- hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium - ed. by z. visy & m. nagy (2003)

7/21/2019 - HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY at the Turn of the Millennium - Ed. by Z. Visy & M. Nagy (2003)

1/439

HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM


2/439


3/439

HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGYAT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM

Ministry of National Cultural HeritageTeleki Lszl Foundation

Budapest 2003


4/439

Individual chapters edited byLSZL BARTOSIEWICZ, KATALIN T. BIR, ERZSBET JEREM, JZSEF LASZLOVSZKY, MIHYNAGY,

LSZL RVSZ, ANDREAVADAY, TIVADAR VIDA, ZSUZSANNAM. VIRG, ZSOLT VISY, KATALIN WOLLK

Illustrations edited by ANDREAVADAYBibliography compiled by JUDIT SOLTI

Maps drawn by LSZL SEBKDesign by IMRE KOVTS

Editor-in-Chief: ZSOLT VISY Managing Editor: MIHLYNAGY

Copy Editor: ZSUZSAB. KISS

Authors:

LSZL BARTOSIEWICZ, ERZSBET BCSKAY, CSAND BLINT, MARIANN BLINT, ESZTER BNFFY, KATALIN T. BIR,MRIABONDR, LSZL BORHY, GERGELYBUZS, MARIETTACSNYI, VIOLAT. DOBOSI, LSZL DOMBORCZKY, ILDIK

EGRY, KATALIN ERNYEY, TAMS FEJRDY, KLRAP. FISCHL, JEN FITZ, ISTVN FODOR, ATTILAGAL,DNES GABLER, GYRGYGOLDMAN, JNOS GMRI, ANDRS GRYNAEUS, FERENC GYULAI, GBOR HATHZI,FERENC HORVTH, LSZL ANDRS HORVTH, ESZTER ISTVNOVITS, JNOS JELEN, ERZSBET JEREM, GBOR KALLA,

TIBOR KEMENCZEI, RBERT KERTSZ, VIKTRIAKISS, EDIT KOCSIS, GYNGYI KOVCS, GABRIELLAKULCSR,VALRIAKULCSR, JZSEF LASZLOVSZKY, KROLYMAGYAR, GBOR MRKUS, KROLYMESTERHZY, ZSUZSAMIKLS,RBERT MLLER, MIHLYNAGY, HARGITAORAVECZ, SYLVIAPALGYI, ILDIK PAP, ILDIK POROSZLAI, KLRAPCZY,

GBOR REZI KAT, LSZL RVSZ, BEATRIX ROMHNYI, EDINARUDNER, TIBOR SABJN, KATALIN SIMN,KATALIN H. SIMON, PL SMEGI, GBOR V. SZAB, ILDIK SZATHMRY, KATALIN SZENDE, BLAMIKLS SZKE,

MIKLS TAKCS, JUDIT TRNOKI, GBOR TOMKA, GNES B. TTH, ENDRE TTH, ISTVN TTH, ANDREAVADAY,GBOR VKONY, MAGDOLNAVICZE, TIVADAR VIDA, ZSUZSANNAM. VIRG, ZSOLT VISY, ISTVN VRS,

MRIAWOLF, KATALIN WOLLK, ISTVN ZALAI-GAL, PAULAZSIDI

Translated byNICHOLAS HORTON

MAGDALNASELEANUKATALIN SIMN

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-tronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without

prior permission in writing by the publisher.

Department of Monuments of the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, 2003ISBN 963 86291 8 5

The preparation of the illustrations for printing was made possible by a grant from the National Cultural Fund

Managing Publisher: Dr Lszl DiszegiEditor-in-Chief: Bla Barabs

Cover design: Imre KovtsLayout: Bla Antal & Gbor Hingyi

Printed in Hungary by Szekszrdi Nyomda


5/439

COMMENDATION

Archaeology The word itself makes the heart beat faster. Many people sigh when hearing this word and say that they toowanted to be archaeologists. And no wonder, for the desire for knowledge burns in all of us, as does the eternal question:who are we and for what purpose have we been brought into the world, whither are we going, and is there some genuinegoal we have to attain? The other elementary question is also self-evident: whence do we come from? It is only naturalthat we seek the answers to these questions in the past. We have all studied history at school, we all have a perception ofthe brilliant periods of the national past, we remember the names of exceptional men and women and their outstandingdeeds, yet at the same time we long for something more personal, something more tangible.

On Sunday afternoons we ask our grandparents to speak about their own grandparents and within a few seconds we findourselves moving back a hundred and fifty years in time. Looking at old, faded photos and, on occasion, discovering per-haps our own features on one of the portraits we try to recall the names of our forebears and their friends, we attempt toevoke a characteristic episode of their lives, but our memory often fails us, and we are left with nothing, but uncertainties.

The photos gradually become nameless and though these family relics are important for us, who knows whether our childrenwill preserve them, together with our great-grandfathers favourite armchair, grandmothers mirror and the other, time-worn, useless bric-a-brac. If they are wise enough, they will not throw them out and if they interesting enough for a collec-tion, they will find a final resting place in a museum. After receiving an inventory number, they are placed into a storeroomand they will perhaps be exhibited at some point.

Objects can perhaps be saved, but what happens to the associated memories, the personal history, the intimacy of familytradition? Many thousands of families lost their personal histories during the turmoils of the last century, before they couldeven realize the importance of tradition. Our innate curiosity cannot be stifled. It erupts from our innermost self, and themore annoying the feeling of deprivation, the stronger it grows, enticing some to watch educational television programmesand others to search for their family tree in provincial parish registers or to set out and search for long-lost, fabulous trea-sures, lavish royal burials, long-forgotten tunnels leading to faraway regions. Many long for even more and concoct a colour-ful past for themselves or blindly believe the stories freely re-arranging the facts or downright neglecting them, presentingthe past as infinitely more attractive or more idyllic than it really was. Obviously, there is nothing reprehensible about believ-

ing these stories. It is part of human nature to attempt to flee the problems of the present and seek solace and reassurance inthe face of any misgivings we may have about the distant future or in a mythical golden age of the past. The myth of a GoldenAge is nothing new: two thousand years ago, Albius Tibullus, a Roman poet from an age since long studied by modern man,too believed the distant past to have been better than his own age.

Divitis hoc vitium est auri, nec bella fuerunt,Faginus adstabat cum scyphus ante dapes.Non arces, non vallus erat, somnumque petebatSecurus sparsas dux gregis inter oves.Tunc mihi vita foret, volgi nec tristia nossemArma nec audissem corde micante tubam.

The individual is free to interpret the findings of the disciplines studying the past archaeology, history and their sub-dis-ciplines: heraldry, sigillography, numismatics, epigraphy to his own liking, but on a social level, the evidence must be han-dled according to the standards of academic scholarship. One of the most characteristic features of archaeology is the adop-tion of methods developed in the natural and social sciences, and that in the formulation of any conclusions, it strivers forstrict objectivity. Because of this and because archaeology is holistic in its approach meaning that it is interested in every-thing related to humankinds past activity the discipline is suitable for complementing and, on occasion, for verifying thehistorical evidence with the findings of archaeology. History is based on the study and analysis of written records, but in thecase of periods from which written sources are meagre or entirely lacking, it is the artefactual material that must be addressedusing archaeological methods. We may therefore confidently state that in spite of the fact that millions of archaeologicalfinds are housed in our museums, research must be continued since there is need for new data in order to gain a betterknowledge and understanding of human history and, also, because the new advances in science means that we can collectmore precise data than before.


6/439

6 | Commendation

This discipline has come a long way since its emergence and even though many of its earlier findings are still valid today,our overall picture of the past of the Carpathian Basin has been enriched with many details. We now know that many of theso-called pagan forts and Cumanian mounds in fact date from different periods and even if we cannot always link them toa particular people or a specific period with certainty, scholars of the past can distinguish the heritage of the Eravisci, theBoii, the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Alans, the Huns, the Goths, the Gepids, the Avars and the ancient Hungarians, aswell as of peoples whose name has not come down to us and who have been named after their pottery (such as the Alfld Lin-ear Pottery culture) or after the site where their artefacts were first found (such as the Szaklht group and the Vatya cul-

ture). It has sometimes been asked, what do we have to do with these peoples, whether unknown or known by name, whypublic funds should be spent on collecting their relics. The answer lies in the need to know history. Neither should we forgetthat the men of bygone ages lived in greater harmony with nature, exploiting the available resources with greater care. Thetraces of human impact on the environment are preserved in the artificial features of the European landscape. The naturalcatastrophes of the recent past have shown that it is well worthwhile to acquaint ourselves with the experiences amassed bypast generations, for example on where the destructive forces of a river can best be harnessed, and with the subsistence strat-egies attuned to natures cycles, which areas are suitable or, conversely, unsuitable for house construction. Our ancestors ex-periences, the fruits of their labour surround us everywhere, even if they are often only visible to the trained eye. When trav-elling in the Danube valley or along the Tata Trench, we rarely pause to think that these very roads were first trodden by agroup of prehistoric hunters in search of prey or that the Roman military engineers too regarded these long-trodden paths asmost suitable for building a road.

This volume is a landmark accomplishment in providing an overview of how archaeology has contributed to a better

knowledge of Hungarys past and how this discipline evolved during the five hundred years from King Matthias reign to ourown age. It presents the many bits and pieces of information that can be gained both with the spade, the archaeologists tradi-tional tool, and with more modern research methods, such aerial photography. The authors of the volume are all field ar-chaeologists and renowned experts in their own field, who have collaborated to offer us a glimpse into their profession. Thislavishly illustrated volume will no doubt be useful and enjoyable reading to all those interested in the past.

The reader will find that archaeology is not the mystical craft suggested by popular movie films it is a far more excitingintellectual pursuit, much in the same way as the one-time reality unfolding from the tiny, factual details is infinitely morefascinating than the stories begotten by flights of fantasy.

It is my hope that this volume will encourage the reader to visit museums and to find the opportunities to assists archaeol-ogists in their work. There is need for the general publics active involvement in archaeological work, for there is still muchto be done; at the same time, participation in these projects will bring a wider awareness of the results of this disciplineand ofthe need to preserve Hungarys rich cultural heritage.

GBOR GRGEYMinister of National Cultural Heritage


7/439

EDITORSFOREWORD

The present volume is the fruit of two and a half years work. Originally given the title Hungarian archaeology in 2000 andnow published as Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium, the volume reflects the concerted efforts of renownedspecialists in this field of research to present a comprehensive overview of the emergence and development of thisdiscipline, of the countrys archaeological heritage and of the institutional background of archaeological work.

The Department of Monuments of the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage that co-ordinated the publication of thepresent volume was organized no more than a few years ago. The main goal in creating this department, active since 1999,was to monitor and supervise the national monuments and to work out the much-needed new legislation for the protectionof archaeological sites that had until then been part of the museum structure, a task that called for a broad overview of thetheoretical and practical problems of Hungarian archaeology. The idea of this handbook arose almost simultaneously withthe creation of the department, a proposal received with sympathy and enthusiasm by all of our archaeologist colleagues.The managing editor presented a detailed proposal, an outline of the contents that was adopted in its more or less original

form, although with slight alterations. Our objective was to present an overview of Hungarian archaeological research, high-lighting also the modern practices and advances made in the protection of the archaeological heritage, with an emphasis onall major contributions to this discipline made by Hungarian archaeology. In addition to the three editors working on themanuscripts, this book is also the baby of the ten editors who edited individual chapters and of the almost eighty authorswho wrote various sections between the gestation period from the first meeting of the editorial board in April, 2000 andthe submission of the manuscript to the printers in November, 2002. This book is a unique achievement in the history ofHungarian archaeology since only two volumes of the planned series on the archaeology of Hungary have appeared so far(one describing field methods, the other covering the Palaeolithic in Hungary, written by Lszl Vrtes). The volumes of thehighly popular Hereditasseries, used also as university textbooks, did not discuss all aspects of Hungarian archaeology in suchdetail.

Although the publication of the volume was often endangered owing to technical problems, the patience of our colleaguesand of the ministrys senior officials, their abiding faith and patience tided us over the difficulties. The Teleki Lszl Foun-dation undertook the editing and pre-publishing work after gnes Tth, who had played a key role in the preparation of the

manuscripts for publication, gave birth to a lovely baby and could no longer participate in this work. Owing to the delay inthe publication compared to the original schedule, some chapters had to be revised: the new Heritage Act and the restruc-tured institutional framework of heritage protection meant that some sections had to be re-written. We also had to updatethe illustrations and the bibliography, meaning that the manuscript was finally closed in November, 2002. It must be empha-sized that the volume was intended for the general public, rather than the academic community but it must also be notedthat the authors and the editors strove to achieve a high professional standard in the submitted manuscripts. There are nofootnotes since the book was written for the public; this also set certain limits to the scope of each chapter: each of our col-leagues struggled with the limitations in their chapters scope since instead of a detailed overview of each period and eachsubject, there was only the possibility of offering a review of the problems and for summarizing new advances in their partic-ular field of research. The illustrations were compiled according to this consideration. The chronological chart, based on thechronological data provided by the editors, was designed to aid a better overview of the various periods by providing a frame-work of the chronological and spatial dimensions of the archaeological periods in Hungary.

The book held by the reader was primarily written for the educated public. At the same time, it was also our intention toappeal to decision-makers who determine the fate of, and are thus responsible for, heritage protection and, in particular, forthe fate and future of the archaeological heritage. It is our belief that with this volume we can demonstrate the importance ofthis discipline, our lives vocation, in the hope that decision-makers and senior officials will understand that there is more toarchaeology than just the collection of antiquities as objects of curiosity archaeology is, at the same time, one of the coun-trys cultural treasuries, a powerful driving force behind culture, economy and tourism, as well as a means of enriching thelives of the communities living here. We would like to see this book as the first volume in a series presenting new and excitingadvances in Hungarian archaeology.

There is much to be gained from this overview of Hungarian archaeology, a landmark accomplishment in the history ofthis discipline, reflecting the happy collaboration of specialist from different fields of research. It is our hope that this volumewill be of interest not only to the wider public, fascinated by the relics and history of bygone ages, but also to our fellow ar-chaeologists and colleagues working in related disciplines.


8/439

8 | Editorsforeword

Finally, we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to everyone, who helped the publication of this volume: our col-leagues, who contributed their studies, who bore our endless requests with patience and who participated in the work withunfailing enthusiasm. We are also indebted to all our colleagues, who generously provided photos and drawings of their ex-cavations and finds. Thanks are also due to all those institutions that enriched this volume with material from their docu-mentation and photo archives, contributing thereby to the production of this book. And last, but not least, we wish to thankDnes Jankovich-Besn and Katalin Wollk, who undertook the burdens and the responsibility of the financial side of thisproject and who never failed to provide encouragement. As the Director and senior official of the Directorate of Cultural

Heritage and, later, of the Office of National Cultural Heritage, both of them unselfishly worked to create the optimal con-ditions for our work.

ZSOLT VISYEditor-in-Chief

MIHYNAGYManaging Editor

ZSUZSAB. KISSCopy Editor


9/439

LECTORISALUTEM

PRAEFATIO*

Celestialspiritdallyingwithmortals**

are the words perhaps best describing our discipline, deluding us into believing that we can know the past as it really was.We readily take for granted that our work enjoys huge popular interest, and that our research and excavation reports satisfy awide public demand. There has been a welcome surge in the appreciation of our work, combined with a growing awarenessof the need for preserving our cultural heritage. This volume hopes to fulfil these expectations and it is therefore addressedto the general public. I am honoured to have been requested to write a preface to this volume. I have to admit that presentinga brief overview of the achievements of Hungarian archaeology during the past two hundred years was a more difficult taskthan writing a concise summary of the research of a particular historical period would have been.

Anyone truly interested in the achievements of Hungarian archaeology should start by leafing through the bibliographycompiled first by Jnos Banner and Imre Jakabffy and, later, by Imre Jakabffy alone, one of the most lasting products of ourdiscipline. In 1954, we eagerly awaited the publication of this bibliography, compiled on an initiative from Szeged, that was

an outstanding achievement with its 17,590 entries. Following the death of its spiritual procreator, Jnos Banner, the latervolumes were produced untiringly by Imre Jakabffy with an exemplary diligence. The last volume, published in 1999, con-tains the studies and articles written between 19771987. The number of entries totals 8844; comparing this figure with thefirst volume, containing the works published during a hundred and fifty years, we find that the number of scholarly articleshas swelled into a veritable torrent. The number of entries for the successive volumes is as follows: 17,590 (until 1954), 3882(19541959), 5938 (19601966), 8395 (19671977), 8844 (19781987), giving a total of 44,639 entries. The entries for thethirteen years until the turn of the millennium will no doubt exceed ten thousand. Were that the enthusiasm and stamina ofImre Jakabffy, now into his eighty-sixth year, be passed on to his successors!

No-one is born an archaeologist none of the students of other disciplines were born scholars. The researchers of theheroic age of archaeology were all amateurs in a certain sense and who would be bold enough to rank them even thoughthere are undeniable differences between Zsfia Torma, who discovered the stone tablets from Tordos and who can be re-garded as one of the first women in archaeology, Endre Krecsmarik, the teacher from Gyoma who published the first findsof the Krs culture, Ferenc Mra, the acclaimed novelist and accomplished archaeologist, originally a teacher of geogra-

phy and the natural sciences, and Jnos Dombay, the self-taught archaeologist who uncovered the Neolithic settlement atZengvrkony, originally an excise officer. They are all on a level par owing to their dedication, together with the enthusi-astic teachers, priests, notaries, apothecaries and physicians, all the exceptional men who created the huge collection that isnow part of the archaeological segment of our cultural heritage. In this sense, there is little difference between the enthusi-astic collector, the specialist and the museum founder: Gyula Kislghy Nagy, Bdog Milleker, Bla Darnay, Lszl Tari,Gbor Csallny, Andrs Jsa, Jnos Reizner, Jen Nyry, Elek Kada, Lajos Bella, Arnold Marosi, Andor Leszih and dnKllay, a list that is far from complete. There is nothing unusual in this since this was the case throughout Europe: theHallstatt cemetery was saved by a mine comptroller and the first researchers of the Palaeolithic in France were pious abbots.Giants, such as Flris Rmer, Blint Kuzsinszky and Jzsef Hampel obviously contributed more to archaeological scholar-ship than others. Many studies and recollections have been written about the summer courses in archaeology held inKolozsvr for the students of this discipline before World War 1. At the time, this was the only opportunity for gaining anoverall idea of the achievements and potentials of this discipline for professionals who had not mastered the basics of ar-

chaeology at a university.Following the relocation of the Kolozsvr University to Szeged after World War 1, the Budapest and the Szeged school ofarchaeology made significant advances in different fields. The Budapest school proved more fertile in the realm of theoreti-cal archaeology (reflected in the volumes written by Ferenc Tompa, Pl Patay, Ida Kutzin and Andrs Alfldi for theDissertationes Pannonicae series), while new field techniques were primarily developed by the Szeged school. The archaeolo-gists of the latter were also more likely to promptly publish their new finds in the journal Dolgozatok.

A major milestone in formalized archaeological training was marked by the onset of university courses in the mid-1950s thatoffered a diploma in archaeology. The new generation of young archaeologists trained at Budapest brought the renewal of

* Abbreviated with the authors permission. The full text, Rgszetnk ezredfordulja [The turn of the millennium in Hungarian archaeology] appearedin Studia Archaeologica 7 (2001) 1721.

** Quote from Mihly Csokonais poem, To Hope.


10/439

10 | LectoriSalutem

Hungarian archaeology. The training of archaeologists at Szeged University from the latter third of the century was definitelypart of this broader process and it would appear that the foundations of a similar school have been laid down in Pcs. Althoughchanges in legislation and in the socio-political environment also mean that amateur archaeology and the collection of finds isnowforbiddenaselsewhereinEuropeitismybeliefthatmuseumslearnaboutonlyafractionofthefindsactuallybroughttolight.

Much in the same way as historical events should not necessarily be viewed from a modern perspective and judged by ourown norms, it would be an equally grave mistake to judge the activity of the enthusiastic amateurs of the 19th century by

modern standards and in the light of modern field techniques. They are worthy of our respect for they were the founding fa-thers who, by saving the relics of the past, laid the foundations of modern archaeology.There have been successful and less successful archaeological projects. Modelled on similar German work, the archaeo-

logical topography of Hungary was begun in Szeged and then continued in Budapest. The survey of the Devils Dyke, thelarge Roman Age rampart system in the Great Hungarian Plain, has been completed and major advances have been made inthe investigation of the Pannonian limessection. The past fifty years have seen major research projects, such as the investiga-tion of the medieval royal centres at Esztergom, Buda, Visegrd and Szkesfehrvr, the excavation of the Roman remains atbuda, Dunajvros and Pcs, the investigation of Iron Age tumuli at Sopron, Szzhalombatta and Stt, and the uncover-ing of Neolithic settlements and burial grounds at Aszd, HdmezvsrhelyGorzsa, Herply, Vszt and Csszhalom, notto speak of Vrtesszls, the renowned Palaeolithic campsite, where one of the earliest hominid remains in Europe werefound. It seems to me that the most successful projects were the ones directed by individuals with a special and unique aura(the excavation of the Roman settlement at TcGorsium, the burials of the Langobards, the Avars and the ancient Hungari-

ans). And even though only the first two volumes of the planned handbook of archaeology were published, this book can beregarded as the next volume of the planned series with its detailed discussion of the new advances in Hungarian archaeology,with only a hint of the debates between the different views and interpretations of a particular period.

Archaeology did not evolve into a national discipline in Hungary, and for good reason. Some of the neighbouring coun-tries began their existence as independent states in the 20th century and searched for the legendary and heroic greatness inthe past, often guided by the need for self-justification against others, including the Hungarians. As a matter of fact, Hungar-ian archaeology in part passed through this phase in the 19th century and this kind of self-justification no longer taints Hun-garian research, even though there was a long period when natural pride in the national past was forcefully suppressed. Hun-garian archaeological research can follow the example shown by the great nations of Europe: the French, the Germans, theAnglo-Saxons and the Scandinavian peoples in the research of the national past.

The maelstrom of history swept away many scholars, who had or would have been the pride of this discipline. The twoworld wars did not claim as many archaeologists among its victims (Ferenc Lszl died in 1914, rpd Bottyn and FerencTompa in 1945), as did the successive waves of emigration after 1945. Andrs Alfldi, Istvn Foltiny, Sndor Gallus, Mrta

Szll and with them, no doubt, a number of gifted students departed in 1945; Gza Alfldy, Mria Alfldi, Erzsbet Molnr,Mria Lenkei, Tams Pekry, Gyrgy Szab, Aladr Radnti and Erzsbet Ruttkay left in 1956. Aladr Radnti, GzaAlfldy, Mria Alfldi and Tams Pekry became university professors. Their success too enhances the fame of Hungarianarchaeology.

The loss of these outstanding scholars is, at the same time personal loss; and perhaps none more painful than that ofAndrs Alfldi (18951981), whose career illustrates the life of an exceptionally successful Hungarian scholar. He was a uni-versity professor in Debrecen at 28, and ten years later, a corresponding member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Be-tween 1930 and 1947, he lectured at the Budapest University, from 1948 to 1952 at Bern University, from 1952 to 1956 atBasel University and between 1956 and 1965 at Princeton. Many academies and scholarly associations honoured him with amembership. At 70 he retired from university lecturing, but continued to publish studies until his death, with a few of hiswritings appearing posthumously. Alfldi can be credited with introducing the modern, multi-faceted study of classical an-tiquity in Hungary. We will never know how Hungarian scholarship in this field of research would have developed, had he

elected to stay in Hungary. Although Hungarian archaeology is not short of talented scholars, we must continue to enhancethe good reputation of this discipline.

Creatingorderinourcommonmatters***

When did Hungarian archaeology begin? With the foundation of the Hungarian National Museum? With the Prehis-toric Congress of 1876? With Flris Rmer? Or with the publication of Jzsef Hampels acclaimed book? There is nogood answer because these all represent one phase in a process, in which the gigantoliths from Brsonyhza with whichOtt Herman proved the presence of early man in Hungary, the Nagyszkss treasure of a Hun king from the 5thcentury, enabling the separation of Hunnish finds from late Avar assemblages, the grave of Bene knight, the first burialfrom the Hungarian Conquest period found at Bene-puszta, and the early hominid skull fragments from Vrtesszls

*** Quote from Attila Jzsefs poem, By the Danube (tr. by Peter Zollman).


11/439

LectoriSalutem | 11

(homo erectus seu sapiens palaeohungaricus), christened Smuel after the name day on which it was found, are all importantmilestones. Theories are born, refined, challenged, confirmed or refuted and then blown away by the winds of progress.Most events seem considerably more significant in their own time than a few decades later and the importance of thesame event changes with time. There is no good answer to the question of which was the more important excavation:buda, Intercisa or Brigetio, Istllsk or rd, Gorzsa or Medina, Madaras, Mnfcsanak or Csanytelek. The list isendless and the same holds true for scholarly publications. Major monographs and syntheses could hardly have beenwritten without a series of smaller studies and articles: the fruits of scholarship too are preceded by budding ideas that

gradually ripen. It is impossible to rank them there is no order of merit between my outstanding, highly esteemedprofessors, friends and colleagues, many of whom were indeed models for my own and for later generations too.For me, Lszl Vrtes was important not only because of Vrtesszls and because he was the first to come out with a syn-

thesis of the Hungarian Palaeolithic, but also because in addition to being a brilliant scholar, he was also a wonderful, bohe-mian person with a fantastic sense of humour. Nndor Fettich, undeservedly pushed into the background when I was a stu-dent, was a superb goldsmith and an excellent musician who during World War 2 prevented the looting of the Kiev Museumand of the Hungarian National Museum. His studies in archaeology and ancient gold metallurgy remain compulsory readingand he too was an amiable, sensitive man. Andrs Mcsy was, so to say, my fellow student: his diligence, his interest in newadvances in archaeological research, his familiarity with the tiniest detail of his discipline raised him above his contemporar-ies. Istvn Mri was a pioneer of modern field methods who deservedly fought his way into academe and whose gruff exteriorhid a warm-hearted, helpful person. It was Istvn Mri who taught me that a medieval peasant had a similar life and was besetby similar cares as the ones of my childhood. Without him Hungarian and even Central European medieval archaeology

would hardly have attained its present, high level. Gyula Lszl, archaeologist, art historian and creative artist set a lastingexample with his humility, honesty and innovative spirit. He created his own school with his imaginative approach to infus-ing long-dead objects with life and his evocation of the life of past communities. I never heard him make a sarcastic remarkabout anyone who challenged his ideas. Finally, a few words about my life-long friend, Istvn Bna, who in my opinion wasthe Flris Rmer of the 20th century and whom we can credit with the renewal of Hungarian archaeology. He was at homein all archaeological periods, although his truly significant works were written about the Bronze Age and the Migration pe-riod. Creating his own school, he lectured for almost half a century, teaching successive generations of archaeologists. Hisintellectual radiation will continue for decades to come.

Although the present volume is intended for the general public, I am quite certain that professionals working in archaeol-ogy will also read the book. This preface was in part written for them, in the hope that they will be more successful than wewere, that they will know more than what we knew and that they will co-operate to a greater extent than we did.

SzegedBudapest, June, 2002.

OTT TROGMAYER


12/439


13/439

I. ARCHAEOLOGICALRESEARCH IN HUNGARY


14/439

Ferenc Karacs archaeological map. Copper engraving, 1800


15/439

The history of archaeological fieldwork in Hungary | 15

THE HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

FIELDWORK IN HUNGARYGbor Vkony

Although the beginnings of modern archaeological field-work go back to the early 20th century, genuine planned re-

search projects were only begun in the later 20th century. Itmust in all fairness be added that a few planned excavationscan be quoted from earlier times, for example in the studyof medieval monuments in the 1850s and 1860s (ImreHenszlmans activity in Csand, Kalocsa, Szkesfehrvrand elsewhere) and in the prehistoric studies of the 1920sand 1930s (Ottokr Kadis cave excavations and FerencTompas settlement excavations). The circumstances offieldwork in Hungary were no different from those in otherparts of Europe and disregarding the regions east andsoutheast of historical Hungary the origins and history ofHungarian archaeology differed little from the emergence

of this discipline in Western Europe. Similarly to Hungar-ian scholarship in general, Hungarian archaeology grew outof imperial scholarship, first of the Holy Roman Empireand, later, of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Nationalmovements played an important role in the emergence ofarchaeology as an independent discipline, but neithershould we neglect the role of ecclesiastic scholars, most im-portantly of the Jesuits, who played a significant often anexclusive role in the early years of university education. Itmust also be noted even if it cannot be discussed in detailhere that a Protestant-Catholic conflict characterizedscholarship at the turn of the 18th19th centuries (as well asin the preceding and ensuing periods). This conflict most

certainly influenced the early students of archaeology, afield of research that became an independent discipline bythe later 19th century. Various antecedents can be named inthe development of 19th century archaeology: the archaeo-logical and numismatic collections housed in universities,the impact of the advances made in the natural sciences (es-pecially in geology) and, finally, the naive study of whatwere believed to be the relics of the national past, one of theresults of the nationalist movements (such as the excava-tions of the Hunnish graves at rd and the investigationsat Szzhalombatta). Hungarian archaeology of the 1870sand 1880s can be described as having been relatively mod-

ern even from a 20th century perspective, owing to itsfruitful collaboration with the natural sciences (Fig. 1).The history of Hungarian archaeology and archaeologi-

cal fieldwork began much earlier. In 1928, Sndor Eckhartnoted that Simon de Kza, author of the Gesta Hungarorum(written between 1282 and 1285) can be regarded as thefirst Hungarian archaeologist. To which we may add thathe was one of the first Hungarian historians who used ar-chaeological data in his reconstruction of past events. TheHungarian (actually Transdanubian/Pannonian) sources ofSimon de Kzas narrative of the Huns history were theIron Age tumulus cemeteries at Szzhalombatta and the still

visible remains of Roman towns and military forts(Brigetio/Szny, etc). The first mention of a Pannonian in-scription can also be found in his chronicle: he believed thata Hun captain called Cuve had been buried in a locationmarked by a stone statue. This Roman stone relic remainedin its original place in the Vl valley southeast of Kajsz-szentpter until 1928, when it was taken to Baracska. The

figures of Athena, Bacchus and Juno can be seen on thethree sides of the 170 cm high and 60 cm thick altar stone;the fragmentary inscription on the front records that it waserected in honour of Jupiter. A double cross was engravedonto the altar stone sometime during the Middle Ages,probably in the 13th century. This relic is also quoted in anon-Hungarian chronicle. In his Descriptio Europae Orien-talis, written in 1308, a French Dominicanmonk mentionedthe huge marble stone between Sicambria (buda) andAlba Regalis (Fehrvr) although it is almost certain thatthe author had not personally seen this relic.

In his reconstruction of past events, Simon de Kza also

relied on various other antiquities beside various remainsfrom the Iron Age and the Roman period. He linked the

Fig. 1. Excavation of a Roman mosaic in Szombathely, 1896


16/439

16 Archaeological research in Hungary

horse harness sets and the swords discovered at Mezrs toa historical event, namely a battle fought in 1051, in whichthe Hungarians slaughtered Henry IIIs German army atthis location. (As a matter of fact, the finds probably camefrom a Conquest period cemetery.)

Simon de Kzas archaeologicizing historiography wasby no means a unique phenomenon in 13th century Hun-

gary. Roman monuments and Iron Age mounds also appearin the Gesta Hungarorum of Magister P., written sometimein the 13th century. To Magister P. (the Anonymus) the ru-ins of Aquincum represented civitas Atthile regis, King At-tilas town this was the only town he mentioned besideVeszprm and Savaria in which rpd and the seven lead-ers of the ancient Hungarians had settled and later held afeast in Attilas palace (in palatio). His narrative of the pastdiffered from Kzas: the Romans occupied Pannonia afterAttilas death and they ruled it until the arrival of the Hun-garians. Similar medieval historical reconstructions, basedon visible archaeological monuments, were fairly common

in contemporary Europe a number of similar French andSpanish texts can be quoted. These reconstructions of thepast are nonetheless part of the history of Hungarian ar-chaeology since they represent the first efforts to incorpo-rate the archaeological evidence into a historical narrative.It would be worthwhile to analyze the work of both chroni-clers from an archaeological perspective; one study on whatSimon de Kza wrote about Savaria has already appeared.This exercise would also be interesting since Hungarianhistoriography sometimes still grapples with the problem ofhow to use the available archaeological evidence, much inthe same way as Simon de Kza in the 13th century.

The second important period in the history of Hungar-

ian archaeology was the 15th16th century, the age of Hun-garian humanists and the late humanists. MatthiasHunyadis reign (14581490) saw not only the foundationof the Bibliotheca Corviniana (that can, in a sense, be re-garded as part of the archaeology of the period), but also thecataloguing of Roman relics in Hungary, especially of theinscribed monuments of the Roman period. As a matter offact, the collection of Roman antiquities began under KingSigismund (13871437) and it seems likely that the interestin antiquities, emerging in the 13th century, remained un-broken. The interest of Italian humanists and Hungarianhumanists educated in Italy in Roman monuments was a

new element, similarly to the appeal of the Roman and, also,the romanus valachus world of Transylvania owing toJnos Hunyadi and Matthias romanus origins. PetrusRansanus (14201492) discovered Roman grave monu-ments in Szentendre, while Antonio Bonfini (1502) men-tioned Roman antiquities in his Rerum ungaricarum decades,a chronicle recounting the history of Hungary. These an-tiquities included inscriptions and coins, and Bonfini evenwent as far as to invent various inscriptions (similarly to theFrench Dominican monk and others, up to our days). InMatthias age the relics of the past were not only collected,they were also catalogued. We know of at least four collec-

tions of inscriptions from this period. Jnos Megyericseis(Mezericius) Dacian collection arrived in Buda on July 1,1489; the inscriptions were carefully copied by Bartholo-maeus Fontius. The excavation of Tata Castle revealed thatthe appreciation of antiquities in Matthias time was not re-stricted to Roman relics: the find context of pottery frag-ments of the Encrusted Pottery culture of the Bronze Age

found in the wing built under Matthias suggested that theywere part of a collection of antiquities.A century later we witness the appearance of the first

genuine scholarly work on archaeological finds, an epigra-phic study entitled Analecta lapidum vetustorum et nonnulla-rum in Dacia antiquitatum, written by Stephanus Zamosius(Istvn Szamoskzy, ?15651612) on antique Dacian in-scribed stones and other antiquities that was published inPadova in 1593. He continued the collection of antiquitiesafter his return from Italy; unfortunately, his overview ofthe inscriptions in the Apulum (Gyulafehrvr) area from1598 remained a manuscript. The book published in

Padova is remarkable not only for its collection of stone rel-ics from antiquity, but also for the historical data containedin it. It is regrettable that only a fragment of Szamoskzysoeuvre survived, and that the progress of early Hungarianarchaeology, begun in Matthiass time and continued inthe 16th century, was interrupted for a long time. There islittle to add to these early works from the period up to the18th century, and even the works in this field that can becited from the 18th century are very sporadic.

One of the most remarkable years of the period until the19th century was 1726, when a late medievalpost-medievalcollection was founded in the Bethlen College in Nagy-enyed and when Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, an Italian

count, published his Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus. Workingas a military engineer in Hungary in the late 17th century,Marsigli prepared a detailed map of the Danube region.The first description of the remains of the Roman limesis tobe found in his book (similarly to a number of other relicsand monuments that disappeared by the 20th century).This map can hardly be neglected in the research of the Ro-man castra of Brigetio, Aquincum and Intercisa, or in thestudy of the ramparts in the Bcska. Smuel Mikovinys(17101750) observations and descriptions are equally valu-able. The other outstanding engineer of this period pro-vided an accurate description of the aqueduct of Brigetio.

The early achievements of modern Hungarian historiog-raphy include a number of works that have some relevancefor archaeology too. Jzsef Torkos, a Lutheran priest activein Gyr, described a Roman stone sarcophagus in 1748. To-gether with the works of the 16th century humanists, thisstudy can be ranked among the pioneering studies on Romanepigraphy (Torkos was the first to compare the Hungarianlanguage to the Finno-Ugrian tongues, including the Vogullanguage). The first excavations also took place at this time.In 1777 the Jesuit university of Nagyszombat was transferredto Buda and the same year saw the creation of a separate de-partment for the study of numismatics and antiquities


17/439


(Antiquaria et Numismatica), headed by Professor IstvnSchnvisner. Schnvisner unearthed the military bath inFlrin square in 1778. He summed up his findings in a bookentitled De Ruderibus Laconici Caldariique Romani. Liber unicus(Budae 1778). Istvn Szilgyi (Salagius), canon of Pcs, pro-vided an overview of the historical monuments of Pannoniaat the same time.

The earlier 19th century can be characterized by an inter-est in mixed antiquities. University training was not con-tinuous (the heads of the department usually also held thepost of the director of the University Library). Studies andarticles with an archaeological relevance appeared in thejournal Tudomnyos Gyjtemny, in a paper called Sasand inSokfle, the latter edited by Istvn Sndor. The year 1802,when Count Ferenc Szchnyi founded the Hungarian Na-tional Museum (the present building was only finished in1846), marked a definite turning point. An independent Nu-mismatic and Antiquities Collection was created in 1814; thecatalogueassembled by Ferdinnd Miller in 1825 contained a

rather mixed material (Cimeliotheca Musei Nationalis Hunga-rici). Although the publication of the first Hungarian gravefrom the Conquest Period in 1834 is usually regarded as amajor landmark in the history of Hungarian archaeology, thegenuine beginning of archaeological fieldwork in the 19thcentury can be dated from 1846, when the Hungarian Na-tional Museum offered a post to Jnos Luczenbacher, whoregularly excavated archaeological sites and published his

finds (he changed his name to rdy after one of his excava-tion sites). He wrote a review of the three age division of pre-history introduced in 1836 by the Danish Christian Jr-gensen Thompsen in the 1847 issue of Akadmiai rtest(Stone, Copper and Iron Age graves and antiquities) and healso submitted an account of his fieldwork in the same vol-ume (Results of the excavation of the Cumanian mounds

above the Trnok valley). His interest in this site was basedon a passage in Simon de Kzas 13th century chronicle inother words, the heritage of Attilas Huns were still believedto lie under the Early Iron Age tumuli of Szzhalombatta,just as in Kzas time. Jnos rdy, however, can hardly be re-proached since his excavations and publications laid the foun-dations of prehistoric archaeology in Hungary.

There is a general consensus that Flris Rmer (18151889) can be considered the father of Hungarian archaeol-ogy(Fig. 2). The son of Ferenc Rommer, a cobbler in Po-zsony (Bratislava, Slovakia), he became a Benedictine monkand was appointed professor of the natural sciences at the

Fig. 2. Flris Rmer

Fig. 3. Arnold Ipolyi


18/439

18 ArchaeologicalresearchinHungary

Szatmr Peace Treaty, (b) the study of antiquities in gen-eral, insofar as it has any relevance for the past of our coun-try and enriches our knowledge of her archaeology. In1862 Rmer moved to Pest and took up a post as teacherand director of the main gymnasium of Pest. From 1863 helectured on historical archaeology at the university of Pest.

The volume Mrgszeti kalauz [Archaeological Guide],

published by the Archaeological Committee in 1866, con-tained a chapter on prehistory written by Rmer, whileImre Henszlman authored the chapter on medieval archi-tecture. Rmers chapter on prehistory was not restricted toprehistoric archaeology since he also included relics of theRoman Age and the Migration period in his discussion. The

work is rounded off by a catalogue of Hungarian relics;what is apparent at first glance is that in contrast toHenszlman, Rmer used Hungarian data more extensivelythan his colleague, who placed his trust in foreign literature.It is not mere chance that Rmers skori mrgszet[Pre-historic archaeology] became a handbook in the later 19th

century, used by both amateur antiquarians and members ofthe freshly founded archaeological committees.The year 1868 marked a milestone in Rmers activity.

He was appointed professor at the university and thejournal Archaeologiai rtestwas launched on his initiative.He edited the journal (the first few issues contained articles

written almost exclusively by him). Archaeologiai rtestbe-came, in Rmers words, the driving force of Hungarianarchaeology. A number of local museums and archaeologi-cal committees were founded, and the journal that hadstruggled with a lack of articles in its first few issues was

Fig. 4. The exhibitionorganized on the occasion of theCongress of Prehistory andProtohistory, 1876

Academy of Pozsony. In 1849, he was sentenced to eightyears of imprisonment for participating in the 184849Revolution and War of Independence (he was a sapper lieu-tenant). After regaining his freedom in 1854, he continuedlecturing from 1857 and from 1858 he worked in Gyr. Hisarticles on Roman and other antiquities from this regionappeared in Gyri Kzlny from 1859. His first major work,

A Bakony. Termszetrajzi s rgszeti vzlat [The Bakony. Ageographical and archaeological sketch] appeared in 1860.

This book brought him acclaim and he was elected corre-sponding member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Even though his inaugural lecture was devoted to the geo-graphical and natural conditions of medieval Hungary, hehad already turned to history and archaeology, as shown byhis papers published in Gyri Trtneti s Rgszeti Fzetekfrom 1860 and the archaeological letters that appeared inVasrnapi jsg.

The change in Rmers interest was influenced by thefoundation of the Archaeological Committee of the Acad-

emy in 1858 and the launching of the periodical Archaeo-logiai Kzlemnyek in 1859 (the last issue appeared in 1899)that from volume II was edited by Arnold Ipolyi (Fig. 3),Rmers former school mate and a close friend of his. Hisinterest in the natural sciences did not wane: he participatedin the annual meetings of the Hungarian Physicists and Na-ture Explorers. From this time on, his activity was archaeo-logical in the sense determined by the regulation of the Ar-chaeological Committee: The committee should pursuetwo main activities: (a) the study of antiquities proper, en-compassing the heritage of the Hungarian nation until the


19/439


(18491913) who succeeded Kroly Torma at the univer-sity chair. From the 1880s Hampel published detailed over-views of the finds of practically all archaeological periods,from prehistory to the Migration period. The country wascaught up in the fervent preparations for celebrating themillenary of the Hungarian conquest, and it was hardly ac-cidental that the number of Conquest and Migration period

grave finds increased significantly, due to the enthusiasm ofthe archaeological societies and the museums in the coun-try. Planned excavations were conducted mainly in westernHungary (Lajos Bella: SopronBurgstall; gost Str:Gta, etc.) and in Aquincum, where Blint Kuzsinszky(18641938) investigated the Roman town between 1887and the first third of the 20th century(Fig. 6). Kuzsinszkycontributed the chapter on the Roman history of Dacia andPannonia in volume I ofA Magyar Nemzet Trtnete [His-tory of the Hungarian Nation] edited by Sndor Szilgyi in1895. (Interestingly enough, a brief summary of the preced-ing period based on the works of Herodotus, Strabo and

Ptolemy was written by Rbert Frhlich. Gza Nagy wrotethe chapter on the Migration period, while Jzsef Hampelsreview of the archaeological heritage of the ancient Hun-garians appeared in the volume A Magyar Honfoglals Ktfi[Sources of the Hungarian Conquest], published in 1900.)The close of the century was characterized by the unsys-tematic collection of finds and the publication of thesefinds. This picture is not basically modified by the cited ex-ceptions or Lajos Mrtons (18671934) excavations atTszeg, begun in 1906, that can be regarded as a systematic,planned project from 1910, and Antal Heklers excavationsat Dunapentele during the same period.

These initiatives (including the investigations at Aquin-

cum) were swept away by World War 1 (although the uni-versity of Kolozsvr continued its excavations in Galiciaeven during the war years). The Hungarian universities,museums and archaeological societies were closed down inthe territories that were annexed to the successor states inaccordance with the Trianon Peace Treaty and even theearlier rather meagre funding was cut off. Archaeologicalresearch was now practically directed from Budapest. Thisdid have its advantages since from the end of the 1920s andin the 1930s the meagre financial budget had to be carefullyapportioned. In spite of these restricted financial possibili-ties, the Hungarian National Museum was able to receive

grants for smaller planned excavations from the VigyzFoundation. This was the period when, for the first timesince Jnos rdys excavations, the number of completelyexcavated prehistoric cemeteries rose significantly (Bodrog-keresztr, Pusztaistvnhza, etc.). Ferenc Tompa (18931945) conducted excavations at Tszeg from the 1920s, firstusing foreign and, later, Hungarian funds. From 1931 he in-vestigated the stratified Bronze Age settlement at Fzes-abony, as well as a number of other settlements. Beginninghis career at Szeged University in 1925, Jnos Banner regu-larly conducted excavations in the Hdmezvsrhely areafrom 1929 to the mid-1940s that were funded by the town.

Fig. 5. Jen Zichy and Bla Psta

Flris Rmer, who from 1869 was also a departmenthead in the Hungarian National Museum, played a majorrole in the organization of the Eighth Session of the Inter-national Congress of Prehistory and Protohistory in Hun-gary in 1876 (Fig. 4). The programme of the congress in-cluded a round of important archaeological sites and a visitto the recently unearthed Bronze Age settlement at Tszeg.The papers read at the congress were published in 1878.The volume can be regarded as a summary of the achieve-ments and findings of Hungarian archaeology until thenand it also represented the zenith of Rmers archaeologicalactivity since after his subsequent appointment as literary

canon in Nagyvrad, he became less active in the capital(although he continued his archaeological activity with theexcavation of the Vrad church in 188283).

The close of the 19th century was characterized by a pro-liferation of archaeological societies and museums all overthe country (although it must be noted that the Transyl-vanian Museum and Museum Association was founded al-ready in 1859 in Kolozsvr, and from 1899 courses on ar-chaeology were also held at the university by Bla Posta;

Fig. 5). The archaeological activity of Budapest was cen-tered more on cataloging the finds collected earlier than onactual fieldwork. This was especially true of Jzsef Hampel


20/439


Important burial grounds of the Migration period were alsounearthed in the interwar period. These excavations wererelatively well documented compared to the cemetery exca-vations of the 19th century that were either poorly docu-mented or not documented at all. At the same time, thestudy of Roman period settlements declined (in part due tothe fact that these had mostly been conducted in Transyl-vania, where the former Roman province of Dacia lay) andpractically became restricted to the excavations at Aquin-

cum directed by the Municipal History Museum; IstvnPaulovics excavations at Brigetio were also begun at thistime. The ranks of well-trained professionals were swelledby luminaries such as Ferenc Tompa (who was professor ofprehistory at the university from 1938), Nndor Fettich(19001971), Keeper of the Migration Period collection ofthe National Museum and Andrs Alfldi (18951981), wholectured on the Roman Age and the Migration period in thedepartment that succeeded the old university institute.

By the 1930s and 1940s, there emerged a generally ac-cepted outline of the archaeology of Hungary, based on thefindings of various excavations, with clearly defined prehis-

toric periods, a fairly good idea of the Migration period anda rather detailed history of Pannonia. Andrs Alfldi,Nndor Fettich and Ferenc Tompa all played a prominentrole in the advances made during this period. Alfldi editedthe Dissertationes Archaeologicae, whose volumes covered themost important finds of Roman Pannonia, while Fettichwas the editor ofArchaeologia Hungarica, a series of mono-graphs on the Neolithic, the Copper Age, the Scythian Age,the Avar period and the Conquest period, many of which

contain observations that have not lost their relevance.Ferenc Tompa wrote an overview of Hungarian prehistoryin a monograph published in 193435 and in volume I ofBudapest Trtnete [History of Budapest] in 1942. The samevolume included chapters by Andrs Alfldi and Lajos Nagyon the Roman period, containing many observations thatare still valid today, while Gyula Lszl (1910 1998) con-tributed the chapters on the Migration and the Conquestperiods. Archaeological research was at the time up to thegeneral standards of the period unfortunately, in manycases this standard was not maintained after World War 2.It must also be noted that following the heated debates at

Fig. 6. Excavations at Aquincum, 18871888. Residential building and the laconicum of the Atilia Firma baths, from the east


21/439


the turn of the 19th20th centuries, a fairly accurate pictureof the Hungarian palaeoliths, i.e. the stone artefacts of theOld Stone Age, emerged by the interwar period, mainly as aresult of the cave excavations conducted by Ottokr Kadi,Tivadar Kormos and others. The advances in this field wereso rapid that by 1935 Jen Hillebrand was able to write asummary of the Hungarian Palaeolithic, based predomi-

nantly on cave sites (and, obviously, on Kadis findings).Only the Sgvr and Szegedthalom campsites wereknown at that time. Another characteristic feature of theinterwar period was the lack of settlement research, the fewnotable exceptions being a handful of prehistoric sites,Klmn Szabs excavation of a late medieval site nearKecskemt and Jzsef Csalogovics investigations at Ete. Asa result, the archaeology of various prehistoric periods, theMigration period and the early Middle Ages was based onthe information gained from cemeteries that in many casesgave a rather distorted picture of the periods in question. Asa matter of fact, Hungarian archaeological research has in

many respects still failed to remedy this shortcoming.The possibility to improve this situation was given. Disre-garding the transitional period in the 1940s, archaeologicalresearch after World War 2 continued under rather unusualcircumstances. Hungary became a Soviet satellite and thecountrys political system adopted the Soviet model thatbrought significant structural changes to the scholarly disci-plines, as well as to the educational system. A central institu-tion called the National Centre of Museums and Monumentswas created and vested with absolute authority in mattersconcerning excavations, budgets and professionals. Follow-ingtheuniversity reform, a museology course was introducedin 194849. As part of the planned economy, a Five-year

plan of Hungarian archaeology was prepared for 19501954. This plan expressed the ideas of distinguished scholarsactive at the time (some of whom, such Andrs Alfldi,Sndor Gallus and Istvn Foltiny, later fled the country),while the main goals outlined in it conformed wholly to thegiven political situation. Disregarding a few minor elements,the plan was rather poor. In some cases research projectswere overplanned to the extent that made the completion ofthe project practically impossible (suffice it here to mentionZalavr). Even so, the plan did have some positive results, forexample in Roman studies, especially regarding the investiga-tion of the limes, as well as in the study of the settlements of

the rpdian Age, a research project launched on the initia-tive of Gyula Lszl and Istvn Mri (19111976). Com-pared to the pre-war period, extensive excavations were alsobegun in consequence of the large-scale industrial projects sotypical of Soviet type economies (Intercisa, Tiszalk and, in-directly, the excavations at the zdStadion site). Hungarianarchaeological research, however, could not fully exploitthese opportunities. Significant advances in this period werereflected in the improvement of the general standard of uni-versity training after 1956 (and the re-establishment of an in-dependent archaeological department), the creation of theArchaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sci-

ences in 1958 (even if it was initially envisioned as a researchteam), and the relative independence given to county muse-umsfrom 1963. Theachievements of Hungarianarchaeolog-ical research in the later 20th century surpassed by far thoseof former periods, even though a comparison with the re-search standards of the 1930s and 1940s would not alwaysyield a positive result. The Hungarian Archaeological Topogra-

phy project can similarly be regarded as a major advance. Be-gun in the late 1950s, the areas surveyed as part of this project launched largely on the initiative of Jnos Banner, who be-came professor at the Budapest university after WorldWar 2 only make up a fragment of Hungarys territory(Veszprm, Bks, Pest, KomromEsztergom and Zalacounties, although even in these counties some districts havenot been covered). Apart from the efforts of a few indefatiga-ble individuals, excavations over a larger area could only beconducted before the start of large-scale construction pro-jects. However, the archaeological information that can begained from these excavations is only a fragment of that pro-

vided by meticulously planned excavation projects since thetopsoil and the upper layers containing the majority of the ar-chaeological information are usually removed mechanically(and destroyed in the process), meaning that although morecan be learnt about the overall layout of a particular settle-ment owing to the larger areas that are investigated, very lit-tle survives of the actual settlement. This is one of the reasonswhy so little is known about the various settlements of theAvar period. Although we now have a better knowledge ofthe lower levels of settlements owing to excavations of thistype, a more accurate picture can only be gained in caseswhen the archaeologists efforts enabled this (the Doboz andKlked sites can be cited as good examples). In spite of Istvn

Mris initiatives, settlement archaeology has remained afield of research in which there is still much to be done forpractically all archaeological periods. Even so, it is now possi-ble to present a fairly accurate picture of every major periodfrom the Palaeolithic to the Middle Ages, to which archaeo-logical research in the later 20th century contributed manynew elements. This statement remains valid in spite of thefact that this picture often contains may hues that exceed theconclusions that can be drawn from the archaeological re-cord. To quote but one example: the number of graves fromthe rpdian Age unearthed to date represents about 0.26per cent of the people buried during that period; as regards

the earlier periods (with the exception of the Conquest pe-riod), this percentage is even lower. The fact that no morethan about 15 per cent of a culture can be recovered using ar-chaeological methods is a serious caveat and most certainlycalls for a reassessment of to what purpose and to what extentthe archaeological record can be used. Hungarian archaeol-ogy is still too historicizing, setting itself tasks that can hardlybe solved using archaeological methods, and in this sense it isa continuation of the national archaeology of the 19th cen-tury. The introduction to Rgszeti Kziknyv [Handbook ofArchaeology], published in 1954, begins with a statementthat is hardly valid: Archaeology is a historical discipline.


22/439


Archaeology is suitable for recording various phenomena andfor attempting the determination of the chronological posi-tion of these phenomena. Any reconstruction calls for theuseof non-archaeological methods and disciplines. Accordingly,historical reconstructions can be considered not only mis-leading, but often downright harmful, especially if these re-constructions concern the history of a nation (and in many

cases, certain elements of these reconstructions tend to sug-gest that they refer to a modern period, rather than the onebeing examined). This is obviously valid not only for Hun-garian archaeology, but also for that of the neighbouringcountries.

UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGYAttila Gal

THE EMERGENCE OF UNDERWATER

ARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNGARY

Underwater archaeology, the youngest branch of Hungar-ian archaeology, has a very short history. This discipline ap-peared in the later 1980s and no matter how astonishingthis may sound, its emergence was largely due to an acci-dental archaeological find, rather than a conscious profes-sional decision. The find in question was discovered in theBlcske section of the Danube, at a site that was alreadyknown, but had never been precisely located, called Temp-lomos [Templar] by the locals and Blcske rock by water-men. Before discussing this find, a brief overview of the po-

tentials of underwater archaeology seems in order, espe-cially since Hungary is a country that does not have seaswith good diving conditions. The largest body of still wateris Lake Balaton, the rivers are murky, and visibility is usu-ally between 0 and 50 cm, depending on depth, water tem-perature and various other factors.

Since Hungary has lost its former coastal areas and a greatpart of its rivers owing to the twists and turns in the coun-trys history, the shipwrecks and archaeological finds discov-ered beyond the borders of the Hungary will not be dis-cussed here. The widely acclaimed attempts of Hungariandivers to find the Saint Stephen warship between 1994 and

1997 is also beyond the scope of this section, even thoughthe Diver Archaeologist Department of the Society of Hun-garian Archaeology and Art History, founded in Szekszrdin 1992, was one of the organizers of this famous expedition.It must also be borne in mind that the date of the catastro-phe of this 151 m long and 28 m broad proud warship fallsoutside the upper time limit of archaeology, set at the begin-ning of the 18th century. It must also be mentioned in pass-ing that a number of Hungarian diver archaeologists partici-pated in underwater research projects and shipwreck explo-rations in Greece, Spain and the Republic of South Africa,indicating that their activity is well received.

THE CONDITIONS OF UNDERWATERARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNGARY

The thousands of finds recovered from Hungarian waterssince the start of Hungarian underwater archaeology cancompensate for much lost information. What must beborne in mind, however, is that the majority of these finds

was not recovered by archaeologists, but by various ma-chines, dredgers and excavators, or they came to light acci-dentally. When finds were brought to light by archaeolo-gists, their work circumstances differed from the ones towhich foreign colleagues are accustomed to in seas, in theclear waters of mountain lakes and in oceans. Unfortu-nately, the conditions specific to Hungarian waters forcedus to accept that it is near impossible to make visual obser-vations, one of the most important tools of archaeology.Hungarian rivers, especially the Danube, have fast currentsthat dislocate the finds: their survey and drawing calls forspecial methods. Most Hungarian lakes have rather muddy

waters, and Lake Balaton is no exception in spite of its rela-tively clear waters; the oxbows and smaller lakes often have5080 cm thick floating or soft mud in them. The depth ofthe mud was 120 cm over almost the entire width in theTolna dead channel of the Danube, where we searched forthe remains of a wall that the locals had seen half a centuryago. Such conditions make excavation difficult and raisemany problems that need to be solved by Hungarian under-water archaeology that is currently under reorganizationowing to the decline following the initial upswing.

UNDERWATER FINDS, UNDERWATER SITES

In spite of the many finds that have been recovered fromrivers, lakes, wells, marshes and mud, there is no generalconsensus about what should be regarded as an underwaterarchaeological find and which sites belong to the sphere ofunderwater archaeology.

The wells of the Turkish palisade fort at SzekszrdPa-lnk and the Roman wells uncovered during the excavationspreceding the construction of the M1 motorway near Gyr,for example, became refilled with water during the excava-tion, and the final phase of their excavation had to be per-formed under water. However, the finds recovered from

these wells are not underwater finds in the strict sense andcan be assigned to the assemblages recovered by traditionalfield methods since the greater part of the work and docu-mentation was done using traditional field methods. Thenumber of finds uncovered during dredging operations andgravel mining runs into the thousands. Entire museumscould be filled with the fossil bones, Bronze Age, Celtic,Roman Age, medieval and Ottoman period finds that cameto light from the Danube between Dunajvros and Paks.Unfortunately, most of these finds were lost to archaeologi-cal scholarship in spite of the fact that they are legally pro-tected; in more fortunate cases, these finds are acquired by


23/439

Underwater archaeology | 23

private collectors who often have more funds at their dis-posal than the average museum. These collectors keep aconstant patrol around the dredgers, and dispensing withthe paperwork, they pay cash on spot. Most of these finds,including an intact Bronze Age helmet of the Lausitz typefound at Paks in 1999 a unique and outstanding find areunderwater finds, even if their majority fell into the water

accidentally, either during a battle, while fording the river,or when their owner drowned: we will never actually knowwhat happened. In other words, their findspot does not in-dicate the presence of an underwater site worthy of furtherinvestigations. In contrast, various architectural features,such as bridge remains, various buildings and forts, as wellas ship cargos consisting, for example, of Roman Age irontools, early 5th century pottery or Turkish copper vesselsthat are known from archival records, the archaeological lit-erature, the press or from the recollections of the locals,should be taken seriously and given every legal protection.These locations are archaeological sites in the strict sense of

the word and their identification is an urgent task. GborSzab and Jnos Attila Tth, members of the Student DiverGroup of the Diver Archaeological Department of the Ar-chaeological Society, have done much in this respect. Theysystematically collected and documented the stray finds andsites that were already known or could be identified duringdiving sessions, compiling a register of these sites. Theyalso listed the investigations that had been conducted usingdiver archaeological methods in Hungary until 1994, whenthey completed their manuscript. Together with the fewunderwater excavations, this database that already needsto be updated is one of the most promising achievementsof Hungarian underwater archaeology.

UNDERWATER EXCAVATIONS IN HUNGARY

The first regular underwater archaeological excavation inHungary was conducted by the Wosinsky Mr Museum be-tween 1986 and 1996 at Blcske with the help of scuba-di-vers. The importance of the early 4th century A.D. Romanfort guarding the port on right tributary of the Danube lies

in the fact that its walls and ruins included secondarily usedaltar stones and grave altars transported here from two Ro-man towns, Campona/Nagyttny and, mainly, Aquincum/buda. The number of inscribed stone monuments (nowexhibited in the Soproni Sndor Lapidarium at Blcske andin front of the Szekszrd museum; Fig. 7) is over forty,while the smaller finds, mostly coins, recovered from theclearing of the ruins totals some one hundred. Over fiftystamped bricks were also found. Nearly all the stones frombuda were altars erected by the local duumviriin honourofIuppiter Optimus Maximus Teutanusin the first half of the3rd century A.D. These finds constitute an important cor-

pus for the study of the civitas Eraviscorum.The archaeological work was conducted from a pontoonserving as a diving base with the help of the Dunaferr Di-ving Club and the village of Blcske amid great difficultiescaused by the 78 km/h flow velocity and often zero metrevisibility. It often happened that while a diver was loweredon a security rope to replace his colleague who had workedan hour to free an altar stone, the sand at the bottom of theriver bed reburied the find (Fig. 8). Apart from diving oper-ations in November and December, neither photos, norvideo films could be made, and even the shots made in thefreezing water, relatively free of algae, could only be evalu-ated by specialists. Archaeological field methods can hardly

Fig. 7. Roman altar stonesbrought to light between 1986and 1996, exhibited in the

square before the Wosinsky MrMuseum in Szekszrd


24/439


be used under such circumstances: the divers could onlyrely on their fingers, and touching replaced eyesight. Nei-ther could the traditional techniques of surveying and draw-ing be employed. The experiences gained at this site defi-nitely indicated that underwater archaeological investiga-tions in Hungary can only be begun after a magnetometersurvey of the area, a technique that is generally employed,

and seismologic investigations along longitudinal andcrosswise sections since these reveal the location and direc-tion of the walls, the position of larger objects and their dis-tances relative to each other and the river bank. The experi-ences gained at Blcske were very helpful in the excavationof the sarcophagus remains and inscribed tombstones withrelief carvings found at a depth of 7 m during gravel dredg-

ing and other river operations in a small dead channel of theDanube at Vetus Salina/Adony in the summer of 2000(Fig. 9).

Other investigations conducted in various parts of thecountry between the two dates marked by the start of theBlcske and Adony investigations can also be quoted.These were mainly directed at locating mostly Roman Ageand, sometimes, medieval underwater sites. These in-cluded the Roman bridge at the Hajgyr Island in budaand the search for a salt transporting boat with a cargo ofRoman stone relics that had sunk in the Tisza at Szeged.Under the supervision of archaeologists, scuba-divers

searched for Roman remains in the gravel pit of Bartfld-puszta at Lbnyszentmikls, an already known site, in thegravel pit of Mriaklnok and in the Toronyvr-dl atKunsziget, while the remains of the village of Losta fromthe rpdian Age were sought on the northern side ofLake Balaton. Following the initial enthusiasm sparked bythe Blcske investigations, the help of the secretary-gen-eral of the Hungarian Diving Society was enlisted fortraining students of archaeology in diving and the organi-zation of archaeological courses for divers. At the sametime, a data sheet was prepared for registering underwaterfinds. This initial enthusiasm gradually faded, partly ow-ing to financial reasons and partly to the indifference of

both parties.This is all the more regrettable since countless dangers

threaten the underwater monuments, ranging from the de-cay of these sites to illegal diver activities and the dredgingof river basins. The most endangered areas at present arethe river banks close to the main Danube channel and theterritories between dead channels, where new gravel andsand pits are constantly opened. The dredging entrepre-neurs have been gradually ousted from the Danube andthey moved their operations to these bank regions on thepretext of rehabilitating formerly active branches. As a re-sult, it seems more than likely that their activity will damage

a number of archaeological sites that presently lie concealedunder a several metres thick gravel layer.

OPINIONS AND COUNTER-OPINIONS

Finally, a few words about certain misunderstandings thatare often also voiced by professionals concerning underwa-ter archaeological finds. One frequent misconception isthat underwater archaeological finds do not necessarilyhave to be brought to light since they are quite safe andprotected under the water, whereas bringing them to the

Fig. 8. Diver archaeologists lift a Roman altar stone at Blcske in1988

Fig. 9. The lifting of stone relics near the Roman ala fort of VetusSalina at Adony in June, 2000


25/439

Aerial archaeology in Hungary | 25

surface may mean certain decay. The conservation proper-ties of water, marshland and peat are in many cases indeedwonderful, but not for every type of material. Leather,wood, bone and some textiles survive under constantlymoist conditions, whereas certain metals, especially burntiron objects, decay within a few centuries. The iron core ofthe latter is often replaced by a cavity lined by oxide and

filled up with a putrid fluid. Beside the damage caused bythe iron bottom platings of boats, a network of fine fissurescan be made out on the limestone altar stones fromBlcske, caused by the constant fluctuation of the watertemperature; other damages include the ones caused byhuman intervention, such as the use of explosives at thetime of icy floods. The cylindrical handle without anytraces of wear and the brand new, clean blade of a Romantrowel dropped into the boiling mortar during the con-struction of the forts wall suggest that it was probably loston the very first day of its use, while many of the bronzecoins are so strongly oxidized that their identification was

often problematic. Although the examples are often con-tradictory, it is our conviction that water is not a naturalenvironment for archaeological objects and they must beunearthed as soon as possible and conserved more carefullythan finds recovered from the ground.

The call to find the royal ships that had sunk in 1526was voiced repeatedly, especially after finds provokinggreat attention came to light, such as the gold plate foundat Visegrd. This idea is still periodically raised. However,it must be borne in mind that the current of the Danube isso fast even along the lower reaches of the river that it caneasily transport the metal body of a sunken ship filled withwater tens of kilometres away within a few hours. Even in

knowledge of the fact that the river was not restricted bydams in the 17th century and, consequently, its flow wasslower, this was certainly not the case in the Visegrd sec-tion of the river, where it flows between hills. Many squarekilometres would have to be surveyed to find the ships, analmost impossible task given the present technical possi-bilities. Only the strict control of stray (and dredged up)finds, combined with careful underwater work based onthese bits and pieces of information, can lead to the possi-ble discovery of these ships.

THE FUTURE OF UNDERWATER RESEARCHIn spite of the difficulties described above, the declared in-tention of the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage thatHungary become a signatory of the UNESCO conventionon the protection of the underwater cultural heritage thatwould ensure the necessary protection for archaeologicalfinds and features not only in the seas, but also in rivers,lakes and marshlands including the ones in Hungary isdefinitely a promising sign. The ministry set up a workinggroup in late 1999 to elaborate the Hungarian point ofview. The groups task was to study the draft convention

prepared by UNESCO and to make suggestions and modi-fications corresponding to the Hungarian conditions andneeds. A similarly important task is the organization of thetraining of archaeologists and conservators for underwaterwork, as well as training divers for archaeological work. Noless important is the ensuring of adequate funding for theexcavation of underwater archaeological sites and, also, that

underwater archaeology be moved from the periphery to amore focal place in Hungarian archaeology.

AERIAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNGARYZsolt Visy

The invention and use of zeppelins and airplanes was oneof the major advances of the late 19th century, fulfilling amany thousand years old dream of mankind. Until then,observations could be made only from mountain peaks,

hills and higher elevations. The invention of flying ma-chines meant that observations could now be made fromany desired location and from any altitude. Maps of variousregions and towns, formerly drawn only from imagination,could now be based on personal experiences. With thespread of photography, the number of pictures taken fromhigher elevations increased, and photographs made fromballoons, the antecedents of real aerial photos, appeared atthe end of the 19th century. As it often happens in the caseof major inventions, the pioneering work in this field wasdone by the military. The advantages of aerial reconnais-sance and the potentials of recording observations on aphoto were quickly realized during World War 1. Obser-

vation from a high altitude and the accompanying photo-graphs opened new perspectives for scientific research the specialists of this new method soon determined the

Fig. 10. Late Neolithic or Early Copper Age enclosure and rampartat JnoshidaPortelek


26/439


optimal conditions for its application and worked outwhen, from what altitude and at what time of day the bestresults could be obtained. They soon realized that manyfeatures that remained undetected on the ground becamevisible from the air and, also, that phenomena that ap-peared as random features on the ground formed a coher-ent pattern if viewed from above, revealing a number ofpoints that could never have been detected on the ground.A number of partially or totally buried remains and otherrelics of bygone ages could be identified (Fig. 10). Aerialphotography was one of the positive accomplishments of

World War 1; many pilots fighting in the war were thefirst to observe and register archaeological relics. After re-turning to civil life, they began to organize the systematicaerial reconnaissance, documentation and evaluation of ar-chaeological features.

The pioneers of aerial archaeology elaborated the meth-ods of this discipline in the 1920s and 1930s. In addition towork in Europe, they were also interested in the explorationof buried ruins in the desert areas of Africa and the NearEast. The doyens of the field, Theodor Wiegand, AntoinePoidebard and, later, Osbert Guy Stanhope Crawford, werejoined by Aurl Stein who began the aerial exploration of

the Roman limes and other archaeological monuments inIraq in 1938, at the age of 76. Aerial archaeology in Hun-gary began more or less simultaneously with internationalexperiments in this field. In 1938, Lrnd Radnai publisheda paper in which he described the archaeological uses of ae-rial photography and the basic requirements of successfulobservation. The first aerial photos were published in

Archaeologiai rtesit two years later: in his discussion ofthese photos Radnai convincingly proved his point anddemonstrated that aerial photography can be successfullyapplied under Hungarian conditions too.

Archaeologists soon became acquainted with this impor-

Fig. 11. Brigetio, marching camps VI and VII at Szny

tant new research technique. A few years later AladrRadnti published high quality photos that could be evalu-ated archaeologically in his study on the Dacian limesalongthe ridge of the Meszes mountains. Wartime conditionsgreatly contributed to advances in archaeological aerialphotography, but they also brought a number of restric-tions. While planned reconnaissance flights could rarely be

made, there were no objections to the archaeological analy-sis of the high number of excellent aerial photos made bythe army. Sndor Negrdy spent long years studying thesephotos. He accumulated an impressive collection of aerialphotos, publishing a part of his collection at the last possiblemoment in 1950. We can only hypothesize what else therewas in his collection that never became generally accessibleowing to the changes in the political climate. The all-perva-sive atmosphere of suspicion characterizing the Communistsystem did not allow the complex mapping of Hungarysterritory and aerial reconnaissance was relegated to the cat-egory of military secrets.

The political thaw in the 1970s at last made possible theapplication of aerial photography for purposes other thanmilitary reconnaissance, obviously with the strict observanceof regulations. Aerial photography for archaeological re-search could at last begin, although the photographs madeduring this period often had little scientific value since theywere not always made at the optimal time and under optimalconditions, but when the flight was permitted. It now be-came possible to systematically study the photos made fortopographic or economic purposes on which archaeologicalfeatures could be clearly made out. Most important amongthese was a series from the early 1940s that showed the entireHungarian section of the Danube and other territories. A

number of features that now lie concealed under buildingsand factories built since, or have been destroyed by intensivecultivation, are still visible on thesephotos. The photos madein the 1950s and later also contained much useful

Fig. 12. Annamatia, watchtower 9 with the limes roadat Dunakmld


27/439

Aerial archaeology in Hungary | 27

information and their study can still yield new data since the

careful inspection of these photos can lead to new discover-ies. The restrictions on aerial photography were graduallylifted, first by easing the strict regulations and, after the po-litical changes, by declassifying certain maps and photographtypes. The earlier strict regulation only allowed the aerialphotography of already known archaeological sites, meaningthat archaeol

- hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium - ed. by z. visy & m. nagy (2003)

Documents