Miklós Kásler - Zoltán Szentirmay (szerk.): Identifying the Árpád Dynasty Skeletons Interred in the Matthias Church. Applying data from historical, archaeological, anthropological, radiological, morphological, radiocarbon dating and genetic research (Budapest, 2021)
CHAPTER THREE – Archaeological, anthropological and radiological data
In the opinion of historian Dr György Szabados, the above statement is worth noting as the royal couples identification that was widely accepted in professional circles since Pauer and Érdy has recently been challenged by archaeologist Endre Tóth. However, the identification as Béla III and Queen Anne of Antioch seems to be supported by the following: 1. The archaeological arguments themselves; thus, the theory of the cross being a “procession cross”, and the identification as King Kálmán based on it are not convincing. It is questionable why would it have been necessary to refer to the title of bishop during Kálmáns burial, when that title had already lost its function more than 20 years earlier at that time. The cross was identified as a cross of pilgrimage in older scientific literature, which has a straightforward explanation. Béla III had vowed to launch a crusade, but he could not embark on it, due to his impending death. In his will, he left the duty of pilgrimage to the Holy Land to his second son, King András II (1205-1235), who fulfilled his fathers final wishes 21 years later. Therefore, the cross placed in the King’s grave may have been a symbol of the unfulfilled promise of a pilgrimage. In fact, the shaft cross was an insignia of Christian rulers (Uzsoki 1984). Moreover, the grave goods being somewhat old-fashioned compared to their time does not necessitate a chronological revision: after all, why should they have put only items manufactured in 1196 next to the King’s body in 1196? 2. Palaeopathological studies showed that the condyles of the pubic bones had departed from each other greatly, suggesting that several births had taken place. Regöly-Mérei had found 78
