Gräberfelder, Siedlungen, Regionalforschungen, 10.–11. Jahrhundert, Karpatenbecken
|
Friedhöfe und Siedlungen im Karpatenbecken des 10.–11. Jahrhunderts: Einige Anmerkungen zur Abhandlung von Miklós Takács László Révész 
AbstractThe collection and examination of cemeteries and parts of cemeteries excavated in the territory of the Carpathian Basin sheds light on their diversity and multifariousness in the country from the beginning of the 10th century to the first third of the 12th century. The view that previously associated the individual cemeteries with a particular stratum of society or ethnicity is already outdated both in its methodology and approach. More recent research focuses on the characteristics and period of use of sites found in a smaller area with the help of regional analyses. This offers a more accurate picture of the internal population movements, social transformation, as well as the spatial and temporal changes of the population in each region in the 10th and 11th centuries. The research results also shed light on the relations between the conquering Hungarians and the local peoples, as well as on the connections made with the neighbouring peoples. The time span of the use of each cemetery can now be determined with a few decades of accuracy. Today, these results are still difficult to synchronize with settlements that can be dated with much broader time limits. Linking individual cemeteries to specific settlement remains can be problematic and even misleading. In the field of settlement archaeology, I see the way ahead in the intensification of regional research. Within a given region, it is worth observing the tendencies, as well as changes and peculiarities indicated by cemeteries and settlement remains, then comparing them with each other. |
|
Reflexionen auf die Abhandlung von Miklós Takács László Kovács
AbstractAt the request of the editors for submitting a paper to the present annual, I wrote a study in German in which I interpreted the Hungarian archaeological term szállási temető [i.e. a cemetery of a short-lived settlement]. Earlier, I expressed the view that the archaeological analysis of cemeteries and burials belonging to the Conquest Period should be preceded by the chronological classification of cemeteries – based on the number of graves belonging to the fully excavated cemeteries. The distinction between burials of the local population found in the Carpathian Basin and the great cemeteries of the settled Hungarians that were in use for various periods from the 9th to the 12th centuries seemed acceptable (village cemetery types I–III and V–VIII). The difficulty of interpretation arose in connection with the small 10th-century cemeteries of the Hungarians (referred to as szállási temető by me in Hungarian). The existence of this type of cemetery cannot be questioned. They can be characterized with the typical burial customs of the conquering Hungarians as well as grave goods made of the most valuable materials placed in graves in a large quantity, which can be dated with foreign coins. These finds form extremely diverse assemblages. From their short use lasting a few decades (?), István Fodor and Ákos Tibor Rácz inferred that, with this, I wanted to demonstrate the nomadic way of life led by communities using the cemeteries above. However, I did not state anything like that, as the hydrographic, phytogeographical, and climatic features of the Carpathian Basin would not have made possible typical nomadic farming in the first place. Moreover, I factually refute this assumption with the finds of this type of cemetery, such as pig, hen, and goose bones, as well as eggs, which are not suggestive of nomadic animal husbandry at all. I did not study the relationship between cemetery types and contemporary settlements. The possibility of examining the relations between them was reviewed by Miklós Takács, an expert on this question, in his study of fundamental importance evoking debate. |
|
Elephant ivory artefacts in the Carpathian Basin during the 6th and 7th centuries: Chronology, distribution and cultural context István Koncz – Ádám Bollók
ZusammenfassungIm vorliegenden Beitrag wurden vierzehn langobarden- bzw. awarenzeitliche Elfenbeinobjekte aus fünf Gräbern des Karpatenbeckens nebst weiteren langobardenzeitlichen Elfenbeinfunden aus Mähren zusammengestellt und analysiert. Im Lichte von den bekannten römerzeitlich-spätantiken Preisangaben und den erhalten gebliebenen Funden aus dem Mittelmeerraum und Europa kann man darauf schließen, dass die Elfenbeinartefakte, trotzt der gewöhnlichen Aussage der archäologischen Fachliteratur, zumindest im spätantiken Mittelmeerraum ganz bis zu der Mitte des 7. Jahrhunderts nicht als unbezahlbaren Luxusgüter eingestuft werden sollen. Die Seltenheit der Elfenbeinartefakte im Karpatenbecken des 6.–7. Jh. könnte vielmehr mit kulturellen Faktoren erklärt werden. Im Gegensatz zu Edelmetall war Elfenbein für Thesaurierungszwecke in barbarischen Gesellschaften wenig geeignet, da es im Bedarfsfall nicht einfach eingeschmolzen und als Kapital mobilisiert werden könnte. Im Grunde genommen war es weder für Umarbeitung nach dem Geschmack der Barbarenelite noch für Reparatur bei Beschädigung besonders angemessen. |
|
Einige siedlungsarchäologische Überlegungen zum Inhalt der Begriffe „Dorf“ und „Weiler“ im Kontext des Karpatenbeckens des 10.–11. Jahrhunderts – Zur Gräberfeldtypologie von László Kovács Miklós Takács
AbstractThe aim of our study is to present and critically evaluate the thesis of László Kovács concerning the classification of the graveyards of the Carpathian Basin in the 10th and 11th centuries AD into chronological types. Our study has three main parts: after a brief history of previous investigations, we present the thesis of László Kovács, as well as the modifications to it, proposed by us. Since the thesis was published only in Hungarian, its parts and argumentation are discussed here in detail. The third part of our study analyses the hypothesis of László Kovács driven from his classification according to which the small and only temporarily used graveyards are to be interpreted as traces of little, farmstead-like settlements. In contrast, the cemeteries with a large number of graves must have belonged to villages. According to our opinion, this hypothesis, though it sounds very reasonable, will wholly be confirmed only when settlement archaeology of the given era will also yield a series of evidences, i.e. settlements firmly dated not only to the period of the 10th and 11th centuries, but also to the 10th century within that. |
|
In memoriam László Török (1941–2020) Ádám Bollók
|