Horler Miklós: Budapest 1. budai királyi palota 1. Középkori idomtégla töredékek (Magyarország építészeti töredékeinek gyűjteménye 4. Budapest, 1995) (Magyarország építészeti töredékeinek gyűjteménye 4. Budapest, 1998)
András Végh: Medieval Terracotta finds from the royal Palace of Buda
chief of Lapidarium Ilungaricum, István Feld, my editor, Professor Ernő Marosi and György Szekér, my lectors, Tibor Koppány, Pál Lővei for their advises, László Nyikos, who edited the illustrations, to Gergely Búzás, Klára Mentényi, Emese Nagy, Jolán V. Pogány and all those who have helped me in my work. I. EARLIER OPINIONS The terracotta fragments from the royal palace of Buda have been known to experts since the turn of the twentieth century. During the reconstruction work on the royal palace directed by the architects Miklós Ybl and Alajos Hauszmann numerous medieval architectural elements —among them terracottas —were brought to light from the various layers of disturbed debris. Some of the more spectacular terracottas were saved by Flauszmann, who valued them for their ornaments and as interesting pieces of the applied arts. Other nondecorative elements escaped his attention, and were, presumably, reburied elsewhere. The majority of the bricks which were collected together were deposited with the Hungarian National Museum and some were given to the Museum of Applied Arts.-^ A few others were even taken to the garden of Ilauszmann's summer home at Szentendre, where he used them, together with other architectural fragments from Buda, to build a folly."* This still stands today, but only two of the bricks are in their places, the rest have disappeared, as have those once placed in the Museum of Applied Arts, although they still feature in the inventories. Accordingly, only the bricks given to the National Museum have survived. These, however, are not undamaged, since during the siege of Budapest in 1944-45, they suffered scorch marks and some pieces were broken. The greatest part of the material was taken in the 50s from the National Museum to the Castle Museum, the predecessor of the Budapest Historical Museum, where it is to be found today. The terracotta pieces were first presented to the reading public by Alajos Hauszmann, in his book on the royal palace. In this he briefly discussed the pieces and included a few photographs also/ With regard to the dating of the pieces he suggested the reign of King Sigismund (1387-1437) as a possible time, a judgement that was based on the Gothic character of the bricks. As written sources —sources known to Hauszmann —mention large scale Gothic building activity in that period only, this conclusion was quite reasonable. The photographs published by Hauszmann encouraged later study of the royal palace, and, ever since, the terracotta pieces have been taken into account in theoretical reconstructions. Kálmán Lux, for instance, in his book on the palace of King Matthias I Corvinus (Hunyadi, 1458-1490), claims that the pieces belonged to this particular building. 6 Lux published the photographs again and with regard to the function of the pieces he suggested that the bricks decorated the interior and 'wall surfaces below the vaulting'. He, however, provides no evidence for either of these suggestions. After the destruction of the Second World War excavations of the medieval royal palace were, for the first time, organized on a scientific basis. In the course of these, many new terracotta pieces were unearthed on practically all the sites that were investigated. This lead to a new, more profound, examination of the material. László Gerevich, who directed these excavations, utilized the new pieces when attempting to reconstruct the architectural history of the royal palace. It was then that the terracotta pieces became a truly exciting subject of discussion about the early history of the royal palace; they were used as primary evidence on both sides. Let us, therefore, survey their role in the so called "Buda debate". The discussion between László Gerevich and László Zolnay opened in 1952, when each published an article on the subject. 7 Zolnay denied that the early remains uncovered at the southern end of the Castle Hill dated írom the thirteenth century. Using written sources, he located the early royal buildings at the northern end of the hill. In his first paper he did not mention the terracotta fragments. At the same time, László Gerevich, explaining the same written sources in his own way, maintained that the palace stood at the southern end of the Castle Hill. As archaeological evidence of this supposition, the pits with thirteenth century contents, glass finds, some carved stone fragments, early pieces of wall, and thick layers indicating scorch marks were listed. Although he did mention the terracotta fragments in his study, he defined them as being Gothic and Renaissance. A further important statement by Gerevich asserted that the decoration on the terracotta pieces diferred from that on the stone-, tile, and bronze mounting finds in Buda. It was in the subsequent phase of the debate that the pieces were classed among the material that was to prove that the early palace had been erected at the southern end of the hill. 8
