Wolf Mária: A borsodi földvár. Egy államalapítás kori megyeszékhelyünk kutatása - Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye régészeti emlékei 10. (Budapest - Miskolc - Szeged, 2019)
Irodalom- és rövidítésjegyzék
384 tion, 268 Fő Street in Borsod and Bódvaszilas-Egres field), however, prove that Hungarians of the Conquest Period did settle in this area. Research has been conducted on the history of the hillfort since the 18th century. Historical literature from the 19th century clearly considered the hillfort Slav in origin, positing that the conquering Hungarians used the ruins of a Slav fortress to build their own. In contrast, research done between the two world wars led to the conclusion that the hillfort had prehistoric origins. An important step in uncovering the history of the hillfort came in 1890, when Gyula Bartalos surveyed the site, and later in 1896, when he further investigated using trial trenching. In 1926, Andor Leszih conducted smaller excavations which extended to the hillfort’s ramparts. Wooden remains were discovered in the ramparts, tile fragments in the hillfort interior, and some characteristic Árpád Age, simple hoop jewellery with S-shaped ending next to today’s Calvinist church. Although Leszih himself emphasized that his excavation had not yielded any material proving the prehistoric origins of the hillfort, he still considered it likely that it had ancient roots. In accordance with Anonymus’s account, earlier literature did not question the idea that Borsod Hillfort was built in the 10th century, during the Period of the Hungarian Conquest, upon the remains of a Slav or prehistoric structure. Nevertheless, researchers espoused the position already taken by Frigyes Pesty in 1892 that Borsod was one of the royal castle districts (várispánság) during the period of St. Stephen, and the hillfort was certainly in existence in the period 1184—1241. Among 20th-century researchers, György Györffy was the first to postulate that Anonymus’s account was true but referred to events that took place not during the Conquest Period but rather during the founding of the Hungarian state. Bors was not a Conquest Period chief but rather a figure during the time of St. Stephen, and the first count of Borsod County. Borsod is the last remaining county seat in today’s Hungary that was not destroyed over the centuries; no new settlements were built on its ruins and thus it can be freely investigated today. Excavation of the hillfort’s ramparts and interior was conducted between 1987 and 1999 and yielded extremely substantial results. Not only were the former county seat, the count’s (ispán’s) castle, the associated churches and the cemetery unearthed but so too was a village that shed light on the life style, economy, homes and environs of early Hungarians. The work also provided a glimpse of the medieval history of the hillfort and Borsod itself. The houses and other features of the settlement that preceded the count’s castle in Borsod are located on the northern side of the hill as well as beneath the later ramparts. The hill was divided in two by two wide, east-west depressions. Without exception, the houses are found along the edges or in the first, northern depression. Seventeen houses or parts of houses were unearthed in the excavated area. However, we can presume that there were still more houses in the village. After all, the finds from the area of the ramparts clearly show that some houses from the earlier settlement were damaged or completely destroyed when the ramparts were constructed. The village burned down, and the houses were simultaneously destroyed during the fire. Ceramic objects comprised the greatest number of artefacts. In each of the houses, alongside the no-longerused fragments, twelve to sixteen earthenware vessels were found that were either intact or crushed by the soil. Because the fire had caused the inhabitants to flee their houses, leaving behind a significant portion of their valuables, the dishware can be considered the households’ complete sets. The unearthed ceramics show that the houses were well equipped, and the formal characteristics of the dishware were more varied than in households later in the Árpád Age. The vast majority of the vessels found were pots of different sizes. In addition, plates, bottles and lids also came to light. The large, narrow mouthed, cylindrical necked, extremely bulbous vessel, unique among the Hungarian artefacts discovered, is a pithos, a storage vessel. The closest analogy to this type can be found among the pottery crafted by the Saltovo culture. Among the Borsod vessels, those with horizontal ribs at the necks comprise a separate category. Analogies suggest to me that the ‘ribbed neck vessels’ formed a functional group needed for the processing of milk, most likely for butter making or storing milk or milk products. The forming of the vessels was more practical than decorative. Perhaps, the repeated discovery of similar pottery in the same area and dating to the same period is the result of identical modes of usage. According to our present knowledge, this type of vessel is not found among the 8lh-9th century pottery of the Carpathian Basin. Thus, their presence must be associated with the settling of the conquering Hungarians. To date, this type of vessel is also unknown among finds from the later parts of the Árpád Age. When reviewing the types of ceramics in Borsod, it became obvious that among the more than one hundred intact vessels and large quantity of fragments, no clay cauldrons or cauldron fragments were found. The uniform opinion expressed in the wealth of literature on clay cauldrons is that this form appeared in the Carpathian Basin with the arrival of the Hungarians and was part of the typical semi-nomadic lifestyle. Therefore, it is particularly noteworthy that the indisputably 10th-century Hungarian village artefacts of Borsod do not include cauldrons. As we know, cauldrons were not unearthed from 10th and 11th century graves and are also absent from the arte
