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
IV. MANUFACTURING It seems to be convenient to start the studying of the terracottas with observations relating to their manufacturing. The components and details of firing were identified in laboratory tests by György Duma (see his study in this volume). In the following the surfaces and all detectable marks of the pieces need to be studied. On the basis of surface marks three levels of processing can be distinguished. As regards finish, most refined are the sides that were intended to be exposed. Here marks left by tools are almost completely removed. Less perfect are those surfaces which were not meant to be seen, yet careful fashioning of these was necessary to permit easy installation. Tool marks are clearly visible on these sides. But the most marks have survived on the sides which were irrelevant from the point of view of appearance and of fitting, usually the reverse side of the bricks. It is best to begin our examination with these surfaces, since these contain clues as to the early phase of the modelling. These reverse side surfaces lack uniformity. Some of them exhibit long longitudinal bands cut unevenly into the material, rather like the imprint of a piece of lath. Some reverse side surfaces seem to have been smoothed off roughly (Fig. 8) Others contain grains of sand, a material in which they apparently were laid. (Fig. 9) It seems, therefore, that laying the bricks in big, square shapes was the first stage of the modelling process. The different marks indicate the various tools used: the shapes were made of wood and sprayed with sand to prevent the clay from sticking into it. The overflow of clay was smoothed off with an other tool from the top of the shape. The size of these cannot, unfortunately, be determined, since usually only one side of each brick bears a mark of this phase. There are a few pieces on which the imprint of the bricklaying frame and the worked surface are to be seen on one and the same side —proving that, initially, large pieces were being worked on. These blocks were considerably larger than the usual size of bricks. After laying the brick they were immediately cut to the desired size. This was performed with the help of a wire; evidence of this can still be seen on the side of some of the bricks. (Fig. 11) What the next step could have been is difficult to say, but it seems certain that moulding shapes and modelling tools were used for the additional fashioning of the pieces. Surface marks would indicate the use of tools with flat and serrated cutting edges; construction lines can also be observed (Figs. 12-13). It is to be presumed that carving began when the bricks were already partly dry, as there are wrinkled surfaces adjacent to worked ones; this could only have happened if the material was worked on while still damp. (Fig. 10) We may therefore say that the final modelling of the bricks was performed while they were mainly in the stage between dampness and dryness. The forms to be achieved were marked on the blocks of clay by means of lines, which were then followed in the carving and modelling process. As the work proceeded layer by layer, these lines were repeatedly re-drawn. In a considerable number of cases construction lines indicating the last but one phase have also survived. (Figs. 14-16., 18., 20.). Auxiliary marks aimed at facilitating installation of the bricks were also applied. Some pieces exhibit other lines which further illustrate the process. (Figs. 19-22) The decorated pieces were processed in a similar way. Detailing was usually avoided, probably due to the nature of the material. There is a predominance of broad, flat surfaces and ornaments are stylized. Leaves are indicated by contour and an occasional main vein cut in the centre, or emphasized by a rib. Floral petals are characteristically indicated by an uneven surface.The decorated surfaces usually bear marks of smaller tools. However, this is not me case with the moulded surfaces, which are covered with longitudinal, parallel scars of different lengths. In our view these marks indicate that mouldings were made by running the patterns over the surface of the blocks, thus producing the desired effect. (Fig. 17) The same mouldings could be produced in different sizes, thereby meeting requirements. This explains the fact that all the mouldings consist of various combinations of the three simple elements: the bead, the roll moulding, and the cavetto. After modelling and carving the bricks they had to be dried and fired in the traditional manner. It is important to note that when modelling the pieces their shrinking as a consequence oflhe firing had to be taken into account. The large size of the bricks required first class material and careful firing. There are hardly any cracks to be seen on the pieces, their red tone indicates even firing both inside and outside. The only aspect in which carved stones differ from the terracotta pieces is the smaller size of the latter. The fragility of the material is the likely cause of this difference. The pieces usually never measure more than a foot (30-32 cm). Even if they exceed this, they are never longer than 40—45 cm.
