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
The production of terracottas necessitated the understanding of a number of different skills: the making and the tiring of bricks, modelling, and even an understanding of architecture. The work could only be performed in a special workshop, where the craftsmen must have had considerably more knowledge than the average brick maker of the age; their task had much more in common with the stonemason' work than with the production of ordinary bricks. V. CLASSIFICATION Examination of the composition, size, patterns and moulding profiles of the bricks, as well as of the technique used in their manufacturing, leads us to believe that the most belong to one specific group consisting of 723 items —a group distinct from two other groups, each smaller in number. To begin with, we shall survey those characteristics which prove the relationship between the members of this first group. Chemical analysis of the bricks, performed by György Duma, proved that all were made from the same clay, mined in the vicinity of Buda, known as "Kiscell clay". Technical characteristics —as we observed previously —also emphasize the close relationship between the items. The mouldings are simple, consisting of only three elements, the bead, the cavetto and the roll moulding. Apart from the similarities of manufacturing and that of the forms, most fragments also display traces of the same deep red paint which suggest that they formed elements of one and the same design. We must, nevertheless, allow for the fact that the paint in itself is an insufficient evidence of dating the pieces to one and the same time. (Fig. 23) On the basis of the above, we can assume the unity of the group of pieces, despite the stylistic differences considered, in the past, decisive by specialists. The two smaller groups of terracotta pieces are established on the basis of differences in size and pattern and in consideration of certain archaeological observations. Pieces in the second group are related to each other by the fact that the size of their moulded surface is —in contrary to bricks of the bigger group —that of a normal brick. The mouldings are small in size and detailed in form. The majority of the bricks of this sort were excavated from destruction deposit situated in front of the east façade of the palace and in front of the chapel. The evidences of relationship of members in the third group are likewise provided by archaeological observations as well as considerations of style and manufacturing. The pieces in question are parts of a festoon and a royal coat-of-arms. They were found exclusively in the area mentioned where pieces belonging to the other two groups were not excavated. VI. FIRST GROUP In this section we shall examine in detail the group that is biggest numerically, as well as most significant in terms of the quality of the pieces. The earlier studies dealt exclusively with the bricks belonging to his group. 1. Interpretation of the Pieces-Attempts of Reconstruction The first question is whether we have sufficient information to propose a reconstruction of the structure of which the pieces might, at one time, formed parts of. To begin with, we must call attention to the difficulties of such an endeavour. The reconstruction of the former building cannot even be considered because of the lack of such basic information as regards floor plans or, the number and height of the stories. And there are further problems, too. In spite of the relatively large number of excavated pieces the whole lot, nevertheless, represents only a fraction of what originally must have been there. They got buried, and then discovered on the odd chance,
