Marisia - Maros Megyei Múzeum Évkönyve 33/4. (2013)
Articles
186 E. Gáll an end, the situation in the E and SE parts of the basin is completely different. In this area there is a ‘war of numbers’ going on concerning whether particular cemeteries can be classified as Székely or Germanic. The system of criteria set up by experts applying the ‘retrospective ’199 method has two basic characteristics: 1. Székely cemeteries are rich in furnishings, in contrast with this, 2. Germanic hospites cemeteries have poor furnishings and in the latter ones there are some mummy-shaped graves, which are considered ethnic characteristics .200 The first problem with this theory is that it does not take macroregional funerary fashion into account, which can be connected to different elites in the first phase of its catching on, but any social segment can copy them, especially when it does not incur any cost such as mummy-shaped graves.20' Several different kinds of misconceptions have to be refuted: l.a. From the archaeological point of view, the theory of the line between the rich and the poor outlined above cannot be held. For example, as the cemetery in Dräuseni, which has been categorised as hospes burial place, does not have any poorer furnishings than those in Däbäca-Castle Area IV or A. Tämass garden or the churchyard in Moresti. The cemetery in Avrämesti, Petricieni which is in the Szeklerland had at least as poor furnishings as the cemetery excavated in Feldioara; l.b. The debate has not yet been decided in the case of the cemeteries in Peteni and Zäbala, which have been cited as examples of cemeteries with rich grave furnishings, and these were the cemeteries of Hungarian, Székely and Slavonic medieval border-guards ;202 1. c. However, it must be noted that in the cemeteries at Brädesti, Moresti, Mugeni, Ulies which have been classified as Székely, the excavated graves show some characteristics of W-European fashion (such as hair pins) which can be connected to immigrant hospites (!!); 2. the Germanic hospes population was not homogeneous (and therefore it had no homogeneous identity), and the community that was later named Saxon, received its community legal status from the Hungarian Kingdom at the beginning of the 13th century (Diploma Andreanum 1224);203 199 The criticism of the ‘retrospective’ method, in connection with the so called ‘Orient preference’: Bálint 1999, 13-16; Bálint 2004, 246-252; Bálint 2007, 545-567. 200 Ionitä 2010, 389-390. 201 As we have already pointed out the rise in the popularity of horse burials after the Hungarian conquest might have been such an example of funerary fashion. Gáli 2010, 303, fig. 18. 202 Benkő 2010, 226-233; Benkő 2012, 112-124. 2°3 por example, see: Hanzó 1941; Müller 1928. 3. Based upon historical and demographic data, one cannot talk about a Saxon Land in the 12th century, let alone the identification of cemeteries as the formation of Saxon entity is the result of a long historical process ,204 the area that later became known as Saxon Land in S and NE Transylvania was inhabited by communities of different ethnic groups (Hungarians, Székelys, Vlachs, Slavs );205 4. The mummy-shaped graves dug in soil (Budapest, Esztergom-Zsidód, Kaposvár, Eger, Szombathely) and the graves built of bricks and stones in human shape (Frumuseni/Bizere: Grave 111, Täuti, Báta, Cikádor, Szentes-Kaján, Babócsa, Ópusztaszer-Monostor, Csongrád-Ellésmonostor, Vokány, Somogyvár, Pozega/Slavonska Pozega, Rakovac, Macvanska Mitrovica )206 excavated in the territory of the Hungarian Kingdom show such diversity which cannot be connected to the hospites exclusively, it can rather be interpreted as a 12th century macroregional funerary fad. (see also Fig. 10) We also have to keep in mind that: 4. a. We must ask the question how precisely these cemeteries were excavated: apart from the precise excavation carried out by István Méri in 1944 in Cluj, there is no cemetery N of Alba Iulia where exact observations have been made! Among the 577 graves (with 679 human skeletons) excavated in Däbäca-Castle Area IV, the shape of the graves were registered only in six cases (Graves 45, 403, 404, 405, 408, 410) and in three cases in Cluj-Napoca-Mánüsfur (Graves 50, 77 and 135). In the cemeteries in Däbäca-A. Tämass garden, Moldovenesti, Giläu and Sirioara the shapes of the graves have not been documented at all; 4. b. in vast ranges of the Carpathian Basin, the shapes of graves has not been preserved in the sandy soil. Cemetery II-III in Karos is a good example of this, where no grave shape could be documented .207 According to the present archaeological data base the question, which cemetery can be considered Hungarian, Saxon or Székely in S or SE Transylvania, cannot be answered. 204 Kristó 2004, 185-203. 205 The best evidence of this is that most place names in the area that later became the Land of the Saxons are of either Hungarian or Slavonic origins. Kristó 2004,196-197. 206 Bárdos 1978, 187-234; írásné Melis 1997, 54; Magyar 2005, 2. táb. 2; Molnár 2005, 110; Pap 2002, 4. kép. 1, 4; Pap 2010, 109; Rusu - Burnichioiu 2011, 65-69; Sümegi 1997, 155; Sümegi 2006,148, 2. ábra; Stanojev 2000, 394; Stanojev 2005, 61, note 16; Türk 2005, 5. kép. 207 Révész 1996.
