Wolf Mária: A borsodi földvár. Egy államalapítás kori megyeszékhelyünk kutatása - Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye régészeti emlékei 10. (Budapest - Miskolc - Szeged, 2019)
Irodalom- és rövidítésjegyzék
387 to amend the picture we have based on earlier archaeological excavations, too. The latest finds demonstrate that, from the earliest times, several different village types existed side by side, in which both subterrenean and aboveground buildings stood. The Borsod settlement does not have the ditches and pits typical of Árpád-Age villages. The reason for the absence of pits is presumably that the grain was kept in the attics instead, although large exterior clay ovens or groups of ovens are also missing. In all likelihood, the Borsod settlement was a centre for the 10,h-century Hungarian elite. However, during research of the settlement, it became clear that György Györffy’s theory that, among the counts’ castles, some were built in the 10th century as centres for clan chiefs could not be substantiated in the case of Borsod. It is true that this territory was inhabited in the 10th century, but it was an open settlement, not a castle. There is no doubt then that the count’s castle built in the 11th century in Borsod was preceded by a 10th century centre. The two, however, shared only an identical location; otherwise no connection has been found between them. The houses in the settlement burned down. The residents of the destroyed village left and never returned. The houses were buried, and the location of the village may have been forgotten at the time the count’s castle was constructed. If this were not the case, we would not have found the entire equipment of the houses. Therefore, we are certain that the 1 lth-century count’s castle in Borsod was built on the site of a 10th-century centre of a distinguished tribal or clan chief. Life there, however, was not continuous; a long period of time may have elapsed between the destruction of the village and the building of the count’s castle. In the 19th century, the position in Hungary was that the Conquest-Period Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin were obviously nomads and thus had no knowledge of agriculture or crafts. The nomadic lifestyle of our ancestors was first questioned by linguists, who very early on found that the Hungarian language contained many pre-Conquest loanwords, primarily Bulgarian Turkic, related to agriculture and animal husbandry. The linguistic information clearly indicates that Hungarians, already before arriving to Carpathian Basin, were acquainted with plough based cultivation, gardening and a different kind of livestock keeping than was practiced by nomads. Furthermore, the settlement excavations underway in Hungary and the analysis of written sources have prompted many researchers to reject the idea that Conquest-Period Hungarians were nomadic. Experts in this subject have reached a general consensus that the Hungarians who arrived in the Carpathian Basin were a semi-nomadic people in the process of becoming settled. Some groups were involved in livestock keeping and others in agriculture. Until recently, however, there were very few archaeological finds to complement and substantiate written sources and linguistic information. The majority of agricultural tools were found sporadically and came from unofficial excavations and therefore could not serve as strong evidence for dating or corroboration. Thus, it is not surprising that an expert on the period, Gyula Kristó, returned to the beginnings, and in his final writings proclaimed with strong belief and fierce conviction that Hungarians had lived a completely nomadic lifestyle. Research of agricultural tools has transformed in part thanks to recent excavations of cemeteries, which have yielded many sickles, spades shoes, and even ploughshares. Tenth-century seeds and agricultural tools were found for the first time as part of a properly conducted, official excavation in Borsod. As we have seen, these finds are the unmistakable remains of a Hungarian community. As mentioned above, everywhere in the burned down houses, charred grain seeds were found. We were able to take samples from altogether 45 locations and examine nearly nine kilograms of pure seed material. The large amounts of natural vegetation remains indicate the presence of a significant area of ploughland and gardens, areas situated next to bodies of water and the surrounding woodland, glades and even cleared land. Some of the remains of produce and seed had come from the natural vegetation, which suggests that farming was supplemented by deliberate gathering. Among the cultivated plants, the most common were wheat and rye. The weeds found among them clearly indicate autumn planting and a low harvest method. The extraordinarily large amount of hemp seeds suggests this was some kind of stockpile. Among the seed finds from Borsod, millet was found in unquestionably the greatest quantity. However, we cannot consider this as evidence of ‘nomad agriculture’, despite generally held opinions. As we have seen with the plants listed above, the inhabitants of Borsod village grew a variety of flora, which points to a lifestyle tied to one place, a settled existence, rather than a nomadic one. Furthermore, such practices as autumn planting and keeping vegetable gardens were unknown among nomadic peoples. Therefore, in addition to grain substitutes, other garden plants also played an important role, demonstrating a varied and high-quality crop production. A portion of the finds that indicate a natural environment, however, originated in part from cleared forestland. Millet and foxtail millet, which was likewise found in significant quantities in Borsod, were frequently used as the first crops in a cleared area. From this we can conclude that people of Borsod did not practice nomad agriculture but rather cleared land for crop production; they also increased the size of their ploughland by clearing forests.
