O P U S C U L A H U N G A R I C A
ARCHAEOLOGY
OF THE OTTOMAN PERIOD IN HUNGARY
HUNGÁRIÁN NATIONAL MUSEUM
0 1
ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE
OTTOMAN PERIOD IN HUNGARY
P a p e r s o f th e c o n f e r e n c e h e ld at th e H u n g á r iá n N a tio n a l M u s e u m , B u d a p e s t, 2 4 - 2 6 M ay 2 0 0 0
E D IT O R S :
IB O L Y A G E R E L Y E S a n d G Y Ö N G Y I K O V Á C S
H U N G Á R I Á N N A T I O N A L M U S E U M B U D A P E S T 2 0 0 3
ISBN [963 9046 95 7]
ISSN [1419-9521]
© H u n g á riá n N a tio n a l M u seu m , B u d a p e s t 2003 All rig h ts re se rv e d
P u b lish e r re sp o n sib le: T IB O R KOVÁCS
D ire c to r G e n e ra l, H u n g á riá n N a tio n a l M u seu m , B u d a p e st, M ú ze u m k rt. 1 4-16.
Postai a d d re ss: H -1 3 7 0 B u d a p e st, Pf. 364.
P h o to g ra p h facing p ag e 2:
Yakovah H a sa n C am i. L até 16lh c e n tu ry , Pécs
P u b lish e d in A5 fo rm á t in 600 copies T y p o g ra p h y a n d lay o u t by S á n d o r B enke
P rin te d by Á llam i N y o m d a Rt.
N E M Z E T I K U L T U R Á L I S Ö R Ö K S É G M I N I S Z T É R I U M A
^
N e m z e ti K u l t u r á l is A la p p r o g r a m Ig a zg ató s ág a
* H f t í f y a i ■ l r / / t y / f ■ H ú y m n 1 802 - 200 2
CONTENTS
T h e C o ntributo rs 7
E n d e r Ar a t: Lectori Salutem 8
T ib o r Ko v á c s: Forew ord 9
General Introduction
Géza Dávid: T h e C o n n ecd o n betw een H istory a n d A rchaeology in R esearching O tto m an Rule in
H ungary. In te rre la tio n sh ip s a n d perspectives 11
Győző Gerő: T h e H istory o f O ttom an-T urkish A rchaeological R esearch in H u n g a ry 17 K lára Hegyi: B alkan G arriso n T ro o p s a n d S oldier-peasants in th e Vilayet o f B u d a 23
J. M ichael Rogers: O tto m an A rchaeology in E astern E u ro p e 41
Military Structures - Fortresses and Castles
B eatrix Ba s ic s: Problem s o f A uthendcity in th e D epiction o f H u n g á riá n Castles
d u rin g th e T im e o f the O tto m an O c cupation 47
Zoltán Be n c z e: R ecent R esearch intő O tto m an -p erio d Rem ains in B uda 55 Károly Ma g y a r: T urkish Defences in the S o u th e rn P art o f B u da C astle 6 3
István Ho r v á t h: O tto m an M ilitary C o nstructio n in Esztergom 75
G yula Si k l ó s i: M ilitary Events a n d Fortification W ork at Székesfehérvár in the S ixteenth a n d
Seventeenth C enturies 89
K álm án Ma g y a r: Babócsa-N árciszos: a S ettlem ent from the O tto m an Age 97 Attila Ga á l: T urkish Palisades o n th e T olna-county S tretch o f th e B uda-to-Eszék R oad 105 Gyöngyi Ko v á c s- László Vá n d o r: R em arks on A rchaeological Investigadons
in tő Sm aller O tto m an -e ra Palisades in H u ngary. Bajcsavár, a New S tro n g h o ld iri
Royal H u n g a ry ’s B order-defence System 109
G ábor Ha t h á z i: New F indings in the R esearch o f T urkish Palisades in Fejér C ou nty 113 S án d o r Pa p p: B erkigát: an U nknow n T urkish Palisade in S o u th e rn T ra n sd an u b ia 137 M árton Ró z s á s: A T urkish G u a rd S tation on the L ands o f D rávatam ási 145 G ábor To m k a: A ndrásvár: a G uard-Tow er in Royal H u n g a ry ’s B order-defence System 151 B urcu Öz g ü v e n: C haracterisdcs o f T urkish an d H u n g á riá n Palanka-p ro tected Settlem ents
along th e River D anube 155
Ecclesiastical an d Civilian A rch itectu re in th e Towns
Katalin Irás-Me u s: Pest d u rin g th e O ttom an Éra 161
Ibolya Gerelyes: O ttom an A rchitecture in the Town o f Gyula 173
G yőző Geró: Balkan In flu en ces in the M osque Architecture o f H ungary 181
G heorge Lanevschi: An O ttom an M osque at B orosjenő 185
Ferenc Csortán: O ttom an A rchitecture in the Vilayet o f Tem esvár 187
Material Culture
Gyöngyi Ko v á c s: Somé Possible D irections fór R esearch intő O tto m an -e ra
A rchaeological Finds in H u n g a ry 257
László Költő: X-ray Emission Analysis o fT u rk ish C o p p e r Vessels 267
Elizabeta Koneska: C o p p ersm ith ’s W ork in th e B alkan C o u n tries 269
Anikó Tó th: An O tto m an -e ra C ellar from th e F o re g ro u n d o f B u d a’s Royal Palace 273 T ib o r Sabján - A ndrás Végh: A T u rk ish H o u se a n d Stoves fro m th e W ater-Town (Víziváros) in B u d a 281
Tam ás Pusztai: T h e Pottery o f th e T urkish Palisade at Bátaszék 3 0 1
G ábor Tomka: Finjans, Pipes, G rey Ju g s. “T u rk ish ” O bjects in th e H u n g á riá n F ortresses
o f B orsod C ounty 3 1 1
O rsolya La j k ó: Post-medieval Pottery Finds from H ó d m ező vásárhely-O tem p lo m 3 2 1
Tam ás Em ö d i: T h e “T iled R oom ” in th e Palace o f th e R uling P rince at G y u lafeh érv ár 3 2 9
György V. Sz é k e l y: D ifferentiation o r H om ogenisation? S tru ctu ral C han ges
in th e C om position o f C oin Finds in S ix teen th -cen tu ry H u n g a ry 3 3 7 László Ko v á c s: Cowry Shells in S eventeenth- a n d E ig h teen th -cen tu ry H u n g a ry 3 4 5
István Vö r ö s: Sixteenth- an d S eventeen th-century Anim al B oné Finds in H u n g a ry 3 5 1 László Ba r t o s i e w i c z- Erika Gá l: A nim al E xploitatio n in H u n g a ry d u rin g th e O tto m a n É ra 365
Supplements
J ó zsef LASZLOVSZKY-Judith Rasson: P ost-m edieval or H istorical A rchaeology:
Term inology and Discourses in the Archaeology o f the O ttom an Period 377 Dimitri D. V a s s i l i e v : Maps, Plans and Sketches Illum inating Two Russian Fleet Actions du rin g
the First A egean E x p e d itio n o f 1769-1770 1 3 ^ 3
Bibliography
List o f Abbreviations 389
408
T h e Contributors
Y ann ARDAGNA
C e n tre A rch éo lo g iq u e d u Var, T o u lo n
D e p a rtm e n t o f A n th ro p o lo g y , S zeged U niversity o f Sciences, S zeged, H u n g a ry
László B A R T O S IE W IC Z
In stitu te o f A rchaeological Sciences, Eötvös L o rá n d U n iv e r
sity, B u d a p est B eatrix BASICS
H u n g á riá n N a tio n a l M u seu m , B u d a p e s t Z oltán BENCZE
B u d a p es t H isto ry M u seu m , B u d a p e s t F eren c C SO R TÁ N
D ire cto rate fó r N a tio n a l M in o rities, M inistry o f C u ltu re a n d C u lts, B u c h are st
G éza DÁVID
D e p a rtm e n t o f T u rk is h S tu d ies, Eötvös L o rá n d U niversity, B u d a p e s t
T am ás EM ŐD I
Str. Ep. Pavel Nr. 4/5, O ra d e a , R om ania E rik a GÁL
A rchaeological In s titu te o f th e H u n g á riá n A cadem y o f Sciences, B u d a p est
A ttila GAÁL
W osinsky M ór M u seu m , Szekszárd, H u n g a ry Ibolya GERELY ES
H u n g á riá n N atio n al M u seu m , B u d a p e s t Győző G E R Ő
B u d ap est, I., T á r n o k u tca 5.
G á b o r H A TH Á ZI
M inistry o f N a tio n a l C u ltu ra l H e rita g e , B u d a p es t K lára H EG Y I
Institute o f History, H u n g á rián Academ y o f Sciences, B udapest István H O R V Á T H
Balassa B álint M u seu m , E szterg o m , H u n g a ry K atalin IRÁ S-M ELIS
B u d a p est H isto ry M u seu m , B u d a p es t G yula K O CSIS
D e p a rtm e n t o f E th n o g ra p h ic a l A rtefacts, Eötvös L o ra n d U n i
versity, B u d a p est Elizabeta KO N ESK A
M u seu m o f M aced ó n ia, S kopje G yöngyi KOVÁCS
A rchaeological In s titu te o f th e H u n g á riá n A cadem y o f Sciences, B u d a p es t
László KOVÁCS
A rchaeological In s titu te o f th e H u n g á riá n A cadem y o f Sciences, B u d a p est
László K Ö LT Ő
R ippl R ónai M u seu m , K aposvár, H u n g a ry O rsolya LAJKÓ
C u ltu ra l H e rita g e O ffice, Szeged, H u n g a ry G h e o rg h e LA N E V SC H I
M useum s C o m p lex , O ra d e a , R o m an ia J ó z se f LASZLOVSZKY
In stitu te o f A rchaeological Sciences, Eötvös L o rá n d U n iv e r
sity, B u d a p est
D e p a rtm e n t o f M edieval S tudies, C e n tra l E u ro p e a n U n iv e r
sity, B u d a p est S aro lta LÁZÁR
Balassa B álint M useum , E sztergom , H u n g a ry K álm án MAGYAR
R ippl R ónai M u seu m , K aposvár, H u n g a ry K ároly MAGYAR
B u d a p est H istory M useum , B u d a p est Zsuzsa M IK LÓ S
A rchaeological In stitu te o f th e H u n g á riá n A cadem y o f Sciences, B u d ap est
B u rcu Ö ZG Ü V EN
Faculty o f Á rts a n d Sciences, M e d ite rra n e a n U niversity, A ntalya, T urkey
S á n d o r PAPP
K ároli G á sp á r C alvinist U niversity, B u d ap est G yörgy PÁLFI
A n th ro p o lo g ic a l C o lle c tio n , M u seu m o f N a tu ra l Sciences, B u d a p es t / C e n tre A rch éo lo g iq u e d u Var, T oulon
A n d rás PÁ LÓ CZI H O R V Á T H
M useum o f H u n g á riá n A g ric u ltu re, B u d a p est T am ás PUSZTAI
H e rm a n n O ttó M u seu m , M iskolc, H u n g a ry J u d ith RASSON
D e p a rtm e n t o f M edieval S tu d ies, C e n tra l E u ro p e a n U n iv e r
sity, B u d a p est M ichael ROG ERS
S chool o f O rie n tá l a n d A frican S tudies, U niversity o f L o n d o n M árto n RÓZSÁS
D ráva M u seu m , B arcs, H u n g a ry T ib o r SABJÁN
O p e n -a ir E th n o g ra p h ic a l M useum , S z e n te n d re , H u n g a ry G yula SIK L Ó SI
A rchaeological In s titu te o f th e H u n g á riá n A cadem y o f Sciences, B u d a p est
G yörgy V. SZÉKELY
K a to n a J ó z s e f M useum , K ecskem ét, H u n g a ry G á b o r T Ó M KA
H u n g á riá n N a tio n al M useum , B u d a p est A nikó T Ó T H
B u d a p e s t H isto ry M useum , B u d a p est László V Á N D O R
Göcsej M u seu m , Z alaegerszeg, H u n g a ry D im itri D. VASSILIEV
In stitu te o f O rien tá l S tu d ie s, R ussian A cadem y o f Sciences, Moscow
A n d rás V ÉG H
B u d a p est H isto ry M useum , B u d a p e s t M árta V ÍZI
W osinsky M ór M u seu m , S zekszárd, H u n g a ry István V Ö RÖ S
H u n g á riá n N atio n al M u seu m , B u d a p e s t E rik a W IC K E R
K ato n a J ó z s e f M u seu m , K ecskem ét, H u n g a ry
fortresses, cem eteries, tekkes, etc.
U nfortunately, m ost o f these m on u m en ts w ere d em olish ed or otherw ise destro yed as a result o f antagonism and hostility d u rin g the course o f history. In his Abrégé N o u v e a u de l ’H istorie des Turcs (Paris 1689), M. Vanel describes, three years after the O ttoman-Turks had left B uda, how the city was sacked and set o n fire after its reoccup adon. M oreover, in his M o n u m en ts Turcs en H ongrie, which is based on a variety o f d ocu m en ts, J ó z sef M olnár m en tions how m osq ues and H ungárián churches w ere loo ted and how countless artworks, in clu d in g m any ecclesiastical objects, were taken from Hungary. H e m en tion s a military stores officer by th e n am e o f Gallo Tesch w ho secretly pulled dow n Sultan Süleym an’s türbe, sold the p olish ed ston es fór the construction o f military buildings and m ade a h an d som e profit o f 3000 florins o n th e deal.
On the other hand, it is a fact that, in Central E urope and the Balkans, O ttom an-Turkish architectural m onum en ts have b een best preserved, restored and looked after by the H u n g á ri
án people. In his above-m ention ed work, Dr. Ekrem Hakki Ayverdi notes: “T h e H u n g á riá m regard Ottom an-Turkish m onum en ts as their own. T h ey look after even the sm allest Turkish stone as ev id en ce o f a building. In fact, they nőt only preserve it, bút alsó show it to the public.
T h ey are happy to possess a Turkish relic. T h is is an interest based on feelin gs, o n e w hich has becom e an established tradition.” I can teli you with pleasure and pride that d u rin g my term in
B udapest I often personally ex p erien ced this noble and art-loving attitűdé.
At the “C on ference on Turkish A rchaeology Research in H u n gary” h eld at the H ungárián National M useum in B udapest betw een 24 and 26 May 2 0 0 0, presen tation s by distin gu ish ed Turkologists, historians and eth n ograp h ers m ade it clear that considerably m ore archaeological investigation needs to be perform ed to uncover fully the com m on heritage o f Turkish-H ungarian history. T h e Turkish and H ungárián g o vern m en ts supp ort this work. As a m atter o f fact, this com m on interest was particularly em p hasised in the “T urkish-H ungarian E ducational, Scien- tific and Cultural C o-operation Protocol fór the years 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 3 ”. F urtherm ore, at the m eetings d u rin g the official visit o f H u n gárián Prim e M inister Viktor O rbán to Turkey from 24 to 27 May 2 0 0 0 it was confirm ed that both sides w ould supp ort the im p rov em en t o f co- operation in the field o f archaeological research. It is in d eed a duty fór all o f us to undertake research, uncover the historical rem ains, preserve them , and piacé them at the disposal o f hum ankind.
We sincerely congratulate those w ho contributed to the preparations fór the conference, those scholars w ho en rich ed the con feren ce with their presen tation s, and alsó those w ho, with hard work, have collected and pub lished the p resen tation s. We wisli them success in their future work. We believe that this co-op eration will be a go od ex a m p le to oth er countries alsó.
En d e r Ar a t
Am bassador o f the Republic o f Turkey
FOREWORD
“We should preserve and look after ou r relics and collect togeth er the fragm ents we have to prevent them b ein g lost irretrievably, lest the pást be em ptier, the present m ore im poverish ed and the future less su re.” T h u s wrote A rnold Ipolyi, an em in en t researcher o f H ungárián cultural history, in 1878. His w ords are d eep ly true literally as well as figuratively. Even today they deserve to be taken to heart by archaeologists, historians, art historians, and en gin eers, by all those d ealin g with what is currently referred to as the “constructed pást”.
We believe that o n e o f the m ost im portant phases in the research process is the verbal presen tation o f find ings, and the debate o f m ethods and conclusions. T his conference hop es to provide a platform fór both. It should be stated that in the pást two decades the H ungárián N ational M useum has organized relatively few scientific congresses. Partly to m ake up fór the m issed o p p ortu n ities, we should, in the future, like to organize at least o n e national conference every year, and an internadonal con feren ce every two or three years. T h e them atic possibilities are quite broad in both tim e and space, as the archaeological and historical profile o f the N ational M useum covers research from the Palaeolithic age to the present, along with the preservation and evaluation o f the history o f the early p eop les o f the Carpathian Basin and historical m em en tos from the H ungárián pást, which goes back m ore than o n e thousand years.
It m ight be a d d ed , however, that in the last h alf century conferences dealing with the Age o f the H ungárián C on quest and the m edieval period have predom inated. T h e m aterial o f m any o f these conferences has been published, fór ex a m p le, “K özépkori R égészeti T udom ányos Ü lés
szak - W issenschaftliche T agu ng d ér A rcháologie des M ittelalters”, in: Régészeti Füzetek Ser. II.
13. B udapest 1971; Fifth International Congress o f Turkish A rt, ed. Géza Fehér, B udapest 1978;
and Középkori Régészetünk újabb eredményei és időszerű fela d a ta i - N euere Ergebnisse u n d aktuelle Fragen dér M ittelalter-Archáologie in U ngarn, eds. István Fodor & László Selm eczi, B udapest 1985.
We are co n fid en t that in the very near future the N ational M useum will assum e the role o f a truly scientific w orkshop, in research intő the majority o f eras if nőt all o f them . It is ordained to do so by its pást and by its goals, and perhaps alsó by professional exp ectation s o f it. And, we may quietly add, the ex isten ce o f such w orkshops and their participation in research intő g en u in e topical issues is the basis fór the h old in g o f “usefu l”, successful conferences. W hat is it, exactly, that makes a con feren ce useful or successful? We believe that, am on g other things, the follow ing are necessary:
- T hat it provides the op p ortu n ity to presen t and interpret fresh new sources;
- T h at it represents a platform fór the re-evaluation o f previously know n data according to new criteria (we w ou ld add that often this can only be d o n e by a new generation o f researchers);
- T hat the collective presen ce o f co-professionals and friends, both inside and outside the session room s, provides the m eans fór con fron tin g new ideas and original theories with
“im m utable truths”, in frequently heated , yet proper, debate.
T h ere is no better p r o o f o f the topicality o f this conference than the fact that nearly forty researchers have com e in order to give presentations. Most are from H ungary, bút m any are from oth er countries (Great Britain, M acedónia, R om ania, Turkey and the U kraine). T h ey include internationally recogn ized representatives o f O ttom an research. It is alsó worth n otin g that this con feren ce is interdisciplinary in natúré, in that, in addition to reports by archaeol
ogists, historians and art historians, the sch ed u le alsó features presentations based on physical anthropology, palaeozoology and oth er natural sciences.
N everth eless, the m ost im portant th in g is the follow ing, nam ely that this is the first tim e, nőt cou n tin g a session in the Castrum B ene con feren ce series a few years ago at w hich the topic was O ttom an-era castle research, that the archaeology o f the O ttom an period in H ungary has
brought changes in H ungary, as elsew h ere. T h is and oth er factors have created an alm ost autom atically h o m o g en eo u s platform fór the representatives o f the sciences involved in the topic in question. At the sam e tim e - ow ing in part to the im pact o f the above - th ere has alsó been a change in university education perspectives. Last bút n őt least, over th e pást tw enty-five years it has becom e possible in H ungary, as elsew h ere, to construct an effective netw ork o f international connections.
We h o p e that this conference will p rom ote the ex p an sion o f research intő th e O ttom an éra in H ungary from all points o f view. In addition to the study o f t h e Turkish b u ild in g s u n earth ed and preserved in H ungary (which are m ore num erous here than in oth er co u n tries o f Central and Southern Europe), it may alsó strengthen the d em and fór them atic research in arch aeol
ogy, w hich may in turn result in the identification o f new settlem ents and a series o f p la n n ed excavations. All o f this w ould o f course serve nőt only know'ledge o f t h e p erio d , bút alsó the recovery o f the h ith erto-h id d en finds (historical sources potentially m ore n u m ero u s than the written docum ents).
Fór m yself, as an archaeologist nőt d ealin g with the m ed ieval p eriod , a n oth er ex citin g question is how m uch o f all this will com e about, and w h en and how productively, in the interests o f a fuller generál und erstan d in g o f the O ttom an éra. Perhaps it will n őt be until a later conference, on a topic similar to the presen t o n e, that this question will truly be answ ered.
T i b o r Ko v á c s
D irector G eneral H u ngárián N ational M useum
G ÉZA DÁVID
T h e Connection between History and Archaeology in Researching O ttom an Rule in H ungary
IN T E R R E L A T IO N S H IP S AND PERSPEC TIV ES I first began to deal with the issues re g a rd in g the
connection betw een historical an d archaeological re search in a jo in t p re sen tatio n with Ibolya G erelyes at a conference in H eidelberg. At th at tim e the focus was m ainly on social an d econom ic life, b ú t we alsó touched on b ro a d e r in terre latio n sh ip s. 1 In this arti- cle a generál overview o f th e topic will be given.
It should be n o te d at th e o u tset th a t while the excavation a n d p re serv atio n o f explicitly O tto m an rem ains has accelerated in re c e n t decades, th e re has b een no sim ilarly active study o f c o n c u rre n t H u n g á riá n m aterial to be fo u n d on te rrito rie s for- m erly occup ied by th e T urks. Fór instance, the excavation o f lost villages has, with th e ex cep tio n o f a few pro m isin g e x a m p le s,2 yet to récéivé th e piacé it deserves in archaeological studies. T h e reason fór this neglect stem s from financial as well as subjective factors: few a re willing to devote them - selves to an excavation, w hich is m o re d e m a n d in g th an custom ary archaeological w ork (and which prom ises less spectacu lar results). A n o th e r prob- lem is th a t aerial p h o to g ra p h y p ro c e d u re s, which have been a p p lie d successfully in o th e r countries, have only recently b een in tro d u c e d in H u n g a ry, 3 m ean in g th a t it is som etim es u n clea r w here exca
vations could m ost prófitably be started . T h e re is ho p e th a t w ell-chosen fu tu re sites will yield helpful findings. A n o th e r possibility is access to satellite p h o tó g ra p h s, o r a p ro jec t to have p h o to g ra p h s taken using sim ilarly m o d e rn technology.
T h e re searc h in g o f sixteenth- an d seventeenth- c e n tu ry settlem en ts is im p o rta n t because it w ould facilitate co m p ariso n o f th e archaeological findings th e re with th e m essage o f th e H u n g á riá n a n d O tto m an archival sources. To d a te th re e sites are know n w here such a co m p ariso n is possible.4 A som ew hat su rp risin g aspect o f th e m a tte r is th a t the n u m b ers o f houses d e te rm in e d by ea rlie r excavations hap- p en to a p p ro x im a te to those in th e w ritten d o c u m ents, while at Szentkirály, a very re c e n t p ro ject led by A ndrás Pálóczi H o rv á th an d p re se n te d else- w here in this volum e, th e n u m b e r o f houses un-
1 D á v i d - G e r e l y e s 1 9 9 9 .
2 Fór e x a m p le , Pa pp 1 9 3 1 a n d Szabó 1 9 3 8 , especially the c h a p te r o n th e h o u ses o f se ttle m e n ts d e p o p u la te d in th e six tee n th c e n tu ry (pp. 7 9 - 8 7 ) .
s Zsuzsa M iklós is o n e o f th o se w ho h av e e n d e a v o u re d tire- lessly to m ak e ad v an ces in th is field.
4 Fór B a r a c s cf. Pa pp 1 9 3 1 ; Ká l d y- Nagy 1 9 8 5 , 1 0 1 , N o . 4 7 . Fór M ó r ic cf. Mé r i 1 9 5 4 , 1 4 0 ; Gy ő r ffy 1 9 5 6 , 2 2 ; Ág o s t o n 1 9 8 8 , 2 7 2 . Fór S zen tk irály c f. Pá l ó c z i Ho r v á t h 1 9 9 3 , 5 9 ; Káldy- Nagy 1 9 8 5 , 5 7 0 , N o . 5 2 8 .
e a rth e d was co nsiderably low er th a n th e n u m b e r anticip ated on th e basis o f th e defters, o r tax records.
O n e p ro ject cu rre n tly u n d e r way is a ttem p tin g to excavate th e rem ain s o f a vanished m ark é t town (ioppidum)/’ T his is Ete in Tolna C ounty, w h ere 199 head s o f families w ere re g istered in 1565, 162 in 1580, an d 100 in 1590.6 T h e full d e p o p u latio n o f th e settlem ent is estim ated by Jó zse f H olub to have o cc u rre d betw een 1620 an d 1627.7
At the p re se n t m o m en t all th a t we can conclude is th at in villages w h ere th e defters listed th e in h ab itants individually, the archaeological evidence raises no d o u b ts as to th e reliability o f th e O tto m an su r
veys. Clearly, one factor h e re is th a t the loose stru c
tu re o f villages often m akes it difficult to decide w h ere settlem en ts e n d e d ; m oreover, it is n ő t always easy to d e te rm in e th e age o f bu ild ing s fou nd o r th e ir relatio n sh ip to one a n o th e r (which is o f course a p o in t in favour o f th e defters, since these always co n tain th e m in im u m n u m b e r o f a given p o p u la
tion, an d nő t a m ax im u m figure, as in th e case o f houses o f various ages.)
A few o th e r exam p les are know n in which, ac
co rd in g to archival sources, th e C h ristia n /H u n g ar- ian in h ab itan ts o f a m ajo r settlem en t tem p o rarily o r p erm a n en tly d isap p ea red . Fór instance, in 1566 th e O tto m an s c a p tu re d Babócsa fór th e second tim e. T h e 1579 Szigetvár defter lists th e town as u n in h ab ited , which im plies th a t th e e a rlier civilian p o p u latio n h ad fled, with no O tto m an civilian ele
m ents arriv in g in its piacé, while several h u n d re d soldiers w ere station ed in th e fortresses o f th e set
tle m e n t. 8 Does archaeology confirm the absence of a C h ristian p o p u latio n h e re an d in o th e r sim ilar ad m in istrative o r m ilitary centres?
E vidence o f a co n tin u ed H u n g á riá n presen ce in Babócsa, form erly an im p o rtan t m arkét town, comes specifically from th e archaeological finds. A lthough w hen K álm án M agyar investigated th e site, he was n ő t - an d could n ő t have b een - fam iliar with the tax records th at showed the town to be u ninh abited, he rightly d ed u ced th at after 1566 th e H u n g á rián
5 M i k l ó s - V íz i 1999.
6 Ista n b u l, B a§bakanhk O sm an li A rjivi, T ap u d e fte ri 665, ff.
1 3 r-1 5 r, T ap u d e fte ri 593, ff. 7 r-8 r, T a p u d e fte ri 632, ff. 7 r - 8r.
7 H o l u b 1958, 39.
8 M u n ich , B ayerische Staatsb ib lio th ek , C od. T u rc. 138, f. 78v.
111. 1. T h e d e ta ile d re g is te r o f th e sancak o f N ó g rá d , 1579/1580, ff. 2v-3a
p o p u latio n ab a n d o n ed its earlier settlem ent am o n g the fortifications. At th e sam e tim e, how ever, h e fo u n d traces o f a C hristian com m unity ch a rac te ris
tic o f th e p e rio d som ew hat away from th e cen tre, w hich was fully con tro lled by the O ttom an s. N o rth o f th e newly co n stru cted T urkish b ath , rem ain s o f houses m ad e o f p lastere d m ű d cam e to light, along w ith stove tiles, glazed ceram ics, a n d frag m en ts o f various iro n a n d b ro n z e tools. T h e ru in s o f the re tu rn in g C h ristian s’ ch u rch a n d ad jo in in g cem e
tery w ere alsó identifiable. Coin fm ds attest th a t burials w ere m ade in this cem etery at least until the e n d o f the sixteenth cen tu ry.9
From this startin g point, analogous situations may be co n jectu red in th e cases o f Szigetvár, Esz
tergom an d , after 1559, V isegrád, from w here, according to the defters, C hristians alsó d isap p eared . So far, excavations in these th re e towns have con- ce n trated m ainly on th e castles a n d th e ir im m edi- ate su rro u n d in g s, while th e civilian districts have
em plary excavation a n d th e p u b lish ed findings it becom es clear th a t som é o f th e houses w ere de- stroyed by fire while th e re st w ere evacuated, i.e.
they w ere intentionally ab a n d o n ed . T h e excavation identified seventeen houses, two cellars - each locat- ed separately from any o th e r stru c tu re - , th re e farm buildings, an d one w orkshop. W hile these teli o f a m ore o r less o rdin arily sized H u n g á riá n viliágé with ap prox im ately 1 0 0 to 1 2 0 inh abitants, it sh ould be em phasized once again th a t they co nstitu te the only evidence o f the village’s d im en sio n s. 10
A fu rth e r g ro u p consists o f th o se sites th a t can be co n n e cted with th e in te rn á l m ig ra tio n o n settle
m e n t areas in h ab ited th ro u g h o u t th e T u rk ish p e ri
od. Two sub-types can be d istin g u ish ed h e re . T h e se cover cases (a) w h ere th e e n tire p o p u la tio n left th e viliágé itself b ú t stayed o n th e village’s lan ds, re- m ain in g th e re a fte r th e p erc e iv e d d a n g e r h ad passed; an d (b) w h ere ju s t a few fam ilies chose te m p o ra ry dw elling-places fó r them selves o n th e village’s lands, in g eog rap hically u n fa v o u rab le a n d often cra m p e d locations. In th e case o f o n e viliágé no less th a n eig ht such sites have b ee n fo u n d . In V eszprém C ounty, n o rth o f Laké B alaton, nin ety such sites have b ee n discov ered, alth o u g h th e sp e
ciálist d e a lin g w ith th e issue believes th a t this n u m b e r w ould have b ee n ev en h ig h e r h a d field surveys b een m ad e m o re carefully. 11
1 h e im p o rtan ce o f field surveys c a n n o t be e m ph asized en o u g h , since in som é cases th e only way to locate a lost viliágé re g iste re d in th e defters is to find an archaeo lo g ist very fam iliar with th e region.
C astles have b ee n m e n tio n e d above. H e re it sh o u ld be n o ted th a t in th e case o f castles th a t are less know n a n d in th e case of th o se of w hich only a small p a rt rem ain s, archaeological investigation is th e only way to o b tain au th o rita tiv e d a ta concern - ing th e ir size a n d th e com p o sitio n o f th e ir fortifica
tion system s. O n e such ex a m p le is Babócsa, w here K álm án M agyar iden tified th re e fortification struc-
10 H o l l — P a r a d i 1982. I t is sim ilarly in te re s tin g w h e n tnedie- val a rab le la n d is id en tifie d in a n o w -a b a n d o n e d area: cf.
T o r m a 1981.
9 M a c y a r 1993. 11 M ü l l e r 1970.
Th e Co n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n His t o r ya n d Ar c h a e o l o g y 13
tures. O n e is th e stone castle now know n as the T urkish Castle, w hich is in relatively good condi- tion an d which has th re e surviving bastions. T h e second, fu rth e r to th e east, is an e a rth w o rk fortifi
cation o f th e m o tte type; d atin g from th e eleventh to th irte e n th cen tu ries, this was still in use in O tto m an times. T h e th ird , a n d largest, is a laté thir- teenth-century d ouble earthw ork fortification w here th e ra m p a rts - o n e to two m eters h ig h - a n d the fo u n d a d o n s o f seven ro u n d bastions w ere fo u n d. 12
(In o th e r cases th e T urkish m ilitary payrolls may contain in fo rm atio n th a t sheds light on th e struc- tu re o f ind iv idual fortifications.)
T h e m ore th o ro u g h invesdgation o f castles h ith erto subjected to som ewhat hasty excavation is alsó im portant, as is th e exam inadon o f their im m ediate environs. Firstly, th ere are hopes fór the excavation o f O ttom an building rem ains (e.g. the recently discov- ered castle section in Szász, 13 o r the gate-tow er in Gyula14), an d alsó fór the finding o f artefacts, includ- ing h id d en treasure (such as the O zora ex am ple) . 15 Secondly, conclusions could perhaps be draw n re- g arding th e n u m b e r o f people killed in the sieges. I am curious to know how m any indisputably Muslim bodies have been found so far aro u n d castles that were besieged. In this re g ard it may be worthwhile to look th ro u g h the relevant excavation logs. (H ere it should be noted that a study has recently been p u b lished on the defter containing the expen d itu res fór the 1543 military cam paign. T h e study reveals that at Siklós, p rio r to the m ajor battles, 14,957 co urt sol
diers received their pay while after the captu re of Székesfehérvár the n u m b e r o f those rew arded fór their valour was 13,826. T h e difference is 1131 sol
diers, the overw helm ing majority o f whom could be regarded as killed in battle, although the figure may include a few d eserters an d others. Totál losses were a m ere 7.5 p e r cent, the p ro p o rtio n being slightly h igh e r fór the infantry, while below 5 p e r cent fór the cavalry. Additionally, o f the nearly 3600 em ployees of the Seraglio, a totál o f 82 died or disappeared, am ount- ing to 2 p e r cent. T hese losses were concentrated am ong the stable personnel, o f whom 60 perished or went missing, bú t in m any sub-groups th ere was no depledon d u rin g these two m onths. 16 I m ention all this because in the siege o f a castle totál casualties am ong the attackers - including irregulars and tima- riots - may have been in the o rd e r o f one to two thousand, m eaning th at approxim ately this n u m b er o f bodies should be reckoned with.)
T h e non-T urkish cem eteries o f the O tto m an éra alsó offer p o te n d a l fór m ak in g ce rtain com parisons betw een th e archaeological a n d archival m aterials.
A specific ex a m p le w ould be the Eflak-Vlach graves u n e a rth e d at B ékató by Attila G aál. 17 U ntil 1565
12 M a g y a r 1 9 9 3 , 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 . 15 G e r ó 1 9 9 9 c , 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 .
14 E xcavated by Ibolya G erelyes a n d Istv án Féld.
15 T h is v irtu ally u n p a ra lle le d coin h o a rd was u n e a r th e d d u r ing an e x cav atio n c o n d u c te d jo in tly by István Féld a n d Ibolya G erelyes.
16 ipgloöL U 1 9 9 0 .
this location was u n in h a b ite d , b ú t in 1570 th e first w a n d erin g -p a sto ral settlers a p p e a re d . At this tim e, seven tax ad o n u nits p aid lu m p-su m tax, a n u m b e r th a t grew to eig h t in 1580, w hen th e n u m b e r o f head s o f families re ach e d te n. 18 T h e excavation - careful yet (fór reasons beyond th e arch aeolo gist’s control) n ő t fully co m plete - u n co v ered 260 graves from th e six teen th an d sev en teen th cen turies. As- sum in g th a t only th e inhab itan ts o f th e Vlach set
tlem en t o f B ékató w ere b u rie d h ere, th e n in a p p ro xim ately 1 2 0 years th e p o p u latio n p ro d u c e d th a t n u m b e r o f dead.
W hat can we d e d u c e from such a find? We can ex a m in e it from an an th ro p o lo g ical p o in t o f view.
C om plex labo rato ry analysis has d e te rm in e d the sexes a n d a p p ro x im a te ages o f th e deceased. Al
th o u g h various factors p re v e n t exact calculadon of th e age stru c tu re a n d m ortality indexes, an at- tem p t could be m ad e to ex am in e w h e th e r an inidal p o p u latio n o f 50 p erson s could have p ro d u c e d 260 d ea d (or ap p ro x im a te ly 300, if we inclu d e those missing) in 120 years. A ccording to o u r calcula- dons, if th e re was no significant m ig rad o n intő or o u t o f th e area, if th e an n u a l b irth ra te re m ain ed betw een 3 2 .5 -4 0 p e r th o u san d , a n d if th e d eath ra te was no h ig h e r th an 2 0 -3 5 p e r th o u san d (these figures are w ithin th e typical ra n g é fór th e éra), the in h ab itan ts o f B ékató could in d eed have left that m any g raves. 19
As m en tio n ed , this cem etery is linked to the Vlach eth n ic g ro u p . T h is is con firm ed n ő t only by th e defters, b ú t alsó by archaeological parallels with graves o f S o u th e rn Slavs n e a r Z om bor in Serbia, an d by e th n o g ra p h ical characterisdcs which have been observed in Slavic g ro u p s still living in South
e rn H ungary. H avin g c o m p ared th e skeleton finds from B ékató with B alkan m aterial from th e p re sen t day, th e an th ro p o lo g ist co nclu d ed th a t th e original h o m elan d o f th e Vlachs w ho settled at Békató a ro u n d 1570 was probably in th e vicinity o f C rn a G o ra (M on tenegró), o r possibly in th e n e ig h b o u r
in g G reek o r A lbánián h ig h la n d s.20 T h is assum p- tion is rein fo rced by th e nam es o f th e individuals, which a re S o u th e rn Slavic in n a tú ré , a n d n ő t Ro
m ánián at all.
T h e relation ships betw een artefact finds and eth n ic g ro u p s are, th en , occasionally unclear. In such cases th e h istó rián can com e to th e aid o f the archaeologist, as in th e above instance. T h e same co -o p era d o n is n e e d e d in the case o f ceram ics finds th a t ca n n o t easily be associated with a specific e th nic g ro u p .
W ithin ceramics, which m ake u p the largest cate
gory o f archaeological finds, th ere em erges a clearly disdnct g ro u p o f cru d e, thick-walled cooking an d
17 G a á l 1979-80. (R e-published in a b rid g e d form in th e p re sen t volum e.)
18 T a p u d e fte ri 563, ff. 8 0 v -8 1 r, 676, f. 85r.
19 F ór d etails see th e p a p e r q u o te d in n o te 1.
20 G a á l 1 9 7 9 -8 0 , 1 6 7 -1 7 6 , 180.
111. 2. T u rk ish cem etery in S zentm iklós castle. E n g ra v in g by H o e fn ag e l, 1595
storage vessels m ade o n a h an d -d riv en wheel. T hese artefacts diífer radically from co ntem porary H u n gárián ceramics, as well as from the sophisticated, perfectly glazed O ttom an peasant wares ap p e arin g in H ungary d u rin g O ttom an rule. T h e area in which this g ro u p a p p e a re d can be clearly delineated an d is confm ed to Southern T ransdanubia; such ceramics are unkn ow n n o rth ot the line of Laké B alaton o r east o f the River D anube. (Only now an d th en do they a p p e a r in a m ore north erly location, in the palace o f B uda, w here anything could have en d ed u p , by way o f the m ultiethnic soldiery.) 21
We believe th at this prim itive ceramics w are can be associated with the Vlach ethnic g ro u p , which, as n oted above, ap p e a re d in Southern T ra n sd an u b ia in 1570, prim arily in the sancak of Koppány, and, in sm aller num bers, in the sancak o f Sim ontornya. In these two adm inistrative districts they occupied m ain- ly ab an d o n ed viliágé sites, b ú t th eir ex p o n e n ts and products may have sp read further. Since they sub- sisted on sem i-nom adic anim al husbandry, th eir cul- tu re was at a level lower th an th a t o f the o th e r S outhern Slav (Serb) elem ents th at had settled else- w here in the country earlier o n.22 (A nother possibil
ity is th at this ceram ics w are is linked with a Gypsy ethnic g ro u p , b ú t these a p p e a r very rarely in H u n gárián territo ries u n d e r O ttom an rule.)
Alsó o rig in atin g from th e S outhern regio n s is B alkan-T urkish jew ellery.23 H e re again archaeo-
21 G e r ó 1 9 7 8 , 3 5 1 - 3 5 2 ; 1 9 8 5 ; G a á l 1 9 8 5 , 1 8 9 ; G e r e l y e s 1 9 8 8 , 2 8 0 ; 1 9 9 1 , passim ; K o v á c s 1 9 9 8 , 1 5 6 - 1 6 2 .
22 V e l i c s - K a m m e r e r 1 8 8 6 - 1 8 9 0 , 1. 3 3 1 - 3 3 3 ; D á v id 1 9 8 2 , 6 7 -
68.
25 K ö v é r 1 8 9 7 , 2 2 7 - 2 5 3 .
logical finds a n d th e s ix te e n th -c e n tu ry defters h ar- m onize well: la rg e r n u m b e rs o f Serbs w ere reg is
te re d only in th e east an d so u th east, in th e sancaks o f T em esvár (today: T im igoara, R o m an ia), C sanád (today: C en ad , R om ania), G yula, a n d M ohács (and only in th e S ou thern p a rts o f th e last tw o) . 24
1 his now brings us to a p o in t w here it is necessary to rely alm ost entirely on the archaeological evidence:
the question o f H u n g á rián viliágé stru ctu re, an d the size an d distribution o f the individual houses.
E x perience to d a te indicates som é differences in this re g a rd b etw een th e G re a t Piain, w hich is p o o r in stone, a n d T ra n sd a n u b ia , w hich is rich in sto n e an d w o o d.25 i t is unlikely th a t this p ictu re will ch a n g e to any m ajo r e x te n t in th e fu tu re , b ú t it m ay take on a c le a re r h u e. In o th e r w ords, th e re is a g re a t n ee d fór th e viliágé re se a rc h m en tio n ed above.
I he artefact finds u n e a rth e d in th e excavations of villages sh o u ld yield answ ers to n u m e ro u s ques- tions to w hich th e w ritten so urces p ro v id e incom - p lete ones o r n ő n e at all. T h e s e q u estio n s relate prim arily to everyday life. Fór ex a m p le , an investi- gation o f ea tin g habits based o n u n e a rth e d anim al bo nes o r surviving p lá n t re m a in s m ay be instruc- tive.2(i
W ith re g a rd to th e living co n d itio n s a n d cir- cum stances o f th e c o n te m p o ra ry viliágé p o p u la tion, th e arch aeolo gical finds in d icate th a t these
24 D á v id 1 9 9 7 , 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 . F ór T em esv ár: T a p u d e fte ri 2 9 0 , 3 6 4 , 5 7 9 ; fó r C san ád : T a p u d e fte ri 3 6 5 , 5 8 0 : fó r G yula: K á l d y - N a g y 1 9 8 2 ; fó r Szeged: H a l a s i - K u n 1 9 6 4 , 1 - 7 2 ; fó r M ohács:
T a p u d e fte ri 4 4 1 , 4 4 3 , 5 9 3 , 6 3 2 .
25 S z a b ó 1 9 3 8 , 8 0 - 8 4 , 8 6 ; B á l i n t 1 9 3 9 , 1 4 8 - 1 5 0 ; G y ö r f f y 1 9 4 3 ; P á l ó c z i H o r v á t h 1 9 8 6 b ; 1 9 9 3 , p assim ; H o l l - P a r á d i 1 9 8 2 , 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 .
26 S k o f l e k 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 .
Th e Co n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n H is t o r ya n d Ar c h a e o l o g y 15
111. 3. B alk an -ty p e jew ellery fro m th e B atto n y a h o a rd , 17,h c en tu ry
w ere fairly m odest. Sim ple farm in g im plem ents a n d everyday utensils m ake u p the m ajority o f the objects u n e a rth e d. 27 T his conclusion is consistent with th e im pressio n g ain ed from the p ro b a te in- ventories: even p resu m ab ly b etter-o ff tow n dwell- ers - such as b arb ers o r harness-m ak ers - h ad hom es e q u ip p e d in a sim ilarly m odest way. 28 An exception is th e in v en to ry o f Ali Qelebi (analysed by Lajos Fekete), w ho even h ad a small library, 29 o r a sancakbey n am ed Ali a n d m en tio n ed by Pegevi w ho in h e rite d consid erab le w ealth from his wife. 30 It is n o accident th a t excavations have u n e a rth e d virtually n ő n e o f th e h ig h -sta n d a rd O tto m an gold- sm ith ’s w orks o r o th e r valuable ap p lied árts works fo u n d in H u n g á riá n public collections. N everthe- less, sum s o f m oney, g enerally h id d e n in sim ple ju g s, 31 re p re se n te d a d e g re e o f p u rc h asin g pow er a n d ind icated - n ő t su rp risin g ly - th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f a tra d e r stra tu m w ithin th e H u n g á riá n peasant- ry th a t possessed a ce rtain a m o u n t o f Capital (or th e begin n in g s thereof).
T his b rings us to o u r last m ajo r topic, nam ely th e questio n o f th e coins in circulation in th e con- q u e re d areas. Everyone w ho deals with this p erio d knows th a t th e akge was th e basis o f th e O tto m an m o n etary system . Taxes, th e a n n u a l incom es o f office-holders a n d tim ariots, th e pay o f soldiers, a n d virtually all o th e r fm ancial transactions w ere e x p ressed in this currency. B ú t to w hat e x te n t was th e akge th e actual m eans o f paym en t? T h e re are q u ite a few archival sources th a t could p ro v id e an answ er to this qu estion. O n e exception al source is
27 Ho l l- Parádi 1982, 51.
28 G e r e l y e s 1979; 1985.
29 F e k e t e 1960.
30 Dávid 1994, 1 5 3 -1 5 4 , n o tes 5 6 -5 7 . 31 See Parádi 1963
the accou nt book o f th e treasu ry o f B ud a from 15 58 -5 9 .32 T his source carefully reco rd s th e com- position o f reven ues, in dicatin g th e d ifferen t cur- rencies in which they w ere p aid a n d alsó th e ex- ch an g e rates th a t w ere u sed in th e ir conversion.
H e re it sho uld be n o te d th a t in this te x t th e w ord akge is n ev e r used: th e w ord nakdine occurs instead.
H ow ever, ac co rd in g to Lajos Fekete, w ho has a n a lysed an d p u b lish ed th e d o cu m en t, nakdine was a n o th e r n am e fó r th e akge.33 From this startin g p o in t K lára H egyi carefully a d d e d u p th e m ain cu rren cies, in two se p a ra te o p e ra tio n s.34 First she ex a m in e d th e n u m b e r o f o ccu rren ces o f th e in d i
vidual cu rren cies a n d th e ir occu rren ces relatíve to each other, as well as th e ir values in akge a n d th eir sh are in th e totál a m o u n t o f re v en u e paid in. T h e second calculation d ea lt only with th e m ain H u n g árián tow ns th a t we know p aid th e ir taxes in B uda; in o th e r w ords, they them selves g e n e ra te d th e sum s they h a n d e d over.
O f th e fin d in g s o b tain ed , th e m ost in te re stin g is th e p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e nakdine/akge, p articu - larly w ith re g a rd to n u m b e rs o f o cc u rre n ces. An even m o re re m a rk a b le asp ect o f th e m a tte r is th a t th e akge occurs even m o re fre q u e n tly in d irec t H u n g á riá n p ay m en ts th a n in g e n e rá l, a m o u n tin g to 97.9% o f th e coins specified. T h u s, this O tto m an c u rre n c y a p p e a rs to have b ee n circ u lated in e n o rm o u s q u an titie s in th e O tto m a n s’ H u n g á riá n pro v in ces in this p e rio d . T h is seem ingly confirm s th e sugg estio n th a t in th e first d ecad es o f th e ir ru le in H u n g a ry th e O tto m a n s a tte m p te d to im-
32 P u b lish ed by Fe k e t e - Ká l d y- Nagy1962.
33 F e k e t e 1955, 238, n o te 7.
34 H e g y i 1987-1988.
en o u g h to re fe r to th e fact th a t w h en su ltan s ch a n g ed the old akge w ere re m o v e d from circu la
tion a n d new ones w ere m in ted ? C ertainly nőt, since this o c c u rre d in th e case o f th e o th e r coin types too, o f w hich m o re have b ee n fo u n d . A n o th e r possibility is th a t everyone trie d to rid h im self o f akge received in p ay m en t o r re m u n e ra tio n , an d w h en ev er possible k ep t his savings in a n o th e r form o f currency. T h e r e m ust surely have b ee n efforts to this effect, b ú t they do n ő t ex p lain this d e g re e o f u n d e r-re p re s e n ta d o n in th e finds. O r was it p er- haps th a t b e h in d th e nakdine stood n ő t th e akge b ú t ra th e r th e H u n g á riá n den ariu s?
T his suspicion is strongly rein fo rced by th e find- ings o f Ján o s Búza. Studies by this researc h er indi-
e n th hour, so to speak, since - as n o ted by A ndrás Pálóczi H o rv á th in one o f his articles - earthw orks over th e last twenty-five to th irty years have been affecting precisely those soil layers in which rem ains from this é ra are to be so u g h t.38 Regrettably, the p re sen t State o f affairs gives little cause fór opti- mism. All we can do is tru st in th e resourcefulness a n d p erseverance o f o u r archaeologists, w ho h ad th eir share o f difficulties in th e 1950s as well, yet m an aged to find solutions, albeit often with com pro- mises. Fortunately, the d o c u m en ta ry sources are available, so th a t th e d ata obtainable from th em can always be d e p e n d e d on. T h e com bination o f arch ae
ology a n d the w ritten sources m ay enable us to resolve m any issues th a t are still unclear.
35 “É rem leletek , 1 8 6 7 -1 9 8 9 ” [C oin F inds, 186 7 -1 9 8 9 ]. MS.
N um ism atic C ollection o f th e H u n g á riá n N a tio n al M useum . 36 See alsó Gedai 1988. T h is re m a in s essentially tr u e d e sp ite Ibolya G erelyes’s re c e n t discovery o f tw o akge h o a rd s at
O zo ra: o n e relatively sm all b ú t still c o n ta in in g a h ig h e r n u m b e r o f th ese coins th a n an y p re v io u s fin d , th e o th e r o n e e n o rm o u s w ith fo u r th o u s a n d akge coins.
37 B ú z a 1992.
38 P á l ó c z i H o r v á t h 1993, 60.
G Y O Z O G E R O
T h e History of Ottoman-Turkish Archaeological Research in H ungary
As a discipline, archaeology in H u n g a ry can look back on a n o tew o rth y pást. R apid d ev e lo p m e n t o f th e archaeology o f R om án p erio d dates m ainly from the discovery o f th e P eter an d Paul Early C hristian b u rial vauit in Pécs in 1780,1 a n d from th e u n e a rth in g o f Ó b u d a ’s termae maiores.'1 T h e investigation o f preh isto ric relics started in the nine- te e n th century, in th e second h a lf o f which m ed ie
val archaeology, too, m ad e findings o f increasing im p o rtan ce. T h e publicatio n o f th e findings quick- ly b ro u g h t in te rn a tio n a l recognition an d renow n fór the early scholars o f archaeology in H ungary.
In the following I shall offer a survey o f the begin- nings an d grow th o f a fairly new field in H un g árián archaeology, nam ely the study o f the archaeology an d architecture o f the O ttom an éra. At the outset I should rem ark that fór m e “T urkish” and “Turkish- p erio d ” have two different m eanings. T h e archaeo
logical relics o f the H ungarian-inhabited regions at the time o f the Turkish occupation constitute an or- ganic part, as well as a continuation, o f laté medieval H ungárián culture, while the m aterial ap p earin g in Turkish-inhabited settlem ents an d differing from the H ung árián belongs to “Turkish archaeology”.
At first, in tere st was prim arily directed tow ards surviving buildings from this time; an d although artefacts w ere alsó collected, little attention was paid to them . In o th e r w ords, th e study o f this p eriod stem m ed largely from the archaeology o f buildings.
In the laté seventeenth cen tu ry Ják o b Tollius copied certain inscriptions in B uda’s M atthias C hurch - th en the Süleym an Cam i — an d in the cami at É rsekújvár (today: Nővé Zámky, Slovakia) . 3 L ater on, J. P. H am m er, the re n o w n ed n in eteen th -cen tu ry Turkologist, copied, translated an d published somé o f the T urkish, Arabic an d Persian inscriptions in the Sultan Süleym an Cam i at Szigetvár (these sur- vive in situ to this day) . 4 Mihály H aas published the Turkish an d Persian inscriptions fo u n d in Pécs d u r ing the reconstru ction o fth e ca th e d ral.5 T h e collect- ing o f ep ig rap hs, which was p erfo rm ed largely ou t o f interest only, was su p p o rte d by the A rchaeologi
cal C om m ittee at the H u n g á rián Academ y o f Scienc
es, an d thus took ro o t as an aspect o f archaeology in H ungary.
O tto m an arch itectu ra l rem ains, such as th e Vali
dé S ultana B aths in E ger6 an d th e Malkog Bey C am i in S iklós,7 a ro u se d th e in te re st o f Flóris Róm er, too, p ro m p tin g him to draw th em in his notebooks. At this p erio d , th en , m aterial was b eing collected in m any fields, alth o u g h research was still confm ed to th e collecting stage.
T h e second h a lf o f the n in e te e n th cen tu ry saw the start o f w idespread resto ratio n o f historical m o n u m en ts in H ungary, b ú t this d id n ő t m ean th e b eg in n in g o f research intő the archaeology o f b u ild ings. At this tim e research was less g o al-orien tated th an now an d did n ő t always e x te n d to th e discov
ery o f connections, in th e estab lish m ent o f which chance still played a significant p art. T urkish d e tails th a t cam e to ligh t (exam ples w ere those u n covered d u rin g th e re b u ild in g o f Pécs C athed ral a n d those in th e M atthias C h u rc h 8) w ere docu- m en ted , b ú t w ere n ő t p re se rv e d. 9
T h e tw en tieth c e n tu ry b ro u g h t a significant change; a series o f studies a p p e a re d describ ing the various T urkish details fo u n d d u rin g reco nstruc- tions, d em olitions a n d ea rth -m o v in g o p eratio ns.
O ttó Szőnyi p u b lish ed a m o n o g ra p h on the F erhád Pa§a B aths in Pécs, 10 based on th e excavation o f the m o n u m en t. Besides th e collecdon o f artefacts, sh o rt
e r studies w ere alsó pu blished , such as O ttó Szőnyi’s w ork on T u rkish fo u n tain (or wash-) basins11 an d Gyula G osztonyi’s d escrip tio n o f th e O ttom an-age aq u e d u c t in Pécs an d o f th e w ater p ipes in th e Pécs M u seum. 12
T h e n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry re co n stru ctio n o f the Royal Palace in B uda an d th e re b u ild in g o f Szent György té r in th e B u d a C astle D istrict13 offered excellent o p p o rtu n itie s fór th e collection o f a rte facts d a tin g back to th e O tto m an p erio d . T hese finds are now ho u sed in th e H u n g á riá n N ational M useum , an d have b een described an d discussed in variou s p ap ers.
' Fü l e p 1984, 3 6 -4 1 ; Go s z t o n y i 1939, 93.
2 N a g y 1942.
3 T o l l i u s 1700, 198.
4 H a m m e r 1844.
5 H a a s 1845, 3 7 7 -3 7 8 . 6 G e r ó 1972.
7 G e r ő 1983; R ó m er-jeg y ző k ö n y v ek [T h e R ó m er N otebooks]
35, 81. E n try fór 15 ju ly 1872. L ibrary o f th e N ational
A u th o rity fó r th e P ro tectio n o f H istorical M o n u m e n ts, inv.
no. 899/35.
8 C se m e g i 1955, 124, 111. 149, 126, 111. 36.
9 T h e in scrip tio n s in Pécs C a th e d ra l seen a n d re c o rd e d by Haas(1845) w ere d e stro y ed d u r in g th e re sto ra tio n w ork.
10 S z ó n y i 1928a.
11 S z ó n y i 1928b.
12 G o s z t o n y i 1941.
13 B á r á n y n é O b e r s c h a l l 1944.
T h e large-scale reco n stru ctio n activity a fte r the Second W orld W ar a n d the high n u m b e r o f m o n u m en t re sto ratio n s p ro v id ed am ple o p p o rtu n itie s fór archaeological excavations in g en e rál a n d fór th e archaeological investigation o f b u ild in g s in p ar- ticular. T h ese o p eratio n s now fo rm e d an in teg rá l p a rt o f local research ; at th e sam e tim e individual excavations a n d th e u n co v erin g o f individual b u ild ings w ere p re c e d e d by th o ro u g h a n d system atic historical a n d archival research.
T h e p ro liferatio n o f projects alsó m e a n t th a t H u n g á riá n archaeologists could now specialize in p a rtic u la r fields a n d periods. In this re g a rd the system atic u n co v e rin g a n d processin g o f “T u rk ish” relics from the T urk ish p e rio d in H u n g a ry was fully u n c h a rte d territo ry . In actual fact, it was this p erio d th a t saw the b irth o f “O ttom an-T urkish a r
chaeology” in H ungary. W ith re g a rd to th e a rc h a e ology o f b uildings, them es d eriv e d from the b u ild ings them selves, b ú t in th e case o f excavations th e com position o f th e m aterial reco v ered d e te rm in e d th e m ain d irec tio n o f fu rth e r study.
T h e 1950s saw m ajo r projects fór th e arc h a e o logical investigation o f e x ta n t O tto m an buildings.
T h e first such was at th e Yakovali H asan Pa§a Cam i in Pécs. 15 Below I should like briefly to review som é o f these m ajor projects, w ith out m aking claim s to com pleteness.
T h e excavation o f th e m edieval Royal Palace a n d th e associated fortifications in th e B u d a C astle District was b e g u n in th e laté 1940s.16 A lthough re search ers b ro u g h t to light an a b u n d a n c e o fT u r k ish artefacts, with re g a rd to th e rem ain s o f b u ild ings relatively little was found. T h e fortifications o f th e B u d a C astle D istrict w ere la te r again investigat-
14 G o s z t o n y i n . d . ; G e r ő 1 9 8 0 , 14.
15 G e r ő 1 9 8 0 , 5 4 - 5 8 . 16 G e r e v i c h 1 9 6 6 . 17 G e r ő , G y . 1 9 5 6 ; 1 9 6 3 a . 18 G e r ő 1 9 8 1 .
19 G e r ő 1 9 8 0 , 5 8 - 5 9 . 20 G e r ő 1 9 6 6 . 21 S z ó n y i 1 9 1 1 . 22 G e r ő 1 9 8 0 , 5 9 - 6 3 . 23 G e r ő 1 9 8 0 , 6 2 - 6 3 .
b u ild in g h a d b ee n tu rn é d in tő th e castle’s rid in g - hall afte r th e ex p u lsio n o f th e T urks. Szigetvár’s Ali Pa§a C am i, la te r tra n sfo rm e d in tő a p arish ch u rch , was alsó stu d ied . T h e so u th east wall o f this one- tim e cami was d em olish ed d u rin g th e 1912 re c o n stru ctio n o f th e b u ild in g a n d th e mihrab,_ th e niche facing Mecca, d estro y ed . O nly som é o f the ogee- arc h e d w indows w ere discovered at this tim e.21 T h e new excavations in th e laté 1960s22 b ro u g h t to ligh t o th e r re m a in s o f th e cami, in c lu d in g details o f th e vestibule, th u s clarifying a n u m b e r o f e a rlier as- su m p tio n s ab o u t th e m in a re t.23
Beside the camis, the fortress o f Szigetvár was alsó investigated in the early I960s. T his involved the exam ination o f n ő t only Zrínyi’s in n e r castle, b ú t alsó the tim ber fram ew ork an d th e wood-clad interio r o f the northw est bastion o f the O tto m an fortress.24 T h e so-called “K orán school” located in the Yeni§ehir, the O ttom an-age “New Town”, was alsó ex a m in e d.25 At- tem pts w ere m ade to locate the m ausoleum (türbe) o f Süleym an the M agnificent in the viliágé o f Turbék, n ear Szigetvár, b ú t w ithout success.
T h e investigation o f the Malkog Bey C am i in Siklós alsó re p re se n te d a significant ad v an ce.26 Sys
tem atic research w ork u n co v ered previously u n know n T urkish p arts o f Pécs’s F erhad Pa§a C am i in Pécs,27 as well as o f B u d a’s Toygun Pa§a Cam i, situat- ed in the C apu chin ch u rch o f the Víziváros (“W ater- Town”) q u a rte r.28 U ncovered in th e second m en tioned w ere th e rem ains o f th e kibla wall with a window, as well as details o f th e mihrab an d th e pulpit. A lthough th e Özigeli H aci Ib rah im Cami (later con verted intő a residential building) in the Víziváros q u a rte r o f Esztergom h ad already been stu d ied,29 new research th ere covered the entire site.30
24 K o v á t s 1966.
25 K o v á t s 1 9 6 9 -7 0 . 26 G e r ő 1983.
27 N é m e t h 1903, 4 -8 ; G e r ő 1980, 6 7 -6 8 . 28 G e r ő 1973; 1980, 67.
29 G e r ő 1965.
30 I w o u ld h e re like to th a n k Istv á n H o rv á th fó r his k in d o ral c o m m u n ica tio n ; cf. alsó Ho r v á t h, I. RéeFüz Ser. I. 23 (1970) 82.