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
tiles, carved stone fragments, statue torsos, and pieces of majolica earthware. It seems that the deposit could not have been created before the first half of the sixteenth century. Based on these finds we may say that the majority of this debris is in connection with one or other of the demolishen periods of the royal palace. The lack of Turkish finds suggest a date between 1526 and 1541. One terracotta piece was found in the same cellar where the famous gothic statues were found buried. 51 (Cellar Nr. 74/4) The piece did not lie in the same deposit as the statues, the former having been found in a deposit containing fallen masonry, whereas the statues were uncovered beneath this in a deposit of clay covering the whole of the bailey. The documentation gives no clue as to the date of the higher layer. Six terracotta pieces were lifted from a pit near the cellar of a house. 52 The pit (Nr. 74/47) was filled with refuse by the Turks, and it contained iron artifacts, canonballs, gun barrels, and glass fragments —as well as the bricks. The circumstances under which the rest of the bricks were found are not known precisely. At the end of our survey we may state that only very few of our questions can be answered with the help of archaeology. The bricks cannot be dated archaeologically, since none of them were disclosed in their original place. The demolition deposit in Dry Moat II can only be considered as secondary evidence: the bricks found here must have fallen from the tower or the the gatehouse standing alongside the moat. The foundations and lower levels of these edifices can be dated to the last quater of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. Likewise, the time of the demolition of the brick buildings is hard to state. The evidence of two finds suggest that some of the buildings ceased to exist as early as the end of the fifteenth century, or at least that they had by then been rebuilt. The pieces prior to the Turkish period which were excavated in the Northern Outer Bailey and Dry Moat II are also of significance. It is more than likely that they got covered during the sieges between 1526 and 1541. Next in time follows the demolition of the medieval Gate Tower of Dry Moat II at the end of the sixteenth century. This edifice also contained terracottas. After this time there are countless sites of the Turkish period and of the seventeenth century, where terracotta pieces were found, such as refuse pits, brick Poors, and deposits of different type. At last the buildings which might have survived through the centuries were irrevocably demolished during the 1686 siege of the castle and the subsequent renovation works in the 1710s. Manifestations of this last stage are the young deposits in the Western, Southern and Eastern Inner Wards and in Dry Moat I. III. WRITTEN EVIDENCE Written sources do not, unfortunately, greatly enrich our knowledge of the terracotta pieces. The buildings decorated with terracotta details were also plastered and painted; therefore, no bricks are mentioned in connection with the royal palace in contemporary descriptions —with one exception. This is the poem by Naldo Naldini —written between 1486 and 1488—which says that the walls of the library were built of brick. 51 Naldini's description does not, of course enlighten us as to whether the architectural details of the building consisted of terracotta or stone. It is, nevertheless, possible that in this case they were made of brick. Later, we shall see that one of the smaller groups may be connected with the library building. But we should remember that Naldi's description is one made in passing, and that he refers to bricks in general, not to the terracotta pieces. His description cannot be accepted as indubitable proof. With this, the analysis of written sources must, regretfully, be concluded. There are no other records referring to terracottas which offer additional information; medieval language handled certain technical differences with a noticable lack of subtlety. We shall see (in the section dealing with the technique used in manufacturing the terracotta pieces) that the production process was, in many respects similar to that of stone carvings. It is, therefore, just possible that terracotta makers are sometimes meant by the term lapicidae in the written records. On tire other hand, when we come across nouns —such as combustor, factorum tegularum vel laterum, lateripar, or tegulator, we cannot be certain whether reference is being made to a brickmaker, or to manufacturers of floor- or roof-tiles. Consequently, the written records do not enlighten us conserning the masters of the terracotta pieces either. 54
