Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. A Szent István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 26. 1989-1992 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1997)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Bartosiewicz László: A Székesfehérvár Bestriary: Animal Bones from the Excavations of the medieval City Wall. p. 133–167.

Aside from being a meat resource, cranes were also popular game animals, and their hunting (just as the consumption of their meat to some extent) was mostly practiced by the privileged. This bird is known to have been hunted by falcons in Asia (Révai 1912, 312-313). Olaus Magnus, the last Catholic arch bishop in Sweden recorded the same practice in the middle of the 16th century (Olaus 1976, 101). Falconry is generally known as a sport of the noble. Written sources mention more popular ways of crane hunting as well including the catching of these animals by stalking the flock after dusk (Brahe 1581, 98) and collecting young individuals stuck in the mud during fights for nesting gorunds (Pák 1829). This latter method circumvent the problem caused by the fact that cranes are notoriously alert and their flocks are usually guarded by at least one individual. As a 13th century source put it: "The cranes divide the night into watches and arrange the sequence of watchmen according to strict rules, holding stones in their claws in order to ward off sleep" (Barber 1993: 128). This legendary behavioral feature was often exploited in the case of tamed cranes which were used around the courts and castles to alarm against intruders. In many courts specialists were trained in the care of these animals durint the 16th century in Hungary (Gunda 1969) and with certain reservations this relationship may be viewed as a sort of initial domestication. It is of special interest in this paper that Hungarian folk tradition mentions cranes having been kept on the walls of fortifications in order to signal enemies, a custom which is known at the Dobrudjan Tartars as well (MNL, I, 555-556). It must be emphasized that this aspect of crane exploitation was probably reinforced by emotional considerations. It is often difficult to decide, whether bird bones recovered from medieval sites represented food refuse or the remains of pets (Vörös 1986, 256). Cranes have been sacred and beloved birds in many cultures including that of the ancient Hungarians. Kalmuks and Mongols are known to respect this bird as well, and the Japanese regard it as a good luck omen (Révai 1912, 312-313). In Stockholm, for example, six tame cranes are mentioned as having been kept in the royal lake in 1528 (Bergius 1787). Many find the dancing of cranes graceful and entertaining, and in general, one may imagine these birds fulfilling the same decorative role as the swans and peacocks which are still kept for this purpose nowadays. Finally, it is worth mentioning that both archaeological and ethnographic examples may be found for the use of crane bones and feathers in craft activities (Gunda 1969), an aspect that seems to have no relevance to the case of the specimen under discussion in this study. As far as the crane remains from JM/1 are concerned the food use of the find may also be excluded to be parts of an articulated skeleton and bear no butchering marks. Although, according to Dr. Dénes Jánossy the individual smaller than the average size known for modern specimens, it is an adult animal's fragmented skeleton and the meat may have been less enjoyable for culinary purposes. In addition to this depositional and gastronomic argument, the review provided previously also suggests that this crane may have been a pet in light of the popularity of these birds. The fact that the bone remains dealt with in this analysis came to light durint the excavations of the medieval city wall gives special emphasis to the previously mentioned custom of keeping these birds in this part of the Castrum. The evidence of one damaged and imcomplete skeleton is not sufficient, however, to fully support the hypothesis that this bird directly served as an alarming guard. As far as hunting, and especially falconry is concerned, such birds probably would have been eaten within site (a possibility ruled out previously), or the carcass discarded off site (in the case of game hunting or collection of feathers). Neither of these alternatives seem to be supported by the occurrence and condition of this find. CONCLUSIONS Animal bones from the urban deposits studied in Székesfehérvár can be largely interpreted as food refuse (cattle, sheep/goat and pig; Vörös 1992, Bartosiewicz 1995) or remains of industrial activity (horn cores). The characteristically high relative taxonomic richness of such assemblages in Hungary, however,

. is often due to the presence of species that would have been less likely sources of animal protein. The accumulation of such bones, in most cases, results from what could be equally interpreted as the evidence of "luxury" food (young animals, poultry, crane?) or industry (red deer), the keeping of pets (cat, crane?), and even non-Christian ritual activity. The faunal material described here, however, not only represents functionally different attitudes toward animals but also reflects the complex nature of the relationship between humans and animals during the Middle Ages and the Turkish Period. The zoological analysis of these often odd bone finds is of help in placing them into a systemic interpretative framework. 143