Talk:History of Slovakia/Archive 2

I clean up random citation errors and this article has some difficult examples due to badly malformed citation templates and incorrect use of named reference tags.

• This diff introduced an error on May 12, 2008 (7 years old!). The citation used was <ref name='Origins'>{{cite book | pages = 308-309}}</ref> which produced:

. pp. 308–309. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I assume the citation should have been completed as follows. I've added a |ref=harv parameter to allow use of the {{sfn}} shortened footnote template, used like this to create an abbreviated reference which links to the full citation (which needs to be placed into the Secondary Sources section for the {{sfn}} template to function properly). Note that there are no <ref></ref> tags placed around a {{sfn}} template. {{sfn|Kristó|1995|pp=308-309}}^[1]

Kristó, Gyula (1995). A magyar állam megszületése ("The origin of the Hungarian state"). Szeged: Szegedi Középkorász Műhely. ISBN 963-482-098-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• This diff introduced an error on November 15, 2012. There are eight different malformed citation templates all using the same named reference 'Történeti Kronológia' but each shows different page numbers. Because they all use the same named reference, they all show up as a single citation like this - my assumed correction is below (intended for use with the {{sfn}} template).

. p. 51. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Benda, Kálmán (editor) (1981). Magyarország történeti kronológiája ("The Historical Chronology of Hungary"). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-2661-1. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• This diff introduced an error on May 16, 2015. A malformed citation template using the named reference 'Europe' produced the following, which I assume would be correct as shown below (again, intended for use with the {{sfn}} template).

. p. 360. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Angi, János; Bárány, Attila; Orosz, István; Papp, Imre; Pósán, László (1997). Európa a korai középkorban (3-11. század) (Europe in the Early Middle Ages - 3–11th centuries). Debrecen: dup, Multiplex Media - Debrecen U. P. ISBN 963-04-9196-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Apart from the 11 examples shown above, I see 41 more in the code for this article, none of which properly show the page number in their citations (and each of which will cause an error if the full citation gets deleted). For now, I've fixed the unrecognized parameter error - I'll leave the others for an interested editor who wants to clean up the entire reference section. Stamptrader (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"The archeological evidence prove that to the north of the line mentioned above, not only did the older settlement structures survive, but also territorial-administration organisation led by native magnates" I think this statement needs some clarification. How can an archaeological research prove that older administrative structures survived? I am just curious. (Could you take a look at this Borsoka) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, the archeological research can document continuity of the local administrative centers ruled by native magnates.--Ditinili (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a common place in Slovakian historiography. For instance, Slovak archaeologists argue that the Hont and "Poznan" families were of local Slavic origin and survived the Hungarian conquest although all chronicles wrote that the same families were of German origin and came to Hungary in the late 10th century. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Medieval chronicles are full of fictive persons and events, they were written with some purpose e.g. to legitimize a rule of some king, dynasty, etc. It is not something unusual if they contradict other available knownledge.--Ditinili (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The "native" magnates' bones can hardy speak about their vernacular and "real" ethnicity. Also, archaeological evidences cannot prove the survival of former territorial-administrative organisations. They can locate an administrative centre, however are unable to identify the administrative structures and organizational changes. That statement above is just "wishful thinking". Fakirbakir (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Theory that archeologists relies exclusively on some "bones" is not worth of comment. Additional discussion about "wishful thinking" could be interesting, however, we can close it as your personal opinion vs. properly sourced text from the recognized authors, from the trustworthy source, based on previous works of recognized experts like Alexander Ruttkay, who really did archeological research here, is a recognized expert on international level, etc. Ditinili (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

IMHO. I think making such a statement like this above speaks a lot about the author's (non-) professionalism. Archaeologists draw conclusions from findings (BONES, artefacts etc). What are the archaeological evidences for native (FYU "Slavic") magnates and survival of former territorial-administrative organisations? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, a continous existence of the local power center and the lack of other military outposts in the same area can say a lot about local organisation. Further artifacts can answer the question of ethnicity, especially if they are not influenced yet by common multi-ethnic culture and "fashion trends". Fortunatelly, the author's (non-) professionalism can be evaluated based on his research results, international recognition, awards, etc and is completely independent on your opinion. Ditinili (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Continuous existence doesn't mean that there were no changes in administrative structure.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The article does not say that they were "no changes in administrative structure". This is obvious because the older administrative structure on higher-level depended on relationships within the Great Moravia. The article states that "to the north of the line mentioned above (...) territorial-administration organisation led by native magnates" survived (the statement matches the original source).--Ditinili (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Ruttkay's role in the development of the theory of a surviving Slovak nobility cannot be denied. Slovak historian Lukačka writes, "The renowned historian Daniel Rapant fist suggested the existence of a local Slovak elite after the fall of Great Moravia some time ago. At first, his theory was basically a matter of intuition, as in the early 1950s he could not support his claim with any conrecte historical or archaeological evidence. It was only following systemtic investigation of the aristocratic mnaors at Ducové near Piest'any, and later also at Nitriansa Blatnica, by Alexander Ruttkay in the 1970s that Rapant' hypothesis was unambigouosly confirmed." (Lukačka, Ján (2011). "The beginnings of the nobility in Slovakia". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–37. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. page 31.). Actually, the above issue is not connected to bones (as far as I remember, no magnates' bones were unearthed), but to the dating of earthworks, which were erected (in many cases in the Bronze Age), later abandoned, and reoccupied, and abandoned again... Slovak historians tend to propose that those earthworks (for instance, at Zemplén) were held in the 10th century by local Slavic lords who survived the Hungarian conquest. The same Slovak historians identify the (allegedly) surviving Slavic lords with knights mentioned in the medival Hungarian chronicles, saying that the same Hungarian chronicles were wrong when stating that those knights were of German, Hungarian, etc. origin. All the same, as far as I remember, the names of some Hungarian chieftains who plundered Europe was of Slavic origin, proving that local chieftains joined the Hungarians, similarly to the local lords who joined the Northmen in Britain, Normandy, Southern Italy, .... Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We know well that the Arpads even attacked their own kinds (Koppany, Gyula, Ajtony etc) and they did not want to share power with anybody. We also know that they preferred to put their men in key positions regardless of ethnicity. That's how feudalism works. "Their men" could have been anybody, Magyars, Slavic locals, newcomer knights etc. I am still asking for archaeological evidences because you can't prove ethnicity and survival of territorial administrative organizations by dating of earthworks..... Archaeology hardly can identify organizational structures/changes. IMHO Fakirbakir (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No comment.Ditinili (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So, you are unable to clarify those "archaeological evidences" Fakirbakir (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I only don't feel the need to react on obvious non-sense like "you can't prove ethnicity", because it is clear that early Slavs and Hungarians in Slovakia did not share common material culture in the 10th century. It also seems that you are not able to understand what does it mean if original population preserved its power centers in some region and the outposts of other population are missing. You also missed that e.g. Ducové was destroyed by early Hungarians only in the late 10th century when the Arpáds expanded their power, thus it was not under their administration before.

I really don't know what to say to your theory that the ruler did not care about nationality. It is obviously something what supports (and does not refute) an opinion that he had not any problem with Slavic aristocracy, especially if that guys were loyal to him (you obviously missed this consequence; it is not about "sharing power", but about standard feudal hierarchy).

The whole discussion until now is about your personal opinions without single reference to any scholarly source from your side. Therefore, from my point of view it is a vaste of time.Ditinili (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What a pity that you don't even understand my problem. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I understand your problems very well.Ditinili (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I think Ditinili's above remarks prove that according to a significant (Slovakian) scholarly POV local Slavic aristocrats survived the Hungarian conquest. This POV was published in peer-reviewed books, consequently it can (should) be presented in this article. Of course, editors should also emphasize that this is only a POV. As far as I know, the idea of the existence of a landholding aristocracy and "local power centers" (=earthworks which may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries) is subject to scholarly debates. For instance, Jiří Macháček emphasizes that no richly furnished graves were unearthed, suggesting that "Great Moravia" was a highly centralized polity, without aristocrats whose power was independent of the monarch (Macháček, Jiří (2009). "Disputes over Great Moravia: chiefdom or state? the Morava or the Tisza River?". Early Medieval Europe. 17 (3). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd: 248–267.; Macháček, Jiří (2012). ""Great Moravian state"–a controversy in Central European medieval studies". Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana. 11 (1). Saint-Petersburg, RU: Publishing House of the History Department of the Saint-Petersburg State University: 5–26.). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The existence of local power centers is definitely not a subject of any serious scholarly debate. We do not talk about some hypothetical sites, but about heavily fortified and large agglomerations with numerous artifacts, like Bojná - Valy. There is also not any serious scholarly debate if such centers "may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries" in general. Which important local center do you mean? They can be found from Devín to Zeplín.

The existence of landholding aristocracy is a completely different thing. A term "magnate" does not necessarily means a feudal landowner. The Slavs began to build these heavily fortified centers in the 8th century - in time, when nobody of them could play a role of the feudal monarch. Ditinili (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Their dating is not so certain. For instance, the "local power center" at Zemplén may have been built around 900 or 1000, therefore it is not a fact that it was built for and held by a local Slavic lord. (Takács, Miklós (1994). Zemplén. Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc. Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)]. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-6722-9., page 743.) Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, 15 years later (4 September 2009) there was an international conference dedicated exactly to this topic (Hradiská severného Potisia – Hradisko Zemplín/Forthills in the northen Potisie/Forthill Zemplin). This opinion is currently outdated and untenable.Ditinili (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am just wondering whether how many non-Slovak specialists (e.g. Hungarian) were invited to the conference. As I see you are a "one truth believer"... Please read something about WP:NPOV. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, no Hungarian historians were present, but this is not about the nationality of the scholars. As I understand, the conference was about ceramics found in the Zemplén fort which can be dated between the 10th and 12th centuries. All the same, if a historian writes that those ceramics prove that it was a power center of a 10th-century Slavic nobleman who survived the fall of "Great" Moravia, we cannot say that this POV cannot be presented in the article. Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OMG.

1. There is a whole network of old Slavonic fortified settlements in Slovakia and Moravia. There is not any serious academic discussion if they existed in the 9th-10th century and if they were inhabited by Slavs. Boroska, discussions like "they may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries" belong to the scholarly discussions from 18th and maybe 19th century. Nowadays, it is proven, largely documented fact, completely independent on one or two sites.

2. Fakirbakir's theories that the (ex-)president of the archeological institute Alexander Ruttkay (by the way honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) cannot distinguish between old Hungarian and old Slavonic archeological findings is ehm... no comment.

3. Naivety how do you believe that Slovak Academy of Sciences or the Archeological Institute somehow manipulates research or employs idiots who take ceramics from 12th century and than conclude that the location was inhabited by Slavs in the 9th century... no comment. Do you really believe it? I don't know where did you get this information.Ditinili (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Dilitil you may not know, but 1994 was in the 20th century. 2. I did not write that 12th-century ceramics was used to prove the 9th-century inhabitation of Zemplén Fort. Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Alexander Ruttkay (by the way honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) cannot distinguish between old Hungarian and old Slavonic archeological findings is ehm... no comment."---> I have never said that. However, I asked for archaeological proofs for "native magnates" and "surviving administrative organization". How an earth can archaeological findings prove that the Arpads kept former "administrative organizations" and left "native magnates" in positions? It doesn't matter that the local population survived the conquest because I am talking about state organization. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, let me repeat - regardless of discussion about some particular site, there is a whole network of old Slavonic local centers. Theories that they "may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries" belong to the scholarly discussions from 18th and maybe 19th century.

Fakirbakir, let's look for example on Ducové, because it is already mentioned in the article and it was a breakthrough discovery. Ducové is somewhere between two main Great Moravian centers - Nitra and the other one in Moravia. It is not hidden somewhere, but close to the important strategic point, where the old Slavs built one of the oldest Slavic forthills in Slovakia - Pobedim. After the fall of the Great Moravia, a lot of strategic fortifications ceased to exist. They ceased to exist quickly and the archeological horizon contains large amount of ash and arrow tips. This is especially the case of the Moravian centers. In Slovakia these signs of Hungarian attack can be found as well, but in many cases they are completely missing (!). The manor in Ducové survived the fall of the Great Moravia. Not only common people survived, but also their local magnate, who was already an early feudal lord. Contrary to the earlier Slavic elites, he (or let's say his ancestor) built his own representative residence and separated from his people. While Hungarians secured their strategic interests in the southern Slovakia, the local center in Ducové persisted until the Arpáds expanded to the north. Only then, in the late 10th century, the manor was destroyed. This is an excellent example how the Arpáds established their rule over Slovakia continuously and not at once at the beginning of the 10th century. Not so far from Pobedim and Ducové there is a large Slavic agglomeration Bojná. In Bojná, a large amount of non-Hungarians arrow tips was found. It seems (scholar hypothesis) that Hungarian army attacked fortification together with local Slavic armies. As some Hungarians fought against their ruler, the Slavs had not any problem to do the same. One note, before you come with your own theory how to reinterpret findings in Ducové and if this could applied also to other places in Slovakia - this is an example. Ditinili (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dilitil, you should change your chronograph because you cannot distinguish centuries. The very idea of a local Slavic aristocracy surviving the fall of Moravia "was basically a matter of intuition" till the 1970s, according to the the Slovak historian Ján Lukačka (Lukačka (2011), p. 31.) - the 1970s were not in the 19th century. You also seem to accept dogmas, saying that "there is no debate about the existence of a whole network of old Slavonic local centers" - in modern scholarship, the lack of debate is always suspect. You also seem to identify the POV of a scholarly group as the truth which is not and cannot be debated by other groups of scholars. Finally, your reference to "non-Hungarian arrow tips" suggests that you have not read archaeological studies written in the 21st century. For instance, I suggest you should read Florin Curta's study here . The Romanian scholar sharply criticizes the late Hungarian archaeologist István Bóna who wrote of a "Hungarian archaeological culture" and identified the first Hungarian settlements in Transylvania "by means of grooved-rim vessels and clay clay cauldrons" (Curta (2001), p. 147). The identification of objects with ethnic groups is nowadays a quite out of date approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, my chrongraph is OK, please, do not improvise again. In 1970, there was absolutely no doubt about Slavic origin of local hillforts and their pre-Hungarian dating. The "matter of intuition" was only (in that time hypothesis) about survival of local nobility after the fall of the Great Moravia, until evidence (like the manor in Ducové) was found. Let me repeat again. Your statement that "local power centers" (=earthworks which may or may have not been in use in the 9th and 10th centuries) is subject to scholarly debates." is a obvious non-sense. It seems that you are not able to distinguish between dogma and absolutely overwhelming opinion of the academic community. Hilarious speculations like "in modern scholarship, the lack of debate is always suspect" can be applied to the flat earth model as well. Theory, that "the identification of objects with ethnic groups is nowadays a quite out of date approach" is just another absolute non-sense. You can try to copy and paste this sentence to wiki page Archeology and wait for reactions. Of course, there are archeological cultures which cannot be associated with concrete ethnic group or they have multiethnic character.Ditinili (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of this debate: Fakirbakir wrote that the sentence stating that "The archeological evidence prove that to the north of the line mentioned above, not only did the older settlement structures survive, but also territorial-administration organisation led by native magnates" is dubious. Till the 1970s, the very existence of surviving local magnates had only been "a matter of intuition", according to a reliable source (Lukačka (2011), p. 31.), why do you say that only 18th- and 19th-century scholars denied the survival of the "Great Moravian" aristocracy? According to another academic work, the very existence of local magnates within "Great Moravia" is suspect (Macháček (2009) and (2012) - why do you think that the existence of "Great Moravian" local aristocrats is subject to scholarly debates, but the survival of the same local aristocracy is a theory which is accepted by all scholars? Why do you think that Florin Curta's scepticism in connection with the identification of objects with ethnic groups should be ignored? Why do you think that an absolutely overwhelming opinion of the Slovakian academic community is also accepted by all other scholars? Borsoka (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, I have answered Fakirbakir's question several times. I did it last time "15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)". So, the original question was already answered, it is clear that it is based on real evidence(s), it is properly sourced, etc. It is closed.

Take a break, read carefully which of your statements I considered to be wrong, and do not try to "reinterpret" your original statements. If you have some general things to be discussed about archeology, methods and processes, do it in another page. If you have mainstream peer review academic source with alternative opinion e.g. on Ducové, than it is welcomed. Good bye.Ditinili (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you: we should not continue this debate. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, text is properly sourced, the source is reliabliable and fully compliant with wikipedia rules. When you will have concrete, up to date source, claiming oposite or questioning research results, not only some speculations, your own conclusions based on indirect sources not dealing exactly with the topic, we can continue. If you can cite Macháček - some text related to post-Great Moravian era, directly questioning the research results, etc, do it right now.Ditinili (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, please try to concentrate: I have never stated that the texts are not propertly sourced, I only say that they do not present a neutral picture. Please also try to accept that theories accepted by the majority of Slovakian historians is not always shared by all historians. For instance, Ivo Štefan writes: "The courtyard in Ducové on the left bank of the River Váh, which is often mentioned as an example of a residence of a feudal lord depending on its own extensive landed property (Ruttkay 1997, 151–152; 2005), is in principle nothing but a lightly fortified stronghold with a church. Whether the feudal lord here managed it at his ownexpense or only administered an entrusted part of the upper River Váh region for the sovereign cannot, however, be decided" (Štefan, Ivo (2011). "Great Moravia, Statehood and Archaeology: The "Decline and Fall" of One Early Medieval Polity" In Macháček, Jiří; Ungerman, Šimon. Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte in Mitteleuropa. Bonn: Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt. pp. 333–354. ISBN 978-3-7749-3730-7). As you can read Štefan's explicitly challenges Ruttkay's hypothesis of the existence of a feudal lord's residence in Ducové - of course, this residence may have been owned by a "Great Moravian" noblemen who or whose family survived the Hungarian conquest, but this is only a scholarly theory. Štefan also writes: "Alexander Ruttkay attributes the inoperability of the Moravian army in the defensive against the Magyars to a previous disintegration of the Moravian elite. It was to have occurred primarily as a result of the allocation of land ownership by the sovereign to individual members of the elite, who systematically began to develop their own economic environs and military units. They thus became independent of the sovereign and in the decisive moment could deny himmilitary support (e.g. Ruttkay 1997, 161; 2005, 248). For more reasons, the hypothesis can be considered as unsubstantiated. Neither the written nor the archaeological sources testify for the existence of a landed aristocracy in Great Moravia" (Štefan (2011), page 346). Consequently, Ruttkay's theory about the existence of a landed aristocracy is explicitly refused by an other historian. Of course, there may have existed a landed aristocracy in "Great Moravia" and some landholding aristocrats may have survived the Hungarian conquest, but stating that this theory is not only a POV or hypothesis would be an exaggeration. Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, there are two questions which you have mixed together.

a) Can we describe Great Moravian elites as a land holding aristocracy?

b) Did older local structures completely lost their function with the arrival of early Hungrians - particularly north of the line where the presence of common Hungarian population and/or early military outpusts can be documented?

Macháček nor Štefan does not put existence of the local elites into question, but they deal with a different problem - if Great Moravian elites trasformed from their original role into "modern" landowners ("stabilised elite depending on extensive land ownership", p. 335) and what was the source of their power. E.g. if they "recognised the sovereignty of the ruler but continued to base its own power on its own resources, or did it derive its power already predominantly from services to the king or in direct concert with him" (p. 334).

The current article does not state anywhere that "landed arictocracy" existed in the GM, thus your statement that "Ruttkay's theory about the existence of a landed aristocracy is explicitly refused by an other historian" simply does not address any disputed text in the article. By the way, early Hungarian elites in the time of their arrival also cannot be described as a "stabilised elite depending on extensive land ownership", but it ..ehm... does not refuse some continuity, right?

Similarly, Štefan does not oppose opinion, that a part of local nobility contributed to the descuction of the GM. He only opposes hypothesis that they did it as "a result of the allocation of land ownership" and speaks about other factors leading to its internal desintegratin (p. 349). However, none of these hypotesis is included in the article, so there cannot be any contradiction.Ditinili (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I deleted all references to noblemen and hypotheses based on Ruttkay's dubious interpretation of the Ducové "manor". Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

...what was obviously unreasoned, because I have just proved that sentences you have quoted are related to another problem and does not support your opinion in a particular question. You have not provided any further clarification or sources, but you simply ignored it.Ditinili (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I clarified in the text that they were not a "landed aristocracy", although in this case their "strong position" is even more dubious. I think this problem should be clarified and substantiated. Or they may have been bankers or wizzards? Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska... The question of land ownership is exactly where scholar opinions differ. From this point of view, your last edit is not correct because you (wikipedia editor) decided who is right. And because the original text left this question open and did not prefer any hypothesis, you made it rather worse than better.

It seems that you cannot imagine any other type of magnates than those whose power is based on extensive land ownership. It is obvious that high social position can have various origin (military success, respected leader of kin, etc), especially before fully developed feudalism. I assume that when archeologist say that they found somewhere a grave of old Hungarian magnate, they do not assume that he was a banker, wizzard or great landowner (in the case of nomads, theory about wizzard is probably more accurate than landowner, but I am not an expert).

I propose to do the following:

1. Exclude the problem of land ownership in Great Moravia from the article. This is not what raised this discussion, it has a secondary priority, can lead to unnecessary discussion and was added only now. Further details/discussions belong to the article about Great Moravia.

2. Replace word "nobility" with term "elites". Terms like "aristocracy", "nobility" are normally used, but it seems that it will help to distinguish between later feudal social class and earlier privileged elites.

3. Some of your tags were based on assumptions like "dubious interpretation of the Ducové manor". I hope that it is clear now, that the scholar dispute about Ducové is not related to its dating, existence, persistence after the fall of Great Moravia, etc. It is a dispute if it can be used also as an example of some stage in the development of feudalism. Thus, let's say that your assumption was not completely correct.Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Any objections?Ditinili (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My only objection is that your above remarks are not based on scholarly works. Who is the scholar who proposes the existence of a non-landholding aristocracy? According to Štefan, Ruttkay wrote of a landholding aristocracy and Lukacka refers to Ruttkay when writing of the survival of the local elite. Would you cite Lukacka's text which suggests that he did not write of a landholding aristocracy which survived the fall of "Great" Moravia? Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Would you cite Lukacka's text which suggests that he did not write of a landholding aristocracy?".

Your request is meaningless. Lukačka does not speak about landholding aristocracy because he did not write anything about landholding aristocracy. That's all. If you believe that he speaks about landholding aristocracy, you should cite him. This is your own assumption not supported by source.

"Who is the scholar who proposes the existence of a non-landholding aristocracy?" For example Jan Steinhubel or Richard Marsina, both respected experts on early history of Slovakia (STEINHÜBEL, J.: Nitrianske kniežatstvo [Dutchy of Nitra], 2004, p. 145, MARSINA, R.: Vývoj vojenstva na Slovensku v 10-tom až 12-tom storočí [Military development in Slovakia 10th-12th centuries] in Military history of Slovakia, 1994, p 105) and plenty of other sources, this is mainstream histography. By the way, also the current source is peer reviewed and not opinion of one historian.Ditinili (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, in the English version of Jan Steinhübel's work, there is no reference to "aristocracy or elites" (I refer to Steinhübel, Ján (2011). "The Duchy of Nitra". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. (eds.). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6.). Therefore, I must ask you to cite a quote from Steinhübel's text which proves that he writes of the existence of a non-landholding aristocracy/elite. Likewise interesting, that in the English version of Ján Lukačka's work, there is reference that he thinks that there was at leas one Slovak land-holding noble family which survived the Hungarian conquest (Lukačka, Ján (2011). "The beginnings of the nobility in Slovakia". In Teich, Mikuláš; Kováč, Dušan; Brown, Martin D. (eds.). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–37. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6.). On page 33 of his cited work, he writes: "We do not know exactly when the Poznans converted to Christianity, but churches found within their manors (Ducové, Nitrianska Blatnica and Visegrád) were operating during this period. Indeed, the Poznans took over the neglected Benedictine monastery below the Zobor hill, overlooking Nitra in the last quarter of the tenth century and became its secular patrons. They revived the monastic community and granted it various properties from their land holdings." On page 35, he explicitly states: "It is worth noting that hereditary property of pre-Hungarian origin prevailed among the [Hunts'] family possessions". I have never stated that these ideas are not examples of mainstream historiography, they may even represent the dominant theory of Slovak historiography, but there are concurring scholarly views as well. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Interestingly, in the English version of Jan Steinhübel's work...". It is not the same work. Steinhubel published large monography about Dutchy of Nitra (see ), your English article is less than short summary.

SK: Medzi slobodnými Moravanmi, ktorí chodili na celokmeňový snem, vynikali veľmoži. Hoci nemali veľký pozemkový majetok, boli bohatí a podieľali sa na správe štátu, či už na kniežacom dvore, alebo na hradoch.

Word by word translation:

EN: Among free Moravians who attended the tribalwide assembly, magnates excelled (= had a special position). Although they did not own large land property, they were rich and they significantly participated on the administration of the state - on prince's court or on hillforts ("hrad" means castle, but in this case the author means old Slavonic "grad", heavily fortified settlement).

None relevant "concurring scholarly views" were referenced until now. I have seen a) subjective opinions b) references to scholarly disputes about things not included in the article c) misunderstandings of the editor.--Ditinili (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. So Steinhübel wrote of rich aristocrats who did not hold large land property while Mikuláš Teich explicitly mentions the "hereditary property of pre-Hungarian origin" of the Hunts who granted "various properties from their land holdings" to a monastery. In the article, the Hunts are mentioned as the example of the surviving "territorial-administrative organization led by native magnates". Sorry, I do not understand the whole concept presented in the article: (1) the territorial-administrative organization led by native magnates survived (2) the native magnates were not landholding aristocrats (3) the Hunts who represent the surviving native magnates granted various properties from their land holdings to a monastery. The article seems to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The article does not combine anything to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", it (nearly word by word) matches the original. Again, this is your own incorrect conclusion: "if they were not great land owners (as lords during advanced phase of feudalism), then they had no land property and could not grant it to anybody" (???). This is an obvious non-sense and again misunderstanding. The original article did not contain any info about land ownership and what was source of power of early magnates (extensive land ownership, thus in this meaning "land owning aristocracy"). Please, stop endless speculation and return back to my proposal.Ditinili (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditinili, sorry I do not understand your above remark. Does the article says that the Hunts were one of the local magnates who survived the Hungarian conquest? Does the scholar cited above (Teich), and the article, says that they granted various properties from their pre-Hungarian landholdings to a monastery? Does another scholar cited above (Štefan) says the existence of a landholding aristocracy in "Great" Moravia cannot be proven? Do you think that the two scholars' view do not contradict to each other? If the Hunts are the best example of a surviving aristocracy, how can we say that the survivng aristocracy did not hold landed property? Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Boroska, Štefan did not write in his article that Great Moravian elites did not own any land. He only analyzed if there existed "stabilised elite depending on extensive landownership". In other words, if their power was based on extensive landownership - what was a relationship between the ruler and elites and if they were relying on its own landed property as a source of their own power. This is "landholding aristocracy". Ditinili (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Neither the written nor the archaeological sources testify for the existence of a landed aristocracy in Great Moravia" (Štefan (2011), page 346). Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And? You simply misuderstood term, that's all. You have created your own theory about total non existence of land ownership among Great Moravian elites. Theory which is against common sense and naive and you rely on one sentence. And now ... wow, surprise all other sources are against such interpretation. The whole Štefan's aricle is about something completely different. Ditinili (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Common sense? Naive? So any scholarly theory which contradicts your truth should be ignored? Please stop kidding. Please also compare Steinhübel's reference to rich aristocrats who did not hold large land property and Mikuláš Teich's statement of the "hereditary property of pre-Hungarian origin" of the Hunts who granted "various properties from their land holdings" to a monastery. Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Landed nobility" or "landed aristocracy" is a category of aristocracy (terminus technicus). So, when Štefan speaks about "landing aristocracy" he speaks about a concrete category and about a stage of development of early feudal society.Ditinili (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So although Štefan explicitly refuses Ruttkay's theories about Ducové and the existence of a landed aristocracy, he fully agrees with Slovak historians who refer to Ruttkay when writing about Ducové and the landed aristocracy (e.g. Teich). Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You should say which theories he refuses. Does he refuse the existence of the manor? Does he have objections against dating? Does he disagree with an opinion that it has been preserved after the fall of the great Moravia? Does he disagree with an opinion that it had been inhabitated by Slavic magnate? No, he only disagrees with an opinion that this can be used as an "example of a residence of a feudal lord depending on its own extensive landed property". So, he only disagrees with an opinion that this can be used as a proof that (post-)Great Moravian nobility achieved some stage in the development of feudalism. Ditinili (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There are verbatim citations, proving that he refuses at least two statements made by Ruttkay. Please read them - there is no reference to feudalism. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

None of these verbatim citations put into question dating, ethnicity, persistence after the fall of the Great Moravia, they speak only about extensive landownership and terminus technicus landed nobility, right?Ditinili (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but according to the article the Hunts who are the representetive of the local magnates who survived the Hungarian conquest had large estates from the pre-Hungarian period. Do you think that the reference to the Hunts should be deleted from the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text should be merged with Hont-Pázmány where is enough space to discuss the problem. E.g. already mentioned Steinhubel also agrees that the power of GM magnates was not based on extensive land ownership, but he strongly supports a theory that Ponznan was definitely not a German knight and according to him, Hunt probably was not. This is too specific question for the general article about Slovakia. At the same time, just he opposes various nationalistic interpretations of early history, so this must be carefully evaluated.Ditinili (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the text of the alternate theory of the originis of the Hont-Pázmánys should be described in the proper article. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from these detailed historical concerns, the very phrasing "The archeological evidence prove that..." is trebly wrong. First, evidence never "proves" anything (except in a legal sense, e.g. "proven guilty"); in science it simply leads to a generally accepted hypothesis. Second, archaeological (and paleontological) evidence in particular is even less conclusive, since it must be interpreted, and time separates us from direct observation of the hypothesized interpretation. Third, evidence is a singular-form, uncountable mass noun in English; thus, the construction "evidence prove" is ungrammatical. It would be better to write something like "The archeological evidence is interpreted as demonstrating that to the north of the line mentioned above....", and cite one or more reliable sources that interpret it this way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)