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

Italy as the ultimate source of the style of the Buda pieces, but concerning their date the views of the two scholars differed significantly. Not many Hungarian experts were as familiar with Italian art as were Gerevich and Balogh. However, northern Italian medieval terracotta architecture was never in the focus of research. One of the reasons for this may be that much of this architecture has perished. An other, the prevailing interest in Renaissance art which inevitably overlooked the achievements of the preceding Gothic, by comparison almost barbaric, age. Only few works are dedicated to this period and they are not easily accessible. We presume that restricted information is responsible for the fact that László Gerevich and Jolán Balogh starting from the same source arrived at such diverse conclusions. II. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS The systematic archaeological excavations of the medieval royal palace started in 1948. The work was directed by László Gerevich and proceeded with short interruptions until 1962. By then the remains of the royal palace were generally identified. Research was started again in 1973, directed first by László Zolnay and, after his death, from 1985 on by Károly Magyar.

24 So far, some 800 terracotta pieces have been unearthed in the excavations. The map of the finds shows that they were scattered across the entire site of the medieval royal palace. (Fig. 2) Bricks were excavated at almost every archaeological site between the Southern Round Bastion and the Gate of the Northern Curtain Wall. Indeed, pieces have also been found north of the Royal Palace in the territory of the turkish Pasha Palace. The Small Courtyard, the Stephen's Tower, the cellars of the Southwest Wing, and those in the East Wing of the Courtyard II were the only sites, on which no pieces were found. Looking at the map, the unevennes of the distribution of the finds is also noticeable. In Dry Moat II and in the Western Inner Ward many more pieces were excavated than on any other site. The Southern Inner Ward, the Southern Round Bastion and two houses (80/9 and 75/23) in the Northern Outer Bailey were also rich in terracotta pieces, but other sites have yielded finds of the same sort albeit in smaller number. This can be explained by the repeated phases of building activity which was accompanied by demolition of existing structures and the levelling or movement of soil and other material. Despite forming part of the same unit, such pieces were often found at some considerable distance from each other. Let us now review the archaeological evidence from site to site. 5 Dry Moat II supplied a great number of terracottas, 248 pieces in all

—during both the Gerevich and the Zolnay excavations. They were found at the west end of Dry Moat II, in the vicinity of the tower at the Western Gatehouse of Dry Moat II and near the bridge piers.(Fig. 3) Many pieces were uncovered in 1983, when Dry Moat II was mechanically deepened using a digger, this time at the northern side of the moat, near the later wall that ran by the pillars. The fragments were recorded to have been lying five metres below ground level ashler and pieces of carved stone.

20 (Fig. 4) This depth corresponds to, and is presumably equivalent to, the level of fallen masonry observed at other parts of the moat during the excavations conducted in 1956.

27 (Fig. 7) This means, that the terracotta pieces are a part of the fallen deposit identified all along the bottom of the moat.This deposit was created by the destruction of the wall running south of Dry Moat II, the palace wing erected under King Sigismund of Luxemburg, the tower standing on the west side of this wing and the nearby gateway. As the bricks were lying scattered around the tower, we can assume that they were built into its walls. The clue to the timing of the demolition is the deposit beneath the fallen masonry. This is a debris fill, with finds from medieval as well as Turkish times, together with coins mainly from the mid-fourteenth century. László Gerevich, the excavator of the site suggested the year 1578 as the time of the demolition, evidently in an attempt to link the event with the great gun-powder explosion that we know to have occured that year. In doing so, however, he appears to neglect the fact that a coin discovered was from the time of Turkish Sultan Mohamed III (1595-1603).

28 The tower and its surroundings have undergone a number of changes in the course of the middle ages. This, and the extant of later distructions make the interpretation of surviving medieval walls difficult.

29 (Fig. 5.) The tower originally formed part of the medieval town walls and, just like other disclosed towers of the fortification system, was semicircular. When Courtyard II of the royal palace (known as Sigismunde courtyard too) was built, the adjoining town walls were demolished, their foundations and remains were covered, and the walls of the tower were joined to the town wall separating the royal palace from the town