Download PDF | Silviu Oţa - The Mortuary Archaeology of the Medieval Banat (10th-14th Centuries)-Brill Academic Publishers (2014).
409 Pages
Introduction:
The State of Current Research on the Banat between the 10th and the 14th Century As part of the archaeological research conducted on the territory of Banat, the study of cemeteries dated to the 10th–14th centuries is particularly significant. For a better understanding of its role one needs first to understand the historical circumstances in which the historical and archaeological research was initiated and developed. The rise of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy through the Ausgleich of 1867 offered a unique opportunity for Hungarian nationalism, now in a position to bring some of its ideals to life. One of the main expressions of the cultural nationalism promoted in Hungary during the second half of the 19th century was an explosion of archaeological studies dedicated to at that time recently excavated cemeteries dated to the 10th–11th centuries, some of which had been found in the lowlands of the Banat.
There were certainly finds dated to that period even before 1867, but none received any particular attention aside from a brief mention in the literature (for example, the 10th to 11th century finds from the Roman ruins in Sânpetru German known since 18601 or the undated finds from Teremia Mare brought to light in 1839).2
After 1867 artefacts from graves accidentally found during agricultural work or urban development were increasingly brought to the center of attention by custodians of regional museums (primarily those in Szeged, Vršac, Arad, and Timişoara) or even of the National Hungarian Museum in Budapest, which came to acquire an increasing number of such objects. At the onset of World War I, the research and acquisition of objects coming from medieval cemeteries, especially those dated to the 10th–12th centuries, had witnessed a dramatic increase leading to the identification of no less than 67 sites.3 In the late 19th and early 20th century, József Hampel has already sorted and classified the evidence by grave type.4
During this period, none of cemeteries identified in the Banat was either fully or systematically excavated. The available evidence in fact derived either from partial excavations,5 or from surveys.6 These surveys were conducted mostly by amateur archaeologists like Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, and very rarely by experts such as József Hampel. For the rest of the evidence known to have become available at that time, there is very little information regarding the context, and it must be treated as stray finds. The evidence gathered through partial excavations or surveys has been published mostly in a descriptive manner, with much attention paid to the presentation of recovered artifacts and sometimes to the context of the finds.
The detailed description of artifacts by János Reizner, Gyula Kisléghi Nagy, István Tömörkeny, Ödön Gohl, Samu Borovszki, Felix Milleker, and Jenő Szentklay made possible the later systematization of the evidence, which was followed by the first stylistic and functional typologies. World War I put a drastic stop to this burgeoning archaeological research, and activity on most sites completely ceased, with the exception of Kiszombor-B,7 where finds were still recorded during the war years. The study of cemeteries dated between the 10th and the 15th centuries continued after the war under different circumstances. After 1918, the Banat was divided between three neighboring countries—Romania (Timiş-Torontal, Arad, Caraş, and Severin counties), Yugoslavia (the southern, western and northwestern parts of the region, with the Cuvin, Torontal, Cenad, and a portion of the Caraş counties), and Hungary (the northwestern corner of the Banat, namely the region around Szeged with the county of Csongrád). In comparison with the pre-war period, the archaeological research diminished considerably. In the Romanian Banat, for example, only four locations were identified in the interwar period: Orşova (1927),8 Periam-Sánchalom (1930)- dated to the 10th–11th centuries,9 Lugoj-an intervention on a small 14thcentury church in the 1920s and 1930,10 and the excavations conducted by G. Florescu at Vărădia (dated to the 14th–15th centuries).11 Very little has been published from those finds, and only incompletely.12 A few cemetery churches have also been identified at this time, primarily Belobreşca-near Ţiganska Reka and Beregsău Mare-Gomilă (where traces of walls have been found, together with a sword). The first comprehensive publication of 10th-century artefacts was by the Hungarian-born Romanian archaeologist Marton Roska.
The publication, however, contained no indication of the archaeological context. The nature of research during the interwar period was determined by three factors. First, after 1918 no specialized personnel existed after 1918 in Romania, which could have undertaken the task of excavating medieval cemeteries in the Banat. Second, Romanian archaeologists had little, if any interest for periods other than the Roman age or prehistory. Last but not least, the field in its entirety was marred by a dismissive, if not altogether scornful attitude towards archaeological research on the Middle Ages, no doubt because of its association with the medieval kingdom of Hungary, the presence of a Hungarian population in the area, and concerns about possible political or even territorial claims. The state of the research in those regions of the Banat that were incorporated into Yugoslavia was not much different.13 Only four sites are known to have been signalled during the interwar period: Mokrin (11th–12th centuries), Perjanica (11th century),14 Ostojićevo-Bunker kod krsta (11th–12th centuries),15 and Crna Bara-Prkos (10th–11th centuries).16 Of all four site, only the latter was excavated systematically in 1945. Most finds from that, as well as other sites were published much later, and only selectively. The archaeological research in the southeastern part of the Csongrád County in Hungary was slightly more intense than that taking place at that same time in Romania and in Yugoslavia. During the interwar period, 17 cemetery sites were identified and partially excavated.
Most prominent among Hungarian scholars interested in the medieval period was Alajos Bálint. His publication of finds are devoid of any reference to archaeological context and have only limited use for the current state of research. The unsystematic publication of finds continued in Hungary after World War II, but Hungarian scholars were able to produce synthetic studies regarding the metalwork in Pannonia during the Early Middle Ages,18 the presence of the Magyars in Levedia,19 various archaeological questions pertaining to the 10th and 11th centuries,20 the daily life of the Magyars who settled in the Carpathian Basin,21 the political history of Hungary during the 10th–11th centuries,22 and regional typologies of weapons.23 In short, by all means the interwar period was a setback in terms of the number of sites identified and excavated, as opposed to the research of the previous period. Research on cemeteries in the southern part of Csongrád County was not only of poorer quality than before, but also almost completely stalled. While Hungarian archaeologists published a number of key studies during the interwar period, their research was not based on new, but on older finds. Altogether 24 sites have been archaeologically researched during the interwar period, every one of them producing materials dated between the 10th and the 14th century.
The emphasis of the research was on the artefacts themselves often divorced from their archaeological context with little, if any attention paid to the burial customs. By contrast, shortly after World War II, the archaeological research of medieval cemeteries in the Banat witnessed a remarkable development. No new major finds came from the hinterland of Szeged, in the Hungarian Banat. However, this area offers the only fully excavated cemetery-Szőreg-Homokbánya (10th–11th centuries).24 Field surveys were conducted on four other sites: Deszk-Olaj, in 1967 (10th century);25 Kiszombor-Nagyszentmiklós street, in 1964 (11th century?);26 Kübekhaza-Újtelep 483, in 1961 (10th–11th centuries);27 and Szőreg-Homokbánya, in 1970, 1971, and 1974 (11th century). Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence obtained from excavations (with the notable exception of the cemetery in Szőreg-Homokbánya) of field surveys remained unpublished beyond mere preliminary reports. In Yugoslavia, no less than 50 new sites appeared after World War II.
Twenty seven cemeteryes were placed on the mounds.28 Some of those sites turned out to have cemetery churches.29 Several other sites have been identified in the lowlands.30 The Yugoslav archaeologist Nebojša Stanojev first published in 1989 a complete catalogue of finds from the Banat and the Vojvodina region. The catalogue was later updated by László Kovács in a review published in 1991, then by three other Serbian archaeologists-Milorad Girić, Stanimir Barački, and Marin Brmbolić. Of particular significance in this respect are studies of different types of jewellery,31 dress accessories32 or weaponry.33 After 1990, museum collections were also published, with new archaeological research being carried out either on the same or on new sites. In Romania, 68 sites were identified and partially excavated between 1945 and 1989, most of them located in the Caraş-Severin County, but also in Timiş and Arad, south of the river Mureş.34
In addition, artefacts from the old collection of the Museum of the Banat in Timişoara were also published during this period.35 The archaeological activity in the Romanian Banat after 1945 focused especially on the highlands, which were increasingly regarded as an area into which the native, Romanian population fled when the Magyars arrived. This further encouraged scholars to advance the idea of a Romanian stronghold in the mountains, as part of the resistance against the attempts of the Hungarian nobility to introduce western feudalism into the Banat. Such ideas were partially based on genuine research but must be seen as a nationalist reaction to the late 19th and early 20th century interpretation of cemeteries as exclusively Hungarian. During the second half of the 20th century, almost every newly excavated cemetery was attributed only to the Romanian population. The shift from a Hungarian to a Romanian attribution of finds followed some of the ideas promoted in the interwar period. Moreover, although 10th to 12thcentury cemeteries have been excavated in large numbers, their full publication was delayed, no doubt because of caution regarding the ethnic interpretation of finds.36
The same reason explains the attribution to Pechenegs and the local, Romanian population of 18 graves excavated in Hodoni-Pocioroane, on the basis of a dubious anthropological analysis. No attribution whatsoever was advanced for the cemeteries excavated in Cenad, Denta, Sânpetru German and Mehadia-Zidină. Qualms about the ethnic attribution of finds are also responsible for the lack of any synthetic work or survey of archaeological research on the medieval Banat. Only recently have Romanian archaeologists published new typologies of artifacts37 or more or less synthetic discussions on the matter,38 along with technological studies of jewellery39 or studies regarding burial customs in the Carpathian Basin.40 A catalogue of cemetery sites in the historical Banat, which have been dated between the 9th and the 14th was first published in 2008.41 Soon after that, several artifacts from the collections of the Museum of Mountainous Banat, as well as from similar institutions in the Serbian Banat42 were also published. In addition, Gyula Nagy Kisleghi’s old excavations have been republished.43 Only recently has this publication effort touched cemetery sites in the lowlands, as well as artefacts attributed to nomads or to the so-called Bjelo Brdo.44 Key contributions in this respect are those of Adrian Rădulescu, Florin Medeleţ, Daniela Tănase and Erwin Gáll. Although much progress has been made in publication, there are still many sites which are only partially studied.
There are also 15 settlement sites on which archaeological excavations have been carried out or from which a variety of artifacts have been obtained: Banatski Despotovac,45 Banatski-Karlovac,46 Cenad,47 Čestereg,48 Sasca Montană,49 Cheglevici,50 Deta,51 Felnac,52 Jimbolia,53 Kikinda-Oluš and Oluš farm,54 Piatra Ilişovei,55 Sânpetru German,56 Vărădia,57 Zrenjanin (formerly known as Becicherecul Mare).58 No less than 123 (+1) settlement sites have been identified from the late 19th to the 21st century, with as many as 251 locations, some of which may be cemeteries or features typical for burial assemblages.59 In addition, 2491 graves have identified and researched during this period. Although the total number of known graves is larger, not all of them have been published.
Some were destroyed during development or agricultural work, and only a few grave goods have been recuperated. In some areas, only field surveys were carried out, although various artifacts found suggest the presence of cemeteries. Unlike Romania and Yugoslavia, where the material remains of the nomads are regarded as the legacy of invaders, in Hungary this particular problem received due attention, the interest then being extended to the entire Carpathian Basin, the regions south of the Carpathian Mountains, and the Balkans. Hungarian scholars dealt with a wide range of aspects, from several categories of artifacts to social analysis, historical geography, anthropological and ethnographical studies, the presence of Byzantine imports, coin circulation, and cultural transmission in the region.60 By contrast, cemeteries dated between the 12th and the 14th century and the analysis of the associated burial customs have received comparatively less attention in Hungary. The only important contributions in that respect are studies of Pechenegs, Cumans and Yassi (Alans), but none of them concerns the territory of the Banat. The state of the research has been complicated by the initial preoccupation with ethnic attributions, and the situation has not changed much in recent times. József Hampel was the first to put order in this bewildering variety of archaeological evidence produced by 10th to 11th-century cemeteries. He divided that material into two main groups: 1) horseman or warrior graves (Hampel’s group A) 2) graves of commoners (Hampel’s group B).
Hampel’s typology is still in use, and it is worth mentioning that several burial assemblages in the Banat were included Hampel’s analysis.61 But many more assemblages have been added to the classification since Hampel’s work has been published. Group A, for example, appears to cover a vast area in Central Europe, thus far confirming Hampel’s conclusion that wealthy graves with horse bones and luxury weapons of Oriental origin are those of the Magyar warriors who occupied Pannonia and then raided Western Europe in the course of the 10th century.
There are also larger cemeteries with less spectacular finds. Their area of distribution overlaps that of group A. This raises the question of how should such burial assemblages, with fewer or no warrior graves, be interpreted. Hungarian, Slovak, as well as Yugoslav, and Romanian archaeologists focused especially on this category of finds, which offered serious challenges to the then accepted criteria for ethnic attribution. Soon after World War I, and the dismemberment of Austro-Hungary, the theory was put forward, according to which such cemeteries represented the Slavic population conquered and ruled by the Magyars between the late 9th and the 11th century.62 Under such circumstances, Hampel’s group B was re-baptized “Bjelo Brdo,” after a cemetery excavated in eastern Croatia. The excavation of that site helped refine the definition of the characteristics of similar cemeteries. The chronological difference between warrior or horseman graves and Group B was the subject of many disputes. Béla Szőke, for instance,63 argued that Hampel’s classification should be maintained, but he added a third group, thus creating a neat social division of burial assemblages: rulers, middle class, and commoners. Szőke deliberately neglected the evidence pertaining to the presence of a Slavic population, and claimed that the Magyars had removed all ethnic groups from the territories under their control. As a consequence, all artefacts found in assemblages of a later date must be treated as typically Hungarian. In reply, the Czechoslovak archaeologist Zdeněk Váňa64 argued that large cemeteries did not belong to any particular ethnic group, since the available archaeological evidence reveals the interplay of different cultural traditions (Köttlach, Keszthely and those of oriental origin brought by the Magyars). Váňa’s argument was that those buried in those cemeteries were members of a mixed, Slavic-Hungarian population, minor differences between sites being a reflection of the local traditions encountered by the Magyars upon their conquest of Pannonia. Czechoslovak scholars also introduced a chronological division of Bjelo Brdo-type cemeteries into three different phases from 950 until 1200.
The first phase (975–1025) was characterized by the presence of a large number of weapons; during the second phase (1025–1075) weapons and horse bones gradually disappeared from burial assemblages; finally, the last phase (1075–1200) is one of large, but comparatively poorer cemeteries, in which the only notable grave goods are earrings with S-shaped end, knives and lock rings. This classification was criticized and revised in the 1980s by the German archaeologist Jochen Giesler, who demonstrated that many cemeteries began in the mid-10th century.65 Giesler’s conclusions broadly confirmed Váňa’s, but his chronology was rejected by most Hungarian archaeologists. On the other hand, his typology and chronology were accepted and adopted by Slovenian and Croatian, as well as, partially, by Slovakian archaeologists, all of whom embarked on applying Giesler’s system of classification to finds from their own countries. A few Romanian archaeologists also picked up some of the new concepts, but unlike their Croatian, Slovene, and Slovak counterparts, they did not adapt them to the regional particularities of their material. In the mid-1980s, a new catalogue of dress accessories and jewellery was published, which highlighted finds regarded as late 9th-century imports from the East into the Carpathian Basin.66
The archaeological research conducted in Yugoslavia at that time was based on the same assumptions, namely that it would be possible to sort out finds and artifacts specific to the Slavs, and to separate them from those typical for Magyar (or, later, Hungarian) assemblages. One of the leading Yugoslav scholars who embraced some of Zdeněk Váňa’s ideas and whose conclusions were accepted by most Hungarian archaeologists was Željko Demo.67 Conversely, in Hungary, Csanád Bálint, without denying that the Slavic population played a certain role in the development of the Bjelo Brdo cemeteries, regards that contribution as minor.68 In the 1980s, another Hungarian archaeologist, László Révész69 advanced another idea, namely that 10th to 11th-century cemeteries were organized on a primarily social (and not ethnic) basis. Isolated graves with horse bones and weapons were those of the elite. Cemeteries with deposition of weapons in graves represented warriors grouped around their superiors of different ranks, while those with fewer weapons were cemeteries of warriors of inferior rank. Finally, cemeteries with very few or no weapons or horse bones belonged to commoners. The debate summarized above also concerned sites and assemblages from the Banat. It is however important to note at this point that the question of 10th to 12th-century cemeteries was approached rather differently by contemporary Romanian archaeologists. Initially, nobody (with the notable exception of Marton Roska) paid any attention to those finds.
After World War II, however, with the increasing number of finds, mostly from unsystematic excavations, the publication of the evidence became necessary, although it was largely postponed until after 1989. Scholars disagree as to the names to be given to the populations arriving in Pannonia from the steppe north of the Black Sea.70 Some employ ethnic names (Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans),71 others prefer to refer to their presumed way of life (nomads),72 their presumed linguistic affiliation (Turanian)73 or their religion (pagans, non-Christian, shamanistic).74
The blending of cultures and the biological mix of populations was also a subject much discussed by Romanian archaeologists. The ethnic attribution of graves, groups of graves or entire cemeteries was a constant subject of debate, with few, if any serious arguments on either side. The finds from Mehadia-Zidină, for example, were attributed to a Romanian-Slavic, Christian population, while the cemetery from Hodoni-Pocioroane was attributed on the basis of an anthropological analysis, to a Pecheneg-Romanian population (Dumitru Ţeicu; Adrian Bejan). Secondary burials in barrows found in Bucova were attributed without much discussion to the Pechenegs (Mircea Rusu, Géza Bakó). The same is true for the burial mounds in the cemeteries excavated in Teremia Mare and Tomnatic which were labelled as “Cuman.” The earring from Deta, with good analogies in assemblages of the Köttlach culture, was invariably regarded as Slavic (Mircea Rusu).75 Similarly, Radu Heitel attributed the cemeteries excavated in Voiteni, Deta76 and Bucova Pusta to a mixed population (Slavic-Romanian-Hungarian), while labelling finds from Comloşul Mare, Periam, Cenad, Felnac and Sânpetru German as either Magyar or Kabar. Mircea Rusu believed the grave found in 1968 in Sânpetru German to be that of a Magyar warrior. The archaeological evidence discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century in the Romanian part of the Banat was published by Florin Medeleţ and Ioan Bugilan in 1987.77
This publication also included new information about the research conducted in the region by Gyula Nagy Kisléghi, whose excavation journals have been recently published.78 Another defining trait of the archaeological research on early medieval Banat is the exclusive focus on that part of the province which is now within the Romanian borders. Finds from Serbia or Hungary were rarely, if ever mentioned. Finally, unlike Hungarian archaeologists, Romanian scholars paid considerably more attention to medieval cemeteries dated between the 12th and the 15th century, no doubt in an attempt to shift the emphasis from the earlier period (10th–12th century), which was viewed as “Hungarian” and therefore not profitable to a nationalist agenda. The political underpinnings of such a research agenda can be easily detected in arguments developed to demonstrate that 12th to 13th-century graves discovered in mountain areas must have belonged to Romanians, and only to them. The underlying assumption in such cases is that that ethnic attribution was justified by the fact that that area is currently inhabited primarily by Romanians, and that their presence there could be traced in written sources from the 15th to the 19th century.79
Meanwhile, Hungarian archaeologists excavating sites in the Banat simply ignored any artifacts of a type that was not already known from previous excavations. To this day, some of the evidence from cemeteries excavated during the interwar period has remained unpublished. Very few publications of cemeteries include any cemetery plan, which makes sequencing and phasing considerably difficult, if not impossible. The only stratigraphical observations were made when church walls cut through a number of graves. Such situations led to the conclusion that there were two separate phases.80 Some typologies were created exclusively for finds from Yugoslavia, Hungary, or Bulgaria. Only recently have scholars taken a regional approach to artefact typology.81 There is a pressing need for revising the chronology of grave finds and their spatial distribution, and for a thorough analysis of certain decorative motifs which seem to play a key role in dating artefacts and the assemblages in which they have been found. Burial practices and rituals are poorly understood, for they have received very little attention beyond an “ethnographic” projection of 18th–19th-century customs on to the 12th to 14th centuries.
The first attempt to put some order into this material was that Ilie Uzum, but his was a far too limited corpus.82 In addition, he focused only on the position of the arms in relation to the body, and even with that, drew no parallels to contemporary contexts in the Carpathian Basin or in the Balkans. I have followed in his footsteps, and developed Uzum’s ideas to cover a multitude of aspects of burial practices.83 The lack of systematically excavated cemeteries (only one has so far been fully excavated, that in Şopotu Vechi-Mârvilă)84 precludes any further conclusions. Although a large number of cemeteries have been excavated, even if partially, only a few have been so far published. In other cases the information can no longer be retrieved (IlidiaCetate, Obliţa, Cuptoare-Sfogea and Gornea-Ogaşul lui Udrescu).85 It comes as a surprise that the movement of populations other than Magyars, Pechenegs, or Cumans has received no attention whatsoever. For example, there seems to be no interest in population movements from the region south to the lands north of the river Danube.
As a consequence, our understanding of burial practices in 10th- to 14th century Banat is incomplete. This book is the first attempt to address those problems and to shape a synthesis out of quite heterogeneous sources. This is all the more necessary since my last study on such a wide chronological span has been published in 2008.86 My hope is hope is to clarify some of the current lines of research and to put the archaeological record to good use in order to answer historical questions pertaining to the social and cultural life in the medieval Banat.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق