Budapest Régiségei 24/1. (1976)

PESTI ÁSATÁSOK = EXCAVATIONS CONDUCTED IN PEST = RASKOPKI V PEST - Csorba Csaba: Pest városfalának vázlatos története 349-368

CSABA CSORBA THE OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE PEST TOWN WALL In the archaeological research on the Pest town wall a further critical sifting of the historical data and their comparison with the new results of archaeology have become necessary. The circumstance that each of the three gates of the Pest town wall could be uncovered but in part, and practically none of the bastions (towers) give rise to difficulties. The works bearing the character of rescue excavations did not supply with finds helping to data the parts (sections) of the walls. On the other hand, it is essential that in the case of the Kecskemét gate it was found that prior to the barbican connecting to the gate-tower, the latter was surrounded by a moat, - there were no other outworks, consequently, the Kecskemét gate (on today's Kálvin Square) was built during at least two periods, and it is easy to imagine that the situation was the same with the other town gates too. Relying on Anonymus, research dated the beginning of the existence of the early Pest town wall (of the castle) to the time of Prince Taksony (10th century), identifying the castle of Pest with the Pest Roman castrum. The improbability of the data of Anonymus renders this presumption questionable. Anonymus described events which had taken place more than two centuries earlier than his own age. Again, with all his other data it was known even before that they were either fictitious or projections into the past of experiences of his own age, and only his topographical data were reliable. Also archeological observations and reasons of historical nature disprove the Roman castrum theory. The early town wall of Pest could have been built in the first part of the 13th century. Several of its sections were found by Katalin I. Melis in recent years. Similarly to the wall from the late Middle Ages, also this one enclosed a semicircular area, only a much smaller one. It was the wall which, for a few days, resisted the Mongol siege of 1241. Destroyed Pest became, in the 13-14th centuries, a town "of secondary importance" as compared with Buda on the other bank of the Danube, both as to its legal status and in economic respect. It may be presumed that the 13th century town wall was not reconstructed (at least there are neither archaeological nor written documents about this up to now), so that up to the fifties of the 15th century Pest was not surrounded by a wall. The town wall and the gates are being mentioned in the last third of the 15th century. After Pest had been captured by the Turks (1541) probably reconstructions took place. Thus it can be presumed that it was the Turks who built the large round bastions of the wall and the barbicans for the defense of the gates, just as the large circular bastions of the castle and town of Buda. The town wall of Pest is schematically represented in the 16-17th century views, and most of the engravings have no source value at all. The most serviceable ones are Hallart'

s engraving of the 1686 siege,as well as the views and ground-plans from the 18th century. Still, even among these there are - so far - irresoluble contradictions. Unfortunately, no reliable military engineers' survey was taken of Pest. This finds its explanation in the fact that, as compared with the Buda castle, Pest was of secondary importance in military .respect, it had to share the fortune of Buda. Who possessed Buda, also possessed Pest. Even after Buda had been recaptured (1686), the military engineers surveyed only the castle of Buda because, as compared with it, the situation of the fortifications of Pest was of no importance. Again, the 18th century non-military townscapes and cadastral maps are schematic as far 365