Valley became important. What kind of social-political context do the commemorational ceremonies of the event of 1934 fi t into? Why could the social performances organized in 1964 and 1974 not become local rites or feasts? Neverthe- less, how could the memories with labels relating to the event legitimize the realization of

ballad deals with a shepherd (Moldavian Romanian) killed because of the envy of his compan- ions (a Moldavian, a Transylvanian and a Vrâncean) and with a lamb who draw attention to him. Th e ballad deals with death by violence as well. Th e tradition of the interpretation and explana- tion of the ballad is extensive. Based on the ballad the concept of mioritic space was outlined by Lucian Blaga, which concept tries to explain the Romanian national character and the history (A. Miskolczi 1994). According to Blaga the personality of a nation was determined by the people’s structured subconscious / stylistic matrix. Th e Romanian stylistic matrix was formed by the mi- grations of the Romanian shepherd over hill and dale, for this reason its main attribute is the constant oscillation (L. Nagy 2001: 113–114). 7 Meaning a clearing in the mountains and also a mountainous district. 8 E.g., results of unstructured and structured interviews; representations (in regional reviews, or some other publications) of the local intellectuals.

217 EEM Judit BALATONYI other central feasts, e.g. interlocking with local festivals of Song of Praise to Romania? Beside the interpretation of the memory depending on situation I would like to highlight how the centrally prescribed scripts of memories related to the event of the peasant revolt from the 1960s had been off ered newer and newer cultural patterns for the local traditionalism and historical reconstruction and how they became models. Th e other perspective focuses on contemporary events, the interpretations of tradition of the Romanian symposiums and Hungarian festivals taking the place of memories defi ned as earlier described antecedents, cultural patterns. Th e questions, problems of the research I have just outlined fi t into an extremely excit- ing interdisciplinary paradigm: this approach tries to defi ne or construct a model for the development, usage of the local and national heritages and the social acceptance of patrimonialisation itself. I also try to seize the local strategies of the occupation and usage of the past (history, tradition and folklore) upon the basis of theoretical-scientifi c achievements partly on patrimonialisation. To be more precise I blend the achievements of the literature on patrimonialisation with the diversifi ed theories of cultural sociology (J. C. Alexander 2004; J. C Alexander – G. Bernhard – J. L. Mast 2006) and cultural geography (N. Th rift 2008), and the researches tending to the social, cultural memory.

SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT – LOCAL DISCOURSES AND GLOBAL COMPETITIONS First I am striving to present the Gyimes society and local ethnic groups briefl y from a socio-historical point of view and sketch the educational, political, cultural and social scenes of the parallel and competing local nation-building processes. For all these we have to know that, pointed out by Géza Vámszer, the majority of Hungarians and Romanians of Gyimes have Hungarian and Romanian ancestors too (G. Vámszer 1940: 1–7). Zoltán Ilyés also gave a detailed description of why „the certain symbols of Romanian heritage” became less acceptable for the Hungarian community of Gyimes and the local authorities (Z. Ilyés 2006b: 125). Similar processes took place among the Romanian people too. Th e policy of culture and identity guided from above has been playing a part in the formation of their 21st-century particular (ethnic, cultural, local) identities beside their inner identifi cation processes: the direct assimilative political ambitions of the Romanian and Hungarian state, the occupational struggles of the Orthodox and Catholic Church, and the accession of tourism and the intensifi cation of scientifi c interest could also be enumerated here. In the respective geographical region the local Orthodox and Catholic Church, the school, the local intellectuals and fundamentally the local inhabitants also take part in the ethnic border-construction. Th e local Romanians want to diff er from the local Hungarians and identify with the Romanians of Bacău County. Th e Hungarians of Gyimes want to diff er from the Székely people of Harghita County, the Csángós of Moldavia9 and fundamentally

9 Th e Csángós of Moldavia (Romanian Ceangăi) are Roman Catholic Hungarian minority living between the Eastern-Carpathians mostly in the Romanian region of Moldavia (especially in Bacău County) while the Csángós of Gyimes live outside of the Carpathian Mountains (Gyimes Valley). Th e Csángó name in Gyimes is an intermediate category, which regards both the Hungarians, the Romanians (of a Hungarian descent) and maybe event the Roma people. For

218 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)? the Romanians, occasionally „emphasize the Székely-Cángó community of fate and unity of interests” and/or become one with the mother country (i.e. Hungary). Andrew Abbott, Th omas F. Gieryn and Joseph C. Hermanowicz believe that the cultural representational procedures operate especially in case of communities that resemble each other by their status and in cases when there are diff erences in the autopsy of certain communities or groups (A. Abbott 1988; T. F. Gieryn 1983: 781–795, 1999; J. C. Hermanowicz 1998; Her- manowicz – Morgan 1999: 198). Th is strategy, according to Bertalan Pusztai, is a character- istic of several local communities, especially in the peripheral areas aft er the year 1990 (B. Pusztai 2003: 15). Horaţiu Burcea,10 according to his research in Gyimesbükk in 2008 and the historical sources he utilized, claims that the role of education is crucial in the periodic alternating processes of „Magyarization” and „Romanization”, which were parallel to the execution of the intentional assimilatory strategies. In the interpretation of Horaţiu Burcea those were more than simple reforms: they were introduced for the removal of the language, religion, historical heritage and national identity of the inhabitants. According to this perspective, under the Hungarian authority of Transylvania „Magyarization” occurred, which was later replaced by „Romanization” fi rst from 1920, then the Hungarian canonization was returning between 1940-1944 […] Dinu C. Giurescu determined the cardinal principle of three consecutive phases of Romanian educational systems from the educational reform of 1948 (D. C. Giurescu 2001, Cit. H. Burcea 2009, 19–20): the introduction of the soviet model based upon class battle (1948–1960’s); the return of the „relative regularity” and „Romanian traditions” (from 1962–1964 until 1978–1979); while according to him the third phase can be hall-marked as cultural revolution (from 1978 to the democratic transformation). Th e educational system, the media, the church and fundamentally the public adminis- tration have taken part not only in the formation of Romania’s glorious past but also in the re-actualization of this constructed glorious past and it all served the construction of the „Romanian spirituality”. Th e „Romanian national conception” henceforward served as legitimating base for the elite groups coming to power aft er 1989, „so the building of nation-state in Transylvania lasting from 1918/1919 would be carried on. No doubt with the introduction of Western democratic norms, one had to cope with new challenges, especially in the regions inhabited by minorities on a large scale, therefore in the territory of Hungarian majority of Hargita, Kovászna and partly Maros County” (Cs. Zahorán 2011). To enforce their interests they were expecting support from the politics awhile, but shortly aft er they found a strong ally within the Romanian Orthodox Church, which otherwise is one of the most important components of the Romanian national concept, especially in territories of mixed nationali-

this reason the bilingual local people originated from Roman Catholic and Orthodox mixed marriages can defi ne themselves this way, or they are defi ned as Csángó by their neighbourhood. 10 11 students (leadership by M. Nyce and Gail Bader) participated in a research in Gyimesbükk, in Gyimesfelsőlok in the summer of 2008. Th ey dealt with cultural assimilation and the procedure of diverse identity constructions. Th ey gave the reason for the separating and dissecting of Hun- garian and Romanian culture by socio-historical factors. Horaţiu Burcea wrote his thesis on Policies of Cultural Assimilation in Transylvania: Magyarization and Romanization in 2009 (Bur- cea 2009), and the thesis of Lydia Spotts titled Th e Csángó in Ghimeş-Faget: Boundary and Ethnic Defi nition in Transylvania is interesting as well (L. Spotts 2008).

219 EEM Judit BALATONYI ties. Following the elimination of state-socialism, the Orthodox Church fi lled the void gradually, which could not be fi lled by the civilian society. According to Zahorán the pres- ence of the Orthodox Church in the area is stressed. Th e situation is similar to the case of Gyimesbükk (belongs to Bacău County since 1950, earlier to Harghita County), where the Romanian Orthodoxy and basically the local church means a kind of legitimating factor in the execution trials of the Romanian national concept, especially Romanian spirituality. It is important to know, that the Orthodox Church is present in the settlement for half a century. Until the end of the 1940s only the Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches were represented in Gyimesbükk, later in 1948 as a consequence of the central intervention of the Romanian state the Greek Catholic priest was dismissed and an Orthodox one was assigned to the village (K. Jankus 2008. 97). For this reason the self-legitimization has the greatest importance for the Orthodox Church, and to take part in strengthening of the Romanian national concept of the new kind and the local traditions – Romanian village life – represent its strong building blocks. Aft er the democratic transformation the most important cultural institutions were modifi ed: we can observe the symbolic ethnic identity-building strategies and the development of the community-image instead of the former compulsory „culturework” (A. Ferencz 2011. 28). Th e village development was a kind of possibility for the local people to use and develop their inner cultural values: the folk culture was attached with tourism (A. Ferencz 2011. 33). Th e patrimonisational process of local Romanian and Hungarian folk culture (and of the Millennial border) has started in Gyimes as well. Th e intensifi ed ethno-touristic interest called the attention of the Hungarians of Gyimes to their own cultural values. Th e exploring-inquiring journeys called into action by the dance-house movement in 1960s and 1970s were hallmarked by „the spirit of rediscovery”, under their eff ect more and more villages of Gyimes (and Moldavia) organized dance camps, entertained groups, schools (Bakó 1998. 249). In the past years Gyimes developed a rural hospitality system including several local families. Th e local cultural establishments, memorials turned into tourist spots: for example the pilgrim-dwelling and grammar school assigned to St. Elisabeth of Hungary in Gyimesfelsőlok, the village museum of Gyimes- bükk, churches of the main-valley, and the „millennial border”. „In the Borospataka region of Gyimesközéplok and in the wider region of Csík and Gyimes […] decomposed old houses are rebuilt with a special attention to the original folk-architectural solutions, at the same time they are modernised, forming convenient dwelling quarters […]” (Z. Ilyés 2008. 56). Éva Mikos pointed out in her paper published in 2008 that, from the 1970s, instead of the traditional dance-occasions, folklorism ensured the means of subsistence to the musicians and dancers in Gyimes: „In Gyimes the traditional dance-occasions, balls – or with popular term dance-houses – had come to an end in the 1970s. Meanwhile the professional musicians, fi rst of all the musicians of Gypsy origins would have got into subsistence vacuum, if the dance-house movement of Hungary starting at the same time wouldn’t have ensured – especially aft er the democratic transformation – more and more intensive chances of appearance for them” (É. Mikos 2008. 281). In relation to this, the local history, the tradition and the folklore had been changing continuously, and also had been rewritten and become inner and ethnical.

220 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)?

THE COMPETING MEMORY-CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ROMANIAN- HUNGARIAN PEASANT REVOLT OF GYIMES IN 1934 – COMMEMORATIONS, FOLKLORE FESTIVALS AND OTHER SYMPOSIUMS Th e fi rst decentralized representations of the peasant revolt in 1934 are written by Romanian and Hungarian historians, published in 1959 and 1960 about the events of the peasant revolt in Gyimes (L. Bányai 1959. 1595–1602; T. Georgescu – L. Fodor 1960). Since the writing and publishing of the events fell into the period of the introduction the „Soviet model” based upon the class struggle, the peasant revolt was reckoned as the prime motiva- tion of the establishment of the Romanian and Hungarian peasants’ new unity and also the emblem of the Romanian-Hungarian concentration of forces. Eff orts were made to take in this legitimized event narratives and also to concede them with the commemorations carried out (from the 1960–70s) and with the folk festivities. So the constructed and decentralised commemoration of the peasant revolt of the 1960 was found to be suitable for the reinforcement of the Romanian communist conception. Th is is the reason why it was allowed or even encouraged to organize some kind of cultural event (such as a symposium) in commemoration of the round anniversary of other local events that were important in the establishment of the Romanian Communist Party. Naturally these events have received some kind of response from the media not only on local level, but also on the level of the whole society. Th ese events were also the instruments of the party propaganda. Th ese so-called commemorations and folk festivities fi tted into the cel- ebrations of the 1960–80s that were organized according to the communist ideology. Th ey were changing constantly and receiving diff erent façades. Besides defi niteness by authorities the local initiatives were very important too. According to the memories of the Hungarians of Gyimes these commemorations – which can be characterized as social indiff erence – from 1969 gave place to a folk festival, initiated by the Hungarians and also representative of the Romanian-Hungarian collabora- tion: from 1969 the festival’s name was the Barátság Húrjai11 and from 1978 A Tatros For- rásánál.12 While the former organizers claimed that the real implicit purpose and aim of the festival was to give a possibility for the meeting of Csángó people in Moldva, Brassó13 and Déva14 the explicit intention was to be made for the rediscovering of the Romanian tradition and was running under the aegis of the Cîntarea României.15 Th is was an opportunity for various ethnic groups from Harghita County to get on stage. Th e Cîntarea României was a non-professional mass movement (initiated by Nicolae Ceauşescu on the basis of the Chi- nese pattern) which gave the opportunity to the mobilization of the Hungarian choirs, folk artists, folk dancers as well, but with the increase in the severity of autocracy, the state- controlled artistic management wished to see an ideological Romanian folk culture on the scene of the national and local programs (E. Balogh 1994. 399; see eg. Cs. Demeter 2009; C. Oancea 2007). Even though at the beginning the Tatros Forrásánál folk festival referred to

11 ’Strings of Friendship’ 12 ’By the Source of Trotus’ 13 Brașov (Romania) 14 Deva (Hunedoara County, Romania) 15 Th e National Festival ’Song to Romania’

221 EEM Judit BALATONYI the peasant uprising of 1934 in some cultural taglines and slogans it gradually became an important device in forging the Romanian national identity and culture until the political change-over. Th e 1990s and the political change-over were a kind of landmark in the commemoration and festival-biography constructed by the Hungarians. Th e political change-over was identifi ed with the symbolic and emblematic time of retrieval of the control over the local and national culture and the local folk festival as well. Around the democratic transformation a centralized interpretation of history of a new type was published about the peasant revolt of 1934: Béla Köpeczi wrote in volume 3 of the History of Transylvania that the communists led those battles uniting labourers of diff erent nationalities, which were organized against the consequences of the Great Depression affl icting workers. So communists controlled the demonstration of peasants of Gyimes Valley in 1934 or the several weeks’ strike for a rise in the Dermata leather factory of Koloz- svár in 1935 and in the textile factory of Arad in 1936. According to him „in these battles the new unity of the Romanian and Hungarian labourers was shaped, which was a unique phenomenon infl uential to future in the atmosphere of the stirred-up nationalism” (B. Köpeczi 1986. 1736). According to the Hungarians the folk festival obtained its authentic Hungarian character in the nineties. Over the above the folk festival initiated another occasion (the Gyimesi Tánctábor)16 which was also suitable to preserve and represent the tradition. At the same time the Romanians were displaced from the local festivals, as was the local tradition earlier defi ned as common culture: such as the cheese-making as a Hungarian process, the common local folk costumes as a Hungarian emblem (1st photo). Both events (Tatros Forrásánál folk festival and the Gyimesi Tánctábor) are interpreted as the revitalisation, re-conception of the peasant revolt and folklore festivals based upon it.17 Nevertheless they emphasize that the programs nowadays are continuous with the original, formerly implicitly composed intentions. In these days in relation to all of these the peasant revolt in 1934 gained a new interpretation: in the case of Hungarians of Gyimes it is about a very specifi c memory made inner and ethnic: the revolt is reckoned rstfi of all as the action of the Hungarian and Csángó people of Gyimes. According to them, the main reasons of the rebellion were the bad economic situation (increase of taxes) and the desire to keep the Hungarian national identity, because aft er the Treaty of Trianon, Hungarian schools were Romanized in the whole territory of Romania. Th eir demands included the restoration of their goods, the education in their mother-tongue, repairing the roads, bring- ing the land to local property and organizing free gatherings.

16 ‘Gyimes Folk Music and Dance Camp’ 17 Zoltán Ilyés especially highlights that the immediate antecedents of the Dance-camp, the By the Source of Trotus Folklore Festival was organized under the Ceauşescu regime. He argued that the festival had to immortalize the memory of the peasant revolt in 1934 – the internecine war of the Romanian and Hungarian peasants (because of the centralized version of the events). Because of his perceptions this ideological and internationalist intention progressively thinned out from behind the event, and the folk festival survived the political transformation (Z. Ilyés 2005. 464).

222 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)?

In 1934 when the peasants of Gyimes Valley were revolting against the great taxation and in favour of recovery of the sequestered objects, one of their most important demands was that the authorities should let the children learn Hungarian. Th is was the situation in the schools of Gyimes between the two world wars. But the biggest problem was that most of the children of school age didn’t go to school. Aft er 1940, namely in the „little Hungarian world” schoolmistresses came to Gyimes from Hungary helping István Orbán and others. Th ey carried out a real apostolic work, they were real folk-educational teachers. Most of the women can still recall that beside the penmanship they taught the women and girls cook- ing, tailoring and sewing.18

1st Photo: Touristic performance („Childwedding”). Photo by Judit Balatonyi, 2007

In parallel with the outset of the Hungarian process of cultural rehabilitation, the Roma- nian people also started in Gyimes and continued in a newer channel: e.g also tried to eth- nicize the folk costumes (2nd Photo). Th e Romanians also tried to appropriate the local traditions and the local costume. Th e Romanian people weren’t organizing local folk festivals at the time and even now – they prefer the national and regional festivals – still they

18 Selection of Gyula Tankó’s manuscript (the „Village Monograph”) published on the Gyimesfel ő- lok communities homepage as a represetation of the local history and culture) http:// gyimesfelsolok.ro/content/view/12/27/ 2013-01-9

223 EEM Judit BALATONYI adopted the models of the regular frame of the commemorations and so the concept of organizing symposiums and any other communal occasion. Th ese occasions are the basic scenes of the preservation of traditions. Th e cultural memory (memory constructions of the peasant revolt of 1934) of Romanians of Gyimesbükk nowadays still follows the decentralized revolutionary interpretations composed in the 1960s, regarding it as a collective but more local and less ethnicized action against oppression. Th is kind of memory is transmit- ted fi rst of all by the education and not expressly identifi cation factor. According to Petrică Bilibok Bârsan, who is the teacher of the Elementary School ‘Gregory Tăbăcaru’ and the artistic manager of the Datina strămoşească folk group, the desire of the rehabilitation of the Romanians from Gyimes living as a minority formulated in the nineties, this is one more reason for establishing the ‘Gregory Tăbăcaru’ Pedagogical-Cultural Association and publishing the cultural proceedings annually. So what is the stage for the Hungarians is the fi eld of the scientifi c-artistic symposiums for the Romanians (within the frame of the education and the Orthodox religion). Both of them are the diff erent cultural scenes of the inventing of tradition, memory and also the remembrance.

2nd Photo: „Amintiri de aur!” (‘Memories from the golden age’). Photo by Petricâ Bilibok-Bârsan, 2007

224 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)?

CONTEMPORARY EVENTS (USING THE CULTURAL PATTERNS OF THE „PAST”) – THE ROMANIAN SYMPOSIUMS AND HUNGARIAN FESTIVALS

Hungarian festivals Now let’s see how the traditional programs described above are functioning today. First a few words about the mechanism and targets of the Hungarian festivals. Th e Tatros Forrásánál folk festival has a regional attraction, primarily it is the meeting place of Csángós scattered from Déva to Moldavian regions. Th e most important elements are the holy mass in Hungarian, the musical-dancer performances and the communal event of the Csángó ball: these serve the strengthening of national and cultural identities. From 2000 the festival is organised within the scope of the Village-festival of Gyimesközéplok in every year in September. In 2010 the Gyimesi Csángó Hagyományőrző Ház19 was conse- crated in Gyimesközéplok in order for promoting and teaching the Csángó culture. Th e visitors can take a glimpse of a permanent photo exhibition (the photos were originated from the Ethnographic Museum in Hungary, taken aft er the centenary /1910–1930/) as well as the photos of a Gyimes-origin musician by Gyula Ádám. In the course of the dedication the local pastor began his dedicatory speech with the following words:

„Now I am dedicating this house in the bottomless belief that this house will be the historical heritage of the authentic, Christian, Hungarian Csángó culture. It reminds us of the past and gives hope and life in the future. To this we are asking for God's help!”20

In 2011 a historical event of a new type got temporarily included into the programme of the festival then organized in Gyimesfelsőlok: the participants visited the war memorial near the Millennial border and wreathed the wooden headboard for the memory of Ödön Sebő. All these were related to the war memorial unveiled in 2010 (and the relating political rites) and to the cult of Ödön Sebő. Th e co-organizer of the events was the Cultural Center of Harghita County besides the local authority (of Gyimesközéplok or Gyimesfelsőlok). Th e Dance-camp of Gyimes strives to transmit or re-teach values for the participants from Hungary and for a lower number of local people. First of all, the teaching of dance and singing is in focus with the help of local informants. For the campers it is an opportunity to listen to diff erent performances (dance, feasts, beliefs, dishes) – with co-operation of ethnographers, professionals, local intellectuals and specialists. Besides, many excursions are organized with the primary aim that the visitors get an inside view of chapters of living culture of Gyimes: rake making, cheese making (etc.). In Gyimesközéplok an international traditionalist camp on folk music, folk song and folk dance is organized since 1992 at which inquirers of every age-group arrive predomi- nantly from Hungary, from a few Western European countries and in smaller numbers

19 ’Gyimes Csángó Traditionalist House’ 20 Hargita Népe (26 September 2000) regional review – online version http://udvardy.adatbank. transindex.ro/index.php?action=helymutato&helymutato=1477 2013-01-5

225 EEM Judit BALATONYI from other areas of Transylvania (e.g. in August 2001 80% from Hungary, 15% from diff erent cities of Transylvania). Th e one-week long meetings were organized under the direction of Hungarian promoters and organizers of the camp until the summer of 1998. Later, between 1999 and 2004 there were attempts of local-level organisation by the initiative of the local authority of Gyimesközéplok. An organizer from Hidegség, who had been con- tributing since then in the organization of the camp, explained the decision of the authority by economic aspects; on the other hand, according to him several local dancers and traditionalist intellectuals regard the activity of the camp-organization as a question of prestige, he called this act as a symbolic recovery of supervision over one’s own culture. In October of 1999 the cultural committee of the council of Gyimesközéplok made a decision that in the year 2000 the camp will be organized with the help of locals, „with the complete exclusion of the promoters and intellectual mentors of the camps”, so the organizers of the eight camps so far. Related to this the organizers also published a declaration in 10 March 2000 number of the journal Művelődés, primarily with the object of clarifying the laws related to the camp-organization.21 Th e camp was organized in the time interval men- tioned above by a dancer-choreographer and his wife, who came to Gyimes from Hungary, with the help of other local intellectuals. Among others the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, College of folk arts of National Cultural Fund, Management of Kolozsvár of Illyés Foundation (…) and the mayor’s offi ce also supported the event, which came into the cross- fi re of the Hungarian political discourse IDÉZET? (I. Ferencz 2003. 1). In 2002 the mem- bers of the Association for the Children of Csík also joined in the programmes of the camp (I. Sarány 2002. 1). In 2003 time was assigned for the acquaintance with, and teaching of traditional professions within the programme of the camp along with a Csángó wedding, which was presented by locals participants (I. Ferencz 2003. 1). An intellectual of Gyimesközéplok stated that the „traditional summer dance-camp” in 2003 divided the opinions of the local community (organizers, dancers and population) and therefore in the summer of 2004 the dance-camp moved to the community house of Gyimesfelsőlok from its Gyimesközéplok location. From the summer of 2005 according to the resolution of the local council the local authority asked the original promoters and organizers of the camp to organize the event.22 Th e resumption aft er fi ve years hiatus was troublesome, shown also in the low number of participants. In the dance-camps of the past years the focus was mainly on the teaching of dance and singing, with the help of local informants the campers had a chance to listen to various performances (dance, feasts, beliefs, food) – with the co-operation of ethnographers, experts, local intellectuals and specialists. Besides many trips were organized, whose main objective was to give the visitors insight into the episodes of the living culture of Gyimes: rake-making, the production of cheese (etc.). One of the earliest organizers of the camp is Doctor of folk music sciences, who got into touch with the dance-house movement in 1977, which fi rst started in Transylvania in Kolozsvár. According to him the role of the dance-house movement is the supporting of the existing values, a kind of „revival”, the task of which is the revitalisation of the disappearing traditions. Th e main organizer emphasizes in case of Gyimes that the dance-camp has the

21 http://www.gyimesitabor.nextra.ro/tores.html 2009-03-12 22 http://www.gyimesitabor.nextra.ro/tores.html 2009-03-12

226 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)? role to somehow save the disappearing value-system, but not only for the people of Gyimes but for all the Hungarians visiting the dance-camp. Another Hungarian organizer of the camp – a folk dance expert – considered the dance-camp of Gyimes as an organization fi t- ting into a fi ft een? not fi ft y?-year-old tradition. According to him, in Gyimesközéplok and fundamentally in Gyimes, under the eff ect of globalisation and social-economical development, „certain values have been lost”. He summarizes the mission of the dance-camp as the re-teaching of the lost values and conservation of the existing ones:

Well, at fi rst, the dance-camp has also a duty in trying to re-teach, to retrieve this culture, which is perishing. To make the villagers, the locals share the opinion that this is a value, it is theirs and it should be protected. Because this is what keeps them alive, this is what tells them apart from the West, from other cultures and this is by which they can move out into the wide world and can show that we are of this kind, that’s how our Gyimes costume looks like, that’s how our music looks like… we have an interesting instrument called gardony. […] So here they almost lie down to drink from the clear fountain, which is crystal-clear, of course in its own variants, because this also is changing.23

He also considers important that in the camp of Gyimes not only the local specialities should be taught but, in addition to the Gyimes ones, the specialities of Felcsík (primarily dances) should also be performed. Th is person reckons the culture of Gyimes and Csík as relatives, therefore he reckons the common representation as legitimate. According to him the role of the local people is to help interpreting „the tradition” for inquirers. Th e informants are from among these people.

Romanian symposiums and other events Th e most important scenes of the rehabilitation and the traditionalism of Romanian people of Gyimesbükk on local level are the annual international e.g. educational symposiums and the programmes of the local Orthodox Church with regular appearance of the local folklore groups. Let’s see a few examples for the role of the local Orthodox Church: On the Whit Sunday festival called Rusalii în Inima Carpaţilor24 according to the narrator of Bacău TV, „the pres- ence of the bishop (Ioachim Băcăuan) had a specifi c surplus value on a date and in a settlement which has recently been more meaningful for the Hungarians. While the feasts were in full swing just 2 km away on the so called millennial border of Greater Hungary, the Orthodox believers were celebrating the Pentecost on the court of a little church in Gyimes- bükk”. According to Băcăuan himself: „Especially here, in the centre of the Carpathians, God is Romanian.”25 Meanwhile Viorel Olah, the priest of the Orthodox minority of Gyimes was greeting the debut of the religious feast as a supporting gesture for that community,

23 http://www.gyimesitabor.nextra.ro/tores.html 2009-03-12 24 ‘Pentecost in the middle of the Carpathians’ 25 http://www.1tvbacau.ro/video/Steaguri-rom%C3%A2ne%C5%9Fti-%C3%AEn- Ghime%C5%9F-F%C4%83get--v3897.html 2012-02-08

227 EEM Judit BALATONYI which used to suff er from diff erent forms of suppression as the consequence of the Union / Unitus26 in the 18th century. Th e folk group Ţărăncuţa 27 from Ágas28 was singing. Th e group is lead by Ms. Mariana Crăciun, the teacher of the village, whose goals coincide with the goals of the bishop of Bacău. Th e teacher visited the programme to be with those who were trying to „celebrate in accordance with their millennial traditions among thousands of Hungarians, who made a dash for the neighbourhood.” According to the teacher: ”Every- thing in Romania is Romanian. Wherever we are: in Maramureș, Dobruja, Bacău or Timișoara – it’s Romanian. It is refl ected by the national costumes that we are wearing. Th ey are very old costumes, there is a hundred-year-old among them too, and they express the identity and traditions of the Romanian folk.” Th is kind of conception of the ethnic culture can be related to the point of view of the Romanian intellectuals of Gyimesbükk, according to whom the local traditions can be com- plemented with the local traditions of other Romanian settlements, because those represent the general Romanian spirituality too, especially the traditions of those territories can be of use which have genetic relationship to the culture of the local Romanians. For example the local intellectuals emphasize their descent from Barcaság29 and besides that they oft en put forward their cultural connections with the Romanian population of the former Fogaras County of the Kingdom of Hungary,30 Naszód District31 and fundamentally the Bacău County (P. Bilibok-Bârsan – I. Gabor 2005). As Kinga Jankus also hinted that the Romani- ans of Gyimesbükk compare themselves in many aspects with the Orthodox Romanians of Moldavia, whom they consider more religious and traditionalist than themselves (K. Jankus 2008. 111). For example they consider Palánka32 in the close neighbourhood of Gyimes- bükk the keeper of real Romanian traditions. Besides that, another important point of view is that according to many people each cultural act (e.g. custom, working stage), that is prac- ticed by Romanians of Gyimesbükk in this instance, refl ects a taste of Romanian type – it is Romanian. Although on the Whitsun festival didn’t appear any group of Gyimesbükk, but for example on 31 May on the „heroes’ square” of Gyimesbükk local young people performed their cultural programme. Pupils of the „Gregory Tăbăcaru” Elementary School of Gyimesbükk and elementary school of Kostelek performed within the organization of the Orthodox parish and the Educational-Cultural Association of Tarhavas: the Datina strămoșească33 of Tarhavas and the Strajerii34 of Kostelek traditionalist groups. Th e performance of the children according to Petrică Bilibok-Bârsan the teacher of „Gregory Tăbăcaru” School means the beginning of a common educational partnership between the two institutions and also a renewal in the fi elds of „local mental values, regional historical and ethno-

26 In 1700 „Orthodox united with Rome”: that was a religious union of the majority of Romanians from Transylvania with the Church of Rome. Th is Union was important from a religious, spiri- tual, cultural, social and political point of view (see A. Cistelecan 2001. 1). 27 ’Peasant girl’ 28 Ágas (Agăs, Bacău county, Romania) 29 Ţara Bârsei (geographical-cultural territory in south-eastern Transylvania, Romania) 30 Făgăraş (was an administrative unit in the south-eastern part of the Kingdom of Hungary) 31 Năsăud (historical region in the north of Transylvania, Romania) 32 Palánka (Palanca, Bacău County, Románia) 33 ’Ancient Tradition’ 34 ’Border patrols’

228 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)? graphical knowledge”, which contributes to the conservation of the customs, traditions of the „Romanian village”. Besides this important scene of the rehabilitation of the Romanians on the local level, there is the international educational symposium35 organised annually. According to the lectures and volume of an international educational symposium in Gyimesbükk in 2008 the promotion of cultural values and the practice of patriotism, the love for the mother-tongue and literature are basically independent from the speciality of the given geographic region. Th ey emphasize the roles of museums of ethnography, skansens (village museum) in the education and teaching of folklore (local dances, folk songs, feasts, and everyday life). According to many others these are necessary for the children’s healthy, patriotic mental development – for this initiation the parents, or occasionally the older local inhabitants can be important. Many teachers in Gyimesbükk carry out folklore collection regularly; they seek out local „informants”. Th e Romanian village is called the village of the ancient Romanian national hearth.

SUMMARY Are traditions something that could be owned and exclusively controlled as the private property of particular ethnic groups and religious, political concerns? It is hard to answer this question, but we can be sure that the local groups make eff orts to dispossess and give a re-defi nition of the local tradition. My point is that it is owned by those ethnic groups which are supported by the most people, or those who possess the largest social, connectional and economic capital, those who rise to the occasion. As also those who need their own past because of the given political-cultural situation and who have some kind of legitimization base. Of course, it does not mean that always only one group, community is the owner and legitimate user of traditions, it is rather possible that more groups in parallel with each other (in Gyimes the Hungarians, Romanians and the local Roma indeed) using, representing and passing the same local culture as authentic and their own alone. So the dispossession of traditions is basically a continuous cultural war in which one single ethnic group can win only small battles and in most cases the single local groups are just a kind of symbolic tool in the cultural rivalry between nations. I hope that my paper can prove the hypothesis that the local culture and local traditions consisting of partly common roots get into various contexts through the constructional attempts of the groups. Th ese groups are competing for the local past and heritage (and use it in their identifi cation processes) building upon the tender-resources and cultural projects and utilizing their communicative memory and the results of the ethnographic researches. At the same time the tradition (in Gyimes) wants to be semiotised by the Romanian and Hungarian elite as well.

35 „Românitate culturală, educaţie – valori ale perenităţii noastre în lume”

229 EEM Judit BALATONYI

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Andrew 1988 Th e system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Alexander, Jeff rey C. 2004 Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance between Ritual and Strategy. Sociological Th eory. 22 (4) 527–573. Alexander, Jeff rey C., Giesen, Bernhard, and Mast, Jason L. (eds.) 2006 Social Performance. Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual (Cambridge Cultural Social Studies 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bakó Boglárka 1998 Az érdekességeket kereső turisták és a turistákat kereső érdekességek [Th e Tourists Looking for Curiosity and the Curiosity Looking for Tourists.]. In Fejős, Zoltán (ed.): A turizmus mint kulturális rendszer. Budapest: Néprajzi Múzeum, 129–141. Balatonyi Judit 2012 „…De amikor ünnep van, ünnepeljünk!” Közösségi ünnepek – gyimesi ünnep- értelmezések („When It’s a Feast, Let’s Celebrate!” Communal Feasts – Festal Interpretations in Gyimes). In Landgraf, Ildikó, Nagy, Zoltán (eds.): Az elkerül- hetetlen. Vallásantropológiai tanulmányok Vargyas Gábor tiszteletére. Budapest: PTE Néprajz – Kulturális Antropológia Tanszék – MTA BTK Néprajztudományi Intézet – L’Harmattan Kiadó – Könyvpont Kiadó, 707–747. Balogh Edgár 1994 Megéneklünk, Románia. In: Dávid, Gyula (ed.): Romániai magyar irodalmi lexikon: Szépirodalom, közírás, tudományos irodalom, művelődés III [Romanian-Hungarian Literary Encyclopaedia: Literature, Popular Literature, Scientifi c Literature, Refi nement III]. Bukarest: Kriterion Könyvkiadó, 399. Bányai László 1959 A gyimes-völgyi parasztok harca 1934-ben [Th e Fight of Peasants in Gyimes Valley in 1934). Korunk XVIII. 11. 1595–1602. Bilibok-Bârsan, Petrică – Gabor, Ion (eds.) 2005 Din universul spiritualităţii româneşti – Plaiurile Ghimeşene [Romanian Spirituality – in Gyimes Valley]. Bacău: Editura Egal Burcea, Horatiu 2009 Policies of Cultural Assimilation in Transylvania: Magyarization and Romanization (thesis – manuscript, Ball State University, Indiana). http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/123456789/193578/1/Hburcea_2009-1_ BODY.pdf (2012.05.21). Cistelecan, Alexandru 2001 A görög katolicizmus a románoknál [Th e Greek Catholicism in the Romanians]. Provincia. 15. 8–9. 1. Demeter Csanád 2009 A kommunista ünnepélyek rítusai [Rites of the Communist Feasts]. (manuscript, presented in the X. RODOSZ Konferencia 2009. november 13–15., Kolozsvár). Forrás: www.rodosz.ro/fi les/Demeter%20Csanad.pdf 2013 Dobos Ilona 1977 Csaba monda. [Th e Csaba-Saga]. In: Ortutay Gyula (ed.): Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon. I. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 441.

230 EEM WHO „OWNS” THE PAST (HISTORY, TRADITIONS AND FOLKLORE)?

Ferencz Imre 2003 Táborozás lakodalommal [Camping with Wedding]. Hargita Népe 15. 171. 1. Georgescu, Titu – Fodor, Ladislau 1960 Răscoala ţăranilor din Valea Ghimeşului: 1934. [Peasant Revolt in Gyimes Valley: 1934]. Bucureşti: Editura Politică Gieryn, T. F. 1983 Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science From Nonscience: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48. 6. 781–795. 1999 Cultural Boundaries of Ccience. Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Grexa Gyula 1922 A Csaba-monda és a székely hun-hagyomány [Csaba-Saga and the Székely Hun- Tradition]. Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 22. 159–161. Györffy György 1948 Krónikáink és a magyar őstörténet [Chronicles and the Hungarian Prehistory]. Budapest: Néptudományi Intézet Hermanowicz, Joseph C. 1998 Th e Stars are not Enough: Scientists-Th eir Passions and Professions. Chicago: Th e University of Chicago Press Hermanowicz, Joseph C., Morgan, Harriet P. 1999 Ritualizing the Routine: Collective Identity Affi rmation. Sociological Forum 14. 2. 197–241. Ilyés Zoltán 2005 Az identitás mint kistérségi erőforrás – Gyimes példája [Th e Identity as a Regional Reosource – Following the Example of Gyimes]. Kisebbségkutatás 14. 4. 460–467. 2006a Identitás, kultúr táj, örökség menedzsment. Szempontok Gyimes kis térségi erőforrásainak értékeléséhez. [Identity, cultural area, heritage management. Aspects of the Consideration of the Gyimesien Areal Recources.]. In: Bakó Boglárka, Szoták Szilvia (eds.): Magyarlakta kistérségek és kisebbségi identitások a Kárpátmedencében. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó – MTA Etnikai – Nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézet, 45–65. 2006b Közeli idegenek, távoli ismerősök. A székelyek és a magyarországiak sztereotípiái a gyimesi csángókról [Close Strangers, Distant Acquaintances. Stereotypes of the Székelys and the Hungarians /in Hungary/ about the Csángós in Gyimes] In Bakó, Boglárka, Papp Richárd and Szarka, László (eds.): Mindennapi előítéletek. Társadalmi távolságok és etnikai sztereotípiák. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó, 120–132. 2008 Etnoturizmus, határturizmus Gyimesben [Ethnotourism, Border Tourism in Gyimes]. Debreceni Disputa. 6. 5. 56–60. Ichim, Dorinel 1983 Zona etnografi că Trotuş [Trotuş Ethnographic Region]. Bucureşti: Editura Sport- Turism 1987 Zona etnografi că Bacău [Bacău Ethnographic Region]. Bucureşti: Editura Sport- Turism Köpeczi Béla 1986 Kitekintés: Erdély útja 1918 után [Outlook: Transylvania’s Way aft er 1918]. In: Szász Zoltán (ed.): Erdély története. III. 1830-tól napjainkig. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1733–1778.

231 EEM Judit BALATONYI

Mikos Éva 2008 A folklór, az írásbeliség és a tömegkultúra együttélése, s a folklorista lehetőségei a mai Gyimesben [Coexistence of the Folklore, the (written) Literature, the Popular Culture, and the Possibilities of a Folklorist) in nowdays Gyimes]. In: Pócs, Éva (ed.): „Vannak még csodák, csak észre kell venni.” Helyi vallás, néphit és vallásos folklór Gyimesben I (Studia Ethnologica Hungarica VIII). Budapest: L'Harmattan Kiadó, 273–299. Mititelu, Cornelia 2008 Zona etnografi ca Trotuş Partea II [Trotuş Ethnographic Region] (Geografi a Turismului An IV). Iaşi: Grupa 1442 Nagy Levente 2001 Emóció, ráció, frusztráció. Mihai Eminescu politikai publicisztikája. Pro minoritate 107–125. Jankus Kinga 2008 A lélek túlvilági útja a gyimesbükki ortodox hiedelmek alapján [Th e Soul's Aft erlife based on the Ortodox beliefs in Gyimesbükk]. In: Pócs, Éva (ed.): „Vannak még csodák, csak észre kell venni.” Helyi vallás, néphit és vallásos folklór Gyimesben I (Studia Ethnologica Hungarica VIII). Budapest: L'Harmattan Kiadó, 93–112. Oancea, Claudiu 2007 Collection When Forgers of Steel Become Creators of Art: Th e National Festival „Song to Romania”, 1976–1989 (unpublished Budapest: Master's thesis, Department of History, Central European University) Pusztai Bertalan 2003 Megalkotott hagyományok és falusi turizmus [Created Heritages and Village Tourism]. In Pusztai, Bertalan (ed.): Megalkotott hagyományok és falusi turizmus. A pusztamérgesi eset. Szeged: SzTE Néprajzi Tanszék, 9–21. Pomogáts Béla 2003 Az erdélyi identitás [Th e Transylvanian Identity]. Erdélyi Utas 14 .1. 79. Sarány István 2002 A gyimesi tánctábor a helyi kultúráé [Th e Gyimesian Dance-Camp Belongs to the Local Culture]. Hargita Népe.14 (175) 1. Spotts, Lydia 2008 Th e Csángó in Ghimeş-Faget: Boundary and Ethnic Defi nition in Transylvania (thesis – manuscript, Ball State University, Indiana). Source: http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/ bitstream/handle/192674/1/S685_2008SpottsLydia.pdf (2012.05.21.) Vámszer Géza 1940 A gyimesi csángók eredete, települési és gazdasági viszonyai [Th e Origin and the Economic Conditions of the Csángós in Gyimes], Láthatár 8. 3. 73–79. Zahorán Csaba 2011 Visszatérés az egyházhoz. Avagy a Román Ortodox Egyház a székelyföldi magyar és román nemzetépítés diskurzusában 1989 után [Returning to the Church. Or the Romanian Orthodox Church in the Discourse on the Transylvanian Hungarian and Romanian Nationbuilding aft er 1989] (manuscript, the paper was delivered in the conference Hazatérések: nemzeti integráció, önazonosság, identitáspolitika egység és különbség erőterében, organized by Politikatörténeti Intézet /Institute for Political History/ Budapest).

232