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 sixteenth century and they have, so far, been recorded in all publications as bricks transferred from the royal palace by Hauszmann. Nándor Parádi called my attention to this being a mistake, as the fragments in question come from the western Hungarian village church of Sámfáivá (now 1 lannersdorf, Austria). See: inventories of the Hungarian National Museum: MNM Inv. Nr. 301/1870. 3-5. (By courtesy of Nándor Parádi.) The motive of seven tongues of flame, known as the flame of St. Bernardine goes back before the times of St. Bernardine of Siena, who applied this gloriola to ornate with it the monogramin of Christ. It appears, e.g. on the sanctuary window of the cathedral in Milan about 1402. (Fig. 56.) The palmette in this form was present in Italian architecture from much earlier than the Renaissance. The crest of the coat-of-arms has been lost since and no photograph of it has survived either, thus it is impossible to judge Balogh's classification. In the case of this one piece, Renaissance origin

—if not the period of King Matthias I Corvinus

—is, however, not unlikely because the helmet belongs to a well distinguishable, certainly Renaissance find. Finally, it is to be mentioned, too, that Jolán Balogh was the first to refer to the town hall at Wroclaw, formerly Breslau, as a possible analogy, since a significant part of the building was commissioned by King Matthias I Corvinus. As she did not illustrate the Wroclaw terracottas, their total dissimilarity to those in Buda did not come to light (Bukowski-Zlat 1958.). 17. Gerevich 1971. 46-47. 64-65., Pl. XXVIII/75-76. XXIX/77-78. XL/103. XLI/104-106. XL1I/1

07-108, 1 10. XLIII/11

1-112. 18. Zolnay 1977. 23-24., Fig. 41. 19. To be noted are the publishing of two written sources even if they relate to brick buildings in general from the time of King Sigismund of Luxemburg, rather than terracotta architecture. One of them, dated 1433, is on wood and brick that was to be sent from Vienna to Buda as building material for the Parish Church of Our Lady (!). In the other one, Queen Borbála orders a brick-maker to her building site in 1427. Zolnay however, misunderstood the expression Tateres vel tegulas in copia maiore', which means simply a great quantity of bricks and not a special kind of brick, as he interpreted it. Furthermore, the phrase 'combustor seu factor tegularum vel laterum' does not imply any special reference to terracotta pieces and can be translated simply as brickmaker. He also mentioned possibly analogous pieces from Zala County and Szeged, these, however, as we shall see later, are not related to the Buda pieces. See Zolnay 1977. 24. 20. Duma 1983. 215-227. 21. Gerevich 1987. 153., 159. 22. Marosi 1987. 675-676., Fig. 1621-1623. 23. Urban 1990. 45-53.While working on this study, an exhibition of the Budapest Flistorical Museum opened in Braunschweig, Germany. In its catalogue I gave a short summary of the results of my research. See Végh 1991.251-252. 24. The most important works on the architectural history of the royal palace are: Gerő 1951., Gerevich 1952. 150-171.; Balogh 1952.; Gerevich-Seitl-Holl 1953. 210-218.; Gerevich 1955. 223-257.; Gerő 1955. 289-304, 829-831.; Nagy 1955. 105-134.; Gerevich 1956. 45-71.; Gerevich 1958. 241-282.; Feuerné 1958. 365-382.; Kumorovitz 1963. 109-151.; Gerevich 1966.; Balogh 1966.; Feuerné 1977. 95-135.; Gerevich 1966. 43-58.; Zolnay 1977.; Zolnay 1982.; Marosi, 1983. 293-310.; Marosi 1984. 11-27.; Zolnay 1984. 203-216.; Balogh 1985.; Feuerné 1986. 17-50.; Gerevich 1987. 148-180.; Magyar 1987.; Marosi 1987. 303, 389-391, 563-570.; Nagy 1987. 116-147.; Farbaky 1988. 143-171.; Farbaky 1991. 259-271.; Magyar 1991. 201-235.; Nagy 1991. 236-250.; Feld-Szekér 1991. 248-257.; BuzásVégh 1992. 102-123.; Érszegi 1992. 94-101.; Magyar 1992. 101-115.; Búzás 1992. 160-170.; Végh 1992. 124-131.; Búzás 1994. 109-128.; Gerő 1994.; Végh 1994. 129-141.; Végh 1996. 186-199.; Holl 1997. 79-99.; Magyar 1997. 101-120. 25. Unfortunately not all terracotta pieces will be covered by this method. Many items derive from demolitions, and not from systematic disclosure. Moreover, the Budapest Historical Museum does not posses all documentation of the excavations between 1948 and 1962. Finds of the Zolnay excavations are badly registered. The grid lay-out of the earlier excavations was not applied, thus the identification of the finds is very difficult. Deposits are only scantily registered in the documentation, a circumstance hindering the interpretation of archaeological data even furthcr.Thus the number of those bricks, in the case of which archaeological methods can be applied is extremely limited.