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

NOTES 1. The architectural fragments of the royal palace of Buda are being catalogued by Emese Nagy whose manuscripts are deposited in the BTM Archives (Nagy 1992). Hereby, I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Nagy for granting access to these invaluable sources. 2. See Gerevich 1966. 8. for a general plan of the excavations started in 1948, and for the few sites wich were disclosed at a later date Zolnay 1977.; Zolnay 1984.; Magyar 1992. 3. Balogh 1966. 106-108. 116. 118. 132., Figs. 50-60. 4. MMT 5 (1958). 125., Figs. 190-191. 5. Hauszmann 1900a. 11. and Hauszmann 1900b. 224., Figs. 1-11. 6. Lux 1921. 61.. Figs. 60-66. 7. Zolnay 1952. 15-29. and Gerevich 1952. 152-153. 8. Gerevich-Seitl-Holl 1953. 216-218., Figs. 9-13. 9. Gerevich-Seitl-Holl 1953. 217.—

Pits 9/1. 10. 53. 54. 10. Actually, there was no such pit. Bricks found in pits 9/1 and 10 were lifted from Turkish layers, not from fifteenth century ones. The piece from pit 54 was found during demolition work and is, therefore, not archaeologically dated. The ca. 100 pieces which are referred to here have never been properly presented. In fact, later on Gerevich never speaks of more than twenty to thirty thirteenth century terracotta pieces. The eight photographs published in the article are extremely important because they represent pieces which had been dated thirteenth century on a pure stylistic ground. The pictures show a small window with consols, some pieces with floral ornaments, a reconstructed three-quater column, and a coat-of-arms with the Apostolic Cross. The false conclusions of the stylistically based dating will be discussed later. We shall also prove that the coat-of-arms has to be dated late fourteenth century instead of the thirteenth century. (AN 1951-56. 104.; AN 1949-60. 13-29. 84-86. 88-90. 103-107. 109.; BTM Inventory of Stone Fragments.) 11. Zolnay 1961. 14. 12. Gerevich 1966. 24. 266-271.; Fig. 390-399.; Pl. [-IV. 13. As the author does not discuss in detail the character of these differences, his suggestions are difficult to accept, since the diversity of motifs does not, in itself, necessitate different dating. Concerning the question of modelling, the author did not set forth his views, either. Furthermore, it is confusing that in some cases the same plates are referred to as illustrations of Group I as well as Group II. 14. It is necessary to say a few words about the reconstruction drawings as most of them contain a large imaginative element. Based on fragments of tracery, one blank window was reconstructed (Gerevich 1966. Fig. 399.) which in this form cannot, however, be accepted. The fragments are parts of a tympanum not of blind window. The reconstructed coupled and triplet windows (Gerevich 1966. Fig. 393, 397.) have no other original element than their framework. Though the suggested structure can, on the basis of Italian analogies, be accepted, their form remains uncertain, as the framework in itself offers no clue as to whether the openings were semicircular or pointed. Gerevich opted for semicircular ones. Flowever, other pieces which can also be connected with the windows, like fragments of the tympanum, suggest pointed openings. On an other drawing columns support a blank arcade (Gerevich 1966. Fig. 390.). Here the only justifiable reconstruction is that of the three-quater columns; the adjoining arcade and the ornaments on top is the work of imagination. Finally, yet an other drawing, brings the crocket decorated arches (Gerevich 1966. Fig. 392.). Here, quite inexplicably, the crocket instead of following the outline of the arches runs in a straight line. Moreover, the gable in the drawing is crowned by a finial which is also imaginative, since no surviving fragment relates to such a form. Only the reconstruction of the friezes with tracery, that of the entablature and arcature (Gerevich 1966. Fig. 395.), can be accepted. Although assessement does not confirm the connection of these specific fragments, Italian examples prove that such a combination might be possible. The reconstruction of the surface under the cornice exhibited in the Budapest Flistorical Museum was based on these reconstruction drawings. 15. Balogh 1966. 106-108, 116, 118, 132., Fig. 50-60.; also Balogh 1975. 83-84.; Balogh 1986. 127-129. 16. Jolán Balogh was misled by the ribs and the keystone now in the Hungarian National Museum. These pieces with doubly cavetto can, with certainty, be dated to the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of