"The True and Exact Dresses and Fashion" Archaeological Clothing Remains and their Social Contexts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Hungary 9781407305554, 9781407336121

Table of contents :
Blank Page
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest
Chapter 3 Peoples and Material Culture in the Archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period
Chapter 4 Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period
Chapter 5 Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary
Chapter 6 Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities
Chapter 7 Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries
Chapter 8 Experimenting with the context
Chapter 9 Conclusion
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR S2078 2010

Central European Series 5

“The True and Exact Dresses and Fashion” MÉRAI “THE TRUE AND EXACT DRESSES AND FASHION”

B A R

Archaeological Clothing Remains and their Social Contexts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Hungary Dóra Mérai

BAR International Series 2078 2010

Central European Series 5

“The True and Exact Dresses and Fashion” Archaeological Clothing Remains and their Social Contexts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Hungary Dóra Mérai

BAR International Series 2078 2010

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2078 Archaeolingua Central European Series 5 General Editor: Elisabeth Jerem “The True and Exact Dresses and Fashion” Archaeological Clothing Remains and their Social Contexts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Hungary © D Mérai, Archaeolingua Foundation and the Publisher 2010 by: János Jakucs. Reconstruction of hairpins based on finds from Carei – Bobáld. (The original objects are in Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare, Romania)

COVER IMAGE

Word processing, desktop editing and layout: Gábor Hingyi Copy editor: Réka Benczes The preparation of this publication was supported by NKA (National Research Fund) grant no. 2712/0208

The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407305554 paperback ISBN 9781407336121 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305554 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2010. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents

LIST OF ILLUSTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Ottoman victory over Hungary and the formation of the tripartite country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The administration of Hungary: merged into two empires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Chapter 2. HUNGARY AND ITS POPULATION IN THE PERIOD OF THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST . . . . . . . . . 15 Society in transformation: status, wealth, and religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Demographical changes in Hungary during the Ottoman Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Changes in the ethnic composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Chapter 3. PEOPLES AND MATERIAL CULTURE IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HUNGARY IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Chapter 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH OF BURIALS FROM THE CARPATHIAN BASIN IN THE OTTOMAN PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Crypts and burials in churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Churchyard cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Cemeteries of Balkan groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Chapter 5. SIXTEENTH- AND SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SOURCES OF COSTUME HISTORY IN HUNGARY . . 37 Costumes depicted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Writing about clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Chapter 6. APPROACHES TO OTTOMAN-PERIOD CEMETERIES IN HUNGARY ALONG THE LINES OF ETHNICITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Historical documents, archaeological record, and ethnicities Ethnic categories in written sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . Names and genes as ethnic markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnicity, religion, and the archaeological record . . . . . . Tracing migration through the archaeological record . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

46 46 47 48 49

Chapter 7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF CLOTHING AND THE PROBLEM OF ETHNICITY IN THE RESEARCH OF OTTOMAN-PERIOD CEMETERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 The aspect of ethnicity in the interpretation of the archaeological record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The problem of ethnicity and costumes in the archaeological research of late medieval Hungary . . . . . . . . Clothing, accessories and ethnicities in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin Bronze and iron hairpins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silver hairpins with large spherical heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clasps, buttons, and reconstructions of oriental garments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objects exclusive to cemeteries of the Balkan peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

51 52 55 58 59 65 66

Chapter 8. EXPERIMENTING WITH THE CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 From diamonds and pearls to glass and beads: ornamented hairpins As red as ruby: the female headgear called “párta” . . . . . . . . . The cut of female dress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoe heel plates of iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

69 71 73 77

Chapter 9. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Acknowledgements

This work was originally written as an MA thesis for the Department of Medieval Studies at Central European University, Budapest. Also, some ideas are based on my MA thesis defended at the Institute of Archaeology at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. I am especially grateful to József Laszlovszky, my supervisor in both cases, for all his encouragement and practical assistance, for directing me towards further questions, acquainting me with new approaches, and helping me with clarifying my ideas. I am greatly indebted for the support of the faculty members at the Department of Medieval Studies, CEU, especially Alice M. Choyke, Gerhard Jaritz, Balázs Nagy, Judith Rasson, and Katalin Szende, whom I could always turn to with my questions and who were always generous with their assistance, time and expertise. I also thank Gyöngyi Kovács and Matthew H. Johnson, the external readers of my MA thesis written at CEU, for their comments and constructive criticism. Responsibility, however, for the content of the following pages solely rests with the author. I thank Péter Levente Szőcs for the access of the unpublished material from Nagykároly (Carei) – Bobáld, which directed my interest towards the analysis of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burial finds. I respectfully thank the many young and senior Hungarian colleagues in the field of archaeology and art history who helped me with practical issues during the collection of the material. I owe gratitude to János Jakucs for drawing the maps and the cover illustration. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their continuous support and encouragement.

List of Illustrations

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23

Fig. 24

Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 30

“A Romanian from Transylvania, pondering.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Saxon Woman from Kronstadt (Braşov, Romania).” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hungarian Kingdom in the fifteenth century. (After Tóth ed. 2005: 170).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hungary divided into three parts in 1590. (After Tóth ed. 2005: 184).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of the archaeological sites referred in chapters 4 to 9. Prepared by the author. . . . . . . . . . . Glazed Turkish pottery from the fortress at Szolnok, 16th-17th c. Damjanich János Museum, Szolnok. (Kovács Gy. 2003: 258, fig. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slow-turned pottery from the Bátaszék palisade. Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd. (Pusztai 2003: 304, fig. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So-called Bosnian jug from the fortress of Kanizsa, 17th c. Thúry György Museum, Nagykanizsa. (Kovács Gy. 2003: 261, fig. 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grey jugs from Ónod castle. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Tomka 2003: 317, fig. 5). . . . . . Reconstruction of the design of Haban tiles from Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania). (Emődi 2003: 331, fig. 2).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objects from the treasure hoard found at Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania). (Mihalik 1906/a: 121). . . . Belt ornaments from the treasure hoard found at Denta (Romania). (Kövér 1897: 251, fig. XIV). . . . . . Ornaments from the Csenger crypt. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Höllrigl 1934: 102, fig. 80). Plan of trench S6B in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Field documentation. Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. . Photograph of trench S6A in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Field documentation. Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. . Plan of the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2003/b: 64, plate I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross sections of the graves in the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2008: 228, figs. 3–4). . . . . Finds from the Katymár cemetery. Türr István Museum, Baja. (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 86–87, plates XII–XIII). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View of Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania) from Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg, Civitates orbis terrarum (Cologne, 1572–1617). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Hungarian or Croatian nobleman” depicted in Cesare Vecellio, Degli habiti antichi e moderni di diverse parti del Mondo (Venice, 1590). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Hungarian peasant depicted in Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica (Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600). . . . Saxon costumes depicted in Laurentius Toppeltinus de Medgyes, Origines et occasus Transylvanorum seu erutae nationes Transsylvaniae... (Lyon, 1667). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Tzigane woman in her Sunday best.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Jew from Transylvania.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Portrait of Kristóf Thurzó, Count of Szepes and Sáros from 1611. Hungarian National Museum. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catafalque painting of Gáspár Illésházy from 1648. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sepulchral monument of György Sükösd (1632). National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj (originally in the Unitarian Church of Nagyteremi [Tirimia, Romania]). Photo by the author.. . . . . Sepulchral monument of Christian Haas, Saxon priest in Birthälm (Biertan, Romania), 1686. Biertan, Lutheran Churc. Photo by the author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variations of the positions of the arms in the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2008: 228, fig. 7). . Variations of the positions of the arms in the churchyard cemetery at Óföldeák. (Béres 2005: 300, fig. 4).. 7

. . . 11

. . . .

. . . .

. 11 . 16 . 17 . 22

. . . 23 . . . 24 . . . 24 . . . 24 . . . .

. . . .

. 25 . 27 . 28 . 29

. . . 30 . . . 31 . . . 33 . . . 33 . . . 34 . . . 37 . . . 38 . . . 38 . . . 39

. . . 39

. . . 40 . . . 40 . . . 41 . . . 41 . . . 42 . . . 48 . . . 49

Fig. 31

Fig. 32

Fig. 33 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 36 Fig. 37 Fig. 38 Fig. 39 Fig. 40 Fig. 41 Fig. 42 Fig. 43 Fig. 44 Fig. 45 Fig. 46 Fig. 47 Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Fig. 51 Fig. 52 Fig. 53 Fig. 54

Fig. 55

Fig. 56

Fig. 57 Fig. 58 Fig. 59 Fig. 60 Fig. 61 Fig. 62

Finds from the Cuman cemetery at Perkáta-Kőhalmi-dűlő: Gothic mounts, ring, and buckles; earrings of “Eastern European” style. Intercisa Museum, Dunaújváros. (Hatházi 2004: 195, plate 31, figs. 3, 4, and 10; 196, plate 32, figs. 3, 14, 15, and 17–20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Rác woman.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finds from the Southern Slav cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató. Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd. (Gaál 1980: 219, plate VII). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from grave 39 in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. Katona József Museum, Kecskemét. (Wicker 2008: 243, plate III). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins, iron clasps, and belt in grave 110 in the churchyard cemetery at Kide. (Kovalovszki 1986: 22, fig. 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins in grave 773 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. (Bárdos 1987: 20, fig. 28).. . . . . . . . . . The disposition of hairpins in graves 98 and 103 in the Southern Slav cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató. (Gaál 1980: 197, fig. 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pendant from the Southern Slav cemetery at Katymár. Türr István Museum, Baja. (Wicker 2008: 246, plate VI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania). (Cipăianu 1973: 654, plate I). . . Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania). (Cipăianu 1973: 656, plate III).. . Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Drégelypalánk. (Kövér 1892: 33). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objects from the treasure hoard found at Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania). Museum of Bistriţa (Romania). (Telcean 1976: 214, plate I, and 215, plate II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Tolna. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 229, fig. 6).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpin found in the castle of Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania). (Rusu 1998: 130, fig. 25). . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from grave 773 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. Museum of Somogy County, Kaposvár. (After Bárdos 1987: 49, plate 2 and 50, plate 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from grave 772 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. Museum of Somogy County, Kaposvár. (After Bárdos 1987: 49, plate 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpin from grave 4 at Balatonszőlős. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (László 1980: 120, fig. 12). Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia). (Ruttkay, 1997: fig. 8). . . . . Hairpins from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Saxon woman from Bistritz (Bistriţa, Romania).” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Saxon woman in winter clothing.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Saxon peasant woman.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of hairpins with large spherical head in Hungary. Prepared by the author. . . . . . . . . . . . . Portrait of Kata Thököly, wife of Ferenc Esterházy. 1691. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Tomaševac. (Kövér 1897: 247, plate 13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detail of the portrait of Borbála Wesselényi. Unknown master, 1662. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ornament (boglár) from a headgear from a burial at Boldva. (E. Nagy 1982: fig. 35). . . . . . . . . . . . . Flower motive made of garnet from the Csenger crypt. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Höllrigl 1934: 102, fig. 80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . 53

. . 54 . . 55 . . 56 . . 56 . . 57 . . 57 . . 57 . . . .

. 59 . 59 . 59 . 60

. . 61 . . 61 . . 62 . . 62 . . 62 . . 62 . . 62 . . 63 . . 63 . . 63 . . 63

. . 64

. . 64

. . 65 . . 66 . . 69 . . 70 . . 71 . . 72 . . 72

Fig. 63 Fig. 64 Fig. 65 Fig. 66 Fig. 67 Fig. 68 Fig. 69

Fig. 70

Fig. 71 Fig. 72 Fig. 73 Fig. 74 Fig. 75 Fig. 76

Fig. 77 Fig. 78 Fig. 79

Fig. 80 Fig. 81

Headgear (párta) from Tiszaörvény. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 158, fig. 1). . Ornaments (boglár) composed of rubies and red glass plates on the headgear from Tiszaörvény. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 159, fig. 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Headgear (párta) from Szada. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 160, fig. 3).. . . . . Ornaments (boglár) composed of red glass plates on the headgear from Szada. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 161, fig. 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Headgear (párta) from grave 1085 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. (Bárdos 1987: 59, plate 12, figs. 1–2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Hungarian peasant’s wife depicted in Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica (Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600). “A Hungarian countess.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “A Szekler maiden in gala dress.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gala dress of Katalin of Brandenburg. First half of the 17th century. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Ridovics ed. 2001: 23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clasps from the treasure hoard from Tolna. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 227, fig. 5).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corset from a burial at Boldva. Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest. (E. Nagy 1982: 65, fig. 40). . . . . . . “Hungarian corset” from the Sárospatak crypt. Rákóczi Museum of the Hungarian National Museum, Sárospatak. (V. Ember 1968: 170, fig. 109).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remains of the costume and headgear in grave 108/a in the churchyard cemetery at Kide (Romania). (Kovalovszki 1986: 21, fig. 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iron loops of the corset from grave 14 in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iron loops in grave 103 in the churchyard cemetery at Kide (Romania). (Kovalovszki 1986: 21, fig. 15). . . “Spanish corset” from the Sárospatak crypt. Rákóczi Museum of the Hungarian National Museum, Sárospatak. (V. Ember 1968: 162, fig. 99). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoe heel plate from grave 1 in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoe heel plates from the cemetery of Bácsalmás-Óalmás. Katona József Museum, Kecskemét. (Wicker 2008: 251: plate XI, figs. 11–12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shoe heel plates from the castle of Ozora. Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd. (Gere 2003: 216, plate 72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

. . 72 . . 72 . . 72 . . 72 . . 73 . . 74

. . 74

. . 74 . . 75 . . 75 . . 75 . . 75 . . 76

. . 76 . . 76 . . 76

. . 77 . . 77 . . 78

Chapter 1 Introduction

“The True and Exact Dresses and Fashions” are the opening words of the title of a costume book from seventeenthcentury Transylvania.1 Costume books, emerging from the cosmographic literature of Humanism, aimed to present the readership with the costume of peoples in various parts of the world – as the title of this album suggests – as they were in actual reality. When opening up a costume book, one could see how a “A Romanian from Transylvania” or “A Saxon Woman from Kronstadt” looked (Figs. 1 and. 2).2 Sometimes archaeologists expect to recover this sort of knowledge based on finds: to be able to present how well-defined groups of people looked, and where and how they lived. This is particularly tempting concerning an area where a number of historically known ethnic groups coexisted, and a period that was characterized by an intense migration of various groups of population, such as the period of the Ottoman Conquest in the Carpathian Basin.

In the first half of the sixteenth century the Ottoman Conquest destroyed the political system of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom, and after the fall of Buda (1541) the country was split into three parts. The central part of the Carpathian Basin was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire, the western and northern parts came under Habsburg administration, and Transylvania was formed as a separate principality under the guardianship of the Porte. Historical events influenced the layers of the society in the different parts of the three political units by rearranging the social and geographical positions of people. As a result of military events and political-administrative restructuring, individuals and groups changed their places of living; some regions became partly or completely depopulated and repopulated, while new groups also migrated to the area. Historical research of written documents has long served as the basis of the concept of the Ottoman Conquest as the arrival

Fig. 1. “A Romanian from Transylvania, pondering.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

Fig. 2. “A Saxon Woman from Kronstadt (Braşov, Romania).” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

The True and Exact Dresses and Fashions of All the Nations in Transylvania, London, British Library, Manuscript Collections, Add. MSS. 5256; published in Jankovics, R. Várkonyi, and Galavics 1990. 2 Kronstadt is the German name of Braşov, (Romania). 1

of diverse groups originating from geographically diverse areas also within the Ottoman military system, forming ethnically heterogeneous forces. As the archaeological research of 11

Introduction

inhabited sites dating from the period – towns, villages, fortifications – proceeded, the interest was directed towards the fields of interaction between local and immigrating civilian and military groups of different ethnic origins on both sides of the military frontier, which constituted the background of the formation of material culture. The research of cemeteries from the same period has, however, followed a path that is different in some respects. My research interest has been directed towards sixteenthand seventeenth-century cemetery sites through the analysis of a churchyard cemetery situated in Satu Mare County, in present-day Romania. The cemetery preserved the remains of the population of a former village called Bobáld, which was abandoned during the first two decades of the eighteenth century.3 Several trenches were opened, revealing parts of the cemetery, during the decades of archaeological research that focused on the significant bronze-age tell, the mount of which was used as a burial site in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.4 Though the existence of the settlement situated around the small hill has been testified since the first half of the fourteenth century by documents, which fact was supported by the results of the field survey as well, none of the excavated burials could be dated prior to the last quarter of the sixteenth century. A considerable amount of archival sources has survived from exactly the same period, listing the inhabitants by name and including information on their ethnic, legal, and financial status, all of which proved to be of high value when contextualizing the results of the excavations. The vast majority of the grave finds was constituted by garment accessories, and contemporary cemetery sites excavated in Hungary and Romania served as comparative material to the ensemble and the individual objects for the interpretation also in terms of the use of clothing and jewelry. The research history of the Bobáld site is a fine representation of contemporary burials in churchyard cemeteries in Hungary that, however, most often operated throughout the Middle Ages up to the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. In most of the churchyards only smaller or larger parts were unearthed, and most often the research was not actuated by a specific scientific interest, but it was conducted as a rescue excavation or as being related to monument protection. The picture that is possible to draw on the basis of the publications of the excavated churchyards appears to be very much fragmentary, determined by the difficulties pertaining to the research of such sites, and a specific interest in the burials of the latest chronological phase was rarely manifest. Another group of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burial sites, however, was characterized by a well-distinguished and separate history of research. While churchyard cemeteries have been excavated and published unsystematically, cemeteries of groups of people who migrated from the Balkans to the area of Hungary under the Ottoman rule have been studied more intensely. The so-called Southern Slav, Rác, or RácVlach cemeteries, as they are labeled in the literature, have stimulated considerable interest, resulting in a more elaborate literature than that on the contemporary burials in churchyard cemeteries – although the latter was used by a much larger segment of the population and was generally characteristic 3 4

of a broader area of the former Hungarian Kingdom. On the basis of written sources, cemeteries that were characterized by a lack of a church building were related to the peoples arriving from the Balkans to the conquest area, the analysis of whom had already been in the focus of documentary history for some time. The information on the origins of the population interred in the cemeteries, as provided by historical research, constituted the framework for the interpretation of the archaeological results and determined the questions formulated within. In addition, the analysis of the burial customs and the majority of the finds, consisting of remains of clothing, has focused on ethnic aspects in order to circumscribe a material culture and burial customs that were particular for the newcomers, and to apply finds in defining their ethnicity and places of origins within the Balkans, thus contributing to the historiography of the region. During the course of the analysis of the burials in the early modern churchyard at Bobáld, it appeared that some of the object types that had been defined as characteristic of the population of Balkan origins and thus attributed a role in the above endeavors, regularly appear in burial sites of other segments of the population as well, that is, in the churchyard cemeteries. Thus, confronting the archaeological remains and written sources referring to the population led to contradictions concerning the standard ethnic definitions of the objects. When interpreting the Bobáld finds, the results were similar with respect to social status. The social stratum to which the individuals interred there belonged was defined by the archival documents, but the actual archaeological evidence of clothing did not correspond to the picture one would have expected concerning that specific stratum. These apparent contradictions indicated that the sometime situation had been much more complex than it had been supposed on the basis of a singular source type that determined the formulation of the questions. The same results might be expected from a more general outlook on the remains of clothing from burial sites dated to the period in question, involving other source types such as settlement archaeology, treasure hoards, and a variety of historical documents and depictions. The present work does not wish to cover a comprehensive reconstruction or analysis of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century garments or to produce a complete inventory, typology and analysis of the grave finds. My aim is to take a look at how and within what framework the elements of costumes from Ottoman-period burials were interpreted by previous research, and to examine those considered as being specific for certain groups in a wider context of contemporary burial sites and in that of further archaeological ensembles relevant in this respect. Since the character of this wider context is very much dependent on the state of research, I will start with a brief and general overview of how the research history of various types of archaeological sites might influence the overall orientation of analysis. Written sources and depictions offer further information concerning various aspects of clothing that sometimes seem relevant for the interpretation of the archaeological evidence as well; the sense in which they can contribute, however, is highly dependent on the specific character and context of the sources that determines the view they present. As it will emerge from the inquiry concerning the presence of certain objects among the finds at different types of burial sites, some objects seem to be specific for the cemeteries of the

Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005; Mérai 2005; Mérai 2007. On the research of the prehistoric site, see Borovszky ed. 1910: 409; Németi and Roman 1994–95; Németi 1999: 167; Németi and Molnár 2002: 118–122.

12

Introduction

Balkan groups, while others characterize a wider segment of the population, and there are items that have exclusively turned up in churchyards. Looking for the underlying reasons is of equal interest in each case, in order to see what other aspects besides ethnic or geographical origins could contribute to the formation of clothing as reflected by the archaeological record. It is edifying in this respect to see how the problem of the related material culture, as accessible through the archaeological evidence to historically known groups of people, has been treated in international scholarship, and also how the archaeology of the Carpathian Basin have approached the problem when dealing with similar situations in different periods. Taking a closer look at the archaeological and various aspects of the social and cultural context of objects in individual cases,

and comparing it to other contexts within which similar items appear, might shed light on some of the reasons behind the patterning of the archaeological evidence. At the same time, archaeology can also modify and add to the picture of clothing in the past, that is, the way it was treated by contemporary peoples, and the ethnic, social, and cultural structures that produced it. I am aware that it would have been possible to bring in innumerable other instances besides the ones I have pointed out, some of which would have even contradicted my observations. I do not, however, aim at formulating generalizations, but wish more to experiment with questions that can be raised about archaeological remains of clothing from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Hungary, the answers to which might open up some new prospects for interpretation.

13

Chapter 2 Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

The Ottoman victory over Hungary and the formation of the tripartite country

Buda that was controlled by Szapolyai, which provided an opportunity for the Ottomans to come to the assistance of the defenders and take over the central fortification of Hungary. By capturing Buda, the central part of the Hungarian Kingdom fell into the hands of the Sultan. The campaign of 1543 that followed aimed at ensuring an Ottoman fortification system that would defend Buda, occupying a chain of castles (Pécs, Esztergom, Tata, Fehérvár, Visegrád, Nógrád, and Hatvan as the most important ones). John Sigismund kept the eastern territories beyond the river Tisza (the so-called Partium) and Transylvania, but was obliged to pay a yearly tribute to the Porte.8 With the western parts in the hands of Ferdinand, the territory of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom was divided into three parts. The partition was reinforced by a peace agreement between the Ottoman and the Habsburg empires in 1547. The formation of the borderlines was, however, a longer process that went on during the following decades. Attempts in the 1540s and 1550s to reunify the western and eastern parts in the hands of the Habsburg ruler all failed, and the 1552 campaign of the Porte resulted in an expansion of the border zone on behalf of the Ottoman territories.9 Following the last, 1566 campaign of Suleyman, a second peace accord was signed in Adrianople by Emperor Maximilian and Sultan Selim II, confirming the territorial division of Hungary (see Fig. 4). The Principality of Transylvania was legally formed in the 1570 Agreement of Speyer, according to which John Sigismund gave up the title of King of Hungary, and took that of the Prince of Transylvania and the Partium. The Principality maintained its independence until the end of the seventeenth century, ruled by a series of princes, who were elected by the diet, but could only be invested after they had received the approval of the Sultan.10 The three parts of the country governed by separate political powers were influenced by the Ottoman advancement in varying form and extent, directly or indirectly, and the manifestation of interactions across the frontiers were manifold and changing in time, according to regions and groups of the population, concerning a variety of spheres of life.

29 August 1526, the day of the Battle of Mohács, became a symbolic date in Hungarian history, signifying the loss of an independent kingdom (see Fig. 3).5 From that time on, for one and a half centuries, the fate of the country was dependent on two world empires: that of the Ottoman Sultan and the Habsburg Dynasty. Though the southern fortification system had successfully defended the country for more than a hundred years, in the third decade of the sixteenth century the forces of Sultan Suleyman proved to be unconquerable.6 As a result of the decisive victory of the Ottomans, not only did the bulk of the Hungarian nobility lose their life on the battlefield of Mohács, but so did Louis Jagiello, King of Hungary and Bohemia, who left no successor. The Habsburg dynasty established a claim to both thrones by right of earlier treaties of succession; the Hungarian nobility, however, wished to elect a king from their own nation, John Szapolyai, who was soon enthroned. Still in the same year the brother of Charles V, the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, Archduke Ferdinand of Habsburg obtained the support of a number of nobles. Ferdinand, with the assistance of military forces mobilized by the Habsburg Dynasty, destroyed Szapolyai’s army during the year 1527, and was finally acknowledged as king by the Hungarian nobility and crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary. In turn, Sultan Suleyman, being concerned about not yielding control over Hungary to the Habsburg Empire, recognized Szapolyai as the king. Relying on the support of the Porte, Szapolyai was able to regain much of his territories and power. The Ottoman conquest of Hungary in the Battle of Mohács did not, thus, cause the complete occupation of the Kingdom, but, along the general policy of the Porte, the country was to be placed under a ruler submitted to the Sultan. The following events of European politics, however, and Suleyman’s successive moves led John Szapolyai to modify his political approach.7 Subsequently, he was ready to enter into agreement with Ferdinand in order to protect Hungary from a complete occupation by the Ottomans, envisioning unification of both of their territories under Ferdinand’s rule following Szapolyai’s death. John Szapolyai’s views changed again radically when, in 1540, his son, John Sigismund was born; a few days later Szapolyai, lying on his deathbed, extracted the oath of the nobles that they would assure the throne for the newborn John Sigismund. Ferdinand, intending to implement the agreement, laid siege to the castle of

The administration of Hungary: merged into two empires The three political units had separate and differing administrative systems. The western and middle part of the country was included in and adjusted to the standards of the administration During the Middle Ages, Transylvania formed a separate territorial unit of the Hungarian Kingdom. From the middle of the fourteenth century onwards, a considerable part of its territory was divided into seven counties, governed by a voivode appointed by the king. The area called Partium consisted of those counties of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom (dominus partium regni Hungariae) that historically did not belong to Transylvania, but, after the tripartition of Hungary, were ordered under the rule of the Prince of Transylvania. The frontiers of this territory were modified according to the power relations between the Principality of Transylvania and Habsburg Hungary. 9 Szakály 1990: 85–86; Hegyi 2000/b: 163–168. 10 Barta 1994: 255–264; Pálffy 2000/a: 90–96; Tóth 2005/a: 191–197. 8

The “Mohács complex,” the consequences of the Battle of Mohács on the later history of Hungary has become a question under discussion in Hungarian historiography (In English: Perjés 1989: XI–XVI, “Foreword” by János M. Bak and XIX–XX, “Preface” by Géza Perjés). 6 On the events of the decades preceding the Battle of Mohács, see Fodor and Dávid 1994; Szakály 1994. 7 On these events, see Inalcik 2000: 67–68; Tóth 2005/a: 185–187; Perjés 1989: 83–155; Barta 1994: 247–255. On the political history of the period, see Sinkovics 1985; Tóth 2005/a: 185–205; Tóth 2005/b; Pálffy 2000/a: 9–118; Szakály 1990: 83–85. 5

15

Fig. 3. The Hungarian Kingdom in the fifteenth century. (After Tóth ed. 2005: 170).

Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

16

Fig. 4. Hungary divided into three parts in 1590. (After Tóth ed. 2005: 184).

Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

17

Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

The double taxation system exercised by the Hungarian Kingdom and the Ottoman Porte that affected the conquest area and nearby territories has been labeled as condominium in Hungarian historiography.16 As research on the economic history of the period has pointed out, double taxation did not result in a complete draining of the area: sources indicate a strengthening in agriculture during the 1570s, and Hungarian cattle export culminated in the 1580s.17

of two large empires. The political borderline between the spheres of interest of Habsburg Hungary and the Ottoman Empire was, however, continuously changing, according to the actual military situation. The Habsburg Emperor as the joint ruler of Habsburg Hungary and the Austrian and the Czech throne established his power by creating a centralized administrative system for all the provinces and countries belonging under the three crowns, and the office ensuring the adaptation of Hungary had already been set up by Ferdinand I. The emperor, being resident outside of the country, appointed a Lieutenant-Governor who fulfilled governmental and judicial functions. The Hungarian Treasury was responsible for all state revenues on behalf of the Hungarian Kingdom, but as a subordinate of the Court Treasury. Also, military affairs became centralized under the direction of the Military Court Council. The territories under Ottoman occupation were still considered to be owned by the Kingdom, and the occupation as being temporary and unlawful. It was a practice to levy state and even church income from the occupied territories as well, and the various forms of income were collected by offices subordinated to the Treasury that, in the conquest area, relied on the constraining military assistance of the local garrison troops. This was the way to also collect the manorial taxes by the landowners residing outside the borders in the estates that had fallen under Ottoman control.11 The centralized system of the two empires coexisted with the local administration of counties and towns inherited from the Late Middle Ages, which were units with the right of self-determination, and which did not give up exercising their rights. Royal free cities (civitas) were exempt from the authority of the counties; they were represented at the diet and had the privilege of electing their own leaders.12 Royal Hungary claimed rights over the area under Ottoman rule, but, at the same time, it was often not able to prevent Ottoman intervention in the life of the territories belonging to the Kingdom.13 The structure and operation of the Ottoman administrative system was suited to the military organization. The occupied territories were divided into provinces called vilayets as administrative units that functioned through smaller parts called sancaks, with beglerbeys and sancakbeys as their heads. The settlements of the occupied territory were surveyed by state tax collectors with regard to their tax-paying population. These registers, the defters, serve as important sources for the population of the occupied areas.14 Judicial and notarial tasks were supplied by the kadis, whose activity, through the supervision of matters related to the practice of crafts, trade, and religious life, could theoretically have been the field of direct influence on the population of the subjected areas. The level of interference within the life of the inhabitants varied, however, locally.15

Society in transformation: status, wealth, and religion The position of the peasantry varied according to their wealth and mobility. During the first half of the seventeenth century, relocation became forbidden to serfs in most places, except for those undertaking military service. State of war, however, meant an opportunity to escape and resettle with more favorable conditions, so landlords often agreed to peasants unburdening themselves from the obligations of serfdom by paying a certain sum. Differences in wealth within the peasantry increased during the seventeenth century. Many had some other form of income besides farming, such as craft, trading, or viticulture, so the size of the plot did not indicate a real financial status any longer.18 The possession of most members of the nobility did not exceed that of wealthy peasants, as many owned no more than one plot (nobiles unius sessionis), or had the title of a noble, but lived on a serf’s plot (armalistae). Their numbers increased in the second half of the 17th century, when border castle soldiers could advance into the ranks of the nobility, and well-off peasants had the opportunity to acquire the title by payment. Every member of the nobility shared the same privileges, as it was set down in the law collection of István Werbőczy in 1514. In practice however, nobles who possessed land with serfs did not have to pay tax, while those without serfs had to pay the tax for themselves. The leadership of the counties of the Hungarian kingdom was constituted of the land-owning nobility, and their council elected the representatives in the Hungarian diet.19 Noblemen whose estates were situated in the occupied areas of Hungary often moved their residence to towns, preserving their noble rights. The patrician families, the leading stratum of the towns, were willing to establish closer ties with them, which, together with rivalry and changing economic conditions, lead to a tendency of following the values and certain elements of lifestyle of the nobility among burghers.20 Market-towns (oppidum) were privileged settlements that remained under the authority of the landowner, but had the right to hold markets and fairs, and to elect their judge and the magistrate who collected the tax they owed to the landlord. Their inhabitants played an important role in agriculture also in the area under Ottoman occupation, especially by stock raising and trade directed towards the markets in Austria,

Szakály 1990: 90–91; Borsodi 2005: 274–277, 281–282 ; Pálffy 2000/a: 41–42. 12 Szakály 1990: 91; Borsodi 2005: 277–278. 13 Hegyi 2000/a: 90, 92. 14 Altogether seven vilayets were established in the territory of Hungary with the advance of the Ottoman occupation: 1541: Buda; 1552: Temesvár (Timişoara, Romania); 1598: Győr; 1596: Eger; 1600: Kanizsa and Várad (Oradea, Romania); 1663: Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky, Slovakia). (Pálffy 2000/a: 39). For a brief presentation of the Ottoman military system in Hungary, see Hegyi 1994. 15 Hegyi and Zimányi 1989: 106–120; Szakály 1990: 87; Ágoston 2005/a: 279–281; Pálffy 2000/a: 36–45. 11

Szakály 1981; Szakály 1990: 88–89; Ágoston 2000: 293–294; Hegyi 2000: 88, 90; Ágoston 2005/a: 281–282; in the context of the Ottoman Empire, see Ágoston 2003. 17 Ágoston 2000: 293–294. 18 Zimányi 1987: 27–38, 78–79, 104; on Transylvania: Péter 1994: 301– 302. 19 E. Kovács 2005: 153–154; Tóth 2005/b: 259–263; Borsodi 2005: 277– 278; Pálffy 2000/a: 148–154; For the Latin and English edition of the law collection of Werbőczy, see: Bak et al. ed. 2005. 20 Zimányi 1987: 57–58; Szakály 1990: 88; Kalmár 2005: 264–265; Pálffy 2000/a: 164–165. 16

18

Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

Transylvania the diet recognized four denominations, the socalled “four accepted – Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Unitarian – religions” of the Saxons and Hungarians, while Romanians belonged to the Orthodoxy. In Habsburg Hungary, a forceful re-Catholicization began following a conspiracy against the Habsburg monarch in 1670 that relied on the support of the Protestant lesser nobility, and from that time on the issue of freedom of worship was highly dependent on the actual balance of power.28 The ideas of Reformation spread in those territories also that were under Ottoman occupation. Though Christianity as a whole was tolerated in the Ottoman Empire, local Turkish commanders decided on matters of religion. In general, Protestants enjoyed more trust than Catholics, who were represented by the state power of the Ottomans’ main enemy in the region. Catholic bishops were not able to fulfill their duties in the occupied area, so the Pope sent apostolic visitors and appointed missionary bishops to take care of the faithful, in which the mendicant orders also played an important role.29

the South German towns, and Italy. This gave a chance for the so-called cives, “peasant-burghers,” and also members of the nobility who chose to take advantage of the integration of Hungary into the European economic development, to accumulate considerable riches. At the same time, cheap products – textile, metal implements, spices, small wares – imported from the western countries did not favor the improvement of local crafts still operating within the frames of guilds.21 In the Principality of Transylvania the three privileged layers of the society, the three “nations” represented in the diet, were the land-owning nobility – the most powerful of whom, due to his overwhelmingly large estates, was the Prince of Transylvania –, the Saxons, and the Szeklers.22 The privileges of Szeklers inhabiting the south-eastern border of Transylvania were guaranteed by virtue of their military service, which determined their medieval social order based on equality.23 The process of their diversification started in the fifteenth century, and was furthered by the new circumstances created by the establishment of the Principality, though their privileges were confirmed by the actual princes who counted on their military support.24 Although Romanians in the Transylvanian Principality were not part of the “three nations,” those advancing to the ranks of the nobility, such as members of other ethnic groups – Germans, Slavs – ascending similarly in Royal Hungary and Transylvania, were completely integrated regardless of their ethnic background.25 Wealthy Saxon towns in the Principality of Transylvania were lead by the richest patricians, craftsmen, and merchants.26 They were supplied with agricultural products by the peasants of surrounding villages possessing Saxon privileges. All members of the Saxon nation shared the same rights, but Saxon peasants were subject to the administration of urban patricians. The highest organ of their nation was the Saxon University (Universitas Saxonum), constituted by the elected representatives of the Saxon autonomous units (sedes Saxonum). Besides electing their own leaders, Saxons were also granted the right of paying the state tax in one amount; they preserved their medieval privileges in the Principality as well.27 The theses of Martin Luther found adherents among the German-speaking population of Transylvania, Buda, and the towns of Upper Hungary. Protestant denominations started to diverge in Hungary from the mid-sixteenth century onwards; their church organization developed in parallel. While Germans adopted the Lutheran faith, Calvinism, supported by members of the nobility, spread rapidly among Hungarians, and some remained adherents of the Catholic confession. In

Demographical changes in Hungary during the Ottoman Period The availability of demographical sources varies concerning the political units of Ottoman-period Hungary. The most informative sources related to taxation do not provide a comprehensive picture, as their character depends on the fiscal system, which was different in all three areas adjusted to the practice of the reigning power of the territory. Royal tax registers cover about one-third of the territory of the country, reckoning peasant portae, while from 1598 houses were considered as taxation units. Fiscal source types available for Transylvania are similar, though of a different quality of evidence due to the differing administration. Similar data on the counties under Ottoman rule are missing; demographic research of the area can rely on the defters compiled by the Ottoman administration, which are more reliable for the sixteenth century, but were less precisely managed during the seventeenth century. 30 The long-lasting state of war in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries caused significant changes in the structure of the society and the settlements in Hungary. Due to large-scale immigration, there was a slow increase in the population, but it still fell behind the average growth and population density in Western Europe.31 The degree and the character of the demographical changes varied according to areas and periods in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The territories that were not affected by the conquest witnessed an increase in

Zimányi 1987: 17–27, 43–55, 75–76, 93–94; Péter 1990: 106–107; Pálffy 2000/a: 119–125, 129–139. On livestock breeding and trade, see Makkai 1971; Blanchard 1986; Bartosiewicz 1995; Lyublyanovics 2008: 95–98. 22 Makkai 1994: 221–223; Péter 1994: 333–338. 23 Szeklers are a Hungarian-speaking group that were treated in medieval sources as being distinct from the Hungarians, but, nevertheless, closely related to them. Their origin and the time of their entering the Carpathian Basin have been debated in the scholarship. (Makkai 2001: 414–420). 24 Pálffy 2000/a: 109–115; Barta 1994: 282–285; Barta 2001: 708–716; Péter 1994: 335–336; Péter 2001: 166–171; Oborni 2005: 266–268. 25 Péter 1994: 338; Ágoston 2005/b: 253–254. 26 The settling and organization of the Saxons in certain areas of Transylvania took place during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. (Makkai 2001: 420– 428; Makkai 1994: 180–184). 27 Péter 2002: 171–176; Makkai 1994: 233–235; Péter 1994: 336–338; Oborni 2005: 266–267. 21

Barta 2001: 664–675; Péter 2004; Evans 1985; Murdock 2000; Horn 2005; Barta 1994: 287–293; Tóth 2005/c: 222–230; Tóth 2005/d. After the expulsion of the Ottomans from Hungary and the consolidation of the Habsburg rule, a restricting law was issued and, as a consequence, the majority of the population converted to Catholicism by the end of the 18th century. 29 Tóth 2005/d: 243–248. On Reformation in the occupied territories, see Szakály 1995. 30 On the character of the sources concerning the three parts of the country and the problems of interpretation, see Kubinyi 1997; Zimányi 1987: 12– 13; Zimányi 1997: 193–196; Dávid 1997: 141–145; Oborni 1997; Dávid 2007: 136–141, 169–173; Hegyi 2002. For an overview of research, see Dávid and Fodor 2002: 332–337. 31 Dávid 1997: 151, 171; Dávid 2007: 141–148; Zimányi 1987: 9–13; Zimányi 1997: 194; Pálffy 2001:121. 28

19

Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

population numbers by reproduction and immigration. Climatic changes also contributed to a restructuring of cultivated areas and marshlands, and thus to an inland migration process.32 The number of inhabitants of war-stricken territories basically stagnated, but behind the numeric data there was a significant ethnic recomposition.33 Migration was less intensive before the long war, that is, the Fifteen Years’ War (1591/1593–1606), which broke out after two decades of relative peace. There were areas temporarily depopulated by incursions and fights, the population of which returned in more peaceful times. At the beginning of the 1590s Sultan Murat III declared war on Emperor Rudolph, with the long-term goal of capturing Vienna and the occupation of the remaining, western part of Hungary. At the same time, the Emperor hoped to drive out the Ottomans from Europe. Fifteen years of devastation, however, lead to no significant changes in the territorial boundaries. The systematic campaigns in the 1590s, as well as the famine and plague that followed, demolished the system of settlements and depopulated the directly affected areas.34 Hungarians inhabiting the midlands of the country suffered the greatest losses caused by the Ottoman occupation. Often nearly the entire Hungarian population fled from settlements that became administrative or military centers of the Ottoman Empire.35

Bodrog, Torontál, Csongrád, and Békés counties, and in the southern part of Transylvania.41 The first coherent wave of South Slavic immigrants arrived in Bács and Bodrog counties from the Szerémség area in the 1520s, pushed by the advancing Ottoman forces after the fall of Belgrade and Mohács.42 Following the Ottoman advancement of the 1540–1550s, further groups arrived in Pozsega, Baranya, Tolna, Somogy, and Fejér counties. They included not only Orthodox Serbs, but also Catholic Bosnians, Croats, and an ethnic group from the north Balkans, also of Orthodox Christian confession, called Oláh, Eflak, or Vlachus in the sources.43 At the turn of the sixteenth and in the seventeenth century, peoples coming from Herzegovina and Dalmatia through Bosnia, called in later sources Sokác and Bunyevác, settled in Bács.44 The population south of the line along the towns of Mohács, Szeged, and Arad (Romania) was replaced by newcomers from Balkan ethnic groups, and by the middle of the seventeenth century the southern area of Transdanubia also had a South Slavic population.45 The change in the inhabitants of the conquest area was characterized by a continuous migration: a high percentage of the immigrants moved on within a short time, replaced by new groups, especially the destitute ones.46 They often settled down in deserted settlements or in those the original population of which decreased. Families of mixed ethnicities and religions evolved.47 Serbs, as troops of light cavalry in the royal forces, settled in Győr in the 1520–30s. Boatmen from the lower part of the Danube served in the river fleet headquartered in Komárom. After the sieges of the 1590s, Miklós Pálffy supplied the devastated Transdanubian areas with Rác population moved from the southern counties by force.48 An area inhabited partially by Catholic Croats was formed at the western confines of Hungary, as Croat noblemen fleeing to Hungary settled the population of their southern estates on their properties in the Hungarian Kingdom.49 Most members of the Ottoman military and administrative system residing in Hungary had Balkan origins; they came from all over the peninsula: Bosnia, Macedonia, and Serbia, as is shown by written documents, and by cultural impacts.

Changes in the ethnic composition The Ottoman advance, as early as the fifteenth century, had its first influence on the southern parts of the country: Croatia, Slavonia,36 and the region of Szerémség (Srijem, Srem; see Fig. 3).37 At that time the ethno-linguistic boundary ran along the Drave River, with a Slavic-speaking population to the south.38 After the Ottoman conquest of Serbia in 1459, Serbs took refuge in the Hungarian Kingdom and played an important role in organizing the defense of the southern borderland, forming troops of light cavalry.39 In the second half of the fifteenth century, Valkó and Szerém counties already had Serb populations. A significant number of them lived in Temes County, replacing the Hungarian inhabitants who gradually escaped regular fights with the Ottomans;40 scattered groups of South Slavs could be found in Bács, On climatic changes in the Carpathian Basin during the Early Modern Age, see Zimányi 1987: 10; Tóth 1999: 156–157; Rácz 1999; Rácz 2001; Rácz 2003. On Transylvania, see Péter 1994: 301–303. 33 The proportion of Hungarians within the population of the kingdom before the battle of Mohács has been evaluated as 80%. By the third part of the sixteenth century about 60% were Hungarian, which fell to 50% after the reconquest. (Dávid 1997: 168, 169, 171; Pálffy 2001: 123–124). 34 See Zimányi 1987: 14–17, 75; Péter 1990: 100–102; Pálffy 2000/a: 45– 50; Pálffy 2001: 116–118, 119; Ágoston 2002: 103–107; Dávid 2007: 159–169. 35 Dávid 1997: 155; Pálffy 2000/a: 172–173; on the Ottoman military and provincial administration, see Ágoston 2002: 91–101. 36 The western part of the area between the Drave and Sava rivers and along the Sava in the Middle Ages. 37 The region of Szerémség (Srijem, Srem) is the eastern part of the area between the Drave and Sava rivers. Its name came from that of the Classical Roman town, Sirmium. 38 Blazovich 1997: 117. 39 Pálffy 2000/a: 174. 40 The Temes area was finally occupied in 1552. Most of the Hungarian population moved away and a chain of settlements of South Slav (or Rasci as they were labeled on a map from 1577) came into existence via a slow and continuous process. Pálffy 2000/a: 175–176; Blazovich 1997: 121; Pálffy 2001: 122; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 334–341. 32

Pálffy 2000/a: 175; Blazovich 1997: 118–119. Blazovich 1997: 118. For Bács county, see Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 304–305. 43 Zimányi 1987: 16–17; Pálffy 2000/a: 177–178; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 353. 44 Pálffy 2000/a: 177–178; Makkai 1985/a; Makkai 1985/b; Pálffy 2001: 122; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 353–354. Both Bunyevác and Sokác peoples were Croats of Roman Catholic faith, Bunyevác originating from Herzegovina, Sokác from Dalmatia (Bárth 1995: 17). From the eighteenth century onwards, other Croat groups in Hungary were also labeled as Sokác. (Sokcsevits 1998: 114–115). 45 Ágoston and Oborni 2000: 181. 46 Dávid 1997: 165. 47 Dávid 1997: 154–155, 168; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1. 262. 48 Pálffy 2000/a: 176–177. The adjective Rác as it has been used in sources and secondary literature covers either Greek Orthodox Serbs or various ethnic groups of Balkan origins. In the following I will discuss in detail the problem of the meaning of such terms implying ethnicities. On the development and structure of the defense system, see Pálffy 2002: 111– 135; Pálffy 2000/b: 3–69. 49 Pálffy 2000/a: 182–186; Pálffy 2001: 123; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 321–334. 41 42

20

Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

The number of those coming from the eastern parts of the empire was low. Many of them also originated from the Balkans, and were ordered to serve in the Anatolian garrisons.50 Sources on the garrison troops in the Buda vilayet are among those few lists that indicate their origins. The analysis has demonstrated that most of the soldiers came from the Balkans. They were mostly Bosnians, but Serbs and Vlachs were also present among them. As far as their religion is concerned, they converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Islam, but the number of Christians in Ottoman service gradually increased during the seventeenth century.51 Towns occupied by the Ottoman forces and turned to administrative, military, religious, and cultural centers of the conquest area housed a wide variety of ethnicities among the troops and civilian inhabitants: besides soldiers and serfs of the above origins, there were also Gypsies, Jews, Hungarians, and Ragusans.52 Besides the garrison troops, the Ottoman defensive system also relied on the Balkan soldier peasants who settled down in the conquest area. These peasants were granted privileges in exchange for military service.53 Concerning the ethnicity of these Balkan peoples arriving to Hungary both through the Ottoman military system and as “civilian” immigrants, historical research has concluded that in most cases the sources at disposal do not allow a precise identification of ethnicity among Slavic peoples and Vlachs.54 Romanians inhabiting Maramureş and the highlands of the western and southern parts of Transylvania gradually moved towards the lowlands and mixed with the Hungarian population of the estates. From the fifteenth century on they formed more and more agricultural villages; their settlement was organized by heads of the communities, called kenéz in the sources. In the second half of the sixteenth century a more intensive immigration started from Wallachia and Moldavia. Romanians mostly remained adherents of the Orthodox confession, though from the mid-sixteenth century onwards Reformed denominations also found followers.55

Northern territories inhabited by Slovaks were not affected directly by the wars. Slovaks started to move into the northern part of the Hungarian plain after the Fifteen Years’ War. Orthodox Ruthenians entered the northeastern counties; other groups came from the northeast, labelled as Vlach in the sources, who were a mixed Ruthenian, Slovak, and Polish population dealing with stock-breeding.56 German burghers played an important role in the development of towns in Hungary from the age of the Árpadian kings.57 Buda, Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania), the western towns of Pozsony (Bratislava, Slovakia) and Sopron, and the towns of Upper Hungary had a significant number of Germans even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although in the seventeenth century part of the population of the conquered area moved into the Upper Hungarian towns and the Germans became a minority in many places. A decrease in the intensity of migration of German burghers to Hungary as a continuous reinforcement to the inhabitants of towns contributed to this process.58 Germans living in the Saxon lands of Transylvania formed a privileged group even in the seventeenth century.59 The role of the so-called “Greek merchants,” originating from all over the Balkans under Ottoman occupation and often from Ragusa, settling down also in the towns of Transylvania and Hungary, became significant in the external trade of the period.60 Though the expulsion of the Ottomans from Hungary has been associated with the celebrated victory of the recapturing Buda in 1686, it was a longer process that took about one and a half decades. The reconquering fights, the plague (like elsewhere in Europe), and finally a major epidemic in 1709 and devastations during the anti-Habsburg war of independence lead by Ferenc Rákóczi brought further decrease in the population. The eighteenth-century repopulation of the devastated areas with Serb, German, Romanian, and Slovak settlers resulted in a further significant ethnic and social rearrangement. 61

Hegyi 2003: 23–32; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 239, 252–253. On the number and structuring of military forces in conquered Hungary, see Ágoston 2000: 290–292. 51 Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 269, 355–356. 52 Ágoston 2005/c. 53 Hegyi and Zimányi 1989: 68–69; Hegyi 2007: 315. 54 Dávid 1997: 168–169; Hegyi 2007: vol 1. 285–286, 301–302. 55 Barta 2001: 699–708; Péter 2002: 176–181; Barta 1994: 281–282; Péter 1994: 338–339. On the demographic sources for Transylvania and the results, with further bibliography, see Oborni 1997: 187–192; Pálffy 2001: 123. 50

Pálffy 2000/a: 179–180; Makkai 1985/c. Besides Germans and Hungarians, other ethnicities, such as Jews, Italians, Walloons, and Slavs constituted the population of medieval towns. (Fügedi 1986 (1974): 471–507; Végh 2009; Szende 2009). 58 Zimányi 1987: 16, 57; Ágoston and Oborni 2000: 179; on the towns in the sixteenth century, see Zimányi 1985: 353–383. 59 Draskóczy 1997: 125–140; Draskóczy 2007; Pálffy 2000/a: 183. 60 Bur 1985; Gecsényi 1998; Pakucs 2004; Niţu 2005; Pakucs-Willkocks 2007. 61 Wellmann 1985. 56 57

21

Fig. 5. Location of the archaeological sites referred in chapters 4 to 9. Prepared by the author. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Almakerék (Malîncrav, Romania) Alsórajk Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania) Babócsa-Bolhó Bácsalmás Bajót Balatonszárszó Balatonszőlős Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) Barcarozsnyó (Rişnov, Romania) Báta Bátaszék Battonya Bodrogmonostorszeg (Bački Monoštor, Serbia) Boldva Csenger Damóc Debrecen Denta (Romania) Dombóvár Drégelypalánk Dubovac (Serbia) Eger Egervár Esztergom Feldebrő Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás Fonyód

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Fülek Gernyeszeg (Gorneşti, Romania) Győr Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania) Gyula-Fövenyes Ják Kanizsa Kaposvár Kaszaper Katymár Kecskemét Keszthely Kide (Chidea, Romania) Kőszeg Küküllővár (Cetatea de Baltă, Romania) Lászlófalva Losonc (Lučenec, Slovakia) Madaras Magyarcsanád-Bökénymindszent Mélykút Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania) Miskolc Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania) Nagykároly – Bobald (Carei, Romania) Nagylózs Nagyteremi (Tirimia, Romania) 22

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

Óföldeák Ónod Ozora Regéc Ritopek (Serbia) Sárospatak Szada Szent János-Elefánt (Horné Lefantovce, Slovakia) Szentendre Szolnok Tiszanána-Ónána Tiszaörvény Tolna Tomaševac (Serbia) Tunyog Vác Várad (Oradea, Romania) Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia) Zombor (Sombor, Serbia)

Chapter 3 Peoples and Material Culture in the Archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period

Distinguishing the remains of a culture imported by an ethnically different group of a different religion formed the focus of interest from the very beginning in the study of the Ottoman Period in Hungary.62 The remains of the Muslim religion and Ottoman Turkish architecture offered the most conspicuous contrasts with the local traditions; the first antiquarian collection of epigraphic remains was already established at the end of the seventeenth century. Besides epigraphy, Ottoman buildings caught the eye of nineteenth-century scholars. In the second half of the century reconstructions of medieval edifices revealed several fragments of Ottoman-Turkish architecture, but according to the practice of monument protection in the period they were not conserved after their documentation. Systematic research on Ottoman architecture has been characteristic of the twentieth century, and large-scale reconstructions after World War II were executed following excavations combined with the thorough investigation of written and pictorial sources. Apart from religious architecture, town houses, baths, and fortifications were also studied; thus, both the Ottoman military presence in Hungary and its manifestations in “everyday” life got into the focus of research through material remains.63 Art historical analysis has revealed strong ties of “Turkish” architecture in Hungary to similar monuments in the Balkans, which corresponded to the network of personal relationships of the commissioners coming from the Ottoman military and administrative system.64 The fortification palisades both on the Ottoman and Hungarian sides of the frontier defense system have been in the center of research mostly since the 1980s, providing important data on the lifestyle of the local representatives of the military forces and their interactions with the hinterland and the population of the nearby territories.65 These excavations also meant an important shift in our knowledge about the material culture of the Ottoman period in Hungary. The most spectacular and valuable artifacts preserved in collections – oriental textiles, leather, and metal objects (vessels, weapons, jewelry) – have also been in the focus of attention for a long time.66 Written documents attest that Turkish artifacts of high value, like carpets, embroidery, weaponry, and items of horse tack were possessed by highstatus noble families in both Transylvania and Hungary, most often purchased or received as presents as a result of diplomatic contacts, or acquired as parts of dowries, legacies, and ransoms.67 The interaction was manifest also on similar objects produced for the same social sphere: Turkish forms

Fig. 6. Glazed Turkish pottery from the fortress at Szolnok, 16th-17th c. Damjanich János Museum, Szolnok. (Kovács Gy. 2003: 258, fig. 1). of weaponry and textiles were imitated by local craftsmen.68 Archaeological finds and their interpretation – such as pottery and other ceramic artifacts including pipes, stove tiles, and coppersmith’s work – gave insight into a different sphere of material culture and other levels of interactions. The increasing number of pottery assemblages led to distinguishing three basic groups beside the relatively small number of oriental and Western imported pottery items:69 glazed “Turkish” ware (Fig. 6), Hungarian ware, and a group of slow-turned pottery including the so-called “Bosnian” ware. This latter type has been identified as the heritage of groups of people arriving from different parts of the Balkan together with the Ottoman troops (Figs. 7 and 8). The interpretation of the relation between pottery types and ethnic groups has been much more refined than the terms suggest.70 The attribution of the slow-turned ware to the peoples of Balkan origin has been based on the comparison of the spatial distribution of the finds

On the development of academic studies on the material culture of the Ottoman period, see Laszlovszky and Rasson 2003: especially 377, 381 and 382; Gerelyes 2005/b. 63 The history of the research on Ottoman architecture does not pertain closely to the topic of the present study. For further literature, see Gerő 1980 and Gerő 2003. 64 Gerő 2003. 65 Kovács and Vándor 2003; Hatházi 2003 with further references. 66 See, e.g., Fehér 1975. On less valuable coppersmiths’ work, see, e.g., Fehér 1968; Gaál 1983; Gaál 1991. For an overview, see Gerelyes 2005/b. 67 See Pásztor 2005 with references to the relevant literature. 62

Palotay 1940; S. Kovács 2005; Tompos 2005. For a similar phenomenon concerning ornamented tiles, see below. 69 On imported ornamental oriental ceramics, see Kovács, Gy. 2005.; Gerelyes 1994. On imported Western ware, see, e.g., Kovács, Gy. 2002. 70 See, e.g., Kovács, Gy. 1991: especially 172–174. 68

23

Peoples and Material Culture in the Archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period

Fig. 7. Slow-turned pottery from the Bátaszék palisade. Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd. (Pusztai 2003: 304, fig. 1).

Fig. 9. Grey jugs from Ónod castle. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Tomka 2003: 317, fig. 5). to the survival of medieval Hungarian slow-turned pottery up to the sixteenth century in the area in question and the impact that the neighboring settlements might have had on the composition of the assemblage of material culture in the fortifications.72 Tamás Pusztai, comparing the pottery finds of fortifications, emphasized the dominance of the local products of nearby Hungarian villages, which resulted in regional differences in the composition of the earthenware assemblages available for archaeological research.73 The types of ceramic labeled “Turkish ware” also reached Hungary through intervention from the Balkans, and the forms, distribution, and composition of assemblages in which it appears, combined with historical data referring to individual sites, has provided a multicolored and complex image of the ethnic and social interactions of the producers and users.74 Pottery of oriental origin appears also among the finds of fortifications that were continuously under the control of Hungarian forces. A possible explanation is that they were adopted together with some Turkish alimentary customs, as Gábor Tomka has suggested about finjans and coffee consumption.75 Concerning other vessel types, it has been assumed that Hungarian potters on the Great Hungarian Plain made gray ceramics fired in a reducing atmosphere that followed the form and technology of Balkan ware (Fig. 9).76

Fig. 8. So-called Bosnian jug from the fortress of Kanizsa, 17th c. Thúry György Museum, Nagykanizsa. (Kovács Gy. 2003: 261, fig. 4).

Kovács, Gy. 1984: 13; Kovács, Gy. 2003: 260–261; Pusztai 2003, comparing the data from the payrolls with the patterns in the composition of the pottery. Further, see Kovács, Gy. 1991: 172–173; Kovács, Gy. 1998: 168. 73 Pusztai 2003. 74 Kovács, Gy. 1984: 18–44; Gerelyes 1985/a; Gerelyes 1987: 171, 175, 177; Gerelyes 1990: 272–284. 75 Tomka 2003: 312. On the customs of coffee and tobacco consumption as treated on the basis of historical sources, see Tóth 1999: 185–187. 76 Tomka 2002: 313–314. On Ottoman and Balkan impacts on the Hungarian potters’ craft, see Kovács, Gy. 1991: 174; Kovács, Gy. 1984: 38–40. 72

– Turkish castles and forts of southern Transdanubia – and the data of written sources about the ethnicity of the population in these areas.71 However, Gyöngyi Kovács has called attention 71

The most representative historical sources on the problem are the payrolls that indicate the name and – in many cases – the origins of the Ottoman soldiers. They have been extensively studied by Klára Hegyi. See, e.g., Hegyi 2003; Hegyi 2007.

24

Peoples and Material Culture in the Archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period

This phenomenon indicates the emergence of regionalism and a sort of specialization and market orientation in the Hungarian potter’s craft. The widespread trade covering large areas is attested by written sources and increasing amounts of archaeological data.77 Such an example is provided by pots produced in Gömör County in Northern Hungary, which were spread out through trade both in the area under Ottoman occupation and in Habsburg Hungary. Analysis of artifacts testify a continuity in material culture in spite of the political changes: eighteenth-century pottery types inherited the forms of the above mentioned Ottoman-period types of earthenware, and objects characteristic of the Balkans remained in use due to trade relations that did not cease with the drawing back of the Ottoman Empire.78 The problem of ornamental tiles found in the castles of Sárospatak, Regéc,79 and Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania) proved to be a similarly complex issue. According to written sources, the decoration of the “tiled room” of György Rákóczi I, Prince of Transylvania at Sárospatak, was produced in Istanbul, and the same provenance was suggested by the chemical analysis of the material. However, the motifs indicate a knowledge of Western pattern books.80 The questions that emerged on the origins of the master of the tiles, the place of production, and the provenance of the motifs did not yield a clear-cut answer; scholars do not have a single standpoint on whether the tiles were made in an Istanbul workshop, by a Turkish master who came to Hungary,81 or by Hungarians following Turkish patterns.82 Such complex issues as ethnicity, workshop traditions, representative functions, and trade have been involved in the explanations. The tiles found in the Gyulafehérvár palace of the prince of Transylvania, commissioned by Prince Gábor Bethlen, raised further problems: copies made by Haban masters probably substituted for damaged pieces of the originals, the provenance of which is still debated (Fig. 10).83 A recent study investigated the emergence of Oriental elements in Hungarian attire, resulting from the multilayered interactions with Ottomans in the trade of textiles, embroidery and the cut of garments, and the representative role of Hungarian costumes on depictions. The author concluded that the issue is far too complex to say when Hungarian costume was transformed by Oriental influences; simultaneous influences from the East and the West led to gradual changes.84

As can be seen in the examples above, the problem of ethnicity has been manifest in research on Ottoman-period material culture in all its complexity for considerable time: scholars had to deal with the presence of different cultural traditions represented by the Hungarian, Turkish, Balkan, and Western groups of population that were present in the area. The archaeological interpretation did not tend towards making rigid distinctions so as to be able to connect elements of material culture to ethnicities, but research has been directed towards investigating the manifold interactions on different social levels, in various geographical regions, and in various contexts. Scholarly traditions in the research of cemeteries from the period took, however, a different form, in which the interpretation of clothing and burial customs along the lines of ethnicity played a determining role.

Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the design of Haban tiles from Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania). (Emődi 2003: 331, fig. 2).

Kovács, Gy. 2003: 261–262; Lázár 1986: 46–47. Lajkó 2003; Kovács, Gy. 2003. 79 Simon 2005; J. Dankó 2005. 80 Papp 2005: 45–47. 81 Gervers-Molnár 2005: 41–42. 82 Simon 2005: 33; Gerelyes 2005: 8–9. 83 Emődi 2003. Habans were a group of Anabaptists settled in Transylvania, they produced high-quality multicolor glazed pottery. 84 Tompos 2005. 77 78

25

Chapter 4 Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Although the most significant group of archaeological finds related to burials are the remains of costumes, there are factors inherent in the nature of archaeological record and research that confine the possibilities of interpretation along the history of costumes.85 Some limiting factors concern the relation of the archaeological record to the entirety of the former material culture. The deceased were dressed up in garments selected for the special occasion of internment. Thus, the clothing items that were placed into the grave represent the burial costumes, and can serve as the basis of drawing conclusions only on those, as opposed to the “everyday” clothing of individuals. The context of the ritual and the role of clothing in dealing with death should be taken into account as an interpretational framework. A major group of questions concerns the “taphonomy” of finds and archaeological sites, that is, what has survived of those that were buried in the graves. Clothing items made of textile and leather – even dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – are rarely known from the archaeological context in Hungary. The possibility to reconstruct the tailoring has been mostly confined to crypt findings, due to the specific environmental conditions. Expectations of the archaeologist excavating burials in cemeteries should not extend beyond

the accessories made of inorganic materials; apart from rare exceptions, the only organic fabric that might surface are pieces of textiles conserved by interwoven metal threads or those in connection with metal accessories. The aims and possibilities of the archaeological research are further limiting factors. Large-scale developments in the last two decades brought a significant increase in the number of excavations in Hungary, but in parallel, the opportunities to conduct a research based on purely scholarly interests have become sparse.86 This has consequences for the quantity and character of the archaeological record available for interpretation: certain types of sites are more often within the scope of development-lead excavations, while others, as for example churchyards, rarely. The last phase of the research process is making the results available for further analysis, which is largely influenced by two factors: 1) the institutional background, determining the temporal and economic conditions of the research; 2) the quantity and quality of the results of the fieldwork and the personal ambitions of the excavator. In the following I will summarize the present stage of research of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burials in Hungary with a special emphasis on the above issues. I will

Fig. 11. Objects from the treasure hoard found at Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania). (Mihalik 1906/a: 121). 85

On the relation between archaeological record, archaeological research and historical reality of everyday life, see Hundsbichler 1997: 50.

86

27

Jankovich B. and Nagy 2004: 19–20; Bozóki-Ernyey 2007: 112.

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

It is necessary to add two further types of archaeological contexts that often provide information on clothing, and which I do not treat in detail. Elements of garments are found in excavated settlements as discards, and traces of their production also turn up, in the form of raw materials, tools, and waste. Valuable accessories made of precious metals were hidden in treasure hoards (see Figs. 11 and 12). According to the dating of the coins, the number of deposits increased especially in the periods of military campaigns. Treasure hoards do not provide information about how, when, and by whom the objects were worn, as it is only in exceptional cases that the owner is known, and the jewelry appears in a context different from the “everyday” use. It is not known either whether these accumulated pieces were worn by the owner every day under normal circumstances, or only at special occasions, or were not worn at all. Pictorial and written sources can help only in reconstructing the general use of the items, but that might have been different in a specific context. Even though most of the hoards contain coins, it does not make the dating of the objects less problematic, as the hidden values were often accumulated for generations. Hoards, however, can be interpreted as topographical data for the spread of certain types of jewelry. They suggest their contemporary evaluation, too, as the pieces the hoards contained were considered to be worthy enough to be included among the most precious properties of the owner.87 Fig. 12. Belt ornaments from the treasure hoard found at Denta (Romania). (Kövér 1897: 251, fig. XIV).

Crypts and burials in churches Crypts have attracted considerable interest for a long time, thanks to the spectacular objects owned by the relatively wealthy layers of society – nobility and burghers – and which were generally preserved in a fairly good condition. What makes the research even more exciting is that it is often possible to identify the deceased person, whose name had been preserved by the sources. The earliest data on an “excavated” crypt dates back to the eighteenth century: in 1778, the Bethlens, one of the most prominent Hungarian noble families, opened up the seventeenth-century sepulcher of the related Apafi family in Almakerék (Mălîncrav, Romania), and unearthed the remains while renovating the burial chapel. The objects found in the grave of the Transylvanian nobleman and his family have been lost since then, but a list has survived, which contains the following items: a broken sword with a gilded hilt, the mounts from its suspension belt, gilded silver coffin nails, a golden bouquet ornamented with precious stones, remains of textile worked with gold and silver, gold and silver clasps and rings. 88 This sort of inquiry in the following century still meant unearthing finds without documenting them and their context. The collection of the Hungarian National Museum has preserved a number of such objects, like the golden and silver jewelry from Losonc (Lučenec, Slovakia)89 and a piece of seventeenth-century headgear decorated with metal and silk flowers with pearls from the crypt of the former Pauliner church at Szent János-Elefánt (Horné Lefantovce, Slovakia)

describe the archaeological sources of garments with regard to the specific research problems that have emerged in Hungarian archaeology and which have significant consequences on scholarly interpretation. For this reason I have distinguished three groups of burial sites: 1) crypts and burials within churches; 2) churchyards; and 3) the so-called South Slav or Balkan cemeteries. My first two categories, that is, crypts and churchyard cemeteries, denote specific structures and spatial positions, which bear a direct relation to the religion of the deceased, as the burial place is assigned by the church. Furthermore, as it is commonplace that the church itself was considered as the most valuable location to be interred, the spatial position of the burial and the built structures have conspicuous social and economic associations. The third group, the Balkan cemeteries of the Ottoman period, which has become the focus of research in the last few decades, have been distinguished on the basis of descriptive characteristics, and their distinctness has been interpreted along the lines of ethnicity, by relying on historical sources. Thus, their general presentation as a source group cannot be separated from a review of their historiography. Temporal dimensions also vary when taking into consideration the three types of burial sites. Crypts were most often intended to house the remains of members of a distinct group, and were in use on a limited number of occasions. Most churchyard cemeteries were used continuously from the Middle Ages; however, there are some examples that were established during the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. The earliest graves in the South Slav cemeteries date back to the sixteenth century, and in a number of cases members of the population were still buried at the same site in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well.

On the numismatic interpretation of treasure hoards in Ottoman-period Hungary, see V. Székely 2003; on the jewelry contained in treasure hoards, see Gerelyes 1999: 41–48. 88 18–19 November 1778. Kovács, A. 2003: 632–633. 89 H. Kolba 1970. 87

28

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

that was cleared out in 1894.90 During the demolishing of the medieval church of Tunyog in Szatmár County in 1900, a local eye-witness recorded that she saw about two hundred skeletons in the crypt, some of them still ornamented with “green silk shreds of garment” (probably the remains of textile interwoven with metal wire thus preserved) and headgear decorated with pearls.91 The crypt of the church at Küküllővár (Cetatea de Baltă, Romania) was opened up in 1897. They found three female burials from the sixteenth century, all of which could be identified with historically known members of noble families: Zsófia Patóchy, wife of György Bebek; Zsófia Kendy, wife of Menyhért Bogáthy; and Judit Bebek, wife of Ferenc Kendy. The find material was rich in precious metal jewelry: it contained ninety-five golden costume ornaments, a gold buckle, a ring, and a collar.92 In 1908, the opening of the crypt of the church in Gernyeszeg (Gorneşti, Romania) was a systematic archaeological excavation, which was preceded by a thorough investigation of the historical documents. The archaeologist unearthed and identified the sepulchers of the seventeenth-century Transylvanian aristocrat, Mihály Teleki; his wife, Judit Weér; and one of their daughters. He found textile remains of the silk cushion on which the head of the females rested and of a head kerchief and corset, a textile belt, metal laces, a headgear decorated with pearls, and jewelry (golden earrings and rings). The male burial contained only corded buttons and buttonholes.93 The same archeologist, Béla Pósta, published and accurately analyzed thirty-nine graves that he excavated in the cathedral of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania), a traditional burial site for the Transylvanian princes and nobility. Nine coffins he unearthed in the southern aisle were not buried in a crypt, but in separate graves. The findings included armor and weapons, soles of footwear, thongs, remains of a silk cushion, and assorted female and male garments, such as veils, bonnets, and silver buttons. In the northern aisle, graves of a female, a male, and two infants were unearthed, in which similar pieces of garments had been preserved, as well as weaponry and the full set of armor placed on the coffin of the deceased. This latter find is an exceptional archaeological evidence for the early modern funeral service of noblemen, the so-called tropheum.94 Eighteenth-century burials in the crypts under the aisles were possible to identify by name, and they had concealed complete female costumes. Béla Pósta was able to establish a relatively precise chronology of the burials based on the finds in the sixteenth- to eighteenth-century graves. A series of articles of clothing from the remains could be reconstructed, with the still visible original patterns and colors of textiles. The publication is outstanding both for the significant finds and for its high-quality interpretation.95 Béla Pósta also investigated the burial of György Sükösd in the protestant church of Nagyteremi (Tirimia, Romania), which had originally been situated under one of the few figural tombs of nobles preserved from seventeenth-century Transylvania (see Fig. 27). He only found two golden rings

Fig. 13. Ornaments from the Csenger crypt. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Höllrigl 1934: 102, fig. 80). and the silver nails with which the black fabric was fixed on the coffin during the burial service.96 Research on the crypt in the protestant church in Csenger transpired less fortunately than the Transylvanian cases. Only in 1931 were the finds taken to the Hungarian National Museum. József Höllrigl, the archaeologist who visited the site in the following year, was no longer able to distinguish the remains of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burials, which had already been disturbed by that time. He found pieces of lace and clothes, amulets, coins, sabers, and fragments of tombstones, but only the items of golden and silver jewelry have been published (more than seventy items, and several fragments; see Fig. 13). Höllrigl tried to reconstruct the original composition of the ornaments using similar pieces as analogies that had been preserved in collections.97 Since the 1940s several excavations of burials of noblemen and burghers have been conducted inside churches, followed by the restoration and historical analysis of the garments. The analysis has focused on the female headgear from the burials of the patron family Viczay in the medieval church at Nagylózs.98 Further graves were found outside, on the southern side of the church, which have been interpreted as the remains of members of other local noble families from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To cite some more examples, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century male and female costumes, footwear, and headgear have been reconstructed from the crypts of the parish church at Sárospatak99 and the

Höllrigl 1934: 109. Luby 2002: 11. 92 Szádeczky 1897: 286–290, 293–295; Bunta 1977: 223–239. 93 Pósta 1913. 94 On the tropheum, see Szabó 1986: 115–123. 95 Pósta 1918. 90

Kelemen 1977: 174. Höllrigl 1934. 98 Mojzsis 1984. 99 V. Ember 1968; on written sources and tombstones, see Gervers-Molnár 1983.

91

96 97

29

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Fig. 14. Plan of trench S6B in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Field documentation. Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. Churchyard cemeteries

eighteenth-century items of the German burghers of Eger buried in Rosalie Chapel.100 Excavation of crypts that were used in the eighteenth century have a particular significance regarding costume history; it is often possible to reconstruct clothing items and accurately observe burial customs. One of the most spectacular archaeological investigations of crypts in the last few decades has been conducted in the Dominican church at Vác, which had been the burial place of burghers, monks, and the clergy. More than two hundred and sixty coffins were brought to surface, containing conserved bodies and completely preserved textiles thanks to the special climate of the crypt, which made it possible to study both the outerwear and the underclothes.101

Researching cemeteries – especially churchyard cemeteries – is a field of medieval and early modern archaeology that raises peculiar problems.102 Most of the churchyard cemeteries in Hungary were in continuous use from the Árpádian age up to the eighteenth century, when new regulations were introduced by the Habsburg administration, according to which it was not allowed to bury the dead within the inhabited area of the settlements. Despite the regulation, some churchyards continued to be in use even up to the nineteenth century. In areas that were characterized by significant village desertion, due to the fact that they were under Ottoman rule for a long period or belonged to the military border zone, burials in the cemeteries ceased in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,

V. Ember 1957; V. Ember, 1961. Costumes from churchyard cemeteries have also been reconstructed, e.g., from Debrecen (V. Szathmári 1991; Erdei 2003). 101 Zomborka and Ráduly 1996; Zomborka and Ráduly 2000. 100

102

30

These problems in Hungarian research were considered by Ágnes Ritoók (Ritoók 1997). The same issue was brought up by László Révész in the foreword to the conference on medieval cemeteries at the Hungarian National Museum in 2003. (Ritoók and Simonyi, ed. 2005: 8).

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

life. These sites were populated until the Ottoman conquest, but, searching for ethnographic analogies, he demonstrated that some of the sixteenth-century types of objects survived in the area in the following centuries as well.106 As they appear in the publications of the last half century, burials have often been considered as additional data for the reconstruction of the building history, that is, as sources for the chronology of churches. Thus, research of churchyard cemeteries has been dominated by architectural interests. Sometimes this has meant hundreds of graves that needed to be unearthed inside and outside the church, such as the Franciscan Church in Kecskemét.107 However, in many cases only a few burials were dealt with, as for instance in the case of the medieval church of BalatonszĘlĘs, where eight late medieval graves were unearthed in the sanctuary and nine early modern burials in the nave.108 Neither does the academic approach determine those rescue excavations where the site is uncovered accidentally, thanks to some sort of construction project during which significant portions of soil get to be moved; this is how most of the early modern cemeteries are discovered. It always depends on the construction project which part of the cemetery is unearthed. There are cases when a considerable number of graves is concerned, as in the case of the churchyard of Tiszanána-Ónána, where eighty-six early modern graves were excavated thanks to dam construction on the river Tisza.109 As a special result of large-scale development-lead excavations, 765 graves have been recently unearthed at Balatonszárszó in a churchyard dating from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century.110 If just a small part of the site is planned to be destroyed, development-lead research covers a smaller area of the cemetery. Such an instance is Egervár, where a road in the process of construction cut through the slope of the hill, where the church and the cemetery of the early modern settlement were situated. About thirty or forty graves had already been disturbed by the time the archaeologist was informed, and he was only able to excavate and document twenty-six burials.111 Often only a few burials turn up during earthworks or purely out of accident, and the only thing the archaeologist can do is to localize the site, document the graves, and take the finds to the museum. For instance, a collapsing bluff of loess in Báta brought to surface the walls of a medieval church and two graves. Though there were no excavations, the archaeologist was able to identify the site with a church already known from written sources.112 Another mound with a cemetery was disturbed by a sand borrow pit at Damóc, and several finds from early modern burials were taken to the local museum, among which, according to the short report, there must have been some significant pieces.113 There are many similar cases; however, due to the methodological, temporal, and economic confines, few medieval cemeteries in Hungary have been excavated completely. One of the rare examples is a churchyard cemetery in Kaposvár, where, although a third of the cemetery had

Fig. 15. Photograph of trench S6A in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Field documentation. Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente SzĘcs.

at the same time when the settlements were depopulated. The technical aspect of the excavation is complex in many cases due to the great number of overlapping graves (see Figs. 14 and 15). Moreover, in Hungary it is extremely rare that a cemetery is unearthed for its own sake, for research purposes, and it is even more exceptional when the research exceeds the opening of some trenches, and the whole site is excavated.103 There were a few early exceptions, however, such as the excavation of the cemetery of Kide (Chidea, Romania) that operated between the twelfth and the nineteenth centuries. This cemetery furnished the basic experience that enabled archaeologist István Méri to establish those methods of excavating churchyards which are influential for Hungarian archaeologists even today.104 In his report he emphasized that he considered the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century burials as the most significant ones from the point of view of costume history.105 Kálmán Szabó excavated and analyzed cemeteries on the Great Hungarian Plain as sources of medieval peasant 103

In the volume summarizing the stage of archaeology in Hungary at the turn of the Millenium that covers all the historical periods and types of archaeological sites only one paragraph was dedicated to the churchyard cemeteries within the chapter on medieval archaeology, fitted under the subtitle “Village Churches” (Visy and Nagy ed. 2003: 386), though this suggests a situation that is much worse that the reality. 104 Méri 1986. 105 The complete documentation of István Méri has been published by Júlia Kovalovszki (Kovalovszki 1986).

106

Szabó 1938. Biczó 1976. 108 László 1980. 109 Parádi 1995. 110 Belényesi, Marton, and Oros 2002. 111 Fehér 1957. 112 The name of the site is Báta-RégitemetĘ-völgy (Gaál 1978). 113 J. Dankó 1975. 107

31

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

already been destroyed, 1,244 graves were unearthed, dated between the eleventh and eighteenth centuries.114 The publication and the analysis of churchyard sites have brought further problems along with them. Most of the results are introduced to researchers through the yearly issue of short archaeological reports of all the excavations done in the given period.115 Before electronic databases, there was no possibility to publish the often more than a hundred or thousand graves, even in the more detailed studies. Thus, only a selection of the results has been made available for further analysis or as comparative material: those graves that had been considered to be important or interesting for some reason by the excavator. These difficulties characterize seventeenth- and eighteenth-century burials even more: the latest graves are often mentioned in the publications without any illustrations; the studies in most cases concentrate on the age of the Árpádian kings (eleventh-thirteenth centuries) as the earliest period of the site. The dating of the early modern objects and graves is not well distinguished, and the information that is provided in the publication is not sufficient to decide whether a burial comes from the sixteenth or the eighteenth century. However, because this period was usually the last phase of those cemeteries that had been in use for several centuries, the number of graves that were not disturbed by later burials is much higher than those from the earlier periods. There are only a few churchyard cemeteries unearthed and published that date solely from the early modern age; the reason for this phenomenon might be the problematic appreciation of such archaeological research.116 This ambiguity – why to excavate seventeenth-century cemeteries when such a high number of written sources is available for the period – became manifest at the conference on medieval churchyards, which was organized by the Hungarian National Museum in 2003. However, the conference contributed great significance to not just the medieval, but to the early modern cemeteries as well.117 Several wholly or partially excavated cemeteries were published or re-published, and a whole chapter appeared on the late medieval and the early modern era. Some questions arose on methodology and interpretation, too; apparently the excavation and analysis of cemeteries cannot be neglected any longer as a field of archaeology of the early modern period, which itself has come to the foreground in Hungary during the last few decades.

no church or any other feature on the surface that would indicate the burials, usually many of the graves had already been disturbed by the time the archeologist was informed. However, the analysis and publication is less complicated because the number of the graves is generally smaller than in churchyards; the complex superpositions are absent, and the features date more or less to the same period. Thus, the publications are more detailed, with descriptions and drawings of a high number of the graves. The earliest archaeological interpretation relating archaeological records to South Slav ethnicity in Hungary was reported by Kálmán Gubicza in the early twentieth century. In the vicinity of the remains of a medieval church at Bodrogmonostorszeg (Bački Monoštor, Serbia), he unearthed some graves that he dated to the period of the Ottoman conquest, and related to the ethnicity called Sokác, a group of Croats.118 At the turn of the nineteenth century, there was still a Sokác population living in the area, who identified themselves as the descendants of the groups that had immigrated three hundred years before. It was this local historical tradition involving a sense of ethnic continuity and the general historical knowledge on early modern migrations towards the area that served as the basis of ethnic identification of the burials. Gubicza regarded the graves as interesting in studying the folk costume of the Sokác people.119 The finds from the cemetery are difficult to study nowadays, as they have been moved without documenting their context and were mixed up with a treasure hoard that had turned up nearby.120 Although such fragments of cemeteries had already been excavated in the 1940s and 1950s, they remained unpublished at that time. József Korek published the results of his excavation at Zombor (Sombor, Serbia) written in 1944 almost half a century later.121 He dated the cemetery to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and found that the composition of the finds is different from that of other sites in Hungary originating from the same period. In his report following the excavation, which remained in manuscript form, but was referred to by the physical anthropologist analyzing the skeletal remains of the burials, he wrote about the mixed Hungarian, German, and Serb population of the settlement and assumed that their archaeological remains could not be distinguished.122 According to his analysis, however, which was published in the form of an article, he related the arrival of the population found in the cemetery to the great settling actions of the Serbs, and identified their ethnicity as Slav, Bunyevác. Because the text of the study was composed in the forties, he added a paragraph on the occasion of publishing it, in which he still insisted on his former opinion that the cemetery belonged to a Southern Slav ethnic group called Sokác.123 As comparative material, he referred to a cemetery unearthed at Dombóvár that had been published since his own fieldwork and which was defined as belonging to the Vlach ethnic group.

Cemeteries of Balkan groups At the same conference another group of Ottoman-period cemeteries was treated: burials of those ethnic groups in Hungary that had arrived from the South, together with the conquering Ottomans. Some of the methodological difficulties that have been mentioned in connection with the churchyards come up in such cases as well. Most of the so-called South Slav or Balkan cemeteries have been unearthed during rescue excavations, so other aspects than the scientific interest have determined the extent of the area investigated. As there is

Gubicza 1902. Gubicza 1902: 7; Wicker 2008: 11, footnote 5 presents the content of the unpublished documentation of Gubicza. 120 Korek 1994: 189–190 and plates IV–V; Wicker 2008: 12. 121 Korek 1992. 122 The report of József Korek was cited by the anthropologist László Bartucz (Bartucz 1960). 123 Korek 1994: 197–198. Both Bunyevác and Sokác were groups of Croats, arriving at the end of the seventeenth century. 118

Bárdos 1987. 115 Régészeti Füzetek (Archaeological Booklets), which was published annually in Budapest by the Hungarian National Museum between 1958 and 2001. Since 2001, the title has been Régészeti Kutatások (Archaeological Research in Hungary). 116 Such examples are the cemeteries at Egervár (Fehér 1957); Bobáld (Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005); Poroszló (Szabó, J. Gy. 1979). 117 Ritoók and Simonyi ed. 2005. 114

119

32

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Fig. 16. Plan of the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2003/b: 64, plate I). Attila Gaál regarded the Zombor cemetery as the closest analogy concerning the composition of the finds, when publishing his interpretation of the burial site at DombóvárBékató.124 He assumed that certain pieces of the costumes that he found had never been recovered before in the cemeteries of Hungarian ethnicity, and he found ethnographic parallels for the burial customs among the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Southern Slav population of Baranya County.125 He identified the population of the cemetery with that of the former village Békató, which belonged to the ethnic group called Eflák or Vlach according to the written sources, and he dated the cemetery to the period from the second half of the sixteenth century up to the 1680s. The fact that he had not found any traces of a church and that the graves were arranged parallel without any superposition made him presume that the buried were not even Christian, but Muslim.126 Kinga Éry, the author of the physical anthropological analysis of the remains, referred to these assumptions, and she found the closest anthropological parallels among the Vlach population of the territory of present-day Albania, Crna Gora, and the northwestern part of Greece.127 Although she expressed her methodological doubts concerning the comparison of an early modern and a twentieth-century population,128 her results on the origins of the group have taken root in the Hungarian literature as a reference point, together with the conclusions of Attila Gaál concerning the relation between the finds belonging to the garments on the one hand and ethnicity on the other. In the 1980s burials were unearthed in an area of the town of Győr, which was called “Rác” cemetery in a historical

document dating from 1598. The four coins found in the graves support this dating, as they were minted in the midsixteenth century. The archaeologist suggested that the site was probably the cemetery of the South Slavic military forces (and their families) stationed in the town. The ethnic identification was supported by the local tradition that in 1913 a wooden cross was still found there on the surface with Cyrillic texts, as the last remains of the cemetery.129 The cemetery of Győr was cited as the closest analogy for the composition of the finds at a site excavated in Esztergom; this is one of the reasons why the archaeologist raised that the burials could have been those of a Serb group.130 The author was uncertain about ethnic identification due to the historical events in the area and the lack of direct written sources that could be related to the burials,131 and neither did the physical anthropological analysis attempt to identify the skeletal

Fig. 17. Cross sections of the graves in the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2008: 228, figs. 3–4).

Gaál 1980; Gaál 2003. Gaál 1980: 171. The author refers to the study by György Sarosácz (Sarosácz 1968). 126 Gaál 2003: 230. 127 Éry 1980. 128 Éry 1980: 247. 124 125

Mithay 1985: 196–197. Lázár 1999/a; Lázár 2003. Excavated by Alajos Bálint (1959), Piroska Biczó and Sarolta Lázár (1988). 131 Lázár 1999/a: 316–317; Lázár 2003: 235–236. 129 130

33

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Fig. 18. Finds from the Katymár cemetery. Türr István Museum, Baja. (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 86–87, plates XII–XIII). remains with historically known ethnic groups.132 Despite the doubts of the authors however, the ethnic identification of the burials found its way in later secondary literature, and the site was unambiguously included among South Slav cemeteries in Hungary.133 Graves unearthed in Szentendre have been defined as Serb on the basis of topography, as the site lied close to that of the Greek Catholic church. Due to the lack of dating finds, even the chronological definition of the burials relied on ethnic identification: it was suggested that the group interred there probably belonged to the first generation of Serbs, who settled down around 1690.134 Erika Wicker took up the question of South Slav cemeteries in Hungary when she started to excavate the cemetery of Bácsalmás-Óalmás that she dated to the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.135 She compiled a set of criteria on the basis of Bácsalmás that she defined as the characteristic

features of South Slav cemeteries, among which the research of Bácsalmás produced by far the highest number of burials, 480 graves. According to these criteria, in the cemeteries of a South Slavic population, there were no church buildings, and the graves were excavated in one layer, without over-burials (there are only a few exceptions within the sites) (Fig. 16). Most often the orientation of the grave pits is Southwest– Northeast or West–East; in some cases it is Northwest– Southeast. Graves have a characteristic shape with sidewall niches carved for placing the body, or the bottom of the grave is deepened in the middle to serve as a coffin-like bed for the corpse that had been rolled in a sheet (Fig. 17). In the Bácsalmás cemetery Erika Wicker was able to observe that after placing the dead in the above-mentioned delve, it was covered with boughs, and the grave pit was then refilled. Thus, in the overall cemetery only a small number of coffins was used. The arms of the deceased were bent to the waist or to the shoulder; generally, a great variety of arm positions could be observed (see Fig. 29). She indicated also the body of finds observed at Bácsalmás as being characteristic of cemeteries of South Slavic peoples in the region.136

Tánczos 1993. Wicker 2001: 152; Wicker 2003/a: 229; Wicker 2005/b: 21–22; Wicker 2008: 14. 134 Rosner 1967. 135 Wicker 1999; Wicker 2001; Wicker 2002; Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008. 132 133

136

34

Wicker 2008: 14–15.

Archaeological Research of Burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Together with one of the former excavators, she also published and interpreted the cemetery of Katymár that had been unearthed fifty years before.137 The site was related to South Slavs, as no traces of a church had been found, and the graves were situated in one layer, oriented West–East. Also, the characteristic forms of the graves, the broad variety of arm positions, and the composition of the body of finds showed great similarity to those observed in the Bácsalmás cemetery (Fig. 18). Erika Wicker extended the circle of South Slav cemeteries with a number of unpublished sites where no church was documented, and the criteria defined on the basis of Bácsalmás emerged.138 It is possible, however, that a church was not found because only a small detail of the site had been researched, as correctly put down by the author.139 Though there were cases where no finds could serve as the basis of dating, the

population of Balkan origins, settling down in the nearby villages, was mentioned by historical sources, and none of the site observations have contradicted the connection drawn between them. The most recent archaeological research of a cemetery about which a South Slavic ethnic identification has been suggested is that of Fonyód - Bézseny in Transdanubia.140 The complete cemetery, that is, 350 graves were excavated, and no remains suggesting the existence of a church were found. The only layer of graves was arranged in regular lines; the burials were characterized by a broad variety of arm positions, and the skeletal remains show the consequences of military events. Based on these characteristics and the grave forms, it is presumed that the cemetery was used by a Balkan group of decisively Muslim religion.

Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002. Wicker 2005/b; Wicker 2008: 14–18. 139 Wicker 2008: 15. 137 138

140

35

Gallina 2004.

Chapter 5 Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

The aim of the present study is to offer some perspectives on the interpretation of the archaeological record related to garments. As, however, the period in question is marked by a relative abundance of written and pictorial evidence which have been widely treated in the literature, it seems necessary to provide a brief survey on the characteristics of various source types with respect to their applicability to interpreting the archaeological record. The way early surveys on the history of costumes in Hungary referred to images and documentary sources followed a more traditional approach.141 A number of art historical studies treating the symbolic role of garments in specific genres have provided essential information to the criticism of sources for the reconstruction of the former “real” costumes.142 A recent study investigated the emergence of Oriental elements in the attire of Hungarian nobility, considering the role of Hungarian costumes in prestige representation on local and Western European depictions.143 Ethnographers dealing with costume history have also developed a critical approach to depictions

of peasantry from the sixteenth- and eighteenth-century Carpathian Basin as source material.144 Pictorial and historical documents attest the way garments were produced and worn in the Ottoman conquest period, which would seem plausible to be used when relating the archaeological record to certain social, ethnic, age, and gender groups of the former society. The peculiarities of genres with depictions and mentions of costumes must, however, be kept in mind. They often present an ideal picture, relating concepts of bad and good morals with clothing, or showing individual situations that for various reasons might not display the same patterning as archaeological evidence reveals in individual cases. Costumes depicted The question of to what extent images can be considered as authentic sources for costume history has been widely discussed in the related international scholarly literature.145

Fig. 19. View of Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania) from Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg, Civitates orbis terrarum (Cologne, 1572–1617). Cserbák and Gáborján 1990; Flórián 1997; Fülemile 1989; Flórián 2001. I refer only to those Hungarian works that deal with sixteenthand seventeenth-century depictions and I do not discuss the approach of secondary literature about medieval material that is not closely related to my topic. 145 E.g., “Introduction” in Piponnier and Mane 1997: 3–7; Schmitt 2003; Sutton 1998: 7–9; “Methodology,” in Ball 2005: 4–7. 144

E.g., Szendrei 1907; Szendrei 1908; Höllrigl n.d. (1939–1942); V. Ember 1967 . 142 Cenner Wilhelmb 1972. On the symbolic role of anachronistic and modern costumes in tomb sculpture and representative printed portraits, see Galavics 1987. 143 Tompos 2005. 141

37

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

The documentary value of the pictorial representations differs from case to case. There are several important factors to take into account when using images to interpret the dress, such as the peculiarities of the genre, the complex problem of symbolic meanings, the certitude of the dating, and the quality of the artwork. It is the task of the analysis of the art historical and social context to reveal patterns and stereotypes that the representations follow and to examine the expected audience and the purpose of the artwork so as to point out how it is justified to serve as a source of costume history. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were characterized by a massive increase in the number of visual sources depicting costumes due to the widespread use of printing techniques. This was the period when a new genre came into existence, with the main purpose of presenting costumes, as is indicated even in the title of the so-called “costume books.” Though in general a wide range of genres of painting, graphics, and sculpture can serve as pictorial sources for clothing, here I am only going to deal with them insofar as they are peculiar for this geographic area with regard to the scope of the present study. The genre of costume codices that first appeared in the second half of the sixteenth century in France, Italy, and the German areas was closely related to the illustrated cosmographies produced by the geographical interest of Humanism.146 Costume books contained figures wearing attires from all parts of the known world as an encyclopedic collection with the same idea that lay behind the cosmographies: to present the whole world. The illustrations in Civitates orbis terrarum, published in six volumes in Cologne by Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg between 1572 and 1617, even combined the topographical depictions with the representation of the inhabitants in the foreground, among which some Hungarian sites are included as well (Fig. 19).147 The depictions in the costume books were organized according to geographical and social origins, leading from the more familiar to the more specific areas, from the higher to the lower social strata; the series contain images ranging from noblemen and burghers to peasants and servants engaged in different activities. Captions inform us on the geographical or ethnic origin; sometimes the age, social standing, or profession; and moral status of the person depicted. Attributes included in these short texts were the ones that the costumes were supposed to reflect, and these served as the bases of the encyclopedic classification of peoples that the costume books presented for their readers.148 They represented rather generalized garments, emphasizing some basic distinguishing features; the figures were often copied from the printed images of formerly published works or followed the representations of paintings.149 Even the earliest albums from the second half of the sixteenth century comprise depictions of figures labeled “Hungarian”; to cite a somewhat later example, the album

Fig. 20. “A Hungarian or Croatian nobleman” depicted in Cesare Vecellio, Degli habiti antichi e moderni di diverse parti del Mondo (Venice, 1590).

Ilg 2004: 29–33; Cenner Wilhelmb 1972; Cenner Wilhelmb 1973; Fülemile 1989; Tompos 2009: 28; in the German context, see Walther 1971: 77–96. Gabriele Mentges interpreted costume books from the point of view of how they contribute “to compose the Western idea of autonomous subject.” (Mentges 2004: 19–36). 147 Mentges 2004: 37–40. 148 Mentges 2004: 40–47; Galavics 1990: 61; Fülemile 1989: 118. 149 Ilg 2004: 33; Cenner Wilhelmb 1972 : 24; Tompos 2005: 87–88. 146

Fig. 21. A Hungarian peasant depicted in Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica (Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600). 38

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

Fig. 23. “A Tzigane woman in her Sunday best.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

Fig. 22. Saxon costumes depicted in Laurentius Toppeltinus de Medgyes, Origines et occasus Transylvanorum seu erutae nationes Transsylvaniae... (Lyon, 1667). of Cesare Vecellio presents the image of a nobleman who is Hungarian or Croatian according to the text (Fig. 20).150 Wilhelm Dillich published a whole book about Hungary in Kassel in 1600 (Ungarische Chronica). It was illustrated with views of forts and towns, and contains sixteen pages depicting Hungarian noblemen, burghers, soldiers, and peasants deriving from similar works published before; in the text the author even described the way different people dressed (Fig. 21; see also fig. 68).151 In the seventeenth century similar volumes by local authors dealt with selected regions of Hungary. The Transylvanian Saxons, Johann Troestler from Hermannstadt (Sibiu) and Laurentius Toppeltinus from Mediasch (Mediaş), published their works in Germany and France about the origins, lifestyle, customs, and costumes of Saxon, Romanian, and Hungarian ethnic groups in Transylvania, with illustrations engraved in Nuremberg and Lyon probably on the basis of Transylvanian drawings (Fig. 22).152 Similarities between the figures in the

albums published abroad for foreign audience and locally preserved painted images antedating the albums have been interpreted as indicating that the patterns representing the ethnic and social types were set by Transylvanian masters based on their own observations.153 Some of the figures were copied and varied in water color costume albums that were again painted for a foreign audience – at least this is suggested by the fact that about a dozen of such known works have been preserved in collections outside Hungary.154 They contain images of Hungarian, Sekler, Saxon, Romanian, Serb, Greek, Jewish, Armenian, Turkish, Habán,155 and Gipsy figures from Transylvania wearing their characteristic costumes (Figs. 23, 24; see also figs. 1, 2, 31, 53, 54, 55, 69, 70, and 71). The pages were copied, varied, even extended; they bear thoroughly written captions or scratched notes in German, Hungarian, English, or Latin that Cenner Wilhelmb 1972: 25–26; Galavics 1990: 69–77; Bencsik 2009: 9; Tompos 2009: 29. 154 For a differing opinion concerning certain series, see Bencsik 2009: 9. The most significant volumes are preserved in the Marsigli collection in Bologna and in the Library of the British Museum. In Hungary, besides the volume in the National Széchényi Library, there are fragments, e.g., in the collections of the University Library of Eötvös Loránd University and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. (Galavics 1990: 81–85; Oborni, Tompos, and Bencsik 2009). For further examples, see Szendrei 1907: 193. 155 Groups of immigrant Anabaptists, settled in Transylvania in 1621 by Prince Gábor Bethlen, were called Habán. They were excellent craftsmen, especially famous for knives and ceramics, which is why the figure of the Habán man holds a pot in his hand. 153

“Vngaro, o’ Crouato nobile,” Cesare Vecellio, Degli habiti antichi e moderni di diverse parti del Mondo (Venice, 1590). For a summary of early albums presenting Hungarian attire, see Cenner Wilhelmb 1972: 24; Fülemile 1989: 116–117; Tompos 2009: 29. 151 Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica (Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600); Cenner Wilhelmb 1972; Galavics 1990: 68. 152 Johannes Troestler, Das alt- und neu-teutsche Dacia, das ist: neue Beschreibung des Landes Siebenbürgen (Nuremberg, 1666); Laurentinus Toppeltinus de Medgyes, Origines et occasus Transylvanorum seu erutae nationes Transsylvaniae... (Lyon, 1667). 150

39

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

Fig. 24. “A Jew from Transylvania.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. give the same pieces of information as the printed versions from Western Europe. Albums were created over the next two centuries, following seventeenth century patterns with anachronistic or more or less updated representations, which have raised difficulties in dating the copies.156 Such typified depictions can contribute to the interpretation of archaeological finds with information on what were those qualities of the garment that were considered as the most important to distinguish the outlook of various groups. These also included characteristics that are rarely available through the archaeological evidence, and if yes, only concerning certain forms of burials that are specific to groups of people, such as the color and cut of the garments, which seem to have been considered as the most conspicuous elements of ethnic differences. Thus, these images make it easier to estimate how reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the appearance of costumes based only on grave finds as they are in this part of Europe. They provide, however, a generalized and idealized picture in accordance with the nature of the genre, and do not reflect the variability that might have characterized contemporary reality. Except for these examples there are only sporadic visual representations of members of the lower social strata up to the nineteenth century, which became a period of emerging interests in peasant culture. The number of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century depictions is much higher for noblemen and burghers. Noble families commissioned life-size portraits depicting their ancestors and themselves, generally displayed in the halls of aristocratic residences (Fig. 25; see also figs. 58

Fig. 25. Portrait of Kristóf Thurzó, Count of Szepes and Sáros from 1611. Hungarian National Museum. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. and 60).157 This genre was rooted in the Renaissance galleries of heroes and prominent people of the past and served to express the legitimacy of Hungarian aristocratic families. Ancestors and contemporaries were depicted in gala dress. The role of sumptuous costume and the setting with objects characterizing the lifestyle of the aristocracy was to indicate the high position of the portrayed, no matter how much earlier he or she had lived, and it was the painter’s task to conceive “how the Hungarians used to dress.”158 Several portraits of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century personalities were created 157

156

Cenner Wilhelmb 1972: 28–34; Galavics 1990: 102–106; Bencsik 2009: 9.

158

40

Buzási ed. 1988. Gödölle 2001: 47.

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

Fig. 26. Catafalque painting of Gáspár Illésházy from 1648. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum.

Fig. 27. Sepulchral monument of György Sükösd (1632). National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj (originally in the Unitarian Church of Nagyteremi [Tirimia, Romania]). Photo by the author. 41

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

one of the primary sources in reconstructing the costume of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century nobility, both in identifying articles of clothing mentioned in written evidence and in presenting the general appearance of the garments, such as the oriental character of male costume and trends in female dress.160 Tombstones are also potential pictorial sources for sixteenth- and seventeenth-century costumes in Hungary. Figural tombstones were carved for the members of the nobility all over the country and for burghers of Transylvanian towns (Figs. 27 and 28). The genre of sculpted or painted epitaphs applied on the inner and outer walls of churches with memorial, pious, and votive functions appeared also in Hungarian towns, depicting the garments of the burghers and members of the nobility.161 Similar representations appear on votive paintings and altars as well. Various cultural and social reasons lie behind the phenomenon that funeral genres follow traditional standards, even with regard to the costume worn by the effigy of the deceased.162 Thus, applying tomb portraits as pictorial sources to clothing requires particular circumspection. The perception of Hungarian costumes from an external point of view is not only recorded in Western sources, but it is represented on Turkish miniatures as well. They represent narrative scenes about historical events: military campaigns, legations, and other diplomatic appointments, so they only depict members of a layer that participated in such events. They show the Hungarian characters in rather schematic costumes, more or less distinguished by their headgear and sometimes a short dolman coat.163 Writing about clothing A significant increase in the number of written sources from the sixteenth and especially the seventeenth century compared to earlier periods involves a shift in the quantity of the evidence on clothing and costumes as well; in the following I will discuss only source groups of interest to the present issue. Apart from the names of various articles, information on the appearance of people and the stages in the process of production, trade, and consumption have managed to survive, as well as the contemporary evaluation and interpretation of elements of clothing.164 As it has been widely discussed in the literature, however, the identification of certain items in the written sources with surviving or depicted objects is rather problematic.165 The terms they used often do not correspond to the attributes of presentday classifications; for example, they generally labeled objects according to their function, without any information on formal qualities, which would be necessary to recognize these items as visually known types. Only a complex analysis of various

Fig. 28. Sepulchral monument of Christian Haas, Saxon priest in Birthälm (Biertan, Romania), 1686. Biertan Lutheran Church. Photo by the author. in the eighteenth century, sometimes reproducing an earlier work. The painted illustrations of the volumes containing the genealogy of noble families are close to the large-scale portraits in form and content, although they were aimed at a more restricted audience. Another genre of full-figure portraits of large dimensions was related to a special occasion: the socalled catafalque paintings used to commemorate the dead (Fig. 26).159 Altogether the painted portraits have served as 159

László 1988: 48; László 1986: 309–319. I will deal with the problem of adapting the terms used in written sources to depicted or surviving objects. 161 Weckwerth 1957: 147–185. 162 On the survival of the medieval traditions in Western Hungary, see Galavics 1987. 163 See Fehér 1978. 164 Walter Endrei analyzed the data of written sources on fabrics from this point of view. (Endrei 1989: especially 11–35). 165 On the issue in general, see “Typen und Namen,” in Jaritz 1989: 41–49; “From Romance to Account Book” in Piponnier and Mane 1997: 7–9; on the problem in the context of medieval Hungary, see Kubinyi 1991: especially 16–19. 160

Buzási 1975; Pigler 1957.

42

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

source groups can make it feasible to match the categories of the different systems of classification. Though the creation of the individual types of written sources is related to certain stages of production, they provide information about other factors in the process and on the consumption as well. Pattern-books, the most spectacular documents about production, represent a transitional category between textual and pictorial sources, as they contain both the descriptions and the patterns of the articles of clothing that were required to be made by the masters of the tailors’ guilds.166 Both Hungarian and German tailors prepared custom-made clothes for burghers and the nobles, though the members of the highest nobility had their own tailors in their courts. The trade lists and rates of the towns record similar items, indicating also the prices.167 It appears that tailors produced clothes for both German and Hungarian customers and articles of different quality for higher and lower social strata, which is manifest in the price. The products of tailors working for the market are clearly distinguished even by their names.168 Lists of the external customs due, called the thirtieth, contain the quantity and customs value of goods transported across the border. The main items are livestock, salt, and textiles, but they often include less valuable goods as well.169 The lists reveal the direction and route of trade, and even the names of the merchants. The surviving thirtieth lists from the area between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire indicate the significant role of the so-called Greek merchants,170 the stock-lists of whom – mainly from the eighteenth century – contain ready-made clothes beside smaller wares, belts, footwear, textiles, and cheap accessories. These tradesmen of various ethnicities came from all over the Ottoman Empire, transporting goods from the Turkish and Balkan areas. They appealed for royal protection in 1665; probably their presence dates back before the Ottoman Conquest.171 The documents suggest intensive interethnic interactions; goods from Western countries and from various parts of the Ottoman Empire were available on the markets of several Hungarian towns and market towns, such as Buda, Debrecen, Kassa (Košice, Slovakia), Győr, Pécs, Nagykanizsa, Siklós, Kecskemét, Mezőtúr.172 Documents attest the activity of Greek merchants from the sixteenth and seventeenth century in Transylvanian towns as well, such as Brassó (Braşov, Romania) and Szeben (Sibiu, Romania). The sources culminate in the first part of the eighteenth century with data from all over the country, not exclusively from the areas that had formerly been under Ottoman rule.173 Last wills, dowry lists, and inventories made for various occasions inform about consumption and contain extensive

data on the names and classifications of clothing items.174 Combined with representations, particularly large-scale portrait paintings, these have been the most important sources for works treating the costumes of the nobility.175 They use well-known contemporary categories and provide only some basic information to make the objects identifiable, so their interpretation is rather problematic. Nevertheless, their close connections to individuals of well-defined social strata and to certain stages in these individuals’ lives, such as marriage or death, open up otherwise hidden possibilities for contextualization. Most of such private documents reflect the elements and transmission in the material culture of the nobility and burghers,176 but last wills of peasants have also survived from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.177 Similar sources on craftsmen and merchants provide further data on production through notes on tools, ready-made artifacts, and debts. Sumptuary laws on clothing have been preserved in Europe from the thirteenth century onwards. Their purpose was to limit the materials used and the fittings applied on various elements of clothing in order to show one’s real social status and preserve good social order, and to avoid wasting financial resources on vanity and ostentation.178 In Hungary such regulations have survived from a relatively late period, concerning seventeenth-century costumes of different social strata.179 The issue of clothing and the expected moral of certain layers appeared in religious literature as well; in 1602 István Magyari found that one of the reasons for the decay of the Hungarians was following trends that were inappropriate to one’s social position.180 Such sources indicate that one should not expect clear-cut distinctions among archaeological finds; the interpretation needs to work on various levels. They present an ideal picture on one hand, and conditions to be regulated on the other; the archaeological record should not be expected to correspond directly to the standards and processes they reflect. Surviving pieces of private correspondence of the higher social strata may be informative about their acquisitions, their standards, the impressions they made abroad, and even their personal tastes.181 Similarly personal is the approach of the authors of memoranda, chronicles, or the first Hungarian zoographic work by Gáspár Miskolczi. Miskolczi and Péter Apor are the most often cited authors, who both condemned their contemporaries for adopting foreign styles of clothing; Miskolczi disapproved of the Turkish, Polish, German, and A great number of similar documents were published by Baron Béla Radvánszky (Radvánszky 1896), and in the volumes of Magyar Történelmi Tár and Történelmi Tár, the journal of the Historical Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences issued between 1855 and 1911. Inventories deriving from the territories under Ottoman occupation have been treated by Ibolya Gerelyes (Gerelyes 1985/b), with further literature. 175 E.g., Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 67–257; Höllrigl n.d. (1939–1942): 359– 385; Tompos 2001. 176 Horváth 1996; Szende 2004. 177 Horváth 1999, with further references. 178 On sumptuary laws in general, see Hunt 1996. On clothing regulations in Hungary, see Klaniczay 1982: 9–10; Endrei 1989: 112–116, on eighteenthcentury examples; on Transylvania, see Klusch 2003. 179 From 1578, 1593, and 1603: Kolozsvár (Kovács Kiss 2001); from 1640: Sopron, 1654, 1658: Lőcse, 1666: Sátoraljaújhely. Domonkos 1997: 7. 180 István Magyari, Az országokban való sok romlásnak okairól (Katona and Makkai ed. 1979: 83–84). 181 Éva Deák analyzed the correspondence of Mihály Teleki, a Transylvanian nobleman, in her MA thesis (Deák 2000, unpublished). 174

Domonkos 1997. Domonkos 1991/a: 705–708, with references to further literature. 168 E.g., “Szolgának való vásári Mente” (A dolman for market for a servant) “Rövid Paraszt Aszony Mente róka hátra” (A short dolman with fox fur for a peasant’s wife) in the limitation of Somogy County issued in 1793. (Domonkos 1991/a: 712–713). 169 Pap 2000; Simon 2006: 817–882; Niţu 2005 with further literature. 170 Simon 2006: 857. 171 Simon 2006: 830–833; Gecsényi 1998: 188–189; Pakucs 2004: 155. 172 Pakucs 2004: 194, 202–203; Bur 1985: 252–254, 272. 173 Domonkos 1991/b: 678, 684–686, 700; Bur 1985: 252–254, 272; Endrei 1989: 7, 64. 166 167

43

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Sources of Costume History in Hungary

Wallachian impact at the end of the seventeenth century and Apor disfavored the “new mode” arriving from the West in the first half of the eighteenth century.182 Travelogues by Western and Eastern authors passing through Hungary record exotic costumes. These works talk about general impressions, and offer a perception of clothing without any detailed description.183

projections of the same past; they were created with different purposes so they transmit different aspects – or similar aspects but a different way –, and the same holds true for depictions and oral traditions. Former scholarly experience suggests that since there are usually different categories in the separate classifications of various source types, it is not necessary that they overlap with each other – written sources rarely provide the exact information the archaeologist needs. The alternative is to compare patterns observed in the different source groups and attempt to correlate them. Correspondences and noncorrespondences or direct contrasts all need to be taken into account, as they all form the context together, and neglecting any of them can lead to misinterpretation.

Written sources and images do not provide a “real” picture on how people dressed and how and by whom certain items of clothing were worn, but rather a perception of all of these facets by the authors who created the texts and pictures for a certain audience, with a specific purpose, and within a given context. Material culture and text can be considered as different

“A majomról” (On the Monkey), in Gáspár Miskolczi, Egy jeles VadKert, Avagy az oktalan állatoknak históriája Miskolczi Gáspár által (An illustrious park, or the history of the brute beasts by Gáspár Miskolczi) (Striling ed. 1983: 172); Péter Apor, Metamorphosis Transsylvaniae (Kóczián and Lőrinczy ed. 1978: 25, 54–69). 183 Edward Brown, A Brief Account of Some Travels in Hungaria, Servia... With the Figures of Some Habits and Remarkable Places (London, 1673), cited by R. Várkonyi 1990: 23; Evlia Cselebi török világutazó magyarországi utazásai, 1660–1664 (Travels of Evliyā Celebi Turkish traveler in Hungary 1660–1664) (Fodor ed. 1985: 145). 182

44

Chapter 6 Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities

questions which had been formulated based on historical documents.189 Remaining within the framework determined by the persistence of the above expectations towards historical archaeological research, a number of recent publications have been marked by an impact of postmodern theories of archaeology also in Hungary. Among other forms, this influence has been manifest in joining the discussion in international scholarship on how material culture formation is related to ethnicity, and in emphasizing that archaeological practice and interpretation is determined by the social, political, and intellectual context within which it takes place.190 Theoretical questions have been directly raised especially focusing on the ethnogenesis and early history of Hungarians, which is a field that has been a matter of primary interest from the nineteenth century onwards, as in any other parts of Europe.191 When examining the treatment of Ottoman-period cemeteries along the lines of ethnicities, two levels of interpretation can be distinguished in Hungarian research, both determined by the information deriving from historical documents. Archaeologists aimed at distinguishing the heritage of the peoples coming from the Balkans to the conquest area from that of the original population represented by churchyard cemeteries in the terms of archaeological evidence; this concerned a broader distinction of cultural traditions the justification of which was rooted in historical research. There were, however, further attempts to offer a precise ethnic identification of the archaeological record, based on the view that it is able to serve as an indicator of the ethnicity and place of origins of certain smaller groups. A shift towards the claim for interpreting the finds in ethnic terms can be observed in archaeological publications from the 1980s onwards.192 Scholars systematically examining a couple of hundreds of graves in the Ottoman conquest area, in contrast with a handful of burials described by the earlier reports that surfaced accidentally, saw a difference between their sites and the familiar churchyard cemeteries. As it has been long known from historical research that these areas were populated by peoples coming from the Balkans in the period to which the cemeteries were dated, the explanation for the difference between these cemeteries and churchyards was found in the differing ethnic origins of the population.

The emergence of the problem of the relation between historically known ethnic groups and archaeological evidence was unavoidable in Hungarian archaeology on account of the past of the geographical area, which was characterized by a series of waves of nomadic peoples coming from the Eurasian steppe and conquering the Carpathian Basin.184 Groups of newcomers arrived also in the Middle Ages, even after the formation of the Hungarian Kingdom, up to the fourteenth century. Pechenegs, Cumans, and Iasians brought new impulses from a different cultural sphere; attempts to identify their archaeological remains through material culture and traces of pagan rituals led to more general questions about their social and cultural assimilation and interactions before and after their arrival in Hungary.185 The issue of material culture formation of the newly incoming groups and its relation to an assimilation process appeared as a practical problem of the archaeology dealing with these periods. Recent literature summarizing trends within Hungarian archaeological research has pointed to the phenomenon that the discourse has been characterized by a general reluctance to write directly about theoretical questions for various reasons.186 Archaeological discourse in Hungary has been dominated by cultural history orientation up to the latest decades, in spite of the fact that in the meantime new methodologies have been adopted. The patterning of the archaeological record has been considered as being suitable for an interpretation that contributes to writing the history of peoples and regions – when handled with the proper circumspection.187 As it has been conceived through an overview of trends in archaeological theory in European context by Ian Hodder, the dominance of the historical perspective in archaeology has not been a peculiarity of only Hungarian archaeology, as it appeared to be fitting a tendency dominant in Europe that had been rooted in the relation between the birth of archaeology and the formation of nation states.188 The analytical framework for the archaeological records of those periods that are approachable also through written sources has often been dominated by documentary history, and the character of archaeological practice was less interpretative, bound to

For a brief overview of the research, see Visy and Nagy ed. 2003: 263–280 (“The Barbaricum in the Roman Period,” with studies by Andrea Vaday, Gábor Márkus, Eszter Istvánovits, and Valéria Kulcsár) and 281–317 (“The Migration Period” by Tivadar Vida, Ágnes B. Tóth, Róbert Müller, Andrea Vaday, and Béla Miklós Szőke). 185 For a summary of the recent results, see Visy and Nagy ed. 2003: 388–397 (“Ethnic Groups and Cultures in Medieval Hungary” by Gábor Hatházi and Katalin Szende). 186 Laszlovszky and Siklódi 1991; Bartosiewicz and Choyke 2002; Suhr 2005: especially 191–201; Langó 2005: 185; Bálint 2006; Marciniak 2006; Bartosiewicz, Csippán, and Mérai forthcoming. 187 See Laszlovszly and Siklódi 1991: 275–279, referring to the academic oevre and impact of András Mócsy and István Bóna; Austin 1990: 5; Bartosiewicz and Choyke 2002: 128; Marciniak 2006: 159–160 (in the context of archaeological practice in Central Europe); Bartosiewicz, Csippán, and Mérai forthcoming. 188 “Preface” by Ian Hodder in Hodder ed. 1991: vii; Hodder 1991: 4–11. 184

Austin 1990: 11–14; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Kaiser 1995: 101, 108–109; Andrén 1998: 1–6, 30–32, 116–126; Funari, Jones, and Hall 1999: 3–4; Jones 1999; Moreland 2001: 10–13; Courtney 2009. In more general terms on the relation between the use of the past in constructing present identities, see Shennan 1989; Jones and Graves-Brown 1996; Jones 1997: 1–14; Rowlands 2007. 190 See e.g., Langó 2005; Bálint 2006; Vida 2006; Langó 2006. In Hungarian archaeology the idea that archaeology approaches towards the past with the concepts of modern times has been already formulated by Gyula László (Laszlovszky and Siklódi 1991:277 referring to László 1977: 56). 191 Laszlovszky and Siklódi 1991: 286–287. See e.g., the studies in Mende ed. 2005; Langó 2006; Bálint 2006. 192 See Gaál 1980; Lázár 1999/a; Wicker 1999; Wicker 2001; Wicker 2002; Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008. 189

45

Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities

When the research of the Ottoman-period cemetery at Bácsalmás was started, it had already been a commonplace as the result of historical studies that the Bácska region was populated by peoples coming from the Balkans in the centuries when the site operated. Obviously, their archaeological heritage must have surfaced here and there even before, but Bácsalmás was the first systematic investigation covering hundreds of burials, which appeared to serve as a good basis to circumscribe the material culture and the funeral customs.193 Erika Wicker, the archaeologist of the site laid down the tasks of the research, with the aim of identifying the sites and the archaeological heritage of the population coming from the Balkans: 1) the application of historical sources to interpret the archaeological record; and 2) the analysis of the ethnic aspects of the archaeological record itself.194 First she defined those burial customs and finds that exclusively or mostly characterized Balkan peoples in Ottoman Hungary. The set of criteria she compiled also involved previously known burials, but they were mostly based on Bácsalmás: the lack of a church, one layer of graves without over-burials, the orientation of the burials, graves shaped with sidewall niches or a depression in the bottom enclosing the corpse, a low number of coffins, a variety of arm positions and the composition of the finds. These criteria could now be applied to find further sites of Balkan peoples in Hungary.195 On the basis of these known cemeteries, the remains of the early modern Balkan population would be distinguishable also among those sites that had been identified before as the archaeological sites of the Hungarian population, and it would be now possible to identify their heritage even in the existing museum collections.196

of the above cemeteries (Madaras – Bajmoki út) was situated around a church that had been erected in the Middle Ages. It was supposed that the cemetery was in continuous use up to the sixteenth century, but, according to a recent interpretation, the latest graves represent the heritage of the South Slav population that settled down in the deserted nearby village, and used the cemetery hill of the medieval Hungarian population as their burial place.199 The situation is similar at Bodrogmonostorszeg, where Ottoman-period burials were found in a medieval chapel.200 Questions concerning the continuity and discontinuity of settlements and population have emerged in the settlement archaeology of the Ottoman period.201 The analysis of these cemeteries in this respect is closely related to the research of the processes of devastation and resettlement with regard to the villages, and might introduce new aspects. Ethnic categories in written sources The ethnic interpretation of Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary has covered an attempt to define precise ethnic groups within the Balkan peoples, and to identify the homelands of the newcomers. This is manifest in the naming of the group of cemeteries attributed to a population of Balkan origins as it appears in scholarly literature: Rác,202 Serb,203 and Rác-Vlach as the latest form.204 According to the expectations, with an increase in the number of data, patterns in the archaeological record will correspond to ethnic categories as they appear in written documents and will be relevant in the identification of the original homelands of the groups.205 Archaeological research with the above assumptions, however, had to face the problem that the meaning of the ethnic labels is far from being unambiguous.206 It has long been known that the southern part of Hungary under Ottoman rule underwent a complete change of the population, and that groups of peoples coming from the direction of the Balkans settled down in the devastated areas. When, in the first half of the 20th century, archaeological record surfaced in this part of Hungary dating from the Ottoman Period, it was quite evidently related to this immigrant population, and was placed in an ethnographic context, supposing a sort of continuity in the local inhabitants since that time.207 Local historical tradition preserved the name of Rác cemeteries and quarters,208 and a sense of continuity made it obvious to label the remains of Ottoman-period ancestors as

Historical documents, archaeological record, and ethnicities Some of the previously examined sites that were included into the group of Balkan or South Slavic cemeteries show only a few of the above criteria, as only a handful of burials have turned up accidently.197 The presence of the Balkan population, however, has been attested by historical sources in the area of each of the sites in question. It even seemed possible to involve further cemeteries by collecting data from historical sources and identifying still existing place names that have preserved ethnic labels.198 Thus, if the burials have been dated to the Ottoman Period with archaeological methods, then the main reason why these sites can be suspected to have been the cemeteries of the South Slavic population lies in the demographic history of the region reconstructed on the basis of written documents. What this says about the ethnic relevance of the material culture is a separate question. This method is based on the dominant role attributed to written documents when interpreting the archaeological record, which is a much broader problem of historical archaeology, only a segment of which concerns ethnic interpretations. The analysis of the archaeological evidence can, however, raise new questions concerning the history of a region. One

Wicker 2005/b: 26–27; Wicker 2008: 17–18. Gubicza 1902: 4. 201 See Pálóczi Horvát 2003. 202 Here meaning Greek Orthodox Serbs (Wicker 2001: 155); Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002. 203 Wicker 2003/a. 204 Wicker 2007; Wicker 2008; for the reasons for using the compound form, see ibid., 28. 205 Such expectations are expressed by Gaál 1980: 180; Wicker 2001: 154– 155; Wicker 2008: 28, 34, 90, and 147. 206 This practical problem has been recognized by Erika Wicker on the basis of the results of the analysis of historical documents by Klára Hegyi. (See Wicker 2008: 24–25). 207 The expulsion of the Ottomans and political events in the first quarter of the eighteenth century brought further radical changes in the population of the conqest area, which was by no means continuous with the often changing population of the Ottoman Period. (See Bárth 1995; Wellmann 1985). 208 E.g., “Rácváros” in Esztergom (Lázár 1999/a: 316); Rác cemetery at Baja (Wicker 2005/b: 24; Wicker 2008: 16). 199 200

Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008. Wicker 2001: 153–154. 195 Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2005/b; Wicker 2008: 15. 196 Wicker 2001; Wicker 2003/a: 242; Wicker 2005/b: 23–27; Wicker 2008: 15–18, 150. 197 See Wicker 2005/b; Wicker 2008: 15–18. 198 Wicker 2001: 154. 193 194

46

Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities

Sokác, all the more so as their accessories were found to be similar to the ones of recent folk costumes.209 From the 1980s onwards, publications attest that attempts to identify the ethnicity of the interred were based on the study of historical sources.210 Ethnic names in historical sources on the areas and period in question most often inform on how groups of peoples were called by others in a certain region. As we have learned, the southern part of the conquest area was labeled as Rácország, that is, “the land of Rác people.”211 The cemetery in Győr was mentioned as “Rác” cemetery in a contemporary document, and the inhabitants of the village in the vicinity of the Dombóvár cemetery were called Vlach or Iflák.212 It is less common for a document to inform on how an Ottoman-period group called itself. In a contract signed by the principals of the villages in the Bácska region in 1598, all the villages identified themselves as Rác.213 Analysis of historical sources has not lead to a precise geographical identification of the newcomers’ ethnicity and original homeland within the Balkans, but it is highly probable that the population called Rác at the end of the century was far not homogenous in this respect, and included Serbs, as well as Vlachs and Bosnians probably, depending on the actual ethnic composition in the various regions.214 Sometimes the term Rác covers peoples of the Greek Orthodox religion, but Catholic groups were also labeled as Rác.215 Another category appearing in sources and interpreted in the context of ethnicities is that of Vlach, or Eflak in Turkish. Historical research has revealed various layers of the term’s meaning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which makes it especially problematic to find Vlach people among the Balkan population of the conquest area of Hungary.216 One of the meanings concerns their ethnogenesis: the Vlach people arrived to the Balkans from their original homeland of romanized, shepherding Proto-Rumanians. A further understanding of the denomination refers to the lifestyle: transhumant shepherds were labeled as Vlach. The word as it appears in Ottoman sources indicates social status: the Vlach were soldier peasants who acquired privileges for military service. According to the historiography, however, one can suspect a high number of Vlach people among the mixed Balkan population in the area between the Danube and the Tisza rivers with a military status different from that of the Vlach.217 On the other hand, the adjective Vlach as applied to the population of Somogy and Tolna counties by Ottoman sources from the 1570s refers to the status of peoples of different ethnic origins.218

Names and genes as ethnic markers Archaeological and historical research, having faced the problem of a variety of meanings covered by the same ethnic label, tried to avoid relying on the self-perception of the former groups, and to turn to other disciplines to define the ethnicity of peoples presented by their sources by examining their names and the physical remains. Historical research tried to define the ethnic origins of the immigrants from tax lists compiled by the Ottoman administration, which have preserved a number of personal names of the inhabitants of the conquest area. The lists, containing names according to settlements, would theoretically enable scholars to distinguish among Slavic and Vlach populations. The analysis of names in the lists on the territories between the Danube and Tisza rivers, however, has lead to the conclusion that they bear a mixed SlavicVlach character, which could have already evolved even before the entry into the territory of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom. As historical research has concluded, Vlach names (Rumanian in their form) in Ottoman sources in the conquest area of Hungary could cover Slavic individuals and vice versa, so personal names do not reflect the ethnicities of their holders.219 Trust is still placed in physical anthropology: the analysis can provide reliable information on the ethnic origins of the groups of the Ottoman-period population, as based on their skeletal remains, and thus help archaeology in interpreting material culture along the lines of ethnicities. Previous research analyzing the burials at Dombóvár found the closest anthropological parallels among present-day populations called Vlach, which seems to correspond to the ethnic name applied in historical sources – whatever it meant.220 In the frames of an ongoing project studying the skeletal remains of the Ottoman-period population in Hungary, findings from late medieval cemeteries have also been included in the comparative set of data. According to a brief preliminary report on the results, Balkan cemeteries appear as one group of the cluster, with the exception of the Győr cemetery that lies close to the material of late medieval Hungarian cemeteries.221 Anthropological examinations inform on the lifestyle of the population samples known from the archaeological research of cemeteries. Groups of agrarian occupation under peaceful conditions showed distinct qualities from those pursuing military activity. Deformations observed on the physical remains of cemeteries of the Balkan population caused by the weakened immune system have been explained with endogamy, which must have been the consequence of having a language and religion distinct from the environment.222 Such

Gubicza 1902: 7. See Gaál 1980; Lázár 1999/a; Wicker 1999; Wicker 2001; Wicker 2002; Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008. 211 Pálffy 2000: 178. The term Rácország, meaning “the land of Rác,” originally referred to a specific geographical area that appeared in documents from the tenth century, with the castle of Rasa, situated in southern Serbia, as its center. The use of Rác as an adjective referring to a people derived from the compound Rácország was documented from the late fourteenth century. (Benkő ed. 1976: vol. 3, 326; Benkő ed. 1994: vol. 2, 1224). 212 Mithay 1985: 196; Gaál 1980: 176. 213 Wicker 2004: 16–16; Wicker 2008: 31–32. 214 Makkai 1985: 1432–1434. 215 Makkai 1985: 1433; Sokcsevits 1998: 119–120. 216 Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 286–287; Makkai 1985: 1442. 217 Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 303–304. 218 Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 321–323. 209 210

Hegyi 2003: 32–33; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 302–303; referred when interpreting the archaeological record of cemeteries by Wicker 2008: 25. The analysis of similar lists on Temes County has revealed that scribes often compiled Serb forms of Hungarian names. Hegyi 2007: 337–338. 220 Éry 1980: 225–298. 221 Summary by Erika Molnár in Wicker 2008: 20–21. As only a brief preliminary report has been published on the ongoing research project, the participating scholars did not have the possibility to clarify yet what are the criteria for selecting the Hungarian cemeteries of the sample. Keeping in mind the complex issue of the ethnic composition of late medieval population in Hungary as it has been presented by historical research, this problem will beyond doubt be treated in the publication of the results. (On the ethnic composition of late medieval population in Hungary, see Dávid 1997: 168). 222 See the brief report by Erika Molnár in Wicker 2008: 21. 219

47

Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities

an explanation for the results of the analysis implies a reference to an existing knowledge about the history of the region based on written sources. The consequences on the archaeological interpretation of material culture is a separate issue to treat: whether characteristics of physical anthropological remains necessarily show the same patterning as that of material culture as reflected by burials. Ethnicity, religion, and the archaeological record When treating peoples from the Ottoman-period Balkans, ethnicity and religion has to be regarded as being closely related. Besides a distinction between Greek Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Slavic peoples like Croats coming also from Bosnia, historical and archaeological research has also taken into consideration the process of islamisation that took place in the Balkans before the Ottoman conquest of Hungary, and the close coexistence of various groups.223 Interethnic and interreligious contacts were common and constant, and the mixing of ethnicities and religions happened even within families.224 Observations on elements of burial rituals lead towards the issue of religion through the manifestation of the approach towards life and death. I will briefly survey some traces of rituals that have been defined as indicators of ethnicity or religion in the Hungarian research. The custom of giving coins to the deceased has been interpreted as a characteristically Southern Slav ritual in some items of the secondary literature on early modern cemeteries. Sándor Mithay, the excavator of the Győr cemetery, brought in this interpretation, using data on Serbs in Baranya County as an ethnographic parallel.225 It has taken root to such an extent that even the (conditional) ethnic definition of the Esztergom cemetery was partially based on this argument; the archaeologist of the cemetery at Esztergom-Szentkirály cited Győr-Gabonavásártér as the closest analogy of her own site concerning the finds and the custom of giving coins.226 Giving coins was a practice throughout the Middle Ages, with a different intensity in different areas.227 It became increasingly characteristic in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the Balkan cemeteries it has been observed in only a few graves; however, in the churchyard cemeteries it is much more common compared to the overall number of excavated graves.228 Ethnographic research indicates that this tradition still held on in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; explanations often concerned the “customs due”

Fig. 29. Variations of the positions of the arms in the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2008: 228, fig. 7). to be paid on the journey to the other world.229 According to the archaeological material, the custom of giving coins was widespread in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it cannot be related to any single ethnic group, as it has been manifest among Hungarians, Wallachians, and Serbians. Another element of the ritual that has been interpreted as ethnicity-, or rather religion-specific is the position of the arms. A wide variety of the positions of arms that characterize South Slav cemeteries has been explained through analogies with Greek Orthodox Christianity, based on a study by János Győző Szabó.230 He analyzed this feature concerning cemeteries in Hungary from the tenth and eleventh centuries, and explained the position with the hands raised to the shoulder as a possible indicator of Greek Orthodoxy; he mentions the Balkan cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató as a late analogy.231 Following in his the footsteps, the positioning of the arms were first observed in some of the Southern Slav cemeteries in the Early Modern Period and connected to the identification of the population as Greek Orthodox (Fig. 29).232 Similar variations have, however, been documented in churchyard cemeteries, especially in those that have been published since the emergence of the question in the context of peoples of Balkan origins (Fig. 30).233 These examples at least call for caution until there is a sufficient amount of comparative data from churchyards; features in the earlier period of the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Age should not be interpreted implicitly in an analogous way.234 A further feature that has been connected to religion and ethnicity is the form of the graves, to which comparative material from churchyard cemeteries is completely lacking, E.g., Bencsik 1970: 432–433; K. Kovács 2004 (1944): 127, 163; Csapó 1977: 180, 181; for further similar references, see Wicker 2008: 140– 142. 230 Szabó, J. Gy. 1983: 83–98. 231 However, Attila Gaál, the archaeologist of Dombóvár-Békató, assumed that the population was not even Christian, but Muslim. (Gaál 2003: 230). 232 Wicker 2003/b: 37–43; Wicker 2003/a: 239–242; Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 47–49. This was the only observable criterion of Balkan cemeteries at Mélykút, as the only artifact found there was a button. (Wicker 2001: 152; Wicker 2003/a: 242; Wicker 2004: 82). 233 Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 316 (it is not excluded that the population was Orthodox); Béres 2005: 300 and fig. 4; Simonyi 2005: 308. In Bobáld, Óföldeák, and Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás burials with hands laid on the shoulder or the pelvis were found, as in Balkan cemeteries. The study on Felsőzsolca did not exclude the possibility that burials in these positions can be related to Ruthenian immigrants mentioned in written sources. (Simonyi 2005: 308). 234 Recently Miklós Takács has compared the positions of arms found in ninth- to twelfth-century cemeteries of the North Balkans and concluded that the position with hands raised to the shoulder “cannot be considered as an indisputably interpretable ritual element.” (Takács 2005: 93). 229

Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 259–264, 302; Gaál 1980; Gaál 2003; Wicker 2002; Wicker 2007; Wicker 2008: especially 75–90. 224 Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 262. 225 Mithay 1985: 194. 226 Lázár 1999/a: 316–317; Lázár 2003: 234. 227 On the custom of giving coins in earlier periods in Hungary, see Bárdos 1987: 10. 228 In Balkan cemeteries: Dombóvár-Békató: four graves (Gaál 1980: 175); Győr-Gabonavásártér: one grave (Mithay 1985: 194); Bácsalmás-Óalmás: two graves (Wicker 2003/a: 237; Wicker 2008: 140); Katymár-Téglagyár: no coin was found (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002); Zombor-Bükkszállás: one grave (Korek 1992: 183). In churchyard cemeteries: Kaposvár: fifty-six graves from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Bárdos 1987: 10); Ducó (Ducové, Slovakia): 152 graves from the overall 310 sixteenth- to nineteenth-century graves (Ruttkay 2005: 34); Óföldeák: the archaeologist refers to giving coins as a custom without an exact number (Béres 2005: 302); Bobáld: 13 graves from the 81 that have been excavated (Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 317). 223

48

Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities

or the community, there was, however, a range of other aspects that contributed to the actual form of burial, as a result of which reality was much more complex and diverse, with variations according to regions, social strata, etc. Archaeologists approaching Islam are warned to incorporate the results of modern archaeological theory when handling the archaeological record along identities among which Islam appears as one form of religious identity.237 No written documents attest the conversion of the population found in the so-called Balkan cemeteries of Ottoman-period Hungary, but historical research has reckoned with a certain level of conversion to Islam up to the mid-sixteenth century not only in Ottoman regional centers, but also among the population of villages.238 It has been assumed that the ancestors of these peoples living for several generations under Ottoman rule in the Balkans could have easily adopted certain elements of the customs and practice of the Islam.239 The problem cannot be handled separately from the general context of research on conversions and that of religious syncretism in the Balkans, with consequences in the social and cultural sphere, where elements of lifestyle, status, and culture could change even without religious conversion.240 Tracing migration through the archaeological record The possibility of archaeological research for moving forward and defining more precisely the ethnic and geographical origins of the peoples whose cemeteries have been unearthed has been seen as being based on the application of comparative material from the Balkans concerning the burial customs and the grave finds belonging to garments.241 The problem with this approach has been defined as stemming from the present research situation: the number of published and analyzed cemeteries in the Balkans available as possible comparative material for Hungarian scholarship is low (below five).242 Their chronological position does not correspond to the age of the Ottoman conquest in Hungary, as they date from the twelfth to the nineteenth centuries, and there is only one cemetery which was in use in the period in question.243 Though a general similarity in the finds have been observed, temporal and regional variability is not possible to study. Thus, it has not been confirmed whether searching for analogies to the material objects and burial customs in the wide geographical area from where these peoples have come can, in fact, be an applicable method to determine more precisely the original homelands of the Balkan groups migrating to Southern Hungary. Some specific grave finds have been considered to be suitable to serve as the basis of tracing back the “original homeland” of the population interred in the known cemeteries, by finding their analogies on the Balkan peninsula. The few pieces of jewelry (rings and a pair of earrings) whose form and production technology is of a general Balkan style

Fig. 30. Variations of the positions of the arms in the churchyard cemetery at Óföldeák. (Béres 2005: 300, fig. 4). partly due to the high number of overburials. The absence of superpositions in Southern Slav cemeteries has made it possible to observe and document precisely the forms of the graves, which is rarely feasible during excavations in churchyards. Erika Wicker observed that in a great number of graves in the cemeteries of the population coming from the Balkans the deceased was not buried in a coffin, but was probably folded in a shroud and placed in a side niche or hollow in the bottom of the grave and covered with wood (see fig. 17). She found analogies for these features in Islamic regions.235 She raised the possibility that the burials with coffins indicate Christian South Slavs, while graves with a niche or a depression for the corpse might have belonged to the Vlach people. When interpreting the differences between burials within the same cemetery, she found it more probable that coffins belong to Christian South-Slav-Vlach traditions, while the rites that are different from this belong to the Islamized population or a population, both South Slavic and Vlach, that took up Islam funerary customs.236 The first explanation concerns ethnicity, but in the second religion is involved as the decisive factor behind the formation of the archaeological record. Archaeology of the Islam as a distinct and recently emerged research area within the archaeology of religions studies the way the presence of a Muslim community is reflected by the archaeological record. Burials of a Muslim group should theoretically be recognizable archaeologically, as the treatment of the body should have followed a prescribed order including, besides other elements, single internment and the use of a shroud to cover the body instead of coffin. Besides following the tenets of religion by the individual

Insoll 1999: 166–200; Baram and Carroll 2000: 19; Insoll 2001; Edwards 2005: 117–118; Insoll 2007/b; Baram 2009: 653. 238 Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 302, footnote 139 and 307–308. 239 Wicker 2002: 113–114; Wicker 2007: 65; Wicker 2008: 88–89. 240 See Zhelyazkova 2002; Minkov 2004: 2; Buturović and Schick 2007. On the archaeology of the Ottoman Empire as “the archaeology of a multiethnic polity,” see Kohl 2000; Baram and Carroll 2000. 241 Gaál 1980: 180; Wicker 2003/a: 242–243; Wicker 2008: 20–21. 242 See Wicker 2008: 20–21. 243 Wicker 2003/a: 242–243; Wicker 2008: 21. 237

Wicker 2002; Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 41–47; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008: 75–90. 236 Wicker 2008: 27. 235

49

Approaches to Ottoman-period Cemeteries in Hungary along the Lines of Ethnicities

were not interpreted as being characteristic for the peoples in question because of the low number of items.244 Objects that appear to be more widespread in the cemeteries were suggested to serve as a basis of identifying the homeland of the groups; these included hairpins fixing female headwear and female headgears decorated with cowries and pendants.245 The obstacle of localizing the original homelands within the Balkans is seen in the lack of research in the scholarship related to these object types.246 The question that is crucial in this respect is whether and to what extent any archaeological criteria are eligible to identify a cemetery in ethnic terms. In the case of sites for which historical sources are able to confirm the Balkan origins of the

inhabitants, this question concerns the explanations for the material culture formation of a group whose distinct origins have already been known. Where documents are lacking, however, and the only hope of scholars with the above ambition lies in the archaeological record, the answer to this question has been vital.247 An optimistic view is reflected by the assumption that with an increase in the number of archaeological data it will be more and more possible to distinguish the heritage of Balkan peoples.248 The suggested method is describing and classifying material remains, equating the patterning of distribution with historically known groups, and tracing their migrations through searching for similarities in the archaeological record of their supposed homeland.

In the case of the Esztergom cemetery, though cemeteries previously attributed to Balkan peoples seemed to be the closest analogies, and also some historical data seem to support conditionally such an ethnic identification, the excavator had doubts whether it is justified to do so. (Lázár 1999/a: 316–317; Lázár 2003: 235–236). 248 See especially Wicker 2001; Wicker 2008: 19, 28, 34, and 90. 247

Wicker 2008: 148. Gaál 1980: 172; Wicker 2008: 148. 246 Wicker 2008: 148. 244 245

50

Chapter 7 Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries The aspect of ethnicity in the interpretation of the archaeological record

material culture.255 The most important question remained how to define those elements that had a significance in this respect within the archeological record. Subsequent theories about material culture from the seventies and eighties investigated the aspect of style and its distinctive role in and among different groups of people. Style was conceptualized on the one hand as symbolizing ethnicity as a result of intention, and as a consequence of unconscious factors on the other. The so-called “isochrestic” model defines style as a result of culturally determined choices of possible ways to do things that are equivalent in use. It bears an imprint of ethnicity because of the infinite number of potential combinations of choices. According to this interpretation style is passive, and is viewed as a result of the subconscious.256 The other mainstream of theories concerning style in archaeology is characterized by a functional approach; it suggests a conceptualization of style as a form of active communication in a social context. In terms of material culture, style refers to an active symbolic role of particular characteristics of artifacts that have distinctive purposes, such as supporting ethnicity, symbolizing social territories, or being associated with ritual.257 A combination of conscious and subconscious aspects lies behind a distinction drawn between the “emblemic style” as a means of communicating conscious affiliation and identity, and the “assertive style” carrying information supporting individual identity and applied either consciously or unconsciously. According to the above theory, only the emblemic style appears in the form of distinct distribution in the archaeological record in contrast with random distributions of the assertive style, which makes it possible to distinguish the two, though various other factors contributing to the formation of the archaeological record make the picture less clear.258 Both structuralist and functionalist theories have been criticized from various points of view.259 One direction of criticism refers to the active role material culture plays in the mediation of social relations and the construction of identities, and the different meanings it can have depending upon different social contexts. In various contexts not even the same cultural elements are involved in the communication of ethnicity, which results in a complex pattern of overlapping material culture distributions that appears in the form of a web of stylistic boundaries rather than discrete monolithic cultural entities. The method suggested is to employ a wide

Overviews on how the relation of historically known ethnic groups and the archaeological record has been treated in international scholarship have distinguished different traditions, and pointed out that the European practice of archaeology cannot be approached through the simplified model of a sequence of theoretical approaches in AngloAmerican archaeology.249 It has been formulated as a generalized observation that the way scholars in Eastern, Central and South-Eastern Europe used the concept of ethnicity implied the existence of a shared understanding without a defined theoretical background.250 The common elements have been seen in an emphasis on the internal integrity and historical continuity of ethnic units that is constituted by also real cultural and linguistic elements besides subjective perception and self identification.251 In the third quarter of the twentieth century a different understanding of ethnicity as being a subjective construction and primarily relational generated fundamental changes in the approach of “Western” archaeology towards the relationship between ethnicity and material culture. It got the impulses from anthropological research; ethnicity became to be conceived as being dynamic, subjective, and existing in the context of a we–they opposition.252 This more general model has been refined through a variety of conceptions, emphasizing the aspects of situational identity construction, goal-orientation, and the role of socio-cultural and political factors. As a result, a variety of theoretical approaches have evolved in archaeology, replacing the concept of a direct correspondence between language, culture, and ethnicity and of the archaeological record as a passive reflection of relations and distances between former groups.253 Ethnicity as a form of identity has been treated within the context of exploring the possibilities of archaeological approaches to past cultural identities.254 Ethnoarchaeological studies, focusing on the role of artifacts in maintaining ethnic boundaries and the way this contributed to the spatial patterning of objects, have pointed out that only some of the cultural traits (and not the culture as a whole) are used by a group in identifying themselves, including also verbal communication and non-verbal behavior besides Trigger 1989; Hodder 1991a: viii; Johnson 1999: 26; Marciniak 2006: 165–166. 250 Trigger 1989: 234–235; Dragadze 1990; Kaiser 1995: 105–106; Renfew 1996; Bursche 1996: 229–230; Curta 2001: 15–18. On the existence of national and regional traditions within Central Europe, see Marciniak 2006. 251 Kaiser 1995: 106; Jones 1997: 63; Jones and Graves-Brown 1996: 8–9. 252 Barth 1994 (1969): 9–38; Jones 1997: 51–55, 59–60, 72–79. On the consequences of Barth’s theories within this process, see Shennan 1989: 11–14; Jones 1997: 109–110; Jones 1999; Lucy 2005: 94–94; Jones 2007. 253 Jones and Graves-Brown 1996: 5–7; Jones 1997: 56–83; Lucy 2005: 91– 92; Jones 2007. 254 Shennan 1989; Lucy 2005; Insoll 2007. 249

Hodder 1982; Hodder 1992 (1986); for an overview of the historiography of ethnoarchaeology, see David and Kramer 2001: 22–28. 256 Sackett 1990. 257 For this active role H. Martin Wobst introduced the notion of “stylistic behavior.” See Wobst 1977: especially 317–321. 258 Wiessner 1983. 259 Shanks and Tilley 1992: 142–146. 255

51

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

variety of independent contextual evidence, also taking into consideration the temporal (historical) aspects of ethnicity.260 Recently ethnicity has been seen as a form of identity that can work at a number of different levels, and which crosscuts other aspects of social identity, such as gender, age, religion. Individual identity has been placed in the foreground as opposed to group identity. It is seen as being fluid, very much depending on the context in which the interaction takes place.261 Contextual, temporal, relational, and reciprocal aspects of identity have been emphasized; thus, ethnicity is conceived as being constantly redefined. Members of ethnic groups experience ethnicity differently depending on their age, sex, class, etc; it cannot be studied in isolation from other aspects of identity that get different emphasis in individual contexts.262 Concerning group identity, communal similarity/ difference and population mobility are the terms offered for those aspects that can be identified by archaeology and scientific analyses; their relation to ethnicity and other forms of identity and their contribution to the transformation of identities is a question that should be handled separately.263 Turning to the methodological consequences of the above conceptions, it is necessary not only to see the broad patterns in sets of archaeological remains, but also to analyze them within their individual context on the local level so as to find out as much as possible about the structures and interactions that lay behind their formation.264 There might be elements of the material culture that had a role in constructing and signaling ethnicities, while others did not or did not do so all the time. Similar forms of material culture can communicate different and multiple identities depending on the context.

Ottomans, the analysis of which is beyond the scope of the present work.266 Here, to make a detour, I would like to refer to the results of the archaeology of the Late Middle Ages in Hungary, in the frames of which the problem of interpreting the archaeological remains of newly immigrating ethnic groups emerged for the period that just predates the Ottoman era. The questions, however, that have been raised by the research concerning the presence of Cuman and Iasian groups in the Carpathian Basin have been considerably different from those concerning the cemeteries of various ethnicities in the Ottoman period. The problem of ethnicity and costumes in the archaeological research of late medieval Hungary Cumans fleeing from the Mongol invasion arrived in Hungary first in 1239 from the steppes of South Russia.267 As a late wave of nomadic peoples to reach the Carpathian Basin, they imported Eastern cultural elements from the steppe to a kingdom characterized by Western and European culture; their social structure, ethnicity, religion, economy, customs, and material culture differed in a great extent from that of the Hungarians. Written sources, visual representations, and archaeological evidence testify that they preserved their language and various elements of their original social structure and cultural traditions for a long time. Their complete assimilation lasted for about three centuries.268 The Cuman clans were settled on royal estates, and they were allowed to preserve their partial autonomy. Their nomadic light cavalry formed a considerable part of the royal forces and had a crucial importance in supporting the king’s power. This evoked a counteraction of the oligarchy and the high clergy, who urged the ruler to compel the Cumans to give up their nomadic and pagan customs and convert to Christianity. These demands were laid down as a law in 1279, which lead to the protest of the Cumans. Their forces were defeated in a battle in the following year and many of them left the country. From the beginning of the thirteenth up to the fifteenth century, the Cumans gradually lost their military importance, simultaneously with their incorporation into the feudal system. Their original social structure gradually disintegrated by the end of the fourteenth century; from the mid-fourteenth century the leading families were able to transform the clan estates into their private domains. In the second half of the century their nomadic settlements were replaced by permanent villages, and the autonomous government of the clans was inherited by territorial administrative units called szék that were independent of the system of counties. The adoption of Christianity was also completed during the century. Commoners preserved their free peasant status as collective privileges during the fifteenth

The approach that considers certain items as being applicable to reconstruct either the geographical or the ethnic origins of the groups that arrived to southern Hungary in the period of the Ottoman conquest is based on the presumption that female headwear on the Balkans was determined by ethnic or territorial affiliation, and the items suggested above played a role – either consciously or unconsciously as it has not been specified in the literature – in expressing this sense of belonging. The form of female headgears and the wearing of certain forms might have, however, been affected by many other factors as well, for example age, social and marital status, religion, and influences resulting from a variety of interactions. The significance of using certain types might have changed in different contexts – as in the case of the veil of Muslim women that was also worn by Christians in the same region265 – at different levels, including also that of the individual, within the very complex historical, political, social, and cultural situation in the Balkans ruled by the Shanks and Tilley 1992: 155; Jones 1997: 88–100, 117–119; Jones, 2007: 72–75; Jones 1999, drawing on the habitus concept by Pierre Bourdieu; Shennan 1989: 15–20, referring to the use of habitus concept by Bentley 1987. The concept of style as a passive aspect possessed by the object is criticized also by the understanding that emphasizes the role of people and their interactions involving the artifacts, building upon the chaîne operatoire conception. (Graves-Brown 1996: 89–91; Lucy 2005: 102–105). 261 Meskell 2001; Diaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005: 9; Lucy 2005: 86; Insoll 2007/a; White and Beaudry 2009. 262 Meskell 2001; Fowler 2004; Insoll 2007/a; White and Beaudry 2009. 263 Lucy 2005: 101–109; Jones 1997: 123; Jones 2007: 76. 264 Jones 1997: 125–126; Lucy 2005: 109. Ian Hodder emphasized the importance of the combination of the two aspects. (Hodder 1992 (1986): 182). 265 Insoll 1999: 122–123. 260

See the study of the formation of attire in South-Eastern Europe under Ottoman and Western influences up to the 20th century by Scarce 2002 (1987); Jianu 2007. 267 After the Mongol invasion of the Hungarian Kingdom in 1240–42, the Cumans were accused of spying for the enemy, and their khan was murdered, so they left the country, plundering on their way. They stayed on the plain of the Danube in Bulgaria when the Mongols withdrew from Hungary. King Béla IV called the Cumans back to the Hungarian Kingdom with a new alliance against an expected second invasion of the Mongols, probably in about 1246. (Pálóczi Horváth 1996: 22–23; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/a: 39–53). 268 See Győrffy 1953: 248–275; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 291–292. 266

52

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 31. Finds from the Cuman cemetery at Perkáta-Kőhalmi-dűlő: Gothic mounts, ring and buckles; earrings of “Eastern European” style. Intercisa Museum, Dunaújváros. (Hatházi 2004: 195, plate 31, figs. 3, 4, and 10; 196, plate 32, figs. 3, 14, 15, and 17-20). and sixteenth centuries. In the period of the Ottoman conquest the migration of various groups concerned also the Cumans, but by that time their assimilation was complete, and their language had died out.269 The transformation and survival of old customs was determined by counteractive tendencies. The royal court urged the Cumans to convert and settle down, but at the same time their role in the military system contributed to preserving their privileges and separation, and to conserving the nomadic costume and weapons of the light cavalry.270 Furthermore, written sources testify that a so-called Cuman fashion emerged in the second half of the thirteenth century among the Hungarians, and also in the neighboring German and Austrian lands, against which even the apostolic delegate had to take measures.271 The steppe innovations of armament and horse equipment (e.g., certain types of saddle and reflex bow) were widely adopted in Hungary.272 Cuman costume and warfare can be studied from book illuminations, and a considerable number of contemporary depictions on frescoes about the legend of Saint Ladislaus representing the fight of the king with the Cuman – the latter seen as a characteristic nomadic warrior.273 Iasians in Hungary are first mentioned in historical sources in 1318. The date of their immigration is still debated; it is

assumed that they probably moved into the Carpathian Basin at about the same time as the Cumans.274 The two groups had common privileges, and archaeological research on them has been characterized by similar problems. Archaeological research has analyzed several aspects of the process of assimilation based on the material remains. Burials that reflect the respect for imported pagan customs marked members of the Cuman clan aristocracy and can be dated up to the middle of the fourteenth century. Remains of nomadic armor, horse equipment, and weaponry have been found in the graves of the male elite, and jewelry, metal elements of the garments, and other grave goods, such as mirrors and knives, in the graves of females.275 The origins of the objects that these burials contain have been approached from three directions. Most of the grave finds and the burial customs point towards the Eastern steppe; another group of the objects has Byzantine and Balkan analogies. The third component is Western chivalric culture, represented by accessories with Gothic decorations: chivalric scenes, heraldic elements, and inscriptions that are prayers to patron saints (Fig. 31).276 From the mid-fourteenth century the Cuman aristocracy must have adopted Christian practices, so the direct traces of pagan customs disappeared, but remnants of superstitious beliefs could be discovered within another form of the burial site: the cemeteries of the populations of the Cuman

Pálóczi Horváth 1989/a: 27, 68–82; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 292; Pálóczi Horváth 1996: 24–25; Berend 2001: especially 68–73, 87–93, 97–100, 134–140, 142–147, 171–183, 244–267. 270 Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 89; Pálóczi Horváth 1980: 403–427; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/a: 86–95. The author distinguished four phases of the assimilation process: in chronological terms these took place in the 13th century, in the first half of the 14th century, in the second half of the 14th century, and from the 15th century onwards. (Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 293). 271 Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 90. 272 Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 294, with further references. 273 Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 90–91; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 294; Newton 1980: 92–93. On the interpretation of such depictions in the Hungarian Illumunated Chronicle, see Marosi 1995: 57–66; on the costumes depicted in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle see Kovács, A. 1998; for an analysis of the depictions as reflecting perceptions of the Cumans in medieval Hungary, see Berend 2001: 207–210. 269

Selmeczi 1996/a: 69–80, especially 77–78, with further references; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/a: 62–67; Langó 2000. 275 Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 293–294. The most recently excavated male burial with a horse was published in Horváth 2001, with further references; on a similar burial of a female, see Banner 1931: 187–204; Fodor 1972; on the jewelry of a female burial from Balotapuszta, see Hatházi 2005: 41–54. 276 Pálóczi Horváth 1996: 30–31; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 294–295; Horváth 2001: 165–166; Hatházi 2005: 33–34, 56–59; Berend 2001: 257–258. 274

53

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

contemporary Hungarian cemeteries.280 According to visual depictions, articles of traditional clothing were preserved in the fourteenth century; metal accessories were, however, the products of local craftsmen in the Hungarian Kingdom. At the same time, the way of wearing them indicates the survival of a fashion that Cumans had imported from the steppe; Gothic buckles and clasps were applied on belts or to fasten oriental caftan-like robes.281 The most extensively treated example of combining eastern and western elements has been that of the belts, which amalgamate the impact of all three cultural spheres. The nomadic weapon belt was a part of the ancient steppe culture as a symbol of the free warrior. A group of thirteenth-century belt sets found in the earliest graves of the clan aristocracy show, however, both the peculiarities of Eastern goldsmiths’ work and characteristics originating from Western chivalric culture. No analogies have been found among the nomads of the Eurasian steppe, but similar belts have turned up in South-Eastern Europe, where they were worn by prominent members of western societies. The Cumans seem to have adopted a widespread European fashion for belts and adapted them as a version of their traditional nomadic weapon belt.282 The popularity of some objects, earrings with spheriform pendants for example, has been clearly related to the arrival of late nomadic peoples, but they have been found in the cemeteries of the neighboring Hungarian settlements as well. They became an element of a more generally spread fashion and did not exclusively characterize any ethnic group.283 Analysis of the archaeological distribution of bone-mounted belts has led to a similar conclusion.284 It is the persistence of some pagan ritual elements that seems to distinguish the burials of Cuman and Iasian populations from the contemporary Hungarian ones: the relatively richly decorated funeral costume, traces of fire in the grave, food and tools provided for the afterlife.285 Settlement archaeology investigating Cuman villages starting from the 1960s sheds light on the process of their assimilation from further respect, revealing a lack of significant difference between those and the Hungarian ones.286 Based on the analysis of the artifacts and archaeological features, it has been concluded that the various aspects of social and cultural assimilation of the newcomers did not necessarily proceed simultaneously.287 Though the ethnic identification of the archaeological sites was built on written sources, the typological analysis of the finds with comprehensive comparative material from both the Eastern steppe and Europe revealed that most of the items are not

Fig. 32. “A Rác woman.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. settlements.277 The earliest cemeteries belonging to the settlements were probably established by the end of the thirteenth century, and the churches were built later when the population converted to Christianity.278 A great number of the graves in these churchyard cemeteries are characterized by the absence of grave finds; the quantity of grave goods and costume accessories reflect the social and property status of the deceased.279 Written sources and depictions testify that the Cumans in Hungary persisted in their traditional way of clothing until the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. However, the organic materials like textiles and leather vanished without any archaeologically observable remains. Despite attempts to the contrary, it has been confirmed that there are only a few archaeological finds associated with garments that do not equally characterize

Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103–104. The idea that the oriental object types and customs from this period represent the archaeological remains of the Cumans arose at the end of the nineteenth century. See, e.g., Nagy 1983: 105–117. 281 Hatházi 2004: 80–85; Hatházi 1996: 51. 282 Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 94–101. 283 Hatházi 1996: 51. 284 For a survey of the problem and further literature, see K. Németh 2005: 275–288. 285 On these ornamented garments, see Hatházi 1996: 51–52 and especially Hatházi 2004: 120–121. Gábor Hatházi provides a detailed analysis of burial ceremonies tracing all the features in contemporary Hungarian cemeteries as well, and avoids their evident interpretation as reminiscences of pagan rituals imported from the steppe by the Cumans. (Hatházi 2004: 120–127). On Iasians, see Selmeczi 1996/b: 85–86. 286 Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 296–300. 287 Hatházi 1996: 53. 280

Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 295. It has been debated whether the burials of converted leaders can be found in churchyard cemeteries. According to András Pálóczi Horváth, they were buried in graves in churchyards with relatively more grave goods. (Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103). Hatházi interprets these latter graves as the burials of the middle layer of free Cumans because their accessories are not particularly valuable. Indeed, they are on the level of the material culture of wealthy Hungarian peasants. (Hatházi 2004: 131–132). 278 Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 295. 279 Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103. 277

54

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 33. Finds from the Southern Slav cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató. Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd. (Gaál 1980: 219, plate VII). or even overlaps it. The problems that the research of the two historical periods had to face are quite similar, but different approaches have developed. The results of Cuman studies reveal a complex system of interactions of the newcomers, that is, with peoples who lived in their neighborhood before entering the Carpathian Basin, and with the contemporary population of the Hungarian Kingdom – as it is manifest in the archaeological record.

specific for the ethnic group, but form an integral part of contemporary fashion. In most cases Cuman peculiarities were not manifest in the single types of objects belonging to their garments, but in the system of associated features and customs in comparison to the contemporary Hungarian material.288 However, it has been noted as a problem of research that the lack of the excavated and analyzed contemporary Hungarian cemeteries as a comparative sample makes the validity of the results limited.289 The revival of Cuman identity following their cultural assimilation and fate similar to that of the disappearing Hungarian population in the region during the period of the Ottoman conquest is another interesting issue to mention. Though the Cumans disappeared, Cuman identity was preserved so as to obtain privileges of the Cuman region that was exempt from the supremacy of the county until the late nineteenth century. In this case, ethnic identity was clearly related to legal status without a common descent and a separate language.290 The period that is treated by the research of the Cuman and Iasian populations just predates the Ottoman conquest,

Clothing, accessories and ethnicities in sixteenthand seventeenth-century cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin A new context – or a wide variety of new contexts – resulted from the migration of the Balkan groups to the area under Ottoman rule in Hungary. This area is characterized by the presence of the burials of the original population as well, which forms a specific framework for the archaeological interpretation. Previous research of the cemeteries aimed at distinguishing the material culture of these two groups of different cultural-geographical origins, looking for features and items that could be defined as indicators of ethnicity in this broader sense. Objects related to the costumes of the dead as found in the cemeteries of the Ottoman-period Balkan peoples in Hungary

Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 105. Hatházi 2004: 127–128. 290 Bárth 1995: 9; Berend 2001: 90–93. 288 289

55

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

the position of clasps and buttons, and oriental-like veils or scarves as female headgears fixed with pins.292 A difference between the grave finds in churchyards and those in the cemeteries of the Balkan population has been detected in the general composition of the finds. Attila Gaál was the first to apply ethnic terms when explaining the unusual features of the burials that have been related to a Balkan population with reference to textual sources. He claimed that certain pieces of costumes found in the cemetery at Dombóvár had never turned up before in the cemeteries of Hungarians.293 The finds belonging to garments were the following: clasps with hooks made of bronze and iron; hairpins made of bronze with small, round heads or with a glass bead applied as a head; shank buttons made of tin, bronze, bone, and glass; glass beads; bronze and iron rings; a cap made of cloth; iron shoe plates; remains of headgear decorated with cowries, beads, and bronze and iron rings; triangular tin pendants; and coins applied as pendants. The group of finds from Zombor about which József Korek was on the view that it formed a contrast to contemporary Hungarian material comprised the following: bronze hairpins; headgear decorated with cowries; shank buttons; clasps with hooks made of bronze and iron; glass beads; and a seal-ring.294 Some objects among the grave finds have been suggested to possess the capacity of indicating ethnicity, meaning Balkan ethnicities in general as compared to the population

Fig. 34. Hairpins from grave 39 in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente SzĘcs. provide a rather fragmentary picture of their garment, as all the textiles have perished, and only metal, glass, and bone accessories have survived. The general picture drawn on their outlook calculates with an overall oriental character, as it has been a commonplace that the population of the Balkans was heavily influenced by Ottoman culture that could have been manifest also in their clothing, which concerned also nonMuslims.291 Attempts to reconstruct garments limited by the fragmentary character of the archaeological record interpret individual cases within this general picture, suggesting caftan-like robes and loose, baggy trousers on the basis of

Fig. 35. Hairpins from the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. Katona József Museum, Kecskemét. (Wicker 2008: 243, plate III).

292

291

Gaál 2003: 225; Wicker and KĘhegyi 2002: 21, 28; Wicker 2008: 97 and 231–233, figs 11–13. 293 Gaál 1980: 171. 294 Korek 1992: 197.

Insoll 1999: 122–123; Scarce 2002 (1987): 98–99.

56

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 37. Hairpins in grave 773 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. (Bárdos 1987: 20, fig. 28).

Fig. 36. Hairpins, iron clasps, and belt in grave 110 in the churchyard cemetery at Kide. (Kovalovszki 1986: 22, fig. 17).

Fig. 38. The disposition of hairpins in graves 98 and 103 in the Southern Slav cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató. (Gaál 1980: 197, fig. 18).

57

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

of the churchyards; these are simple bronze and iron hairpins, ornamented hairpins with large, spherical head, cowries, and pendants. In the case of some other objects that have been recognized to be widespread also in churchyards, it is their spatial position that has been considered as being specific for Balkan ethnicities, indicating a specific dress cut. The same questions emerge here as those raised concerning the relevance of archaeological evidence in finding the original homelands within the Balkans: to what extent any archaeological criteria are eligible to identify a cemetery in ethnic terms, and how archaeological record can be related to categories, events and processes as known from historical documents. The first step is to make an inquiry concerning the contexts in which the above mentioned objects have turned up, meaning the archaeological context of various burial sites and what is known about the population interred from other sources also concerning their ethnicity. Such an investigation reveals whether these items characterize exclusively the cemeteries of Balkan groups, that is, whether communal similarity and difference can be detected.

These simple and cheap accessories were neither mentioned, nor depicted in the sources. The way in which they were worn can only be reconstructed with the help of the excavated burials. In most cases the pins belonged to the female headgear. In some graves there are five to fifteen pieces lying in a radius around the skull, often simple pins combined with decorated ones. The positions of the pins indicate that these women used to wear their hair in a bun, or/and a veil, a kerchief or other headwear was fixed over it. This headdress was typical in two excavated cemeteries. One of them – Kaposvár – is a churchyard cemetery (Fig. 37), the other – Dombóvár-Békató – is a cemetery of a population of Balkan origins (Fig. 38).301 A pin found either on both sides or on one side of the skull characterized several graves in Katymár, one of the so-called Balkan cemeteries. On the basis of these an oriental head covering with a veil that was led in front of the face or under the chin, fixed with one or two pins has been reconstructed.302 However, a similar position of pins was observed in churchyard cemeteries as well, as in Kide or Kaposvár.303 Also at Katymár the archaeologist found two graves where the pins were applied to fix or decorate an ornamented bandlike headgear.304 Moreover, ethnographic analogies suggest a common way of using the pins, as described in the socalled Chronicle of Nagykőrös in the mid-nineteenth century, according to which women used to fix their fine white batiste headkerchiefs near their ears with two bead-headed hairpins.305 The most particular, but still well grounded conclusion one can draw is that females belonging to different ethnic groups used to fix their hair or some sort of textile headgear with the help of these pins. With the lack of textile remains and direct written or pictorial sources it is not possible to reconstruct any specific wear, and even if there were such sources at disposal, it is questionable whether interpreting all the gravefinds from different contexts through generalizing on the bases of those would be justified methodologically, as one cannot exclude the existence of variations. The pins usually belonged to the headdress of women, but they have been found in burials of children and men as well. This was the case in the Balkan cemetery of DombóvárBékató, where several male and infant remains had pins on the foreheads.306 In a grave at Magyarcsanád-Bökénymindszent that has been dated to the first half of the nineteenth century, an elderly man had a pin above the right orbit, which the archaeologist interpreted as the trace of the traditional headwear of aged men with a tuft fixed on the forehead.307 The pins do not always turn up around the skull. In the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár there was a pin on the shoulder in the grave of a female and on the arm of another

Bronze and iron hairpins The hairpins that are 6–8 cm long with a small, round head of a 3–5 mm diameter were some of the most widespread objects of late medieval and early modern sites. A glass bead was often attached to them, but simple pins were used as well (Figs. 33, 34, 35, 36). In the Hungarian secondary literature they have been labeled hairpins, round pins, or shawl/kerchief pins, which clearly indicate that no single and uniform function has been defined. These objects appeared at about the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century, and they were articles of everyday use in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.295 These pins are common finds in both the churchyard cemeteries (Figs. 34, 36, 37) and those cemeteries that have been related to Balkan ethnic groups (Figs. 33, 35, 38),296 and they are present among the archaeological finds of some castles as well.297 Also, the overall state of research of churchyard cemeteries and the often fragmentary excavations of the cemetery types calls for caution when generalizing.298 Thus, the conclusion according to which the object “characterizes the Rác to a greater degree than contemporary Hungarian wear” 299 cannot be sustained. Even less tenable is the assumption that the hairpins are significant in the above-mentioned Rác or Balkan cemeteries as indicators of date and ethnicity.300 In burials from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as MakóMezőkopáncs (Bálint 1936: plate No. 74); Karcag-Asszonyszállás (Selmeczi 1973: 111). A piece from the sixteenth century is from grave No. 170 at Alsórajk–Kastélydomb, dated with a coin from 1539 (Szőke 1996: 272 and plate No. 143, fig. 4). 296 Some examples of churchyard cemeteries with bronze hairpins in sixteenthand seventeenth-century graves: Bajót, grave No. 16 (Lázár 1999/b: 297); eighteen graves at Kaposvár (Bárdos 1987: 20); Kide, graves No. 103, 104, 110, and 112 (Kovalovszki 1986: 21–22). For similar data concerning the Balkan cemeteries, see Wicker 2008: 93–94. 297 E.g., Kőszeg (Bakay 1988: 86–87); Várad: a pin dated to the sixteenth century (Rusu 2002: 93 and plate No. 59). 298 This cannot be excluded as a possible reason behind the lack of pins also in the case of two cemeteries classified as Balkan, though there might be many other explanations as well, such as the population interred there did not wear hairpins. Lázár 1999/a; (See Lázár 2003; Wicker 2008: 93). 299 Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 54 (my own translation of the Hungarian origial); Wicker 2008: 92–93. 300 Wicker 2003/a: 238. 295

Kaposvár, graves No. 94, 107, 183, 761, 772, 773, 810, 820, 1025 (Bárdos 1987: 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, and fig. 28); Dombóvár-Békató: graves No. 22, 26, 98, 234 (Gaál 1980: 136, 142, 156, and fig. 10 and 18). 302 Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 21, 28; Wicker 2008: 97–98 and 231–233, figs. 11–13. 303 Kide, on both sides of the skull of a young girl in grave No. 104 (Kovalovszky 1986: 21); Kaposvár, graves No. 930 and 978 (Bárdos 1987: 35). 304 Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 54–55. 305 “...patyolat fejeken fehért hordoztanak, azokat két felől a füleik körül gombos gyönggyel fűzött ezüst tükben ékességnek okáért tartottanak.” (Török ed. 1970: 45). 306 Graves No. 35, 87, 94, and 107 (Gaál 1980: 137, 141, 142, and 144). 307 Banner 1926: 80–83. 301

58

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

one.308 At Kide a pin lay on the right side of the jaw of an infant.309 In the churchyard of FelsĘzsolca-Nagyszilvás the archaeologist described pins that belonged to the corset.310 The situation of the pins was the most diverse in the Balkan cemeteries of Dombóvár and Zombor. They were observed under the chins, on the clavicles, the arms, the chests, the pelvises, and the hips of males, females, and infants.311 According to the latter examples the pins were applied to secure the garments and probably also the mortuary clothes. It seems that the use of the simple and cheap objects was general and manifold, was not gender-specific, and when applied on female headgear they do not seem to indicate ethnicity. Silver hairpins with large spherical heads Simple hairpins have been interpreted as pointing towards Serbia as a homeland of the population within the Balkans, as these were related to ornamented pieces that are known from Balkan treasure hoards. The more spectacular silver pins have a large, spherical, hollow head, made of two hemispheres soldered together. Treasure hoards from Ritopek, Dubovac, and Tomaševac in Serbia (see fig. 59), Peþ in Kosovo, and Battonya in Southern Hungary have been involved in the investigation.312 In the treasure hoard from Battonya the pins are connected with a silver tie decorated with drop-shaped pendants, forming a sort of headgear. Besides the hairpins these treasure hoards contain similar headgear, but with round metal plates instead of pins, as well as metal belts, brooches with flat, polygonal heads, pendants, and earrings. The decoration of all of the objects is composed of small bent circles of filigree, granulated silver beads, glass

Fig. 40. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania). (Cipăianu 1973: 654, plate I).

Fig. 39. Pendant from the Southern Slav cemetery at Katymár. Türr István Museum, Baja. (Wicker 2008: 246, plate VI).

Fig. 41. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania). (Cipăianu 1973: 656, plate III).

308

Graves No. 149 and 759 (Bárdos 1987: 26 and 32). Kovalovszky 1986: 22. 310 Simonyi 2005: 310. 311 Dombóvár: graves No. 5, 36, 86, 103, and 227 (Gaál 1980: 134, 137, 141 and 143); Zombor (Korek 1992: 185–189). 312 Wicker 2001; Wicker and KĘhegyi 2002: 54–55, footnote 145; Wicker 2003/a: 242. 309

59

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Romania) (Fig. 11).318 Agricultural work turned up a hoard in Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania). The objects now in the Museum of Bistriţa (Romania) are two pendants with small rhomboid rattlers and filigree work, a plate to be applied on cloth, four hairpins, and two rings, all made of gilded silver, and 149 silver coins (Fig. 43).319 Near Tolna, during agricultural work, another hoard was discovered containing four silver cups, four spoons, four pair of buckles and a fragment (see fig. 72), three hairpins with filigree work and silver granulated beads (Fig. 44), the silver parts of a belt, a piece of an openwork metal lace, and a pendant decorated with a pomegranate.320 All of this goldsmith’s work has been identified as coming from a garment of a woman from the middle layer of the nobility from the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century. Other hairpins are known from archaeological contexts. A gilded silver hairpin decorated with filigree and granulated beads was found during archaeological research at the castle of Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania), dated to the sixteenth century (Fig 45).321 Another piece turned up in Saxon surroundings, now on display in the castle of Barcarozsnyó (Rişnov, Romania).322 Probably the reason for the low number of similar hairpins from churchyard cemeteries is that only a few have been excavated in Hungary.323 The earliest known example was found in the medieval cemetery of Kaszaper.324 The churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár revealed two female graves, each containing pins with large spherical heads among the nine or ten hairpins that were in a radius around the skull (Fig. 37, 46, and 47). In these cases the position of the pins indicates the headdress: the pins probably fixed a sort of bonnet on the bun.325 Some hairpins with large spherical heads are just briefly mentioned in short excavation reports. Hairpins with granulated ornaments are noted from the site of BabócsaBolhó.326 A gilded silver hairpin decorated with openwork was found in one of the eight graves excavated in the sanctuary of the Calvinist church at Balatonszőlős (Fig 48).327 Two gilded

Fig. 42. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Drégelypalánk. (Kövér 1892: 33). inlay, and small jingling plates applied as pendants.313 A pair of ornaments that was to be applied on the veil or kerchief at the temples or as earrings,314 a stray find from the Katymár cemetery, is similar to this Balkan jewelry in its decoration and function (Fig. 39 ), and there are also analogies in the excavated cemeteries in Serbia and Macedonia. Thus, it can be labeled as one of the Turkish-Balkan popular items of jewelry.315 However, the identification of the items as indicators of ethnicity is more problematic. Similar hairpins in the collections of different museums in Hungary have come from treasure hoards from other parts of Hungary beside the southern areas. The first known pieces were found in a hoard at Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) in 1882 (Figs. 40, 41). The hoard comprises six gilded silver hairpins decorated with filigree work, a small triangular plate with six golden tubes that served as an ornament on a garment, and several coins of Prince Gábor Bethlen of Transylvania, which were minted in 1622 and 1625.316 Two pairs of buckles and two hairpins were found in a hoard at Drégelypalánk (Fig. 42).317 A hoard comprised of two pairs of gilded silver buckles, a gilded silver ring, a silver spoon, a gilded silver pin with filigree work, and the fourteenth-century typarium (seal) of Nagybánya was found near Nagybánya (Baia Mare,

It was dated with the help of a silver quarter-taler of Emperor Ferdinand I, minted in 1555, and a silver half-taler of Imperial Marshal August from 1564. (Mihalik 1906/a; Mihalik 1906/b). 319 The jewelry has been dated to the sixteenth century, but the dates of the coins have not been published. (Telcean 1976). Telcean knows only one analogy of the earrings from the nearby village Mittye (Mititei, Romania). She assumes that they were made in a local Transylvanian workshop in the fifteenth or sixteenth century, following fourteenth or fifteenth century Byzantine patterns transmitted from the Lower Danube area. (Telcean 1976: 215). 320 Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 219–244. 321 Rusu 1998: 36, 68, and fig. 130/25. The shank of the hairpin has been bent back; probably it was applied in this secondary form as a button or a pendant. 322 Unpublished. 323 It was Edith Bárdos, the archaeologist of the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár, who first stated this question. (Bárdos 1987: 22–23). On the other hand, there might be many unpublished pieces in museum collections all over Hungary, as it can be concluded from some informal data I was provided by archaeologists. 324 Grave No. 407. The cemetery was dated to the age of Ferdinand I (1526– 1564) (Bálint 1938: 161 and plate 17, fig. 7). The author mentions an analogy with a hairpin from the Gyula-Fövenyes cemetery. 325 In the same article the archaeologist mentions a similar finding in a sixteenth-century grave in the churchyard cemetery around the Saint Nicholas chapel in Keszthely. (Bárdos 1987: 22, footnote 29). 326 Magyar 1981: 62, 69, and pl. 3, figs. 20–23. 327 Grave No. 4. Another of these burials is dated by a coin minted in 1535 (László 1980: 116 and 120, fig. 12). 318

On treasure hoards and Turkish-Balkan jewelry, see Gerelyes 1999: 41–48. Usually labeled “earrings,” but Erika Wicker assumed that the hooks are unfit to set them in the ear (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 57; Wicker 2005/c). 315 Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 56; Wicker 2005/c. 316 Pulszky and Radisics 1885: 9–10; Cipăianu 1973: 653–663. 317 Kövér 1892: 33. 313

314

60

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 43. Objects from the treasure hoard found at Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania). Museum of Bistriţa (Romania). (Telcean 1976: 214, plate I, and 215, plate II). silver hairpins are reported from the rescue excavation of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century cemetery at DamócTemetődomb.328 A hairpin decorated with filigree work came from one of five sixteenth- and seventeenth-century graves in the church of Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia) (Fig. 49).329 Seven hairpins with large spherical heads from the site Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld are on display in the Satu Mare County Museum in Romania (Figs. 50, 51, 52).330 A pair of gilded silver buckles, decorated with ornamental foliage held in a bunch by a tiny human figure, is reported from the same grave with one of the hairpins.331 There is only one Balkan cemetery where – according to the archaeological report – a pin with large head was found. In the publication of Zombor the author compares two pins to the pieces known from Kaszaper and Nagybánya, but neither does he provide a detailed description of the objects including their material, nor a distinguishable illustration.332 The same is true for the six hairpins coming from Bodrogmonostorszeg, J. Dankó 1975: 116. Ruttkay 1997: fig. 8/4. 330 The archaeologist János Németi published six of them that were found in 1966 (Németi 1982: 172–173 and plates XLIV-XLV). The seventh piece turned up in 1994 (Németi 1995: 125). Further two pins were found in 1997; one as a stray find, the other by the scull of grave No. 5, together with some pieces of textile and beads, which remained unpublished. I thank János Németi and Attila Hágó for providing me with the information. See fig. 53. 331 I did not have the opportunity to study the buckle personally; I used the description of János Németi (Németi 1982: 174 and plate XLV, fig. 4). The closest analogy of the buckle comes from the hoard of Nagybánya (Mihalik 1906/a: 121). 332 Korek 1992: 183. 328 329

Fig. 44. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Tolna. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 229, fig. 6). 61

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 45. Hairpin found in the castle of Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania). (Rusu 1998: 130, fig. 25).

Fig. 46. Hairpins from grave 773 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. Museum of Somogy County, Kaposvár. (After Bárdos 1987: 49, plate 2 and 50, plate 3.; drawing by Mária Sótonyi).

Fig. 48. Hairpin from grave 4 at Balatonszőlős. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (László 1980: 120, fig. 12).

Fig. 47. Hairpins from grave 772 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. Museum of Somogy County, Kaposvár. (After Bárdos 1987: 49, plate 2; drawing by Mária Sótonyi).

Fig. 49. Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia). (Ruttkay, 1997: fig. 8). 62

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 50. Hairpins from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

Fig. 52. Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

Fig. 53. Hairpins from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

Fig. 51. Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

63

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 54. “A Saxon woman from Bistritz (Bistriţa, Romania).” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

Fig. 55. “A Saxon woman in winter clothing.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

which have been compared to the ones from the Tomaševac hoard.333 However, according to the archaeological report it is not clear whether they belonged to the cemetery or to a treasure hoard that had been found nearby. Hairpins with large spherical heads made of bronze or bad-quality silver but without any ornamentation turned up in four graves at Bácsalmás and in two burials at Katymár.334 Some hairpins with large, ornamented head of various forms are referred to in written documents. Baron Béla Radvánszky, who accumulated a huge collection of primary sources on the material culture of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century nobility in the second half of the nineteenth century, concluded that either they attached the veil to the hair on both sides with clasps or decorated pins or they fixed the hair in a bun on both sides with large hairpins.335 However, it seems that it was not just the members of the nobility who wore such jewelry. The Hungarian Chronicle by Dillich, issued in 1600, says that among the Saxons in Transylvania “women twine their veil round their head and they fasten it with big, spheriform pins.”336 A painting preserved in the Bruckenthalmuseum in Sibiu (Nagyszeben, Romania) represents a Saxon woman in

Hungarian gala costume with clasp-form brooches, a silver belt, and a handkerchief. Her veil is fixed on her hair with two hairpins (one on each side).337 Pins pierced to various forms of headgears of Saxon female burghers appear on the illustrations of costume codices as well (Figs. 2, 54, 55, 56). Similar objects are also known in ethnography. Their name is “roll-up-pin,” and the process of “rolling-up” means wrapping a fine kerchief around the head of a bride and securing it with hairpins. This tradition was known in different areas and among different ethnic groups of the Carpathian Basin even in the first part of the twentieth century.338 In the case of the individual objects from archaeological contexts it is not easy to define the members of which ethnic groups used to wear them and how. The hairpin from Barcarozsnyó was probably owned by an inhabitant of a Saxon fortified town, and analysis of the written sources revealed that the inhabitants of Bobáld who were buried in the excavated cemetery belonged to a mixed Romanian and Hungarian population.339 Different groups of sources indicate a widespread use of gilded silver hairpins that were manufactured of similar elements. They were not specific to any ethnic group, as it

Korek 1992: 190. Another pair of pins was mentioned from Baja, Hunyadi u. 2 (Wicker 2005/b: 24). 334 Wicker 2008: 95 and plate III, 11–16. 335 Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 247, 264. 336 Cited by Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 226, footnote 10; Bárdos 1987: 22, footnote 35 (my translation). 333

Domanovszky ed: n.d. (1939–1942): 380. On the widespread use of hairpins among Saxons with references to a variety of sources, see Niţu 2005: 142–143. 338 Ortutay ed. 1979: vol 2, 62–64. 339 Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 315–324; Mérai 2007. 337

64

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

seems that the pins are found equally among the Saxons, Hungarians, and Romanians.340 They served as objects for accumulation because of their precious material, without any regard to the original function.341 In some cases they were hidden together with jewelry of Turkish-Balkan types, but there are hoards where they were associated with objects that were in use in different parts of Hungary in different social and ethnic layers from the Late Middle Ages onwards, without any element that would relate them to the Balkans. Thus, neither does the use of decorated pins essentially lead towards this geographical direction. Clasps, buttons, and reconstructions of oriental garments Two-piece clasps consisting of an omega-shaped loop and a hook are still used today. They occur in burials situated in Hungary dating from the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century, made of bronze and iron,342 and a significant number of them is known from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The clasps with hooks were used to fasten the clothes of both males and females, and they have been found in diverse positions in the graves of various cemeteries. In the cemetery of the Balkan population at Dombóvár most of the clasps were found in female graves. The archaeologist assumed that they could have served to fasten the shirt, the waistline of the skirt, or the loose, oriental trousers.343 A similar female garment was represented on a seventeenthcentury watercolor of a Rác woman from Transylvania.344 Compared to the representations of other ethnic groups in the same watercolor series, the depictions testify that the main difference between the cloths of different ethnic groups was perceived to lie in the cut and in the colors.345 However, only the metal parts that served to fasten the clothes are preserved in the graves, and there is no information about the other characteristics of the garments worn by the population of the particular cemetery. There is no reason to exclude that similar buttons or clasps could have been applied on significantly different garments, and the typical wear of the same group could have been fastened with different accessories. Even the archaeological finds indicate this: clasps at similar places as in Dombóvár have been found in churchyard cemeteries as well.346 Taking up the question of buttons, a similar cautious approach is expedient when reconstructing oriental, caftanlike clothes fastened by one, two, or three buttons situated on the right side just below the neck.347

Fig. 56. “A Saxon peasant woman.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library. Shank buttons are common finds in both the churchyard cemeteries and those of the Balkan peoples in Hungary. They usually lie in a line parallel with the spine, as they were fixed along the front of the dolman.348 However, the features and objects found in the graves reflect the burial customs, and not necessarily the way of wearing clothes, so even if the buttons are more frequent in one cemetery than another, this does not indicate the actual popularity of wearing a dolman,349 but may only reflect a difference in the funeral practice.350

Besides, they were also used in Moldavia and Walachia (see Niţu 2005:143–144, with references to sources). 341 Nitu 2005: 142–147. 342 E.g., in the cemetery at Makó-Mezőkopáncs (Bálint 1936: plate No. LXXIV); at Kaposvár in grave No. 411 dated with a coin of King Sigismund (1387– 1437; Bárdos 1987: 27). At Csút in a fifteenth-century grave (Gerevich 1943: 156). 343 Gaál 1982: 168; Gaál 2003: 225; Wicker 2008: 127–129. 344 “A Rascian’s wife” (Jankovics, Galavics, and R. Várkonyi 1990: fig. 58). 345 E.g., “A Hungarian Trades man’s wife” wears a similar short dolman with a row of shank buttons, and her hair is covered with a kerchief, but the color and the cut of the dress are different (Jankovics, Galavics, and R. Várkonyi 1990: fig. 12). 346 E.g., Kide, grave No. 110 (Kovalovszky 1986: 22); Kaposvár, graves No. 99, 292, 550, 559, 933 (Bárdos 1987: 26, 28, 30, 35); Lászlófalva, grave No. 40/II (Pálóczi Horváth 1976: 298); Dombóvár-Békató, grave No. 185 (Gaál 1980: 151). 347 Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 59, footnote 163. 340

Grave No. 19 and 96 in Katymár (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 15, 35); grave No. 10 and 18 in Esztergom-Szentkirály (Lázár 1999/a: 220–221); eight graves at Győr-Gabonavásártér (Mithay 1985: 186–193); grave No. 103 in Dombóvár (Gaál 1980: 143). 349 As interpreted by Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 59, footnote 163. 350 It is known from ethnography that in several areas of Hungary they used to bury the deceased in a shirt, e.g., Csapó 1977: 81. 348

65

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

Fig. 57. Distribution of hairpins with large spherical head in Hungary. Prepared by the author. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania) Babócsa-Bolhó Balatonszőlős Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) Barcarozsnyó (Rişnov, Romania) Bodrogmonostorszeg (Bački Monoštor, Serbia)

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Damóc Drégelypalánk Kaposvár Kaszaper Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania) Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania)

Objects exclusive to cemeteries of the Balkan peoples There are objects belonging to garments that have only been found in the cemeteries of Balkan groups up to now. Burying women and infants in decorated headgear was general in churchyard cemeteries as well, but the ornaments are different and characteristic. In the Balkan cemeteries of Dombóvár and Zombor several pieces of headgear were decorated with cowries (Fig. 33).351 The graves of Bodrogmonostorszeg were not properly documented, but there are many cowries among the finds that could have belonged to the decoration of headgear.352 In Bácsalmás cowries were found in four graves.353 As opposed to the Slav cemeteries mentioned above no cowries have been found in churchyard cemeteries up to now. However, it is of peculiar interest that members of the Hungarian nobility would use horse harness that was

13. Nagykároly – Bobald (Carei, Romania) 14. Ráckeve 15. Tolna 16. Tomaševac (Serbia) 17. Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia) 18. Zombor (Sombor, Serbia)

decorated with cowries, which is assumed to have resulted from a Turkish, even an Arabic impact.354 Pendants meant to be worn above the temples are also ornaments that characterized the headdress of the Balkan groups, but not the population of the churchyard cemeteries. However, the examples that have been found up to now do not show a uniform pattern. The most valuable silver piece is from Katymár, but, as it was a stray find, it is not known by whom and how it was worn (Fig. 39). Analogies from the Balkans suggest that similar objects were fixed on the headwear at the temples.355 The same is true for the jingling triangular bronze pendant among the finds from Bodrogmonostorszeg.356 There was only one grave at Dombóvár in which triangular tin pendants were found at the temples of a woman’s skull; the

Graves No. 65, 84, 100, 130, 224 at Dombóvár and graves No. 72 and 85 in Zombor (Gaál 1980: 139, 141, and 143; Korek 1992: 183). 352 Korek 1992: 190 and plate No. III. 353 Wicker 2003/a: 239; Wicker 2008: 100–103. 351

Kovács, L. 2003: 345–350. Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 55–77 and fig. 7 on page 90; Wicker 2005/c. 356 Korek 1992: plate No. V; Wicker 2008: 108–113. 354 355

66

Archaeological Evidence of Clothing and the Problem of Ethnicity in the Research of Ottoman-period Cemeteries

other two pieces came from burials of male infants, possibly from a necklace or just placed in the grave.357

is true for the relations of clasps, hooks, and buttons to the entire garments. Ornamented silver hairpins with large spherical heads have been found in Balkan treasure hoards together with other Turkish–Balkan items of jewelry. Similar hairpins are known, however, in treasure hoards from various parts of Hungary and Transylvania containing objects of Gothic and Renaissance character. Several pieces have been published from churchyard cemeteries, and probably the reason for not having even more is the small number of excavated and published churchyards. A further piece was found in Alvinc castle (Vinţu de Jos, Romania), and another one in a Saxon settlement. Depictions and written sources also attest that Saxon women fastened their veils with similar pins, and portraits of the nobility represent how their more valuable items were worn. Thus, silver hairpins with large spherical heads cannot be considered as specific for any ethnic group. However, there are types of jewelry that seem to characterize Balkan cemeteries, while churchyards not at all, such as cowry decoration of the headgear and metal pendants with filigree and openwork. Still, in these cases, the use (and the absence) of the objects pointing towards a wider region that was distinct in certain aspects of the material culture of Hungary might have also been related to age, status, and a series of other factors besides ethnicity, such as what materials and technologies were available for the groups and the individuals during and after migration.

The archaeological record has been considered by previous research to be suitable for finding the homelands of the immigrating groups within the Balkans. Comparing burial customs and clothing of both the peoples coming to Hungary and those living in the Balkans as a method might raise a practical and a theoretical question. One is whether there is a sufficient amount of data at disposal; the other is whether it is the common place of origin, the common religion, or the common ethnicity that might underlie similarities and differences in the archaeological record. If yes, then in what way, and if not, then what other factors contributed to it. The same questions must be raised when turning towards the other context where the same groups, more precisely their cemeteries appear due to their migration, that of the sites with burials of contemporary Hungary. Object types that have been considered as relevant in this respect, such as bronze and iron hairpins with small, round heads, became widespread from the fourteenth century onwards in Hungary, and they are common finds both in cemeteries of peoples coming from the Balkans and in churchyards from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The position of the pins is not enough information to be able to reconstruct a piece of headgear that distinguishes Balkan groups, and the same

357

Grave No. 5 (Gaál 1980: 134, 174).

67

Chapter 8 Experimenting with the context

In the previous chapter it has been demonstrated that some of the object types that previously seemed as being characteristic for groups of the population of Ottoman-period Hungary arriving from the Balkans have appeared also in a different context, suggesting a more widespread use that was not determined by ethnicity or geographical homeland. The analysis of the context of individual objects in respects other than ethnicity through textual evidence (related either directly or indirectly), archaeological record, and images might reveal more about the way clothing items and accessories functioned in social interactions. I will demonstrate through a handful of object types that a closer look at the context might lead to new questions, although I am aware that the possibilities for such an attempt are limited due to the number of data at my disposal. It is the social and financial status, as well as gender and age, and a variety of social interactions that will most often come to the foreground through the examples as being decisive in the use of certain forms. In some cases ethnic aspects are interwoven as well, while the formation of the archaeological record was obviously influenced also by the systems of beliefs and concepts of commemoration. From diamonds and pearls to glass and beads: ornamented hairpins I have already treated the ethnic interpretation of hairpins with large spherical heads, and concluded that they are not specific to any ethnic group, as is indicated by the context of the archaeological finds. It has also already been mentioned that decorative hairpins formed a part of the headdress of noble ladies and Saxon burghers as well. Some similar, richly decorated hairpins are referred to in written documents. Particularly valuable pieces are listed in the inventories of the movables of seventeenth-century aristocracy: “a golden hairpin in which there is one sapphire, five rubies, an old [= big] pearl and two small ones” was mentioned in 1639,358 “a pin to wear on the head and two roll-up pins made of silver” in 1644,359 and “two pins with gems, one with diamonds and rubies, the other with sapphires and emeralds” in 1647.360 The heads of these sumptuous pins were not always globes; “a hairpin with rubies in the form of a rose” was listed in a dowry list in 1647, and a gilded silver hairpin “on the top of which [is] a rose in which there are 12 small rubies and in the midst an emerald” appears in a testament from 1651.361 Depictions of noble ladies show how hairpins were worn, e.g., in the so-called ancestors’ galleries of aristocratic families that displayed life-sized portraits of

Fig. 58. Portrait of Kata Thököly, wife of Ferenc Esterházy. 1691. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. female members. On the portraits from the last decades of the seventeenth century the hair of the ladies is bound up and hairpins with large, round or rosette heads are stuck all around it (Fig. 58).362 Besides the already quoted description by Dillich, depictions also suggest that hairpins were considered to characterize the headwear of Saxon burghers (see figs. 2, 54, 55, 56).363 In the case of the objects from archaeological contexts it is more difficult to define which social layers used them. The hairpin found in the castle of Alvinc was associated with the sphere of the highest nobility of Transylvania (see fig. 45), whereas the one from Barcarozsnyó (Râşnov, Romania) was probably owned by an inhabitant of a Saxon fortified town.

The personalia delivered by the wife of Mátyás Andrássy to the wife of Zsigmond Thököly (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 270). The original texts are in Hungarian, translated into English by me. 359 The testament of the wife of Mihály Bécsi (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 289). 360 Possessed by Ilona Woiszka (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 294). 361 The dowry list of Judit Újfalussy, bride of László Zay (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 272); testament of Baroness Ilona Esterházy (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 312). 358

The portraits of Countess Kata Thököly and Éva Thököly, wives of Ferenc and Pál Esterházy (Buzási ed. 1988: figs.12 and 72). 363 For example, in the costume book of the British Museum, four Saxon women are depicted wearing hairpins (Jankovics, R. Várkonyi, and Galavics 1990: figs. 14, 18, 32, 42). 362

69

Experimenting with the context

The identification of the population of cemeteries would seem to be an obvious source to answer the question. The present state of research in Hungary, however, limits the possibilities of such an attempt. In the cases when hairpins with large spherical pinheads were found in churchyard cemeteries, no attempts were made to identify the social status of the owner. In the churches of Balatonszőlős and Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia) the graves in question were situated in the sanctuary, which indicates that the deceased were in some sense prominent personalities of the region (see figs. 48 and 49).364 The historical study of the early modern cemetery of Nagykároly-Bobáld, from which the greatest number of hairpins has been published, led to contrasting conclusions (see figs. 50-53). The medieval and early modern village of Bobáld was situated on an estate of the Károlyi family; the most important sources for the population buried in the cemetery are the taxation lists.365 Evidence from the second half of the seventeenth century suggests that most of the mixed Hungarian and Romanian population escaped the devastations by the Turks and Tartars leaving the settlement, and the new layer that replaced them had a different legal status. They did not own the land anymore, so they were called inquilini. However, it is clear from the documents recording their stocks of animals that this was a rather wealthy stratum. Their legal relation to the land they cultivated, which, as the term inquilinus implies, would have meant poverty in medieval times, now ensured a much more favorable status, with fewer obligations.366 Thus, the gilded silver hairpins and the buckle from the graves were owned by the members of a population who belonged to a wealthy, upwardly mobile layer of peasants. In the case of treasure hoards there is no information either on the owner of the objects, nor on the person who hid them, except for the hoard of Tolna (see figs. 44 and 72). One of the objects bears the inscribed name of Mátyás Kádas, who probably belonged to a lower but wealthy layer of merchants. The authors of the study of the hoard assumed that the jewelry was owned by a noblewoman and came into the possession of Mátyás Kádas as a pawn, or their owner entrusted him to hide them together with his own valuables.367 Gilded and silver mounts, buckles decorated with vegetal ornaments and small figures, and a chain were originally applied on a textile band, and constituted a type of belt that characterized the female costume of the middle layer of sixteenth-century nobility.368 However, similar belts of worse quality from Transylvania, produced with a less elaborate technology, are found in the collections of the Hungarian National Museum and the Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest; they were part of the costumes of burghers in the second half of the seventeenth century.369 A similar belt was represented on a painting of the Bruckenthal Museum from about 1680, depicting a Saxon woman in gala dress.370

Fig. 59. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Tomaševac. (Kövér 1897: 247, plate 13). The problem of the relation between quality, dating, and social and financial status concerns hairpins as well. The hoard from Tomaševac (Serbia) was related to rustic jewelry of Turkish–Balkan origin by the archaeologist Ibolya Gerelyes, but she did not mention the hairpins in this context.371 She referred to hoards from the Balkans and Serbia as analogies which had been dated to the second half or the end of the seventeenth century – according to associated coins. The jewelry of these hoards is rather rustic, made of worse quality silver, decorated with granulated silver beads, filigree-work, and glass plates. However, the pins from Tomasevác are not of this type; they are more elaborate, with rich, finely formed filigree and without pendants (I have no information on the quality of the silver of any of the pins) (Fig. 59). Similar pieces from Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania), Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania), and Balatonszőlős are from a sixteenth-century context (see figs. 11, 45, and 48). The question is whether the rustic style and the rather low quality indicate a chronological difference, as seems to be the case with the belts, or different economic possibilities, ambitions, and social status of the owners. The answer cannot be given at the present state of research without the detailed archaeological context of each object and historical studies concerning the settlements and the populations of the sites. The decoration of the pinheads with granulated silver beads and red and white glass inlay is a reminder of the pearl, ruby, and diamond ornaments of the aristocracy; according to the sources these latter were the most popular elements of such jewelry.372 Hairpins are the only items of the Balkan treasure hoards that appear in churchyard cemeteries and among the Saxons, probably because these were found suitable for the clothing of this group (as the use of ornamented hairpins of a different kind was obviously found suitable for the clothing of also the nobility), and other types were not. Balkan-type hairpins were accessible and visible enough, like similar types

Ruttkay 2005: 38; László 1980: 16. The documents related to the settlement are in the family archives, now in the National Archives of Hungary. The related documents are in section P, 392, 397. For more details, see Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 318; Mérai 2007. 366 This phenomenon can be observed all over the country, although regionally in different degrees. See Varga 1969. 367 Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 219–244. 368 Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 224, 232 and 227, fig. 5. 369 Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 230, 233–234. 370 Domanovszky ed. n.d. (1939–1942): vol. 3, 380. 364 365

371 372

70

Gerelyes 1999: 41–49 and figs. 22–28. Kiss 2001: 32.

Experimenting with the context

of jewelry on the headgear of the highest strata, and burghers, wealthy peasants, and the members of the lower nobility could also afford to possess them and apply them to their traditional headgear. The place of production of the known items of pins has not been identified; it is still to be investigated whether they are products of Balkan craftsmen or were made in the territory of Hungary or Transylvania.373 The distribution of the pins can possibly be related to the activity of the so-called “Greek merchants” in Hungary, merchants from all over the Balkans under Ottoman rule and from Ragusa. Unfortunately, only eighteenth-century lists of their stock have survived, which contain household articles, spices, different sorts of textiles, ready-made clothes, veils, and small items: buttons, clasps, and also pins, in one case specified as báb-tű, which can mean a pin with a head.374 Though not hairpins, but similar other goods of Greek merchants were listed in the sixteenth century custom registers of Sibiu (Nagyszeben, Romania).375 The presence of these merchants of Balkan origins all over the country has been mentioned above. For example, in Sibiu and Braşov they appeared as early as the middle of the sixteenth century.376 In 1587 Rác (Balkan-origin) and Ragusan merchants were expelled from certain regions of the Habsburg Empire.377 They settled down in Transylvania and the Hungarian Kingdom from the 1610s, and their significance is suggested by the fact that Prince Gábor Bethlen issued a limitation on their goods in 1627.378 Greek companies were formed in Szeben (Sibiu, Romania) in 1636 and in Brassó (Braşov, Romania) in 1678; in the 1660s they were also active at Kassa (Košice, Slovakia) and Szatmárnémeti (Satu Mare, Romania).379

Fig. 60. Detail of the portrait of Borbála Wesselényi. Unknown master, 1662. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum. but confine myself to the problem of the transmission of forms, and the relation of the quality and material to the social position and financial possibilities of the owner, as this is a direction of inquiry that seems to be more suitable to the archaeological record, as the headwear of not all of the strata that are manifest in the archaeological evidence are covered by written documents. The headgear of noble ladies was made of gold and silver or precious textiles such as silk and velvet, decorated with pieces of boglár composed of diamonds, rubies, and a great number of pearls, usually in the form of a flower; often only these ornaments are found in the archaeological record because the textile has disappeared. A sumptuous párta was depicted on the head of Borbála Wesselényi, a member of the aristocracy, in 1662 (Fig. 60).383 The most valuable pieces are known only from written sources, as usually they were not buried with the owners, but were passed on to the heirs. They are often listed in last wills, even of males, and not only members of the nobility but wealthy burghers also owned golden headgear; they were considered to be worth keeping.384 Valuable pieces as finds have been unearthed from the burials of noble ladies, some of whom were even possible to identify by name. This was not the case in Csenger, where finds from disturbed burials contained forty-nine pieces of gold boglár decorated with enamel and filigree; several had goldsmith’s marks (see fig. 13).385 Similar ornaments composed the headgear of a young girl excavated in Boldva,

As red as ruby: the female headgear called “párta”380 The exact meaning of the word párta is still debated; it covers different types of decorated women’s headgear. Various adjectives specify the term in written sources referring to either the form or the function, or the marital status or age of the wearer, but the correspondence of the types listed in the documents with the objects known from depictions or finds is rather problematic.381 They are generally classified in the secondary literature based on their decoration, which can be embroidery or lace, pearls or beads, mounts, spirals of bronze wire, or composite ornaments (boglár).382 I do not discuss here the issues of definition, types, and symbolic meanings, The publishers of the finds from Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania) and Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) both assumed that the jewelry was the product of a Transylvanian workshop (Telcean 1976: 213; Cipăianu 1973: 663). 374 Bur 1985: 257–271. 375 See Pakucs-Willkocks 2007. 376 Pakucs 2004: 154–155. 377 Gecsényi 1998: 193. 378 Gecsényi 1998: 192. 379 Gecsényi 1998: 194, 202–203. 380 In this sub-chapter I have used the catalog of an MA thesis written by Borbála Kelényi at the Institute of Archaeology of Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest (Kelényi 2006). 381 Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 229–235. The explanation provided by Irena Turneau in the glossary of her book is a simplification of the meaning; párta can take various forms, not just semicircular, and neither does the author refer to the diverse decoration patterns (Turnau 1991: 164). 382 Mojzsis 1984: 206–207; Béla Horváth provides a combined classification; some of the categories refer to the function, others to the decoration (Horváth 1970:162–163). The word boglár means a composite ornament that could be applied on any item of clothing. 373

Hungarian National Museum, Anna Ridovics ed. 2001: 64. Kelényi 2006: 79–80; Szende 2004: 140; Radvánszky 1896: vol.1, 232– 233. 385 Höllrigl 1934: 101–107. 383 384

71

Experimenting with the context

ornaments were found in the grave of the daughter of Mihnea, Prince of Walachia.388 According to the analysis of the forms, all these ornaments were made in the same workshop at Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania).389 Golden ornaments found in the disturbed crypt of Losonc (Lučenec, Slovakia) belonged to the burial costume of a member of the Losonczy family, based on historical data.390 Female members of the Dobozy family buried in the Protestant cemetery of Debrecen had embroidered silk headgear with golden ornaments with pearls, and composed of enameled golden ornaments with rubies and pearls, both marked by goldsmiths from Debrecen.391 In both Csenger and Debrecen, besides the headgear with golden ornaments, flower motifs were formed of garnet plates (Fig. 62).392 The archaeologist of Csenger listed four sites where similar flower forms composed of garnets were found,393 and some further examples have been published since then. In

Fig. 61. Ornament (boglár) from a headgear from a burial at Boldva. (E. Nagy 1982: fig. 35). Fig. 62. Flower motive made of garnet from the Csenger crypt. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Höllrigl 1934: 102, fig. 80).

Fig. 63. Headgear (párta) from Tiszaörvény. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 158, fig. 1).

Fig. 65. Headgear (párta) from Szada. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 160, fig. 3).

Fig. 64. Ornaments (boglár) composed of rubies and red glass plates on the headgear from Tiszaörvény. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 159, fig. 2).

Fig. 66. Ornaments (boglár) composed of red glass plates on the headgear from Szada. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 161, fig. 4).

dated to the third quarter of the sixteenth century (Fig. 61).386 A third párta was owned by one of the noble ladies buried in the crypt of Küküllővár (Cetatea de Baltă, Romania): either Zsófia Patóchy or her granddaughter, Zsófia Kendy.387 Similar 386 387

Bunta 1977: 231. Bunta 1977: 235–236. 390 H. Kolba 1970: 181–182, 188 and figs 2, 3. 391 V. Szathmári 1991: 195. 392 Höllrigl 1934: 108; V. Szathmári 1991: 195. 393 Höllrigl 1934: 108–109. The pieces from Miskolc and Tiszaörvény have already been published (Megay 1970: 133; Horváth, B. 1970: 157). 388 389

E. Nagy 1982: 58–59, figs 33, 34, 35, 72, fig 48. Bunta 1977: 223–224.

72

Experimenting with the context

Nagylózs and probably Ják, members of local noble families were buried in such headwear in the churchyard.394 A stray find is known from Bajót.395 The ornaments on a more valuable piece of headgear from the churchyard cemetery at Tiszaörvény comprise silver beads and rubies, but also red glass imitating rubies; probably it was the product of a workshop of nearby Debrecen (Figs. 63 and 64).396 On a similar find from the churchyard at Szada there is only red glass besides the pearls (Figs. 65 and 66).397 As ruby, garnet, and red glass appear in similar ornaments – sometimes even seem to be exchangeable –, it is very likely that garnet and red glass substituted the ruby decoration of the objects of the high nobility, as in the case of hairpins. Though the burials listed above preserving headgears with ruby/garnet/red glass decoration have not been attributed to particular families, it seems that at least some of them can be assigned to the lower nobility. Another way to imitate the pieces of boglár on the headgear of high nobility was to form knobs of paper, rags, or fibrous plants, cover them with textile and decorate them with glass, beads, copper, or bronze sequins and metal wire398 or simply to group beads, spirals of bronze and textile twist, and sequins in a way that they composed a flower motif that stood out in relief (see e.g., fig. 67). These types of headgear characterize churchyard cemeteries all over the country, but none of them is formed in exactly the same way.399 In some cases it has been proposed that such pieces of párta belonged to members of the lower nobility.400 This type has been observed also in historically known ethnic contexts, as in an assimilated Cuman village at Lászlófalva,401 and in the cemetery of the HungarianRomanian population of Bobáld.402 At the same time, it seems that headgears in cemeteries of the peoples coming from the Balkans are simpler, decorated with beads, coins, bronze buttons, mounts and sequins, and cowries.403 Cowries have not turned up in churchyard cemeteries, but only exclusively in Balkan cemeteries. A párta decorated with Turkish coins was also found in the churchyard cemetery of Kaposvár,404 although I do not know any other similar examples. This type of decoration, though typically of Balkan character, has not turned up in the cemeteries of Balkan groups in Hungary.405 It is easy to distinguish the headgear of the high nobility, both because some of the burials have been identified by name and because written sources and depictions provide detailed information about the forms and the material. The golden ornaments found in the archaeological context are the products

Fig. 67. Headgear (párta) from grave 1085 in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár. (Bárdos 1987: 59, plate 12, figs. 1-2; Drawing by Mária Sótonyi). of craftsmen of guilds, and written sources testify that noblemen also invited specialists of pearl decoration to their courts.406 Examples of párta with garnets have been attributed to less prominent noble families, although they were also found in the same context as gold pieces, as in Csenger and Debrecen. József Höllrigl suggested that garnet ornaments were purchased through trade, probably from Bohemia.407 Headgear was constructed by specialists in making items decorated with pearls and beads and embroiderers residing in towns, but such craftsmen did not belong to any of the guilds.408 Sources mention eighteenth-century pártamakers in Debrecen, still without a guild.409 Retailers also sold readymade pieces; a párta was listed in the stock inventory of a shop in Szombathely at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and Greek merchants offered various elements that were needed to fabricate one.410 Many items of simple headgear decorated with beads and cowries must have been home-made. There seems to have been no clear distinction between the objects owned by the lower layers of the nobility and wealthy peasants. There are transitional forms of varying value; it may depend on how members of various strata acquired the headgear. In some cases this is indicated by written sources as well; the inventory of the goods owned by Baron Benedek Serédy lists a párta with a peasant’s boglár that is not decorated with jewels but with beads.411 The cut of female dress Oriental and Western influences in female and male attire of sixteenth- and seventeenth century Hungary have been widely

Mojzsis 1984: 195–196 and 197, fig 1; Edőcs 2004: 361–362, and 365, figs 1–7. 395 Lázár 1999/b: 294. 396 Horváth 1970: 157–158. 397 Horváth 1970: 159. 398 E.g., in Feldebrő (S. Laczkovits 1989: 39); Kaposvár, grave No. 836 (Bárdos 1987: 17); Kéttornyúlak (S. Laczkovits 1989: 35); Óföldeák, Grave No.74 (Béres 2003: 189). 399 S. Laczkovits 1989: 40, lists several examples, for further pieces, see Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 316 and 323, figs. 7–8. 400 S. Laczkovits 1989: 35–41; Mojzsis 1984: especially 210. 401 Pálóczi Horváth 1976: 278–280 and 298–300. 402 Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 323, pl. 4, fig. 7. 403 E.g., graves No. 65, 84, 100, 130, 193, 224, 227 in Dombóvár-Békató (Gaál 1980: 161, 143, 146, 152, 155, 169, 170, 171); graves No. 64 and 68 in Katymár (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 25, 51); graves No. 42, 72, 85 in Zombor-Bükkszállás (Korek 1992: 186–187). 404 Kaposvár, grave No. 970 (Bárdos 1987: 18, 35). 405 Wicker 2008: 105. There is no information available on the archaeological context of the perforated coins from Bodrogmonostorszeg (ibid., footnote No. 871). 394

Bona Nyilasy was mentioned in 1567 as the specialist in pearl decoration of the Transylvanian prince. Originally she went from Kassa (Košice, Slovakia) to Eger to work for a female member of the Magochy family, then to the court in Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania). It is also known from the sources that a similar craftsman from Sopron worked for the palatine Miklós Esterházy. (Kemény 1895: 285.) 407 There are data on significant Transylvanian garnet sources too, though only from the eighteenth century. Bohemian garnets are of the pyrope type, which occur in much smaller pieces and which might have been the reason for distributing them in flower forms. I kindly thank Eszter Horváth for this information. 408 Lajos Kemény published fifteenth- to seventeenth-century data on specialists in pearl decoration and embroiderers in Buda and Kassa (Košice, Slovakia), and he assumed that they produced the headgear. (Kemény 1904: 446–447). 409 V. Szathmári 1991: 198, 201. 410 Flórián 2001: 83 refers to Horváth, A. 1956: 256–272. 411 “...paraszt bogláros, nem köves, hanem gyöngy az tetejében,” V. Szathmári 1991: 201. “Peasant’s” is an adjective that means “simple” in the sources. 406

73

Experimenting with the context

role of ethnic stereotypes, gender, status, and age within, but it would be mostly based on historical and pictorial evidence, while I wish to remain with the archaeological record that is rather limited in this sense. Metal accessories of female garments that survived in the burials of various social layers might reflect some aspects of the spread of forms. A characteristic piece of the sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury female garment was the corset. In the sixteenth century, the cut of female dress took shape under a general Western impact originating from Italy; it had an angular neckline on both the front and back and was fastened with clasps on the front. It was first seamed together with the skirt, while in the second half of the century tailors made the corsets as separate articles of clothing, often even in a different color, which were called Hungarian bodices.413 At the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, corsets with clasps were used in parallel with pieces that were fastened with

Fig. 68. A Hungarian peasant’s wife depicted in Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica (Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600).

Fig. 69. “A Hungarian countess.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

Fig. 70. “A Szekler maiden in gala dress.” Illustration in a water color costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

treated in the literature.412 While Hungarian noblemen were perceived by contemporaries as being similar to the Turks in their attire, female garments of the nobility remained influenced by Western trends, and the impact of interactions with the Ottoman Empire were manifest in other spheres of their lives. This would be an interesting issue to touch upon concerning the possible interpretations of costumes and the

lacing on the front;414 the same form with a V-neckline, open on the front and closed with lacing, became widespread from the second half of the seventeenth century.415

412

Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 183–185; László, E, 1986: 317. Garments in “Hungarian fashion” were already mentioned in fifteenth-century sources, see Tompos 2005: 95–96. She also investigates eastern impacts on the cut of female dresses (Tompos 2005: 96–97). 414 V. Ember 1968: 180, figs. 108, 114, 115, and 117. 415 Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 183, 191–193; Höllrigl n.d. (1939–1942): 376– 379; V. Ember 1968: 180; Tompos 2001: 16; László, E. 1986: 317. 413

On the Turkish impact on Hungarian costume, see Tompos 2005; Gervers 1982: especially 12–15; Turnau 1991: 22–26.

74

Experimenting with the context

Fig. 73. Corset from a burial at Boldva. Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest. (E. Nagy 1982: 65, fig. 40).

Fig. 71. Gala dress of Katalin of Brandenburg. First half of the 17th century. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Ridovics ed. 2001: 23).

Fig. 74. “Hungarian corset” from the Sárospatak crypt. Rákóczi Museum of the Hungarian National Museum, Sárospatak. (V. Ember 1968: 170, fig. 109). followed by the lower layers in a simplified form. The lace of the corset was most often led through rings or hooks that were made of precious metal on the costumes of noble ladies (see figs. 60 and 71), and the ornamented clasps on the front were made of gold. This may have been the function of the items comprised in the treasure hoard of Tolna (Fig. 72).416 However, less elaborate pieces were also listed among the valuables in inventories, like a corset with nineteen pairs of iron clasps and narrow lace, owned by Ilona Esterházy in 1650.417 The form with angular neckline and clasps formed a part of the preserved costume of a sixteenth-century girl from Boldva (Fig. 73).418 Both the type with clasps and with lacing could

Fig. 72. Clasps from the treasure hoard from Tolna. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 227, fig. 5). The few surviving original garments and the representations on portraits in the ancestors’ galleries reflect that this dress was worn by noble ladies, but the stereotypical representations in costume books also depict peasants in similar costumes, as in the chronicle of Dillich (see figs. 58, 60, and 68) and in the Transylvanian costume albums (Figs, 69 and 70). Archaeological sources on corsets show that the dress cut was

Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 224 and 227, fig. 5. The inventory of Szittya castle, 1650 (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 192; Deák 1879). 418 E. Nagy 1982: 65, fig. 40; 66, fig. 41. 416 417

75

Experimenting with the context

Fig. 75. Remains of the costume and headgear in grave 108/a in the churchyard cemetery at Kide (Romania). (Kovalovszki 1986: 21, fig. 16). Fig. 77. Iron loops in grave 103 in the churchyard cemetery at Kide (Romania). (Kovalovszki 1986: 21, fig. 15).

Fig. 76. Iron loops of the corset from grave 14 in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs. be restored among the finds from the crypt of Sárospatak419 (Fig. 74) and the graves in the cathedral in Gyulafehérvár.420 Finds in churchyard cemeteries also indicate both forms. The earlier type fastened with clasps is represented by the silk corset decorated with metal laces from the churchyard at Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás that has been dated to the end of the seventeenth century.421 The hooks along the spine of a woman probably came from a corset in the cemetery at EsztergomSzentkirály that has been listed among southern Balkan sites; the burial is dated with the help of nine coins to the sixteenth century.422 It seems likely that the lace of the corset was pulled through the three pairs of iron rings on the chest of a young girl in a grave in Kide; even a piece of textile edge interwoven with metal was observed on the clavicles (Fig. 75).423 In the southern Slav cemetery at Győr-Gabonavásártér there were four graves – that of three women and one young girl – in which rings of the corset were found.424 In the cemetery at Bobáld, with the remains of a mixed Hungarian and Romanian population, three graves contained similar rings, but only one was in the original context, in the grave of an elderly woman (Fig. 76).425 Two lines of hooks along the spine of a female

Fig. 78. “Spanish corset” from the Sárospatak crypt. Rákóczi Museum of the Hungarian National Museum, Sárospatak. (V. Ember 1968: 162, fig. 99). in the churchyard cemetery of Kide could have had the same function (Fig. 77).426 A new Western trend of dress cut was imported to Hungary in the second half of the sixteenth century; the so-called Spanish corset appears in the inventories of the nobility.427 It was closed with clasps in the front up to the chin, and it

Corsets with clasps: V. Ember 1968: 174–176; with lacing: ibid., 175, 177, and figs. 102–104. 420 Pósta 1918: 42, fig. 23; 97, fig. 55; 132, fig. 81. 421 Simonyi 2005: 310 and 311, fig. 6/10; 312, fig. 7/2. 422 Grave No. 34 (Lázár 2003: 233, 235). 423 Kovalovszki 1986: 15 and fig. 7. 424 Graves No. 70/I, 85/Mg, 138/I and 168/I (Mithay 1985: 186 and 190). 425 Grave No. 14 (Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 314). 419

Grave No. 103 (Kovalovszki 1986: 21 and fig. 15). A similar feature can be seen in grave No. 108/I, but the anthropological identification was an old male (Kovalovszky 1986: 21 and fig. 16). 427 Radvánszky 1986: vol. 1, 203–204. 426

76

Experimenting with the context

had a ruffled stand-up collar.428 Dresses with Spanish cut were found in the crypts at Sárospatak429 (Fig. 78) and Miskolc430 and in the cathedral of Gyulafehérvár.431 However, it was worn only as a gala costume of the nobility; it did not become widespread and did not replace the Hungarian corset, the descendant of which was conserved as a Hungarian national gala costume of the nobility and in folk costumes up to the twentieth century.432

or cemeteries of Balkan groups (see figs. 79 and 80).436 This phenomenon does not indicate that their use was not widespread; however, it is rather the result of the custom of burying the deceased in foot cloth instead of footwear. This explanation has been supported by ethnographic observations.437 On the heels of eighteenth-century footwear preserved in the crypt of the Dominican church in Vác the traces of heel plates and spurs were visible, but they were removed before the burial.438 The widespread use of footwear with heel plates is indicated by written sources,439 and the high number of them among the finds of castles and forts has even made it possible to classify them and develop a chronological system (Fig. 81).440 It is likely that in this case the explanation for their absence in graves can be traced to burial customs.

Shoe heel plates of iron Archaeological interpretation uses the finds of cemeteries to reconstruct contemporary clothing. However, such interpretations primarily reflect burial customs that involve the choice of the funeral costume. Last wills testify that people stated in which of their clothes they wished to be buried,433 and catafalque paintings depict noblemen and burghers laid out in gala dress. Ethnographic descriptions mention that unmarried girls were buried dressed as brides.434 Thus, it is not excluded that the pattern of the archaeological distribution of an object is the result of specific burial customs.435 This is indicated by the distribution of shoe heel plates of iron. Shoe heel plates are among infrequent finds in cemeteries; only a few pieces have been found in either churchyards

Clothing should have corresponded to social status, but in reality it was not always so – at least this is what sixteenth- and seventeenth-century written sources suggest. Sumptuary laws decreed against peasants wearing fashionable and decorated clothes of good quality, which probably meant that often it was hard to distinguish them from noblemen.441 Not only did the regulations complain with the topoi that servants dressed like burghers, and burghers dressed like nobility,442 but in 1602 the Protestant minister, István Magyari, also blamed the trend of people not dressing according to their social status as a symptom of the decay of the country.443 Péter Apor, a

Fig. 79. Shoe heel plate from grave 1 in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente SzĘcs.

Fig. 80. Shoe heel plates from the cemetery of BácsalmásÓalmás. Katona József Museum, Kecskemét. (Wicker 2008: 251: plate XI, figs. 11-12). 436

Graves No. 53 and 60 in Kide (Kovalovszki 1986: 16); grave No. 1145 in Kaposvár (Bárdos 1987: 36); grave No. 9 at Várhegy-TörpevízmĦ (Magyar 1981: 60); graves No. 3, 7, 8, 25 in Egervár (Fehér 1957: 69–71); in one grave at Óföldeák (Béres 2005: 302); in grave No. 78 in Katymár (Wicker and KĘhegyi 2002: 31); in three graves at Dombóvár-Békató (Gaál 1980: 174); grave No. 341 at Bácsalmás (Wicker 2008: 135). 437 Luby 2002 (1935): 181; Béres 2005: 302. 438 Zomborka and Ráduly 1996: 11. 439 E.g., the limitation of Prince Gábor Bethlen and the towns of the area called Duna-mellék (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 95). 440 Kalmár 1959: 13; Gere 2003: 106–119. 441 See, e.g.. a sumptuary law issued in Sátoraljaújhely (Domonkos 1997: 26); a law issued by the Transylvanian diet in 1650 (Kovács Kiss 2001: 60). 442 Kolozsvár 1603 (Kovács Kiss 2001: 62); LĘcse, 1654 (Domonkos 1997: 107 and 341, endnote 66). 443 István Magyari, Az országokban való sok romlásnak okairól (Katona and Makkai ed. 1979: 83).

428

László, E. 1986: 317; Tompos 2001: 16. V. Ember 1968: 166–173 and 162, figs. 98–100. 430 Grave No. 7 (Megay 1970: 133–134). 431 Pósta 1918: 146–148, 149, fig. 97; 151, fig. 98; 152, fig. 99. 432 Flórián, 2001: 32–33. Irena Turnau, based on the chronology of the finds from Sárospatak and Eger, assumed that in the sixteenth century Spanish fashion was widely accepted and it was only in the seventeenth century that “in the impoverished country even magnates adopted more elements of the national dress.” (Turnau 1991: 29). The consideration of further archaeological finds has lead to a different conclusion. 433 E.g., last wills of inhabitants of GyĘr from the 1630–1640s are cited by Horváth 1996: 17. 434 Flórián 2001: 57. 435 On the same issue concerning buttons of dolmans, see chapter 7. 429

77

Experimenting with the context

Fig. 81. Shoe heel plates from the castle of Ozora. Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd. (Gere 2003: 216, plate 72).

Transylvanian nobleman, described noble ladies wearing the folded red boots of Saxon burghers.444 The analysis of archaeological sources might shed light on the perception of clothing items from another angle through revealing some aspects of the original individual contexts. Financial possibilities determined the material and the quality of the costumes and accessories, but the objects indicate an attempt to imitate valuable materials with cheaper ones: applying garnets or red glass instead of rubies according to purchasing power, and reproducing the cut of female dress, even with iron clasps and hooks instead of gold. This raises an alternative explanation for the spread of Balkan-type hairpins instead of a purely ethnic approach; they may have been widely available as an alternative for the ruby- and diamond-covered roses of the noble ladies, and they could have been applied to the headdress of various strata. In the latter phenomenon social and also ethnic aspects are interwoven depending on 444

the context, as in the case of Transylvanian Saxons, where group identity related to common privileges was manifest in various layers of culture, including aspects of clothing, but obviously not determining exclusively the distribution of object types. This issue leads to questions concerning the reasons behind following models in particular contexts on the one hand, and about acquisition on the other A thorough study of written documents can reveal the pattern of trade through which different groups acquired their clothes and accessories (from the archaeological point of view the latter is more promising, as finds of cemeteries of the lower strata rarely recover textiles). The role of the so-called Greek merchants could have been a contributing factor in the appearance of Balkan elements, but it is hard to interpret the distribution of types unless more finds are published properly and become contextualized by historical research.

Péter Apor, Metamorphosis Transsylvaniae (Kóczián and Lőrinczy ed. 1978: 56).

78

Chapter 9 Conclusion

Seventeenth-century costume codices of Hungary emphasized the differences between the outer appearances of various ethnic groups. Costume books from the turn of the eighteenth century, however, were already the results of a systematic survey among the population of the country. They presented the regional varieties in peasants’ costumes and differences between the clothing of villagers and town dwellers. At the end of the nineteenth century even differences within regions were observed; this is the period when the concept of vernacular dress developed.445 The approach towards rural costumes was determined by a historic interest, as they conserved eighteenth century forms, while contemporary fashion was adopted in an urban context. This happened in parallel with a revival of national costume that was developed from sixteenth and seventeenth century garments of the nobility. Male costume was shaped by Turkish influences, and looked oriental in contrast with Western fashion.446 From the seventeenth century its elements became widespread throughout South-Eastern Europe via the costume of light cavalry troops called the Hussars.447 Female “Hungarian” dress was based on a general European costume originating from Italy, and survived in parallel with the reception of later European trends. It was a model followed and conserved by folk dress as well.448 During the revolts for independence of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Hungarian nobility emphasized their claims by their refusal to follow courtly trends of clothing. In the nineteenth-century strife for independence, the revival of Hungarian national costume became a symbol, and apart from a general inclination toward Romanticism, this phenomenon determined the historic interest in vernacular costumes as well.449 The questions of present-day costume history, or rather clothing culture history, tend towards the subjective aspects of sources and study clothing both as an element of material culture and as a socially, mentally, and spiritually determined and determining factor. Such issues that came to be a focus of interest have been the role of clothing in the representation and designation of gender, social, and ethnic identity, in interactions between various groups of society, and in visual

culture.450 Similar questions characterize the archaeological research of past identities and the role of material cultures in expressing and shaping those, and the related scholarly discussion cannot be disregarded when interpreting the archaeological evidence of past, historically known groups. As a result of the Ottoman Conquest, the ethnic composition of the population in the Carpathian Basin changed significantly. It is a peculiarity of Hungarian archaeological research that the cemeteries of the sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury newcomers from the Balkans roused the interest of scholars, and contemporary churchyard cemeteries pertaining to other layers of the population have been excavated, published, and analyzed less systematically. Research on the cemeteries has been determined by a historical approach; the ethnic identification of the population has been based on written sources and the archaeological results have been interpreted within this framework, determined by an attempt to distinguish the material culture of ethnic groups, to trace them back to their original homelands within the Balkans, and to define their ethnicity within the mass of Balkan peoples coming to Hungary with the Ottoman Conquest. As a consequence of the nature of the sources, however, even historical categories referring to ethnicities in the documents are not unproblematic, the corresponding material culture to which archaeology seeks to identify. This was manifest concerning a historical and historicalethnographical examination of ethnic names applied to Ottoman-period groups in the conquest area of Hungary: the forms as they were used in the written sources did not appear to be consistent in this sense, but the same terms covered different, eventually partly overlapping things – involving aspects of language, religion, geographical origins, ethnogenesis, lifestyle, legal status – as used for and by certain groups in different times and contexts. As the framework for the archaeological interpretation of Ottoman-period cemeteries and their finds in Hungary has been determined by the distinction made between the burial sites of the Balkan groups and the churchyards, referring to ethnic difference and implying its relevance in this respect, it is unavoidable to look at how the issue of ethnicity has been treated by the archaeological research. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the definition of ethnicity as a form of socially constructed identities became widely accepted by international scholarship, which had consequences on the interpretation of the archaeological record: it has been both challenged and rejected that a straightforward correspondence would exist between ethnic categories that appear in historical sources and material

Flórián 2001: 12. Institutionalized ethnography first dealt with homemade peasants’ costumes. It was only in the first part of the twentieth century that clothes produced by craftsmen that were adapted to the contemporary trends and were created on the basis of regional ethnographic styles were finally included into the investigation. On the developments of 19thcentury ethnographic literature on the various ethnicities of Hungary, see Paládi-Kovács 2006. 446 On the Turkish impact on Hungarian costume, see Tompos 2005; Gervers 1982: especially 12–15; Turnau 1991: 22–26. On various levels of oriental impacts on Hungarian costume, see Gáborján 1985–88: 19–53. 447 In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, similar forces followed the Hungarian Hussar garment all over Europe. (Schubert 1994: 429–431). 448 See chapter 8. 449 Fülemile 1999; Turnau 1991: 24–26. 445

450

79

E.g., “Costume and Fashion,” in Braudel 1981: 311–333; “Introduction,” in Newton 1988: especially 6–8; “Preface,” in Hollander 1993: XIV– XV; Breward 1995: 9–13; Koslin and Snyder 2002: 1–3; Burman and Turbin 2003: 1–6; “Conclusion,” in Piponnier and Mane 1997: 154–156; Richardson 2004: 4–9; “Introduction,” in Ball 2005: 2;“Introduction” in Gleba, Munkholt, and Nosch 2008: XIX–XX.

cultures. A variety of theories have been developed concerning how the manifestation of ethnicity and other forms of identities are possible to detect in the archaeological record. The endeavor to identify the Balkan homelands of the specific groups that moved to Hungary does not concern their ethnicity in the above sense, as the inquiry does not cover the role of the objects in the formation and expression of ethnic identity, but rather the migration of a group as it is reflected by the archaeological distribution of material objects. The hypothesis implied by this approach is that the continuity of the group concerning its constituting members and cultural continuity is interdependent, concerns each (or a representative selection) of the members and is possible to be accessed and identified through the archaeological evidence at our disposal. A more general distinction of the finds that characterize the cemeteries of peoples moving to Hungary from the Balkans under the Ottoman rule was made at the time of the very first archaeological investigation of their cemeteries, as on the basis of certain traits they were all identified with as representing a cultural tradition different from that of pre-Ottoman-conquest Hungary. Scholars dealing with late medieval Hungary have faced a similar situation concerning the arrival and presence of the Cumans in the Hungarian Kingdom, which had been studied through the written sources. The analysis of their archaeological record has resulted in a conclusion that in certain times and respects it shows correspondences to the ethnic situation as reflected by the documents, and in other cases it does not. The Cumans’ culture changed during the complex process of their assimilation, but it did not happen simultaneously in various aspects, and was determined by diverse factors on several levels of the social, political, and ethnic context. It was not a one-sided influence: the reciprocal relationship between the Cumans and the other layers of the population affected the culture on both sides as it is manifest in the elements of clothing. A possible way to approach the archaeological record related to the Balkan peoples in Hungary, who have been recognized to belong to a different cultural tradition, is to see how the interaction between the differing traditions happened in the Ottoman Period, and in what way were material objects relevant. As the analysis of those object types belonging to the garments that have previously been identified as being characteristic for the Balkan groups – or indicating ethnicity – revealed, some of them, such as hairpins, were equally found in contemporary churchyards from Hungary. Still, it might have been a way of wearing them that would have been characteristic of certain groups, but neither are there significant differences in their situation in the graves, nor do we have direct sources at our disposal in this respect. However, there were also objects – such as cowry-decorated headgears – that have turned up exclusively in the so-called Balkan cemeteries. A general knowledge on the cultural tradition characterizing the Balkans in this period, based on historical, pictorial sources and ethnographical analogies from the broad cultural area designated by the sphere of influence of Islam and the Ottoman Empire, offers a framework for the reconstruction of costume in individual instances of graves, but searching for the distinguishing features in these on the local level would be circular reasoning. Furthermore, the finds in cemeteries do not necessarily reflect the actual clothing but are more a representation of burial customs; for example, the presence

or lack of dolman buttons and iron shoe heel plates in certain cemeteries does not necessarily indicate whether the population used the items in general or not, because people could be buried in a simple shirt and without shoe heel plates. A possible further direction is to investigate the reasons why certain objects were distributed across various social boundaries as it is suggested by historical knowledge, that is, why they appear in churchyards and Balkan cemeteries as well, not mentioning other types of contexts, such as inhabited sites and treasure hoards, and involving also written and pictorial data. Written sources about the female headgear called párta transmit the view that various forms were considered to symbolize obviously gender, but also age, and marital status, which has not been successfully identified with object forms known from the archaeological context. It is a question, though, whether it is justified to expect that the classification in the contemporary texts corresponded to and covered completely the forms existing in reality and in what extent were they actually used as such visual codes. Archaeological record might reveal other aspects concerning the symbolic role of forms, colors and materials in a broader sense. The imitation of some elements in various contexts suggests that they were considered as being especially prestigious: for a similar effect, ruby, diamond, and pearl were replaced by garnets, cheap red and white glass and beads. In connection to this, the various forms of the so-called boglár ornaments were also imitated with all sorts of material. This phenomenon can be observed concerning other objects as well, and might be a possible reason behind the widespread use of hairpins of Balkan style. Hairpins with a large, ornamented head were not only considered as being suitable to the proper and fashionable outlook as opposed to other items of Balkan popular jewelry, but their decoration reminded of the pins made of precious metals and gems. The use of similar forms and colors of a lower quality material can be interpreted as an intentional imitation of the higher social strata, but also as pertaining to other, less conscious aspects of the complex phenomenon of fashion. It is interesting to note that the items referred to here, the common feature of which is that they all turned up in some form in different archaeological contexts and arose in the previous literature as a consequence – such as ornamented hairpins, párta, and metal belts – all belong to womens’ wear and they are all well visible accessories placed on the head or the front part of the body. The financial value of hairpins was the most important concern when accumulating and hiding them as treasure hoards, and valuable items of párta listed in last wills were inherited by males as well. Financial possibilities and systems of acquisition seem to have contributed in an interrelated manner, and those on a different level might have determined the wide-spread use of simple and cheap accessories as pins and clasps. The archaeological distribution of certain ornaments suggests that they were spread by trade and members of different social layers acquired their headgear according to their financial resources. The production place of the items of relatively cheaper goldsmiths’ work such as the ornamented hairpins with a large spherical head has not been investigated yet; it is not known whether they were made in Balkan workshops or whether they were locally produced. A possible distribution of similar items might be attributed to the so-called 80

Greek merchants of various Balkan origins, whose activity – the merchandise of textiles, ready-made articles of clothing, and accessories – is well attested by written documents all over the Carpathian Basin. The activity of the Greek merchants, which has been documented even prior to the Ottoman Conquest and after its end in the eighteenth century, indicates that patterns of culture and trade did not correspond in every respect to political boundaries either in space or in time. The Ottoman Period, however, is also seen as characterized by the rise of world empires, the consequences of which in the field of production and consumption on global and local levels have been widely treated by historical archaeology.451 The archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary has analyzed the sources with regard to the influence of the situation of Hungary on the boundary of two large geo-political and cultural areas in many respects, and demonstrated the influence of both the local traditions and those coming from the political and cultural centers, and a variety of interactions between the two on material culture, as in the case of forms of pottery. As a result of various factors inherent in the above changes, such as the birth of centralized administrations, technological developments, increased radius of interactions, and also of those contributing to the survival of sources, the era was characterized by a shift in the number of written sources and depictions of costumes compared to the previous centuries. Documents from the sphere of commerce, such as stock inventories, customs lists, and limitations of prices, and a wide variety of sources from the public and private sphere, such as clothing regulations, literature, last wills, letters and portrait depictions throw light on the origins, distribution, and use of raw materials and articles of clothing concerning various social strata. They, however, provide subjective perspectives of the past reality and not an objective picture, and it is questionable to take their categories and apply them directly when interpreting the archeological record.452 Wealth as reflected by written sources often determines the general picture of material culture pertaining to certain layers, such as the clothing of a given social group.453 The archaeological material does not always correspond to these expectations, especially in a period that was characterized by a certain restructuring of the society in many respects – as it happened in the period of the Ottoman Conquest. The relation between status and wealth was complex and certainly not straightforward, and archaeological sources shed light on those aspects of this phenomenon that remain hidden when only consulting the written record. The wear of people buried in the cemetery of Bobáld village reflects how a change in

the financial status of a layer of peasants influenced their investments in material objects, in this case clothing accessories – or rather those used as funeral garments –, thereby adding to our understanding of the changing meaning of the terms applied for the status in the documents. Such a context tells of the social evaluation of the objects as well. In addition, studies in economic history on the financial value of items also contribute to the issue in this respect, showing the role of metal accessories in accumulating wealth, how accessible the items were, and how the replacement of precious materials with cheaper ones increased the availability of object types for the less affluent strata.454 It seems that the use and outlook of a clothing item or accessory was determined by a variety of the interrelated factors mentioned above, among which ethnicity was only one, and definitely not the decisive element in every case or situation. The use of hairpins with a large ornamented head among the Saxon women would not indicate their distinct ethnic identity in themselves, though a wide range of other sources attest that in their case ethnicity was intensely conspicuous in several respects, interwoven with legal and social status, supported by and manifest in a distinct language and religion. Individuals within the population of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Hungary could be defined as being the members of a variety of groups concerning their gender, age, social status, wealth, ethnicity, spoken language, submission to political authority, association with territorial units, blood relations, and so on; their clothing and material culture as a whole operated within all these contexts. There is no other monocausal explanation to offer instead of ethnicity, but a set of alternative and intersecting explanations involving cultural interchange, trade, and financial and mental factors of the market for certain objects. A significant increase in the number of available data from Balkan and churchyard cemeteries, excavated, analyzed, and published, would form a much more adequate basis of investigation. Even if this happened, still, as a consequence of the character of sources, it would not be possible to reach a desired “true and exact” knowledge in the sense of a generally valid and stable picture about how members of an ethnic or social group dressed in the past, partly because they were in constant change in similarly changing relations, and partly because it would be against the nature of the sources. The questions of research need to be formulated and adapted to the character of the sources: archaeological remains, just like images and documents, offer perspectives on the contemporary context, which must be taken into consideration as the background for the interpretation in all its available complexity.

For the archaeological approaches towards the processes of production and consumption in the Ottoman world, see Kohl 2000; Carroll 2000. On Hungarian historiography about the situation of Hungary within the Ottoman Empire, see Dávid and Fodor 2002. 452 Johnson 1999: 29-30; Galloway 2000: 49; Hundsbichler 1997: 49. 453 Monks 1999: 211. 451

454

81

See Nitu 2005.

Bibliography

Ágoston, Gábor. 2000. “The Ottoman-Habsburg Frontier in Hungary (1541–1699): a Comparison.” In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed. Kemal Çiçek, vol 1, 287–296. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye. Ágoston, Gábor. 2002. “Ottoman Conquest and the Ottoman Military Frontier in Hungary.” In A Millennium of Hungarian Military History, ed. László Veszprémy and Béla K. Király, 85–110. War and Society in East Central Europe 37, East European Monographs 621, Atlantic Studies on Society in Change 114. New York: Atlantic Research and Publications. Ágoston, Gábor. 2003. “A Flexible Empire: Authority and its Limits on the Ottoman Frontiers.” In Ottoman Borderlands. Issues, Personalities and Political Changes, ed. Kemal H. Karpat and Robert W. Zens. Madison, WI: Center of Turkish Studies, University of Wisconsin. Ágoston, Gábor. 2005/a. “Ottoman Administration in Hungary.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 278–282. Budapest: Osiris. Ágoston, Gábor. 2005/b. “The Population of Hungary in the Turkish Period.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 250–254. Budapest: Osiris. Ágoston, Gábor. 2005/c. “Coexisting Cultures in Ottoman Hungary.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 295–298. Budapest: Osiris. Ágoston, Gábor and Teréz Oborni. 2000. A tizenhetedik század története (The history of the seventeenth century). Magyar Századok 7. Budapest: Pannonica. Andrén, Anders. 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts. Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. New York: Plenum. Austin, David. 1990. “The ‘Proper Study’ of Medieval Archaeology.” In From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies in Medieval Archaeology, ed. David Austin and Leslie Alcock, 9–42. London: Unwin Hyman. Bak, János M., Péter Banyó, and Martyn Rady, ed. 2005. The Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary in Three Parts: A Work in Three Parts Rendered by Stephen Werbőczy (The “Tripartitum”). The Laws of Hungary, Series I., Volume 5. Idyllwild, CA: Charles Schlacks, Jr. Bakay, Kornél. 1988. “Kőszeg-Alsóvár.” Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 1 No. 41: 86–87. Bálint, Alajos. 1936. “A Makó-mezőkopáncsi középkori temető sírleletei” (The grave finds of the medieval cemetery at Makó-Mezőkopáncs). Dolgozatok 12: 222–241. Bálint, Alajos. 1938. “A kaszaperi középkori templom és temető” (The church and cemetery at Kaszaper). Dolgozatok 14: 139–190. Bálint, Csanád. 1989. “Some Ethnospecific Features in Central and Eastern European Archaeology during the Early Middle Ages: the Case of Avars and Hungarians.”

In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. S. Shennan, 185–194. London: Routledge. Bálint, Csanád. 2006. “Az ethnosz a kora középkorban” (Ethnos in the Early Middle Ages). Századok 140, No. 2: 277–348. Ball, Jennifer L. 2005. Byzantine Dress. Representations of Secular Dress in Eighth- to Twelfth-Century Painting. New York: Palgrave. Banner, János. 1926. “Jelentés a Magyarcsanád-bökényi próbaásatásokról” (Report on the trial excavations at Magyarcsanád-Bökény). Dolgozatok 2: 72–122. Banner, János. 1931. “A bánkúti lovassír” (A burial with horse from Bánkút). Dolgozatok 7: 187–204. Baram, Uzi. 2000. “Entangled Objects from the Palestinian Past. Archaeological Perspectives for the Ottoman Period, 1500–1900.” In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda Carroll, 137–159. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers. Baram, Uzi. 2009. “Above and Beyond Ancient Mounds: The Archaeology of the Modern Periods in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.” In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, ed. Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 647–662. New York: Springer. Baram, Uzi and Lynda Carroll. 2000. “The Future of the Ottoman Past.” In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda Carroll, 3–32. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers. Bárdos, Edith. 1987. “Középkori templom és temető Kaposvár határában II.” (A medieval church and cemetery near Kaposvár 2). Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 8: 8–57. Barta, Gábor. 1994. “The Emergence of the Principality and its First Crisis (1526–1606).” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi, 247–300. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Barta, Gábor. 2001. “The First Period of the Principality of Transylvania (1526–1606).” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to 1606, ed. László Makkai and András Mócsy, 593–770. Boulder, Colo. New York: Social Science Monographs. Barth, Fredrik. 1994 (1969). “Introduction.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture Difference, ed. Fredrik Barth, 9–38. Reprint, 1st ed. 1969. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Bárth, János. 1995. “Népcsoportok, néprajzi csoportok és történeti-néprajzi tájak a Duna-Tisza közén” (Ethnic groups, ethnographic groups and historical-ethnographic landscape between the Danube and Tisza rivers). In Dunáninnen-Tiszáninnen: a Duna-Tisza közén élő népcsoportok hagyományait számbavevő Nemzetközi Néprajzi Tudományos Konferencia előadásai. Baja, 1993. júl. 8–9. (Over the Danube – over the Tisza: proceedings of the International Ethnographic Conference treating the traditions of ethnic groups between the Duna and 83

Bibliography

held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 297–303. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Biczó, Piroska. 1976. “Jelentés a Kecskemét – Kossuth téren végzett ásatásról” (Archaeological report on the excavation at Kecskemét-Kistemplomtér). Cumania 4: 329–360. Blanchard, Ian. 1986. “The Continental European Cattle Trades, 1400–1600.” The Economic History Review 39/3: 427–460. Blazovich, László. 1997. “Déli szlávok Magyarországon és a Körös-Tisza-Maros közben a 15–16. században” (Southern Slav population living in Hungary and between the Körös, Tisza and Maros rivers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed. Kovacsics József, 117–124. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Borovszky, Samu, ed. 1910. Magyarország vármegyéi és városai. Szatmár vármegye. (Counties and towns in Hungary. Szatmár County). Budapest: Légrády Testvérek. Borsodi, Csaba. 2005. “The Government of Habsburg Hungary.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 274–278. Budapest: Osiris. Bozóki-Ernyey, Katalin. 2007. “Preventive Archaeology in Hungary. One Step Behind.” In European Preventive Archaeology. Papers of the EPAC Meeting 2004, Vilnius, ed. Katalin Bozóki-Ernyey, 104–121. Budapest: National Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary – Council of Europe. Braudel, Fernand. 1981. The Structures of Everyday Life. The Limits of the Possible. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th– 18th Century. Vol. 1. New York: Harper & Row. Breward, Christopher. 1995. The Culture of Fashion. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bunta, Magdolna. 1977. “A küküllővári lelet” (The finds from Küküllővár). Ars Hungarica 5: 223–239. Bur, Márta. 1985. “A balkáni kereskedők és árukészleteik a XVIII. századi Magyarországon (1737–1753)” (Merchants from the Balkans and their stocks in eighteenth-century Hungary [1737–1753]). Ethnographia 96: 251–275. Burman, Barbara and Carole Turbin, ed. 2003. Material Strategies. Dress and Gender in Historical Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bursche, Aleksander. 1996. “Archaeological Sources as Ethnical Evidence. The Case of the Eastern Vistula Mouth.” In Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul GravesBrown, and Clive Gamble, 229–237. London: Routledge. Buturović, Amila and İrvin Cemil Schick. 2007. “Introduction.” In Women in the Ottoman Balkans. Gender, Culture and History, ed. Amila Buturović and İrvin Cemil Schick, 1–11. London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD. Buzási, Enikő. 1975. “17th Century Catafalque Painting in Hungary.” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 21: 87–124. Buzási, Enikő, ed. 1988. Főúri ősgalériák, családi arcképek a Magyar Történelmi Képcsarnokból. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, az Iparművészeti Múzeum és a Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiállítása. Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 1988. március – augusztus (Aristocratic ancestors’ galleries, family portraits from the Hungarian Historical Gallery. Exhibition of the Hungarian National Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and the Hungarian National Gallery. Hungarian

Tisza rivers. Baja, 8–9 July, 1993), ed. János Bárth, 7– 21.Kecskemét: Katona József Múzeum. Bartosiewicz, László. 1995. Animals in the Urban Landscape in the Wake of the Middle Ages. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Bartosiewicz, László and Alice M. Choyke. 2002. “Archaeozoology in Hungary.” Archaeofauna 11: 117–129. Bartosiewicz, László, Péter Csippán, and Dóra Mérai. Forthcoming. “Dig up – Dig in: Practice and Theory in Hungarian Archaeology.” In Archaeologies. A Comparative view on the Science of the Past, ed. Ludomir Lozny. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bartucz, László. 1960. “Die Anthropologischen Merkmale der Bevölkerung aus der Umgebung von Zombor (Sombor) im XV-XVII Jahrhundert.” Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestiensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio Biologica 3: 25–28. Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. 2005. “From Sárospatak to Cairo: the Odyssey of a Design.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 51–54. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Belényesy, Károly, Tibor Marton, and Krisztián Oross. 2002. “Balatonszárszó – Kis-erdei-dűlő.” In A tervezett M7es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszán 2000–2001-ben végzett megelőző régészeti feltárások. Előzetes jelentés II. (Archaeological research in 2000 and 2001 preceeding the construction of Motorway M7 in Somogy County. Preliminary Report 2), ed. Szilvia Honti et al. Somogy Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 15: 9–15. Bencsik, Gábor. 2009. “Ábrázolt történelem” (Depicted history). In Teréz Oborni, Lilla Tompos and Gábor Bencsik, A régi Erdély népeinek képeskönyve (A picture book of peoples of ancient Transylvania), 7–10. Budapest: Magyar Mercurius. Bencsik, János. 1970. “Adatok a Hajdúságból a temetkezés szokásának és hiedelemanyagának kutatásához” (New data from the Hajdúság on the customs and beliefs about burial). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1969–70: 429–445. Benkő, Loránd, ed. 1976. A magyar nyelv töréneti-etimológiai szótára (Historical-etimological dictionary of the Hungarian language). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Benkő, Loránd, ed. 1994. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bentley, G. Carter. 1987. “Ethnicity and Practice.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29: 24–55. Berend, Nóra. 2001. At the Gates of Christendom. Jews, Muslims and Pagans in Medieval Hungary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Béres, Mária. 2003. “Előzetes jelentés az óföldeáki templom körüli temetőről” (Report on the churchyard cemetery at Óföldeák). In A legmakaibb makai. Tanulmányok a 75 éves dr. Tóth Ferenc tiszteletére (Studies in honor of the seventy-five- year-old Ferenc Tóth), ed. Attila Marosvári and István Zombori, 184–202. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei Önkormányzat. Béres, Mária. 2005. “Az óföldeáki temető üzenete” (The heritage of the cemetery at Óföldeák). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference 84

Bibliography

National Gallery, March – August 1988). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Galéria. Carroll, Lynda. 2000. “Toward an Archaeology of Non-Elite Consumption in Late Ottoman Anatolia.” In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda Carroll, 162–180. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers. Cenner Wilhelmb, Gizella. 1972. “16–19. századi grafikus viseletsorozatok – Közép-Európa nemzetiségi életének és társadalmi helyzetének képes forrásai” (Graphic costume cycles from the sixteenth to nineteenth century – pictorial sources for the ethnic composition and social status of the population of Central Europe). Folia Historica 1: 23–41. Cenner Wilhelmb, Gizella. 1973. “Die graphische Trachtenfolgen von 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert als Bildquellen zum leben- und zur gesellschaftlichen Stellung der Nationalitäten in Mitteleuropa.” Internationales Kulturhistorisches Symposion, Mogersdorf 3: 129–154. Cenner Wilhelmb, Gizella. 1977. “Halotti képmások, ravatalképek” (Funeral portraits, catafalque paintings). Művészet 1977: 32–36. Cipăianu, Ana Maria. 1973. “Din istoricul orfevrăriei transilvănene: acele de păr din tezaurul de la Huedin” (From the history of transivanian silverwork. The hairpins from the treasure hoard of Huedin). Acta Musei Napocensis 10: 653–663. Courtney, Paul. 2009. “The Current Sate and Future Prospects of Theory in European Post-Medieval Archaeology.” In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, ed. Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 169–189. New York: Springer. Csapó, Júlia. 1977. A tarpai temetés (Burials at Tarpa). Honismereti kutatások Szabolcs-Szatmárban 4. Nyíregyháza: Jósa András Múzeum. Cserbák, András and Alice Gáborján. 1990. “XVIII. századi magyarországi parasztábrázolások és viselettörténeti tanulságaik” (Eighteenth-century depictions of peasants and their contribution to costume history). Ethnographia 101: 51–74. Curta, Florin. 2001. The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dávid, Géza. 1997. “Magyarország népessége a 16–17. században” (The population of Hungary in the 16–17th century). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics, 141–172. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Dávid, Géza. 2007. “Die Bevölkerung Ungarns im 16.–17. Jahrhundert.” In Historische Demographie Ungarns (896– 1996), ed. Gyula Kristó et al., 135–180. Herne: Gabriele Schäfer Verlag. Dávid, Géza and Pál Fodor. 2002. “Hungarian Studies in Ottoman History.” In The Ottomans and the Balkans. A Discussion of Historiography, ed. Fikret Adanir and Suraiya Faroqhi, 305–349. The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy 25. Leiden: Brill. David, Nicholas and Carol Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deák, Farkas. 1879. “Ipartörténeti adatok” (New data on the history of craftsmanship). Történelmi Tár 1879: 142–153. Diaz-Andreu, Margarita and Sam Lucy. 2005. “Introduction.” In Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and

David N. Edwards, The Archaeology of Identity, 1–12. London: Routledge. Domanovszky, Sándor, ed. N.d. (1939–1942). A kereszténység védőbástyája (The bulwark of Christendom). Magyar Művelődéstörténet (Hungarian cultural history), vol. 3. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat. Domonkos, Ottó. 1991/a. “Ár- és bérszabályzatok” (Limitations of prices and payments). In Kézművesség (Crafts), ed. Iván Balassa, 705–726. Magyar Néprajz (Hungarian Ethnography), vol. 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Domonkos, Ottó. 1991/b. “A magyar vásárok néprajza” (The ethnography of Hungarian markets). In Kézművesség (Crafts), ed. Iván Balassa, 637–702. Magyar Néprajz (Hungarian Ethnography), vol. 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Domonkos, Ottó. 1997. A magyarországi céhes szabók mintakönyvei (Pattern books of tailors in Hungary). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Dragadze, Tamara. 1990. “Some Changes in Perspectives on Ethnicity Theory in the 1980s: A Brief Sketch.” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 31 2/3: 205–212. Draskóczy, István. 1997. “Szászföldi összeírások és a Szászföld lélekszáma a 15–16. század fordulóján” (The population number and the censuses of the Saxon land at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed. Kovacsics József, 125–140. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Draskóczy, István. 2007. “Die demographische Lage des Sachsenlandes zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In Historische Demographie Ungarns (896–1996), ed. Gyula Kristó et al., 94–134. Herne: Gabriele Schäfer Verlag. Edőcs, Judit. 2004. “Középkori párták a jáki templom mellől” (Medieval headgear from the churchyard cemetery at Ják). Savaria 28: 359–367. Edwards, David N. 2005. “The Archaeology of Religion.” In Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and David N. Edwards, The Archaeology of Identity, 110–127. London: Routledge. E. Kovács, Péter. 2005. “Hungary in the Late Middle Ages.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 115–117. Budapest: Corvina. Emődi, Tamás. 2003. “The ‘Tiled Room’ in the Palace of the Ruling Prince at Gyulafehérvár.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 329–336. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. E. Nagy, Katalin. 1982. “Die Tracht eines vornehmen ungarischen Mädchens aus dem 16. Jahrhundert. Restaurierung und Rekonstruktion des Boldvaer Fundes.” Ars Decorativa 7: 29–79. Endrei, Walter. 1989. Patyolat és posztó (Batiste and cloth). Budapest: Magvető. Erdei, Lilla. 2003. “A debreceni temető 17–18. századi textil leletei” (Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century textiles from the Dobozi cemetery in Debrecen). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve (2002–2003): 285–304. Éry, Kinga. 1980. “Balkáni eredetű, török kori népesség csontmaradványai Dombóvár határából” (Anthropological 85

Bibliography

Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Siân Jones, and Martin Hall. 1999. “Introduction: Archaeology in History.” In Historical Archaeology. Back from the Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, 1–19. London: Routledge. Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, ed. 1999. Historical Archaeology. Back from the Edge. London: Routledge. Gáborján, Alice. 1988. “Keleti elemek a magyar ruházatban” (Oriental elements in Hungarian Clothing). Néprajzi Értesítő 67–70 (1985–88): 19–53. Gaál, Attila. 1978. “Későközépkori leletek Tolna megyéből” (Late medieval finds from Tolna county). A Szekszárdi Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 8–9 (1977–78): 109– 131. Gaál, Attila. 1980. “A dombóvár-békatói 16–17. századi temető” (The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató). A Szekszárdi Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 10–11 (1979–80): 133–223. Gaál, Attila. 1983. “A Szekszárdi Múzeum hódoltság kori rézedényei” (Copper vessels in the Museum of Szekszárd from the period of the Ottoman Conquest). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1983): 163–184. Gaál, Attila. 1991. “A Szekszárdi Múzeum hódoltság kori rézedényei II.” (Copper vessels in the Museum of Szekszárd from the period of the Ottoman Conquest 2). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1991): 191–207. Gaál, Attila. 2003. “The Sixteenth- to Seventeenth-century Cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 221–230. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Galavics, Géza. 1987. “A magyar királyi udvar és a késő reneszánsz képzőművészet” (The Hungarian royal court and the art of the late Renaissance). In Magyar reneszánsz udvari kultúra (Renaissance courtly culture in Hungary), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, 228–248. Budapest: Gondolat. Galavics, Géza. 1990. “Erdélyi viseletalbumok a XVIIXVIII. századból” (Transylvanian costume albums from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). In József Jankovics, Ágnes R. Várkonyi and Géza Galavics, Régi erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII. századból (Ancient Transylvanian garments. A costume codex from the seventeenth century), 57–131. Budapest: Európa. Gallina, Zsolt. 2004. “Fonyód-Bézseny-puszta (M7 S33 lelőhely)” (Fonyód-Bézsenypuszta. Motorway M7, Site No. 33). In Honti Szilvia et al., A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszának megelőző régészeti feltárása (2002–2003) Előzetes jelentés III. (Preliminary Report III. The preceding archaeological excavationa (2002–2003) of the M7 Highway in Somogy County), 34–40. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 2004. Kaposvár: Somogy Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága. Galloway, Patricia. 2006. “Material Culture and Text: Exploring the Spaces Within and Between.” In Historical Archaeology, ed. Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, 42–64. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gecsényi, Lajos. 1998. “‘Török áruk’ és ‘görög kereskedők’ a 16–17. századi királyi Magyarországon” (‘Turkish Goods’ and ‘Greek Merchants’ in Royal Hungary in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). In R. Várkonyi Ágnes emlékkönyv

remains of a population of Balkan origins in the period of the Turkish conquest from the area of Dombóvár). A Szekszárdi Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 10–11 (1979–80): 225–298. Evans, R. J. W. 1985. “Calvinism in East-Central Europe: Hungary and her Neighbours.” In International Calvinism 1541–1715, ed. Menna Prestwich, 169–196. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fehér, Géza, Jr. 1957. “Az egervári leletmentő ásatás” (The rescue excavation at Egervár). Archaeológiai Értesítő 84: 66–73. Fehér, Géza, Jr. 1968. “Esztergomi török vörösrézedények” (Turkish copper vessels from Esztergom). A Komárommegyei Múzeumok Közleményei 1: 273–310. Fehér, Géza, Jr. 1975. Török kori iparművészeti alkotások (Products of the applied arts from the Ottoman period). Budapest: Corvina. Fehér, Géza. 1978. Turkish Miniatures from the Period of Hungary’s Turkish Occupation. Budapest: Corvina. Flórián, Mária. 1997. “Öltözködés” (Clothing). In Magyar Néprajz (Hungarian ethnography), vol. 4, ed. István Balassa, Endre Füzes, and Eszter Kisbán, 585–767. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Flórián, Mária. 2001. Magyar parasztviseletek (Hungarian peasant’s costumes). Budapest: Planétás. Fodor, István. 1972. “Újabb adatok a bánkúti sír értékeléséhez” (New data on the evaluation of the Bánkút grave). Folia Archaeologica 23: 223–240. Fodor, István. 2006. “A régészettudomány történetisége. A magyar őstörténet példáján” (The historicity of archaeology. The example of Hungarian prehistory). Archaeológiai Értesítő 131: 89–112. Fodor, Pál, ed. 1985. Evlia Cselebi török világutazó magyarországi utazásai, 1660–1664 (Trarvels of Evliyā Celebi Turkish traveler in Hungary 1660–1664), tr. Imre Karácson. Budapest: Gondolat. Fodor, Pál and Géza Dávid. 1994. “Hungarian-Ottoman Peace Negotiations in 1512–1514.” In Hungarian-Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 9–45. Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University, Dept. of Turkish Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History. Fowler, Chris. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge. Fügedi, Erik. 1986 (1974). “Das mittelalterliche Königreich Ungarn als Gastland.” In Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte, ed. Walter Schlesinger. Vorträge und Forschungen XVIII. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbeke Verlag. Re-published in Erik Fügedi, Kings, Bishops, Nobles and Burghers in Medieval Hungary, ed. János M. Bak. London: Variorum Reprints. Fülemile, Ágnes. 1989. “Viseletábrázolások a 16–17. századi grafikában” (Depictions of garments in sixteenthseventeenth-century graphic arts). Ars Hungarica 1989/2: 115–132. Fülemile, Ágnes. 1999. “Creation of National Image: Trends of Court Dress in East Central Europe in the 19th Century.” In Ethnic Communities, Ethnic Studies, Ethnic Costumes Today, ed. János Kodolányi Jr., 169–180. Budapest: Hungarian Ethnographical Society. 86

Bibliography

17. századi magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október (In Praise of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian Aristocracy in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the Hungarian National Museum, August – October 2001), ed. Anna Ridovics, 47–50. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Graves-Brown, Paul. 1996. “All things bright and beautiful? Species, ethnicity and cultural dynamics.” In Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-Brown, and Clive Gamble, 81–95. London: Routledge. Gubitza, Kálmán. 1902. “A Bodrogh-szigeti pálos monostor” (The Pauliner monastery on Bodrogh Island). Archaeológiai Értesítő 22: 1–7. Győrffy, György. 1953. “A kunok feudalizálódása” (The incorporation of Cumans to the feudal system). In Tanulmányok a parasztság történetéhez Magyarországon a 14. században (Studies on the history of the peasantry in fourteenth-century Hungary), ed. György Székely, 248– 275. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Hatházi, Gábor. 1996. “Besenyők és kunok a Mezőföldön” (Pechenegs and Cumans in Mezőföld). In Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors – Pechenegs, Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain), ed. Péter Havassy, 37–56. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum. Hatházi, Gábor. 2003. “New Findings in the Research of Turkish Palisades in Fejér County.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 113–136. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Hatházi, Gábor. 2004. A kunok régészeti emlékei a KeletDunántúlon (The archeaological remains of Cumans in eastern Transdanubia). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Hatházi, Gábor. 2005. Sírok, kincsek, rejtélyek (Graves, treasures, misteries). Kiskunhalas: Thorma János Múzeum. Hegyi, Klára. 1994. “The Ottoman Military Force in Hungary” In Hungarian-Ottoman military and diplomatic relations in the age of Süleyman the Magnificent, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 131–148. Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University, Dept. of Turkish Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History. Hegyi, Klára. 2000/a. “Ottoman Taxation in the Hungarian Kingdom.” In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed. Kemal Çiçek et al., vol. 2, 87–94. 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye. Hegyi, Klára. 2000/b. “The Ottoman Network of Fortresses in Hungary.” In Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe. The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 163– 193. Leiden: Brill. Hegyi, Klára. 2002. “A török Bács” (The Ottoman-Turkish Bács). In Tanulmányok Szakály Ferenc emlékére (Studies in memoriam Ferenc Szakály), ed. Pál Fodor, Géza Pálffy, and István György Tóth, 199–213. Budapest: MTA TKI. Hegyi, Klára. 2003. “Balkan Garrison Troops and SoldierPeasants in the Vilayet of Buda.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held

születésének 70. évfordulója emlékére (Festschrift for the seventieth birthday of Ágnes R. Várkonyi), ed. Péter Tusor, 185–203. Budapest: ELTE BTK. Gere, László. 2003. Késő középkori és kora újkori fémleletek az ozorai várkastélyból (Late medieval and early modern metal finds from the fortified castle of Ozora). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1985/a. “Adatok a tabáni török díszkerámia keltezéséhez” (New data on the dating of Turkish ornamental pottery from Tabán). Folia Archaeologica 36: 225–229. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1985/b. “Inventories of Turkish Estates in Hungary in the Second Half of the 16th Century.” Acta Orientalia Scientiarum Hungariae XXXIX (2–3): 275– 338. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1987. “Török kerámia a visegrádi Alsóvárból” (Turkish pottery from the Lower Castle at Visegrád). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1987): 167–179. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1990. “Die Balkanverbindungen der türkischen Keramik von der Budaer Burg.” Acta Archaeologiae Hungariae 42: 269–285. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1994. “Kerámia” (Pottery). In Nagy Szulejmán szultán és kora (Sultan Suleyman the Great and his age), ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 44–46. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1999. Török ékszerek (Turkish jewelry). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 2005/a. “Editor’s Introduction,” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 8–9. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Gerelyes, Ibolya. 2005/b. “A History of Research in Hungary into Ottoman Art.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 11–18. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Gerevich, László. 1943. “A csúti középkori sírmező” (Medieval cemetery at Csút). Budapest Régiségei 13: 103– 166. Gerő, Győző. 1980. Az oszmán-török építészet Magyarországon (The architecture of the Ottoman-Turkish period in Hungary). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Gerő, Győző. 2003. “The History of Ottoman-Turkish Archaeological Research in Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 17– 22. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Gervers, Veronika. 1982. The Influence of Ottoman Tukish Textiles and Costume in Eastern Europe with particular reference to Hungary. Toronto: The Royal Ontario Museum. Gervers-Molnár, Vera. 1983. Sárospataki síremlékek (Tombs from Sárospatak). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Gervers-Molnár, Veronika. 2005. “Turkish Tiles of the 17th Century and Their Export.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 35–44. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Gleba, Margarita, Cherine Munkholt, and Marie-Louise Nosch, ed. 2008. Dressing the Past. Ancient Textile Series, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Gödölle, Mátyás. 2001. “Főúri udvarok ősgalériái” (Ancestors’ galleries in aristocratic courts). In A szépség dicsérete. 16– 87

Bibliography

at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 23–32. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Hegyi, Klára. 2007. A török hódoltság várai és várkatonasága (Fortifications and garrison troops of Hungary under Ottoman conquest). 3 vols. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete. Hegyi, Klára and Zimányi Vera. 1989. The Ottoman Empire in Europe. Budapest: Corvina. H. Kolba, Judit. 1970. “A losonci ékszerlelet” (The jewelery find from Losonc). Folia Archaeologica 40:175–193. Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian. 1991. “Archaeological Theory in Contemporary European Societies.” In Archaeological Theory in Europe, ed. Ian Hodder, 1–24. London: Routledge. Hodder, Ian. 1992 (1986). Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1986). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Hodder, Ian, ed. 1991. Archaeological Theory in Europe. London: Routledge. Hollander, Anne. 1993 (1st ed. 1978). Seeing Through Clothes. 4th ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Höllrigl, József. 1934. “A csengeri református templom kriptájának leletei” (Archaeological finds from the crypt of the Protestant church in Csenger). Archaeológiai Értesítő 48: 97–114. Höllrigl, József. N.d. (1939–1942). “Magyar és törökös viseletformák a XVI–XVII. században” (Hungarian and Turkish-like forms of clothing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). In A kereszténység védőbástyája. Magyar Művelődéstörténet (The bulwark of Christendom. Hungarian culture history), vol. 3, ed. Sándor Domanovszky, 359–385. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat. Horn, Ildikó. 2005. “Der ungarische Adel als Träger der Reformation in Siebenbürgen.” In Konfessionsbildung und Konfessionskultur in Siebenbürgen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Volker Leppin and Ulrich A. Wien, 165–178. Stuttgart: Steiner. Horváth, Antal. 1956. “Szombathelyi kereskedő üzleti leltára a XVII. század közepén” (An inventory of the stock of a merchant in Szombathely in the mid-seventeenth century). Néprajzi Közlemények 1: 256–272. Horváth, Béla. 1970. “A tiszaörvényi párta és pártaöv” (The párta and belt from Tiszaörvény). Folia Archaeologica 21: 157–168. Horváth, Ferenc. 2001. A csengelei kunok ura és népe (The lord of the Cumans of Csengele and his people). Budapest: Archaeolingua. Horváth, József. 1996. “A XVII. századi győri végrendeletek viselettörténeti adalékaiból” (Data on costume history in seventeenth-century last wills from Győr). In Viselet és történelem, viselet és jel. Az aszódi Petőfi Múzeumban elhangzott néprajzi konferencia előadásai (Costume and history, costume and sign. Papers of the ethnological conference held in the Petőfi Museum in Aszód), ed. Zsuzsa Korkes, 5–22. Aszód: Petőfi Múzeum. Horváth, József. 1999. “Falusi végrendeletek formai és tartalmi sajátosságai a Nyugat-Dunántúlon a 17–18. században” (The form and content of last wills from

villages in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in western Transdanubia). Soproni Szemle 53: 356–369. Hundsbichler, Helmut. 1997. “Sampling or Proving ‘Reality?’ Co-ordinates for the Evaluation of Historical Archaeology Research.” In The Age of Transition. The Archaeology of English Culture 1400–1600, ed. David Gaimster and Paul Stamper, 45–60. The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph 15, Oxbow Monograph 98. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Hunt, Alan. 1996. Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Ilg, Ulrike. 2004. “The Cultural Significance of Costume Books in Sixteenth-Century Europe.” In Clothing Culture 1350–1650, ed. Catherine Richardson, 29–62. Aldershot: Ashgate. Inalcik, Halil. 2000. “An Overview of the Ottoman History.” In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed. Kemal Çiçek et al., vol. 1, 3–90. 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye. Insoll, Timothy. 1999. The Archaeology of Islam. Oxford: Blackwell. Insoll, Timothy. 2001. “The Archaeology of Islam.” In Archaeology and World Religion, ed. Timothy Insoll, 123– 147. London: Routledge. Insoll, Timothy. 2007/a. “Introduction. Configuring Identities in Archaeology.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, ed. Timothy Insoll, 1–18. London: Routledge. Insoll, Timothy. 2007/b. “Changing Identities in the Arabian Gulf. Archaeology, Religion and Ethnicity in Context.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, ed. Timothy Insoll, 309–325. London: Routledge. Jankovich B., Dénes and Mihály Nagy. 2004. Felmérés a régészet helyzetéről. 1989–1999 (Hungarian archaeology. A survey. 1989–1999). Budapest: Nemzeti Kulturális Örökség Minisztériuma, Műemléki és Régészeti Főosztály. Jankovics, József. 1990. “Régi magyar irodalmunk viseletképe” (The image of clothing in old Hungarian literature). In József Jankovics, Ágnes R. Várkonyi and Géza Galavics, Régi erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII. századból (Ancient Transylvanian garments. A costume codex from the seventeenth century), 5–21. Budapest: Európa. Jankovics, József, Ágnes R. Várkonyi, and Géza Galavics. 1990. Régi erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII. századból (Ancient Transylvanian Garments. A costume codex from the seventeenth century). Budapest: Európa. Jaritz, Gerhard. 1989. Zwischen Augenblick und Ewigkeit: Einführung in die Alltagsgeschichte des Mittelalters. Vienna: Böhlau. J. Dankó, Katalin. 1975. “Damóc-Temetődomb.” Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 1, 28: 116. J. Dankó, Katalin. 2005. “The ‘Tiled Room’ at Sárospatak Castle.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 19–26. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Jianu, Angela. 2007. “Women, Fashion and Europeanization: The Romanian Principalities, 1750–1830.” In Women in the Ottoman Balkans. Gender, Culture and History, ed. Amila Buturović and İrvin Cemil Schick, 201–230. London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD. Johnson, Matthew H. 1999. “Rethinking Historical Archaeology.” In Historical Archaeology. Back from the 88

Bibliography

Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, 23–36. London: Routledge. Jones, Siân. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London: Routledge. Jones, Siân. 1999. “Historical Categories and the Praxis of Identity: the Interpretation of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology.” In Historical Archaeology. Back from the Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, 219–232. London: Routledge. Jones, Siân. 2007. “Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, ed. Timothy Insoll, 44–58. London: Routledge. Jones, Siân and Paul Graves-Brown. 1996. “Introduction: Archaeology and Cultural Identity in Europe.” In Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-Brown, and Clive Gamble, 1–24. London: Routledge. Kaiser, Timothy. 1995. “Archaeology and Ideology in Southeast Europe.” In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, ed. Philip L. Kohl and Clare Fawcett, 99–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalmár, János. 1959. “A füleki vár XV-XVII. századi emlékei” (The fifteenth- to seventeenth-century finds from Fülek castle). Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 2 (1959): 13. Kalmár, János. 2005. “Cities, Towns, Market-towns.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 263–266. Budapest: Osiris. Katona, Tamás and László Makkai, ed. 1979. Magyari István. Az országokban való sok romlásnak okairól (István Magyari. The reasons for so much decay in the country). Budapest: Magyar Helikon. Kelemen, Lajos. 1977. “Sükösd György nagyteremi síremléke” (The tomb of György Sükösd in Nagyteremi). In Művészettörténeti tanulmányok (Studies on art history), ed. Margit B. Nagy, 174. Bucharest: Kriterion. Kelényi, Borbála. 2006. “Pártaviselet a 14–17. századi Magyarországon” (Wearing of párta in Hungary from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century). MA thesis, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Institute of Archaeology. Budapest. Kemény, Lajos. 1895. “Az erdélyi fejedelem gyöngyfűzője” (The pearl decorator of the Transylvanian prince). Archaeológiai Értesítő 29: 285. Kemény, Lajos. 1904. “Gyöngyfűzők és hímvarrók” (Pearl decorators and embroiderers). Archaeológiai Értesítő 38: 446–447. Kiss, Erika. 2001. “Arany művek, köves marhák” (Goldsmith’s works, precious stones). In A szépség dicsérete. 16–17. századi magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október (In Praise of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian Aristocracy in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the Hungarian National Museum, August – October 2001), ed. Anna Ridovics, 31–42. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. K. Kovács, László. 2004 (1944). A kolozsvári hóstátiak temetkezése (The burial in the Hóstát district of Cluj). Repr. ed. (1st ed. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet, 1944). Budapest: Gondolat.

Klaniczay, Gábor. 1982. “Öltözködés és ideológia a középkorban” (Clothing and ideology in the Middle Ages). In Divatszociológia (The sociology of fashion), vol. 2, ed. Gábor Klaniczay and Katalin S. Nagy, 7–34. 2 vols. Budapest: Tömegkommunikációs Kutatóközpont. Klusch, Horst. 2003. “Kleiderordnungen.” In Aus der Volkskunde der Siebenbürger Sachsen, ed. Horst Klusch, 110–135. Hermannstadt: Honterus. K. Németh, András. 2005. “Csontosövek a középkori Magyarországon” (Bone-mounted belts from the medieval Hungary). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 275–288. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Kóczián, László and Réka Lőrinczy, ed. 1978. Apor Péter. Metamorphosis Transsylvaniae. Bucharest: Kriterion. Kohl, Philip L. 2000. “Diverse Approaches to the Ottoman Past. Toward a Globally Conceived, Regionally Specific Historical Archaeology.” In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda Carroll, 253–260. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers. Kohl, Philip L. and Clare Fawcett. 1995. “Archaeology in the Service of the State: Theoretical Considerations.” In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, ed. Philip L. Kohl and Clare Fawcett, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Korek, József. 1992. “A zombor-bükkszállási 17. századi temető sírleletei” (The finds in the graves of the seventeenthcentury cemetery at Zombor-Bükkszállás). A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve (1992): 181–200. Koslin, Désirée and Janet Snyder. 2002. “Introduction.” In Encountering Medieval Textiles and Dress. Objects, Texts, Images, ed. Désirée Koslin and Janet Snyder, 1–6. New York: Palgrave. Kovács, András. 2003. “Apafi György almakereki sírkápolnájáról” (On the burial chapel of György Apafi in Almakerék). Református Szemle 96: 632–633. Kovács, Annamária. 1998. “Court, Fashion and Representation: the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle Revisited.” PhD Thesis, Central European University. Budapest. Kovács, Gyöngyi. 1984. Török kerámia Szolnokon (Turkish pottery in Szolnok). Szolnok: Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Adattár. Kovács, Gyöngyi. 1991. “16th–18th Century Hungarian Pottery Types.” Antaeus 19–20 (1990–1991): 169–180, 351–361. Kovács, Gyöngyi. 1998. “A barcsi török palánkvár kerámialeletei” (The ceramic finds from the Turkish palisade fort at Barcs). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1998), 155–180. Kovács, Gyöngyi. 2002. “A bajcsai várásatás kerámia- és üvegleletei” (The ceramics and glass finds from the fort of Bajcsa). In Weitshawar/Bajcsa-Vár. Egy stájer erődítmény Magyarországon a 16. század második felében. Kiállítási katalógus (Weitshawar/Bajcsa-Vár. A Styrian fort in Hungary in the second half of the sixteenth 89

Bibliography

century. Exhibition catalog), ed. Gyöngyi Kovács, 63–69. Zalaegerszeg: Zala Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága. Kovács, Gyöngyi. 2003. “Some Possible Directions for Research into Ottoman-era Archaeological Finds in Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 257–266. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Kovács, Gyöngyi. 2005. “Iznik Pottery in Hungarian Archaeological Research.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 69–86. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Kovács, Gyöngyi and László Vándor. 2003. “Remarks on Archaeological Investigations into Smaller Ottoman-era Palisades in Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 109–112. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Kovács, László. 2003. “Cowry Shells in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-century Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 345–350. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Kovács Kiss, György. 2001. “Adatok a viselet szabályozásáról a XVI-XVII. századi Kolozsváron” (New data on the regulation of clothing in sixteenth-seventeenth-century Kolozsvár). In Kolozsvár 1000 éve (Thousand years of Kolozsvár), ed. Tibor Kálmán Dáné et al., 60–62. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület. Kovalovszki, Júlia. 1986. “A kidei középkori temető (Méri István ásatása)” (The medieval cemetery in Kide [An archaeological excavation by István Méri]). In A magyar falu régésze. Méri István (The archaeologist of Hungarian villages. István Méri), ed. Júlia Kovalovszki, 23–24. Cegléd: Kossuth Lajos Múzeum. Kovalovszki, Júlia, ed. 1986. A magyar falu régésze. Méri István (The archaeologist of Hungarian villages. István Méri). Cegléd: Kossuth Lajos Múzeum. Kövér, Béla. 1892. “A középkori sodrony-zománcz kérdéséhez” (On the problem of medieval cloisonné). Archaeológiai Értesítő 12: 33. Kövér, Béla. 1897. “Újabb adatok az ötvösség történetéhez hazánkban” (New data on the history of goldsmith’s work in Hungary). Archaeológiai Értesítő 17: 227–253. Kristó, Gyula, et al. 2007. Historische Demographie Ungarns (896–1996). Herne: Gabriele Schäfer Verlag. Kubinyi, András. 1991. “Über das Alltagsleben im spätmittelalterlichen Ungarn.” In Alltag und materielle Kultur im mittelalterlichen Ungarn, ed. András Kubinyi and József Laszlovszky, 9–31. Medium Aevum Quotidianum 22. Krems: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Kubinyi, András. 1997. “A magyar királyság népessége a 15. század végén” (The population of the Hungarian Kingdom at the end of the fifteenth century). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics, 9–110. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Lajkó, Orsolya. 2003. “Post-medieval Pottery Finds from Hódmezővásárhely-Ótemplom.” In Archaeology of the

Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 321–328. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Langó, Péter. 2000. “A jászok etnogenezise és korai történetük” (The ethnogenesis and early history of the Iasians). In Szállástól a mezővárosig. Tanulmányok a Jászság és Jászfényszaru múltjából (From camp to oppidum. Studies on the past of the Jászság and Jászfényszaru), ed. Péter Langó, 83–109. Jászfényszaru: Fényszaruiak Baráti Egyesülete. Langó, Péter. 2005. “Archaeological research on the conquering Hungarians: a review” In Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: A review, ed. Balázs Gusztáv Mende, 175–340. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 18. Budapest: MTA Régészeti Intézet. Langó, Péter. 2006. “A Kárpát-medence 10. századi emlékanyagának kutatása mint nemzeti régészet” (The research of the heritage of tenth-century Carpathian Basin as national archaeology). Korall 24–25: 89–117. László, Csaba. 1980. “A balatonszőlősi református templom kutatása” (Archaeological research on the church of Balatonszőlős). A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 15: 113–124. László, Emőke. 1986. “Textilmunkák” (Textiles). In Béla Radvánszky, Magyar családélet és háztartás a XVI. és XVII. században (Hungarian family life and households in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), reprint edition, vol. 1, 309–319. 3 vols. Budapest: Helikon. László, Emőke. 1988. “A magyar nemesi viselet a családi arcképek tükrében” (The costume of the Hungarian nobility reflected by the family portraits). In Főúri ősgalériák, családi arcképek a Magyar Történelmi Képcsarnokból. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, az Iparművészeti Múzeum és a Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiállítása. Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 1988. március – augusztus (Aristocratic ancestors’ galleries, family portraits from the Hungarian Historical Gallery. Exhibition of the Hungarian National Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and the Hungarian National Gallery. Hungarian National Gallery, March – August 1988), ed. Enikő Buzási, 35–44. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Galéria. László, Gyula. 1977. Régészeti tanulmányok (Studies in archaeology). Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó. Laszlovszky, József and Csilla Siklódi. 1991. “Archaeological Theory in Hungary since 1960: Theories without Theoretical Archaeology.” In Archaeological Theory in Europe, ed. Ian Hodder, 272–298. London: Routledge. Laszlovszky, József and Judith Rasson. 2003. “Post-medieval or Historical Archaeology: Terminology and Discourses in the Archaeology of the Ottoman Period.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 377– 382. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Lázár, Sarolta. 1986. “Az egri vár törökkori magyar cserépedényei” (Hungarian ceramics from the Ottoman period of the castle of Eger). Agria 22: 35–63. Lázár, Sarolta. 1999/a. “Törökkori temető EsztergomSzentkirályon” (An Ottoman-age Cemetery at EsztergomSzentkirály). Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 6: 307–320. 90

Bibliography

Lázár, Sarolta. 1999/b. “A bajóti római katolikus templom kutatása” (Archaeological research on the Catholic church in Bajót). Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 6: 291–306. Lázár, Sarolta. 2003. “An Ottoman-age Cemetery at Esztergom-Szentkirály,” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 231–236. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Lovag, Zsuzsa and Annamária T. Németh. 1974. “A tolnai XVI. századi kincslelet” (The sixteenth-century treasure hoard from Tolna). Folia Archaeologica 25: 219–244. Luby, Margit. 2002 (1935). A parasztélet rendje. Népi szokások, illendő magatartás, babonák Szatmár vármegyében (The order of peasants’ life. Folk traditions, superstitions, and conventional behaviour in Szatmár County). 1st ed. 1935. Budapest: Nap. Lucy, Sam. 2005. “Ethnic and Cultural Identities.” In Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and David N. Edwards, The Archaeology of Identity, 86–109. London: Routledge. Lyublyanovics, Kyra. 2008. “Városi állattartás a középkorban” (Animal breeding in medieval towns). In Gazdaság és gazdálkodás a középkori Magyarországon: gazdaságtörténet, anyagi kultúra, régészet (Economy and farming in medieval Hungary: economic history, material culture, archaeology), ed. András Kubinyi, József Laszlovszky, and Péter Szabó, 95–98. Budapest: Martin Opitz. Magyar, Kálmán. 1981. “Ispánsági és nemzetségi központok kutatása Somogyban I. Egyházak és temetők” (Archaeological research at the seats of the comes and kindreds 1. Churches and cemeteries). Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 4: 43–81. Makkai, László. 1971. “Der ungarische Viehhandel 1550– 1650.” In Der Aussenhandel Ostmitteleuropas 1450–1650, ed. Ingomar Bog, 483–506. Köln: Böhlau. Makkai, László. 1985/a. “Magyarok és rácok a Dunántúlon” (Hungarian and Rác population in Transdanubia). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, vol. 2, 1430–1435. Magyarország története 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Makkai, László. 1985/b. “Az Alföld” (The Hungarian plain). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, vol. 2, 1440–1444. Magyarország története 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Makkai, László. 1985/c. “Magyarok, szlovákok, németek a Felföldön” (Hungarians, Slovaks and Germans in Upper Hungary). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, vol. 2, 1452–1456. Magyarország története 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Makkai, László. 1994. “ The Emergence of the Estates (1172– 1526).” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi, 178– 198. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Makkai, László. 2001. “Transylvania in the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom.” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi. Vol. 1. From the Beginnings to 1606, ed. László Makkai and András Mócsy, 333–590. Boulder, Colo. New York: Social Science Monographs.

Marciniak, Arkadiusz. 2006. “Central European Archaeology at the Crossroads.” In A Future for Archaeology, ed. Robert Layton, Stephen Shennan, and Peter Stone, 157–172. London: University College London Press. Marosi, Ernő. 1995. “A Képes Krónika értelmezéséhez” (On the interpretation of the Hungarian Illumunated Chronicle). In Kép és hasonmás. Művészet és valóság a 14–15. századi Magyarországon (Image and Likeness. Art and Reality in the 14th and 15th Centuries in Hungary). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Megay, Géza. 1970. “A miskolci avasi templom 1941. évi ásatása” (Excavation in the church on Avas in Miskolc in 1941). A Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 9: 129–171. Mende, Balázs Gusztáv, ed. 2005. Research on the Prehistory of the Hungarians: A Review. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 18. Budapest: MTA Régészeti Intézet. Mentges, Gabriele. 2004. “Vestimentäres Mapping. Trachtenbücher und Trachtenhandschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts.” Waffen- und Kostümkunde 46: 19–36. Mérai, Dóra. 2005. “A nagykároly-bobáldi kora újkori temető” (The early modern cemetery in Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld). MA thesis, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Institute of Archaeology. Budapest. Mérai, Dóra. 2007. “Bobáld, egy elpusztult szatmári falu a források tükrében” (Bobáld, an Earstwhile Village in Szatmár [Satu Mare] County). Satu Mare – Studii şi Comunicǎrii 22–24 (2005–2007): 23–44. Méri, István. 1986.“Középkori temetőink feltárásmódjáról. Megfigyelések a kidei XII-XIX. századi temető ásatásakor” (On the method of excavating medieval cemeteries. Notes on the research on the twelfth-nineteenth-century cemetery at Kide). In A magyar falu régésze. Méri István (The archaeologist of Hungarian villages. István Méri), ed. Júlia Kovalovszki, 26–40. Cegléd: Kossuth Lajos Múzeum. Meskell, Lynn. 2001. “Archaeologies of Identity.” In Archaeological Theory Today, ed. Ian Hodder, 187–213. Cambridge: Polity. Mihalik, József. 1906/a. “A nagybányai ékszerlelet” (The jewelry hoard from Nagybánya). Archaeológiai Értesítő 26: 116–129. Mihalik, József. 1906/b. “A nagybányai kincslelet ötvösművei” (Goldsmiths’s work in the Nagybánya hoard). Magyar Iparművészet IX/3: 112- 123. Mithay, Sándor. 1985. “A győr-gabonavásártéri XVI-XVII. századi temető” (The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century cemetery at Győr-Gabonavásártér). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungaricae (1985): 185–198. Mojzsis, Dóra. 1984. “XVI-XVII. századi női fejdíszek a nagylózsi leletanyagból” (Sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury headgear in the finds from Nagylózs). Folia Archaeologica 35: 185–210. Monks, Gregory G. 1999. “On Rejecting the Concept of Socio-economic Status in Historical Archaeology.” In Historical Archaeology. Back from the Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, 204–216. London: Routledge. Moreland, John. 2001. Archaeology and Text. London: Duckworth. Murdock, Graeme. 2000. Calvinism on the Frontier, 1600– 1660: International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 91

Bibliography

Nagy, Géza. 1983. “A régi kunok temetkezése” (The burial of the ancient Cumans). Archaeológiai Értesítő 13: 105–117. Németi, Ioan. 1982. “Descoperiri arheologice din hotarul oraşului Carei” (Archaeological finds in the area of Carei). Satu Mare – Studii şi Comunicǎrii 5–6 (1981–82): 167– 181. Németi, Ioan. 1995. Descoperiri arheologice de la CareiBobald în anul 1994 (Archaeological finds at Carei-Bobald in the year 1994). Cercetări Arheologice Aria Nord Tracă 1. Bucharest: Institutul Român de Tracologie. Németi, Ioan. 1999. Repertoriul arheologie al zonei Careiului. Bibliotheca Thracologica XXVIII. Bucureşti. Németi, János and Zsolt Molnár. 2002. A tell telepek elterjedése a Nagykárolyi-síkságon és az Ér völgyében (Distribution of tell settlements on the Nagykároly plain and in the Ér valley). Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca): Scientia Kiadó. Németi, Ioan and Petre Roman. 1994–1995. “Epoca bronzului timpuriu din Nord-Vestul Românei (Grupul Culturul Sanislău)” (Bronze age in north-western Romania. Sanislău Culture). Satu Mare – Studii şi Comunicǎrii 11–12 (1994– 95): 25–32. Newton, Stella Mary. 1980. Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince. A Study of the years 1340–1365. Woodbridge: Suffolk. Newton, Stella Mary. 1988. The Dress of the Venetians 1495– 1525. Aldershot, UK: Scholar Press. Niţu, Florentina. 2005. Preţuri de podoabe şi orfevrărie din metal preţios în spaţiul românesc (secolele XVI-XVII) (The price of jewelry and goldsmith’s work of precious metal on Romanian territory. Sixteenth and seventeenth century). Bucureşti: Editura Universitătii din Bucureşti. Oborni, Teréz. 1997. “Az Erdélyi Fejedelemség összeírásainak demográfiai forrásértéke” (The demographic documentary value of censuses in the Transylvanian Principality). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics, 187–192. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Oborni, Teréz. 2005. “Privileged Peoples in Transylvanian Society: Saxons and Szeklers.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed István György Tóth, 266–269. Budapest: Osiris. Oborni, Teréz, Lilla Tompos, and Gábor Bencsik. 2009. A régi Erdély népeinek képeskönyve (A picture book of peoples of the ancient Transylvania). Budapest: Magyar Mercurius. Ortutay, Gyula, ed. 1979. Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon (The encyclopedia of Hungarian ethnography). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Pakucs, Mária. 2004. “The Trade of Sibiu in the Sixteenth Century: the Evidence of the Town’s Custom Registers.” PhD thesis, Central European University. Budapest. Pakucs-Willkocks, Mária. 2007. Sibiu-Hermannstadt: Oriental trade in sixteenth-century Transylvania. Cologne: Böhlau. Paládi-Kovács, Attila. 2006. “Nemzetiségek néprajza a reformkorban” (Ethnography of ethnicities in the Reform Period). In A nemzetiségek néprajzi felfedezői (Ethnographic explorers of ethnicities), ed. Attila Paládi-Kovács, 7–27. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Pálffy, Géza. 2000/a. A tizenhatodik század története (The sixteenth century). Magyar Századok 6. Budapest: Pannonica.

Pálffy, Géza. 2000/b “The Origins and Development of the Border Defence System against the Ottoman Empire in Hungary (up to the Early Eighteenth Century).” In Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe. The Military Confines in the Era of the Ottoman Conquest, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 3–69. Leiden: Brill. Pálffy, Géza. 2001. “The Impact of the Ottoman Rule on Hungary.” Hungarian Studies Review 28, 1–2, Special Volume. Hungary: 1001–2001. A Millennial Retrospection (2001): 109–132. Pálffy, Géza. 2002. “The Border Defense System in Hungary in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. “In A Millennium of Hungarian Military History, ed. László Veszprémy and Béla K. Király, 111–135. War and Society in East Central Europe 37, East European Monographs 621, Atlantic Studies on Society in Change 114. New York: Atlantic Research and Publications. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1976. “A Lászlófalván 1969–74. évben végzett régészeti ásatások eredményei” (Results of the excavations at Lászlófalva between 1969 and 1974). Cumania 4: 275–303. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1980. “Le costume coman au Moyen âge.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 32: 403–427. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1982. “Régészeti adatok a kunok viseletéhez” (Archaeological data on the costume of the Cumans). Archaeológiai Értesítő 109: 89–107. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1989/a. Pechenegs, Cumans, Iasians. Steppe Peoples in Medieval Hungary. Budapest: Corvina. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1989/b. “Steppe traditions and the assimilation of nomadic people: the Cumanians in Hungary in the 13th–14th century.” In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. Stephen Shennan, 291–302. London: Routledge. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1996. “Nomád népek a kelet-európai steppén és a középkori Magyarországon” (Nomadic peoples on the Eastern European steppe and in Medieval Hungary). In Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors – Pechenegs, Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain), ed. Péter Havassy, 7–36. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum. Pálóczi Horváth, András. 2003. “The Survival of Szentkirály in the Ottoman Era.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 201–206. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Palotay, Gertrúd. 1940. Oszmán-török elemek a magyar hímzésben (Ottoman Turkish motifs in Hungarian embroidery). Budapest: Magyar Történeti Múzeum. Pap, Ferenc. 2000. Kolozsvári harmincadjegyzékek, 1599– 1637. (Kolozsvár’s registers of thirtieth, 1599–1637). Bukarest – Kolozsvár: Kriterion. Papp, Adrienn. 2005. “Depiction of Pomegranates and Sárospatak Wall-Tiles in the 16th and 17th Centuries.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 45–50. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Parádi, Nándor. 1995. “A Tiszanána-Ónánai ásatás” (The excavation at Tiszanána-Ónána). Folia Archaeologica 44: 151–189. 92

Bibliography

Pásztor, Emese. 2005. “Ottoman Saddlecloths, Saddles, BowCases and Quivers in Transylvania and Royal Hungary. Ottoman-Turkish Textiles n the Esterházy Collection at the Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 101–114. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Perjés, Géza. 1989. The Fall of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary: Mohács 1526 – Buda 1541. Boulder, Colo.: Social Science Monographs, 1989. Péter, Katalin. 1990. “The Later Ottoman Period and Royal Hungary.” In A History of Hungary, ed. Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, and Tibor Frank, 100–120. London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD. Péter, Katalin. 1994. “The Golden Age of the Principality (1606–1660).” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi, 301–358. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Péter, Katalin. 2002. “The Golden Age of the Principality.” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi. Vol. 2. From 1606–1830, ed. László Makkai and Zoltán Szász, 3–229. Boulder, Colo., New York: Social Science Monographs. Péter, Katalin. 2004. A reformáció: kényszer vagy választás? (Reformation: a force or a choice?). Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó. Pigler, Andor. 1957. “Portraying the Dead.” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 4: 1–75. Piponnier, Françoise and Perrine Mane. 1997. Dress in the Middle Ages. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pósta, Béla. 1913. “Teleki Mihály sírja” (The grave of Mihály Teleki). Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem-és Régiségtárából 4: 3–32. Pósta, Béla. 1918. “A gyulafehérvári székesegyház sírleletei” (Grave finds from the cathedral of Gyulafehérvár). Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem-és Régiségtárából 8: 1–203. Pulszky, Károly and Jenő Radisics. 1885. Az ötvösség remekei a magyar történeti ötvöskiállításon (The masterpieces of goldsmith’s work at the Hungarian historical goldsmiths’ exhibition). Budapest. Pusztai, Tamás. 2003. “The Pottery of the Turkish Palisade at Bátaszék.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 301–310. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Rácz, Lajos. 1999. Climate History of Hungary Since 16th Century: Past, Present and Future. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Rácz, Lajos. 2001. Magyarország éghajlattörténete az újkor idején (Climate History of Hungary in the Modern Age). Szeged: Juhász Gyula Felsőoktatási Kiadó. Rácz, Lajos. 2003. “The Climate History of Central Europe in the Modern Age.” In People and Nature, ed. József Laszlovszky and Péter Szabó, 229–246. Budapest: CEU Press. Radvánszky, Béla. 1896. Magyar családélet és háztartás a XVI. és XVII. században (Hungarian family life and households in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). 3 vols. Budapest: Hornyánszky. Renfew, Colin. 1996. “Prehistory and the Identity of Europe or, Don’t let’s be Beasty to the Hungarians.” In Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European

Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-Brown, and Clive Gamble, 125–137. London: Routledge. Richardson, Catherine. “Introduction.” In Clothing Culture 1350–1650, ed. Catherine Richardson 1–19. Aldershot: Ashgate. Ridovics, Anna, ed. 2001. A szépség dicsérete. 16–17. századi magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október (In Praise of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian Aristocracy in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the Hungarian National Museum, August – October 2001). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Ritoók, Ágnes. 1997. “A magyarországi falusi templom körüli temetők feltárásának újabb eredményei” (The Latest Results of Excavations of Village Churchyards in Hungary). Folia Archaeologica 46: 165–176. Ritoók, Ágnes and Erika Simonyi, ed. 2005. “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Rosner, Gyula. 1947. “Szentendre, Paprikabíró u. 5.” (Szentendre, Paprikabíró street No. 5). Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 1, 20: 101. Rowlands, Michael. 2007. “The Politics of Identity in Archaeology.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, ed. Timothy Insoll, 59–71. London: Routledge. Rusu, Adrian Andrei. 1998. Gotic şi Renaştere la Vinţu de Jos (Gothic and Renaissance in Vinţu de Jos). Satu Mare: Ed. Muzeului Sătmărean. Rusu, Adrian Andrei. 2002. Cetatea Oradea. Monografie arheologicǎ,1. Zona palatului episcopal (The castle of Oradea. Archaeological Monograph, 1. The zone of the episcopal palace). Oradea: Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor. Ruttkay, Alexander T. 1997. “Archeologický výskum kostola sv. Michala v Nitre, čast’ Dražovce a v jeho okolí – informácia o výsledkoch” (Archaeological research on the church of St. Michael in Dražovce, a part of Nitra, and its surroundings – a report on the results). Archaeologia Historica 22: 9–20. Ruttkay, Alexander T. 2005. “A szlovákiai templom körüli temetők régészeti kutatásáról” (On the research of churchyard cemeteries in Slovakia). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 31–58. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. R. Várkonyi, Ágnes. 1990. “Erdély társadalma és az európai hatalmi egyensúly 1660–1711” in Jankovics, József, Ágnes R. Várkonyi and Géza Galavics, Régi erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII. századból (Ancient Transylvanian Garments. A costume codex from the seventeenth century), 23–55. Budapest: Európa. Sackett, James R. 1990. “Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism.” In The Uses of Style in 93

Bibliography

Archaeology, ed. Margaret W. Conkey and Christine Hastorf, 32–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sarosácz, György. 1968. “Baranyai délszláv népszokások II. Temetkezési szokások a sokácoknál és a bosnyákoknál” (Folk traditions of the Southern Slavs in Baranya county, 2. Funeral customs among the Sokác and the Bosniacs). A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 13: 152–168. Scarce, Jennifer M. 2002 (1987). Women’s Costume of the Near and Middle East. 1st ed. 1987. London: Routledge. Schmitt, Jean-Claude. 2003. “Images and the Historian.” In History and Images. Towards a New Iconology, ed. Axel Bolvig and Phillip Lindley, 19–44. Turnhout: Brepols. Schubert, Gabriella. 1994. “A délkelet-európai népek viseletei – szemiotikai megközelítésben” (Costumes of peoples in South-Eastern Europe – a semiotic approach). Ethnographia 105: 429–431. Selmeczi, László. 1973. “Adatok és szempontok a kunok régészeti kutatásához Szolnok megyében” (Data and aspects of the archaeological research on Cumans in Szolnok County). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv 1: 105–115. Selmeczi, László. 1996/a. “A jászok betelepülése a régészeti leletek tükrében” (Immigration of Iasians reflected by the archaeological finds). In Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors – Pechenegs, Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain), ed. Péter Havassy, 67– 80. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum. Selmeczi, László. 1996/b. “A magyarországi jászok régészeti kutatása” (Archaeological research on Iasians in Hungary). In Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors – Pechenegs, Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain), ed Péter Havassy, 81–88. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum. Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley. 1992. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. (1st ed. 1987). London: Routledge. Shennan, Stephen. 1989. “Introduction.” In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. Stephen Shennan, 1–32. London: Routledge. Shennan, Stephen, ed. 1989. Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London: Routledge. Simon, Zoltán. 2005. “Wall-Tiles from Regéc.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 27–34. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Simon, Zsolt. 2006. “A baricsi és kölpényi harmincadok a 16. század elején” (The thirtieth of Barics and Kölpény in the early sixteenth century). Századok 140: 817–882. Simonyi, Erika. 2005. “Középkori és kora újkori temető Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilváson” (A medieval and early modern cemetery at Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 305–314. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Sinkovics István. 1985. “Útkeresés Mohács után. Az ország három részre szakadása (1526–1541),” “Az ország megoszottságának állandósulása (1540–1570)” (Finding the way after Mohács. The tripartition of the country, 1526–

1541. The stabilization of the tripartition, 1540–1570). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686), Magyarország története 3, vol. 1, ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, 147–284. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. S. Kovács, Tibor. 2005. “Ottoman-Turkish Influences on Hungarian Weapons.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 115–130. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. S. Laczkovits, Emőke. 1989. “16–17. századi kéttornyúlaki párták és párhuzamaik” (Sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury examples of párta from Kéttornyúlak and their analogies). Veszprémi Történelmi Tár (1989): 31–44. Sokcsevits, Dénes. 1998. “Horvátok” (Croats). In Toso Doncsev et al., Nemzeti és etnikai kisebbségek Magyarországon (National and ethnic minorities in Hungary), 101–135. Budapest: Auktor. Striling, János, ed. 1983. Egy jeles Vad-Kert, Avagy az oktalan állatoknak históriája Miskolczi Gáspár által (An illustrious park, or the history of the brute beasts by Gáspár Miskolczi). Budapest: Magvető. Sugar, Peter. 1990. “The Principality of Transylvania.” In A History of Hungary, ed. Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, and Tibor Frank, 121–137. London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD. Suhr, Grietje. 2005. “Eine Chance für neue Paradigmen? ... theoretische Ansätze in der Archäologie Polens, der Tschechischen Republik und Ungarns.” Dissertation an der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Europa-Universität Viadrina. Sutton, Anne. 1998. “Dress and Fashion c. 1470.” In Daily Life in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard Britnell, 5–26. Stroud, UK: Sutton Publishing. Szabó, János Győző. 1979. “Poroszló, Földvár utca” (Poroszló, Földvár street). Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 1, 32: 132. Szabó, János Győző. 1983. “A keleti kereszténység egyik ismertetőjele temetkezéseinkben” (A mark of Eastern Christianity in burials). A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 28: 83–98. Szabó, Kálmán. 1938. Az alföldi magyar nép művelődéstörténeti emlékei (The culture historical remains of the population of the Hungarian Great Plain). Budapest: Országos Magyar Történeti Múzeum. Szabó, Péter. 1986. “A fegyverzet szerepe a főúri gyászszertartáson” (The role of the armor in noble funeral ceremonies). Ars Hungarica 15: 115–123. Szádeczky, Lajos. 1897. “A küküllővári sírleletek és régiségek” (Finds and antiquities from Küküllővár). Erdélyi Múzeum 14: 286–290, 293–295. Szakály, Ferenc.1981. Magyar adóztatás a török hódoltságban (Hungarian taxation under the Ottoman conquest). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Szakály, Ferenc. 1990. “The Early Ottoman Period, Including Royal Hungary, 1526–1606.” In A History of Hungary, ed. Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, and Tibor Frank, 83–99. London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD. Szakály, Ferenc. 1994. “Nándorfehérvár, 1521: The Beginning of the End of the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom.” In Hungarian-Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 47–76. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Dept. of Turkish Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History. 94

Bibliography

Szakály, Ferenc. 1995. Mezőváros és reformáció. Tanulmányok a korai magyar polgárosodás kérdéséhez (Oppidum and the Reformation. Studies on the early Hungarian bourgeoisie). Budapest, Balassi Kiadó. Szende, Katalin. 2004. Otthon a városban: társadalom és anyagi kultúra a középkori Sopronban, Pozsonyban és Eperjesen (Home in the town: Society and material culture in medieval Sopron, Bratislava and Prešov). Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete. Szende, Katalin. 2009. “Integration through Language: The Multilingual Character of Late Medieval Towns.” In Segregation – Integration – Assimilation. Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval Towns of Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Derek Keene, Balázs Nagy and Katalin Szende, 206–233. Farnham: Ashgate. Szendrei, János. 1907. “Adatok az erdélyi női viselet történetéhez” (New data on the history of female costume in Transylvania). Archaeológiai Értesítő 27: 193–205. Szendrei, János. 1908. “Adatok az erdélyi férfi viselet történetéhez” (New data on the history of male costume in Transylvania). Archaeológiai Értesítő 28: 97–122. Szőcs, Péter, Dóra Mérai, and Jacqueline T. Eng. 2005. “A nagykároly-bobáldi temető és templom 2001. évi régészeti kutatása” (Archaeological investigation of the NagykárolyBobáld cemetery and church in 2001). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 315–324. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Szőke, Béla Miklós. 1996. “Alsórajk-Kastélydomb.” Antaeus Communicationes ex Instituto Archaeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 23: 251–288. Takács, Miklós. 2005. “Egy vitatott kéztartásról” (On a debated gesture). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 85–101. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Tánczos, Nándor. 1993 “Embertani vizsgálatok EsztergomRozmár 16–17. századi népességén” (Physical anthropological analysis of the sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury population of Esztergom-Rozmár). Anthropológiai Közlemények 35: 141–142. Telcean, Ecaterina. 1976. “Tezaurul de la Visuia (sec. XVI)” (The treasure of Visuia, sixteenth century). File de Istorie 4: 205–216. Tomka, Gábor. 2003. “Finjans, Pipes, Grey Jugs. ‘Turkish’ Objects in the Hungarian Fortresses of Borsod County.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 311–320. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.

Tompos, Lilla. 2001. “Kamuka és korcovány. Textíliák és öltözékek” (Kamuka and korcovány. Textiles and garments). In A szépség dicsérete. 16–17. századi magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október (In Praise of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian Aristocracy in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the Hungarian National Museum, August – October 2001), ed. Anna Ridovics, 9–26. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Tompos, Lilla. 2005. “Oriental and Western Influences on Hungarian Attire.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 87–100. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Tompos, Lilla. 2009. “A budapesti ‘Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen’ kódex viselettörténeti áttekintése” (A costume historical overview of the ‘Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen’ codex from Budapest) In Teréz Oborni, Lilla Tompos and Gábor Bencsik, A régi Erdély népeinek képeskönyve (A picture book of peoples of the ancient Transylvania), 28–39. Budapest: Magyar Mercurius. Török, László, ed. 1970. Balla Gergely nagykőrösi krónikája a honfoglalástól 1758-ig (The chronicle of Gergely Balla of Nagykőrös from the Hungarian Conquest until 1758). Nagykőrös–Kecskemét: Bács-Kiskun M. Ny. Tóth, István György. 1999. “Hungarian Culture in the Early Modern Age.” In A Cultural History of Hungary, From the Beginnings to the Eighteenth Century, ed. László Kósa, 154–228. Budapest: Corvina. Tóth, István György. 2005/a. “The Century of Ottoman Wars.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 181–205. Budapest: Osiris. Tóth, István György. 2005/b. “Aristocracy and Gentry.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 259–263. Budapest: Osiris. Tóth, István György. 2005/c. “Between the Sultan and the Emperor.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 206–231. Budapest: Osiris. Tóth, István György. 2005/d. “Reformation and the Catholic Revival.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 231–249. Budapest: Osiris. Trigger, Bruce. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turnau, Irena. 1991. History of Dress in Central and Eastern Europe from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century. Warsaw: Institute of the History of Material Culture, Polish Academy of Sciences. Varga, János. 1969. Jobbágyrendszer a magyarországi feudalizmus kései szakaszában 1566–1767 (The system of villainage in the late period of the feudalism in Hungary 1566–1767). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. V. Ember, Mária. 1957. “Az egri Rozália kápolna textiljei” (Textiles from the Rosalie Chapel in Eger). Folia Archaeologica 9: 119–236. V. Ember, Mária. 1961. “Az egri Rozália kápolna cipői” (Shoes from the Rosalie Chapel in Eger). Folia Archaeologica 13: 251–268. V. Ember, Mária. 1967. “Magyar viseletformák a XVI. és XVII. században” (Hungarian forms of clothing in the 95

Bibliography

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). Folia Archaeologica 18: 205–226. V. Ember, Mária. 1968. “XVI. és XVII, századi ruhadarabok a sárospataki templom kriptájából” (Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century articles of clothing from the crypt of the church at Sárospatak). Folia Archaeologica 19: 151– 184. Végh, András. 2009. “Buda: The Multi-ethnic Capital of Medieval Hungary.” In Segregation – Integration – Assimilation. Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval Towns of Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Derek Keene, Balázs Nagy and Katalin Szende, 88–99. Farnham: Ashgate. Vida, Tivadar. 2003. “Cross-roads of Peoples and Cultures.” In Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Milleneum, ed. Zsolt Visy and Mihály Nagy, 283–284. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage and Teleki László Foundation. Vida, Tivadar. 2006. “Az etnikum kérdése a német kora középkori régészetben 1945 után” (The issue of ethnicity in the German archaeology of the Early Middle Ages after 1945). Korall 24–25: 203–215. Visy, Zsolt and Mihály Nagy, ed. 2003. Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Milleneum. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage and Teleki László Foundation. V. Szathmári, Ibolya. 1991. “A debreceni ún. ‘gyöngyösbogláros’ párta” (Párta from Debrecen decorated with beads and boglár). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve (1991): 193–224. V. Székely, György. 2003. “Differentiation or Homogenisation? Structural Changes in the Composition of Coin Finds in Sixteenth-Century Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 337– 344. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Walther, Rolf. 1971. “Die Trachtenbilder im Thesaurus Picturarum des Dr. Markus zum Lamm.” Waffen- und Kostümkunde 13: 77–96. Weckwerth, Alfred. 1957. “Der Ursprung des Bildepitaphs.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 21: 147–185. Wellmann, Imre. 1985. “Magyarország népességének fejlődése a 18. században” (The development of the population of Hungary in the eighteenth century). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686), ed. Győző Ember and Gusztáv Heckenast, vol. 1, 23–80. Magyarország története 4. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. White, Carolyn L. and Mary C. Beaudry. 2009. “Artifacts and Personal Identity.” In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, ed. Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 209–225. New York: Springer. Wicker, Erika. 1999. “Bácsalmás-Óalmás későközépkori rác temetője” (Late medieval Rác cemetery at BácsalmásÓalmás). Múzeumi kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében 1998: 25–30. Wicker, Erika. 2001. “Rácok A Duna-Tisza közén a XVIXVII. században” (Rác people between the Danube and the Tisza rivers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). In Ezer év a Duna-Tisza közén (A thousand years between the Danube and the Tisza rivers), ed. János Bárth, 151- 157. Kecskemét: Katona József Múzeum.

Wicker, Erika. 2002 “Muzulmán elemek a hódoltság kori rácok temetkezési szokásaiban” (Muslim elements in the burial customs of the Rác population in the period of the Turkish Conquest). Cumania 18: 95–124. Wicker, Erika. 2003/a. “A Serb Cemetery from the Ottoman Era in Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 237–248. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. Wicker, Erika. 2003/b. “Adatok a hódoltság kori délszlávok temetkezési szokásaihoz” (New data on the burial customs of the Southern Slav population in the period of the Turkish Conquest). Cumania 19: 19–84. Wicker, Erika. 2004. “Észak-Bácska a hódoltság korában” (The northern part of Bácska in the period of the Ottoman Conquest). Cumania 20: 5–111. Wicker, Erika. 2005/a. “Újabb adatok a hódoltság kori délszlávok temetkezési szokásaihoz” (New data on the burial customs of Southern Slav population in the period of the Ottoman conquest). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 325–332. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Wicker, Erika. 2005/b. “A hódoltság kori balkáni népesség régészeti hagyatékának kutatása” (Research on the Balkan population in the period of the Ottoman Conquest in BácsKiskun county). Múzeumi kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében az ezredfordulón 10 (1999–2005): 19–29. Wicker, Erika. 2005/c. “A katymár-téglagyári hódoltság kori fülbevalópár” (A pair of earrings from Katymár-Téglagyár from the period of the Ottoman conquest). Cumania 21: 5–56. Wicker, Erika. 2007. “Azonosságok és hasonlóságok az iszlám köznépi és a hódoltság kori rác-vlah temetkezési szokásokban” (Correspondences and similarities between the burial customs of Muslim commoners and the Rác-Vlach population of Hungary under Ottoman rule). Cumania 23: 5–75. Wicker, Erika. 2008. Rácok és vlahok a hódoltság kori ÉszakBácskában (Rác and Vlach peoples in North Bácska in the period of the Ottoman conquest). Kecskemét: Bács-Kiskun Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumi Szervezete. Wicker, Erika and Mihály Kőhegyi. 2002. “A katymári XVIXVII. századi rác temető” (The sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury Rác cemetery at Katymár). Cumania 18: 5–94. Wiessner, Polly. 1983. “Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points.” American Antiquity 48/2: 253–276. Wobst, H. Martin. 1977. “Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange.” In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, ed. Charles E. Cleland, 317–342. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Zhelyazkova, Antonina. 2002. “Islamization in the Balkans as an Historiographical Problem: The SoutheasternEuropean Perspective.” In The Ottomans and the Balkans. A Discussion of Historiography, ed. Fikret Adanir and 96

Bibliography

Suraiya Faroqhi, 224–266. The Ottoman Empire and its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy 25. Leiden: Brill. Zimányi, Vera. 1985. “Városfejlődés és polgárság” (Development of towns and the burghers). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686), Magyarország története 3, vol. 1, ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, 353–383. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Zimányi, Vera. 1987. Economy and society in sixteenth and seventeenth century Hungary, 1526–1650. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Zimányi, Vera. 1997. “Magyarország 16–17. századi demográfiatörténeti vizsgálatának problémái” (The

problems of research on the demographical history of Hungary in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics, 193–196. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Zomborka, Márta and Emil Ráduly. 1996. “Vác, Fehérek temploma, kriptafeltárás 1994–95” (Vác, Dominican church, excavation of the crypt 1994–95). Magyar Múzeumok (1996): 3–14. Zomborka, Márta and Emil Ráduly. 2000. “The Finds of the Crypt of the Dominican Church in Vác.” Hungarian Museums, Special English Language Edition (2000): 26–28.

97