Acknowledgements

This work was originally written as an MA thesis for the Department of Medieval Studies at Central European University,
Budapest. Also, some ideas are based on my MAthesis defended at the Institute of Archaeology at Eötvös Loránd University,
Budapest. I am especially grateful to József Laszlovszky, my supervisor in both cases, for all his encouragement and practical
assistance, for directing me towards further questions, acquainting me with new approaches, and helping me with clarifying
my ideas. I am greatly indebted for the support of the faculty members at the Department of Medieval Studies, CEU,
especially Alice M. Choyke, Gerhard Jaritz, Balázs Nagy, Judith Rasson, and Katalin Szende, whom I could always turn to
with my questions and who were always generous with their assistance, time and expertise. I also thank Gyöngyi Kovács and
Matthew H. Johnson, the external readers of my MA thesis written at CEU, for their comments and constructive criticism.
Responsibility, however, for the content of the pages below solely rests with the author.
I thank Péter Levente Szőcs for the access of the unpublished material from Nagykároly (Carei) – Bobáld, which directed
my interest towards the analysis of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burial f nds. I respectfully thank the many young
and senior Hungarian colleagues in the f eld of archaeology and art history who helped me with practical issues during the
collection of the material. I owe gratitude to János Jakucs for drawing the maps.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their continuous support and encouragement.
 Acknowledgements List of Illustrations

Fig.1 .
"A Romanian from Transylvania pondering." Illustratior~in a water color costume codcx
This work was originally written as an MA thesis for the Department of Medieval Studies at Central European University.
.
Budapest .Also sonle ideas arc based on my MA thesis defended at tlie Institute ofArchaeology at Eotvos Lordnd University.
.
(Cosluniebilder aus Siebenbiirgen: Budapest NationaI SzCchCnyi Library. Quart. Gem1. 892).
Courtesy of the National SzCchCnyi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -11
Budapcst . 1 am especially grateful to Jbzsef Laszlovszky. my supervisor in both cases. for a11 his cncauragcmcnt and practical
assistance. for directing me towards further questions. acquainting me with new approaches. and lielping me with clarifying Fig.2 .
"A Saxon Woman fi.0111Kronstadl (Brqov Romania)." Tllustration in a water color costume codcx
my ideas. I om greatly indebted for the support oP the faculty members at the Department of Medieval Studies. CEU. (Co.~tznnebiirk.r aus Sief~enhii~~en:Brrdape.s!st,Nariownl Sz~kh~inyi Librucr; Qrrart. Gmn. 892).
especially Alicc M . Choykc. Gerhard Jaritz. B a l k s Nagy. Judith Rasson. and Katalin Szende. whom I could always turn to Courtesy of the National SzCchCnyi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
.
with my questiolls and who were always generous with their assistance time and expertise . I also thank Gyongyi Kovics and Fig.3 The Hungarian Kingdom ia the fifteenth century. (After T6th ed. 2005: 170). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
.
Matthew H . Johnson thc external readers of my MA thesis written at CEU. for their comments and construc~ivecriticism. .
Fig 4 Hungary divided into three parts in 1590. (After T6th cd.2005: 184). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
.
Responsibility howevcr. for the content of the following pages solely rests with the autlior. Fig.5 Lacation of the archaeological sites referred in chapters 4 to 9.Prepared by the author. . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
I thank Peter Levente Szocs for the access of the unpublished material from Nagykiroly (Carei) - Bobild. which dirccted Fig.6 .
Glazed Turkish pottery from the fortress a1 Szolnok. 16th-17th c. Damja~iichJinos Muscum Szolnok.
my interest towards the allalysis of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burial finds. I respectfully thank the many young (Koviics Gy.2003: 258. fig. 1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
and senior Hungarian colleagues in thc field of archaeology and art history who hclpcd mc with practical issues during the Fig. 7 Slaw-turned pottery from the BitaszCk palisade. Wosinsky Mbr County Museum. &ckszBrd .
colIection of the material . I owe gratitude to Jinos Jakucs for drawing the maps and the cover illustration . (Pusztai 2003: 304. fig. I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Finally. I would like to thank my family for their continuous support and cncoiuagenlent . Fig. 8 So-called Bosnian jug from the fortress of Kanizsn. 17th c.TIlliry GyBrgy Museum, Nagykanizsa.
(Kovics Gy. 2003: 261. fig. 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -24
Fig.9 Grey jugs from 0nod castle. Hungarian National Museunl, Budapest. (Tornka 2003: 317. fig. 5). . . . . . . . . 24
Fig. 10 .
Reconstmction of the design of Haban tiles from Gyulafehtwir (Alba Iulia Romania).
.
(EmGdi 2003: 33 1 fig. 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Fig. 11 Objects from the treasure hoard found at Nagybhnya (Baia Mare. Ron~ania) . (Mihalik 19061a: 12 1). . . . . . . 27
Fig. 12 .
Belt ornaments from the treasure hoard found at Dentn (Romania) (Kov@r1897: 25 1 fig. XIV). . . . . . . . .28
.
Fig. 13 Ornaments fronl the Csenger crypt . Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Hollrigl 1934: 101. fig. 80). . . .29
Ffg. 14 Plan of trench S6B in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykiroly (Car&-Bobdld (Romania). Field
docuo~cntation .Museum of Satu Mare County. Satu Mart (Romania). Courtesy of Pi-ter Levcnte Sziics. . . . .30
Fig. 15 Photograph of' trench SGA in the churchyard ccrnctcry at Nagykiroly (Carei)-Bobtild (Romania). Field
docu~nentation .Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of PBter Lcventc Sziics. . . . . 31
.
Pig 16 Plan of the cemetery at ~ficsalmis-0alm5s. (Wicker 2003h: 64. plate I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Fig. 17 . .
Cross sections of the gavcs in the cemetery at ~acsalm5s-0almhs(Wicker 2008: 228 figs. 3-4) . . . . . . . . 33
Fig. 18 Finds from the Katymk cemetery. Turr Istvan Museum, Baja . (Wicker and Kijhegyi 2002: 8687.
plates XII-XIII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Fig. 19 .
Mew of Kolozsvir (Cluj Romania) from Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg, Civitufrs orf~i.s ttsr-rurum
(CoIogne,1572-1617) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Fig.20 "A Hungarian or Croatian nobleman" dcpicted in Cesare Veccllio, D ~ g lItuhiti i antichi r ~loder-rli
di dir.c.rsepar.!iJr.1 Mondo (Venice. 1590). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Fig. 21 .
A Hungarian peasant depicted in Wilhclm Dillich Utlgari.~c/re Chrunic*~ .
(Cnssel: W. Wessel 1600). . . . . . . 38
Fig. 22 Saxon costunies depicted in Laurentius Toppeltinus de Medgyes. Originc.v et oc.cl;s~r.sZi~ut~.~~~lvorrorut~~
.re11erutne nution. Em.~.y~.l~~allniue. .
.. (Lyon 1667). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fig.23 "A Tzigarle woman in her Sunday best." Illustration in a water color costume codex
(Costumcbilder ails Siebenbiirgen; Budapcsl, National Szechfnyi Library. Quart. Germ . 892).
Courtesy of the National SztchCnyi Library. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Fig.24 "A Jew from Transylvania." Illustration in a water color costume codex
(Costumcbilder aus Siebenbiirgen; Budapest. National SzCrhCnyi Library. Quart. Germ . 892).
Courtesy of the National SzCch@nyiLibrary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 .
.
Fig 25 Portrait of Krist6f Thurzb. Count of Szepes and Sdros from 1611 . Hungarian National Museum.
Co~~rtcsy of the Hungarian National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 0
Fig.26 Catafalque painting of Gispir Illi.sh5zy from 1648.Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
Courtcsy of the Hungarian National Museum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Fig. 27 Scpi~lchralmonument of Gyorgy Siikosd (1632). National Museum of Tmnsylvanian History.
.
Cluj (originally in the Unitarian Church of Nagylere~ni[Tirimia Romania]). Photo by the aulhor. . . . . . . . . 41
Fig. 28 Scpulcli~ilmonument of Christian Haas, Saxon priest in Birthllm (Biertan. Romania). 1686.
Biertan. Lutheran Churc. Photo by thc author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Fig. 29 Variations of thc positions of the anns in the cemetery at ~icsalmis-0almiis .
. (Wicker 2008: 228 fig. 7). . . . .48
Fig. 30 Variations of thc positions of the amm in the churchyard cemetery at 0folde6k . (Bdres 2005: 300. fig.4) . . . . .49
 Chapter 1
Introduction
The True and Exact Dresses and Fashions are the opening
words of the title of a costume book from seventeenth-
century Transylvania.1 Costume books, emerging from the
cosmographic literature of Humanism, aimed to present the
readership with the costume of peoples in various parts of the
world – as the title of this album suggests – as they were in
actual reality. When opening up a costume book, one could
see how a “A Romanian from Transylvania” or “A Saxon
Woman from Kronstadt” looked (Figs. 1 and. 2).2 Sometimes
archaeologists expect to recover this sort of knowledge based
on finds: to be able to present how well-defined groups of
people looked, and where and how they lived. This is
particularly tempting concerning an area where a number of
historically known ethnic groups coexisted, and a period that
was characterized by an intense migration of various groups
of population, such as the period of the Ottoman Conquest in
the Carpathian Basin.
Fig. 1. “A Romanian from Transylvania, pondering.”
Illustration in a water colour costume codex (Costumebilder
aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library,
Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi
Library.
1
The True and Exact Dresses and Fashions of All the Nations in
Transylvania, London, British Library, Manuscript Collections, Add.
MSS. 5256; published in Jankovics, R. Várkonyi, and Galavics 1990.
2
Kronstadt is the German name of Braşov, (Romania).
11
In the first half of the sixteenth century the Ottoman
Conquest destroyed the political system of the medieval
Hungarian Kingdom, and after the fall of Buda (1541)
the country was split into three parts. The central part of
the Carpathian Basin was incorporated into the Ottoman
Empire, the western and northern parts came under Habsburg
administration, and Transylvania was formed as a separate
principality under the guardianship of the Porte. Historical
events influenced the layers of the society in the different
parts of the three political units by rearranging the social and
geographical positions of people. As a result of military events
and political-administrative restructuring, individuals and
groups changed their places of living; some regions became
partly or completely depopulated and repopulated, while new
groups also migrated to the area.
Historical research of written documents has long served as
the basis of the concept of the Ottoman Conquest as the arrival
Fig. 2. “A Saxon Woman from Kronstadt (Braşov,
Romania).” Illustration in a water colour costume codex
(Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National
Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the
National Széchényi Library.
of diverse groups originating from geographically diverse areas
also within the Ottoman military system, forming ethnically
heterogeneous forces. As the archaeological research of
 Introduction
inhabited sites dating from the period – towns, villages,
fortifications – proceeded, the interest was directed towards
the fields of interaction between local and immigrating civilian
and military groups of different ethnic origins on both sides
of the military frontier, which constituted the background of
the formation of material culture. The research of cemeteries
from the same period has, however, followed a path that is
different in some respects.
My research interest has been directed towards sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century cemetery sites through the analysis
of a churchyard cemetery situated in Satu Mare County, in
present-day Romania. The cemetery preserved the remains
of the population of a former village called Bobáld, which
was abandoned during the first two decades of the eighteenth
century.3 Several trenches were opened, revealing parts of the
cemetery, during the decades of archaeological research that
focused on the significant bronze-age tell, the mount of which
was used as a burial site in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries.4 Though the existence of the settlement situated
around the small hill has been testified since the first half
of the fourteenth century by documents, which fact was
supported by the results of the field survey as well, none of
the excavated burials could be dated prior to the last quarter
of the sixteenth century. A considerable amount of archival
sources has survived from exactly the same period, listing the
inhabitants by name and including information on their ethnic,
legal, and financial status, all of which proved to be of high
value when contextualizing the results of the excavations. The
vast majority of the grave finds was constituted by garment
accessories, and contemporary cemetery sites excavated in
Hungary and Romania served as comparative material to the
ensemble and the individual objects for the interpretation also
in terms of the use of clothing and jewelry.
The research history of the Bobáld site is a fine representation
of contemporary burials in churchyard cemeteries in Hungary
that, however, most often operated throughout the Middle Ages
up to the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries.
In most of the churchyards only smaller or larger parts were
unearthed, and most often the research was not actuated by
a specific scientific interest, but it was conducted as a rescue
excavation or as being related to monument protection. The
picture that is possible to draw on the basis of the publications
of the excavated churchyards appears to be very much
fragmentary, determined by the difficulties pertaining to the
research of such sites, and a specific interest in the burials of
the latest chronological phase was rarely manifest.
Another group of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burial
sites, however, was characterized by a well-distinguished and
separate history of research. While churchyard cemeteries have
been excavated and published unsystematically, cemeteries
of groups of people who migrated from the Balkans to the
area of Hungary under the Ottoman rule have been studied
more intensely. The so-called Southern Slav, Rác, or Rác-
Vlach cemeteries, as they are labeled in the literature, have
stimulated considerable interest, resulting in a more elaborate
literature than that on the contemporary burials in churchyard
cemeteries – although the latter was used by a much larger
segment of the population and was generally characteristic
3
Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005; Mérai 2005; Mérai 2007.
4
On the research of the prehistoric site, see Borovszky ed. 1910: 409;
Németi and Roman 1994–95; Németi 1999: 167; Németi and Molnár
2002: 118–122.
12
of a broader area of the former Hungarian Kingdom. On the
basis of written sources, cemeteries that were characterized
by a lack of a church building were related to the peoples
arriving from the Balkans to the conquest area, the analysis
of whom had already been in the focus of documentary
history for some time. The information on the origins
of the population interred in the cemeteries, as provided
by historical research, constituted the framework for the
interpretation of the archaeological results and determined
the questions formulated within. In addition, the analysis of
the burial customs and the majority of the finds, consisting of
remains of clothing, has focused on ethnic aspects in order to
circumscribe a material culture and burial customs that were
particular for the newcomers, and to apply finds in defining
their ethnicity and places of origins within the Balkans, thus
contributing to the historiography of the region.
During the course of the analysis of the burials in the
early modern churchyard at Bobáld, it appeared that some
of the object types that had been defined as characteristic
of the population of Balkan origins and thus attributed a
role in the above endeavors, regularly appear in burial sites
of other segments of the population as well, that is, in the
churchyard cemeteries. Thus, confronting the archaeological
remains and written sources referring to the population led to
contradictions concerning the standard ethnic definitions of
the objects. When interpreting the Bobáld finds, the results
were similar with respect to social status. The social stratum
to which the individuals interred there belonged was defined
by the archival documents, but the actual archaeological
evidence of clothing did not correspond to the picture one
would have expected concerning that specific stratum.
These apparent contradictions indicated that the sometime
situation had been much more complex than it had been
supposed on the basis of a singular source type that determined
the formulation of the questions. The same results might
be expected from a more general outlook on the remains of
clothing from burial sites dated to the period in question,
involving other source types such as settlement archaeology,
treasure hoards, and a variety of historical documents
and depictions. The present work does not wish to cover a
comprehensive reconstruction or analysis of sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century garments or to produce a complete
inventory, typology and analysis of the grave finds. My aim is
to take a look at how and within what framework the elements
of costumes from Ottoman-period burials were interpreted by
previous research, and to examine those considered as being
specific for certain groups in a wider context of contemporary
burial sites and in that of further archaeological ensembles
relevant in this respect. Since the character of this wider context
is very much dependent on the state of research, I will start
with a brief and general overview of how the research history
of various types of archaeological sites might influence the
overall orientation of analysis. Written sources and depictions
offer further information concerning various aspects of
clothing that sometimes seem relevant for the interpretation of
the archaeological evidence as well; the sense in which they
can contribute, however, is highly dependent on the specific
character and context of the sources that determines the view
they present.
As it will emerge from the inquiry concerning the presence
of certain objects among the finds at different types of burial
sites, some objects seem to be specific for the cemeteries of the
 Introduction
Balkan groups, while others characterize a wider segment of the
population, and there are items that have exclusively turned up
in churchyards. Looking for the underlying reasons is of equal
interest in each cases, in order to see what other aspects besides
ethnic or geographical origins could contribute to the formation
of clothing as reflected by the archaeological record. It is edifying
in this respect to see how the problem of the related material
culture, as accessible through the archaeological evidence
to historically known groups of people, has been treated in
international scholarship, and also how the archaeology of the
Carpathian Basin have approached the problem when dealing
with similar situations in different periods.
Taking a closer look at the archaeological and various aspects
of the social and cultural context of objects in individual cases,
13
and comparing it to other contexts within which similar items
appear, might shed light on some of the reasons behind the
patterning of the archaeological evidence. At the same time,
archaeology can also modify and add to the picture of clothing
in the past, that is, the way it was treated by contemporary
peoples, and the ethnic, social, and cultural structures that
produced it. I am aware that it would have been possible to
bring in innumerable other instances besides the ones I have
pointed out, some of which would have even contradicted
my observations. I do not, however, aim at formulating
generalizations, but wish more to experiment with questions
that can be raised about archaeological remains of clothing from
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Hungary, the answers to
which might open up some new prospects for interpretation.
14
 Chapter 2
Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest
The Ottoman victory over Hungary and the formation of the
tripartite country
29 August 1526, the day of the Battle of Mohács, became a
symbolic date in Hungarian history, signifying the loss of an
independent kingdom (see Fig. 3).5 From that time on, for one
and a half centuries, the fate of the country was dependent
on two world empires: that of the Ottoman Sultan and the
Habsburg Dynasty. Though the southern fortification system
had successfully defended the country for more than a hundred
years, in the third decade of the sixteenth century the forces of
Sultan Suleyman proved to be unconquerable.6 As a result of
the decisive victory of the Ottomans, not only did the bulk of the
Hungarian nobility lose their life on the battlefield of Mohács,
but so did Louis Jagiello, King of Hungary and Bohemia,
who left no successor. The Habsburg dynasty established a
claim to both thrones by right of earlier treaties of succession;
the Hungarian nobility, however, wished to elect a king from
their own nation, John Szapolyai, who was soon enthroned.
Still in the same year the brother of Charles V, the ruler of
the Holy Roman Empire, Archduke Ferdinand of Habsburg
obtained the support of a number of nobles. Ferdinand, with
the assistance of military forces mobilized by the Habsburg
dynasty, destroyed Szapolyai’s army during the year 1527, and
was finally acknowledged as king by the Hungarian nobility
and crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary. In turn, Sultan
Suleyman, being concerned about not yielding control over
Hungary to the Habsburg Empire, recognized Szapolyai as
the king. Relying on the support of the Porte, Szapolyai was
able to regain much of his territories and power. The Ottoman
conquest of Hungary in the Battle of Mohács did not, thus,
cause the complete occupation of the Kingdom, but, along the
general policy of the Porte, the country was to be placed under
a ruler submitted to the Sultan.
The following events of European politics, however, and
Suleyman’s successive moves led John Szapolyai to modify
his political approach.7 Subsequently, he was ready to enter
into agreement with Ferdinand in order to protect Hungary
from a complete occupation by the Ottomans, envisioning
unification of both of their territories under Ferdinand’s rule
following Szapolyai’s death. John Szapolyai’s views changed
again radically when, in 1540, his son, John Sigismund was
born; a few days later Szapolyai, lying on his deathbed,
extracted the oath of the nobles that they would assure the
throne for the newborn John Sigismund. Ferdinand, intending
to implement the agreement, laid siege to the castle of
5
The “Mohács complex,” the consequences of the Battle of Mohács on
the later history of Hungary has become a question under discussion in
Hungarian historiography (In English: Perjés 1989: XI–XVI, Foreword by
János M. Bak and XIX–XX, Preface by Géza Perjés).
6
On the events of the decades preceding the Battle of Mohács, see Fodor
and Dávid 1994; Szakály 1994.
7
On these events, see Inalcik 2000: 67–68; Tóth 2005/a: 185–187; Perjés
1989: 83–155; Barta 1994: 247–255. On the political history of the period,
see Sinkovics 1985; Tóth 2005/a: 185–205; Tóth 2005/b; Pálffy 2000/a:
9–118; Szakály 1990: 83–85.
15
Buda that was controlled by Szapolyai, which provided an
opportunity for the Ottomans to come to the assistance of the
defenders and take over the central fortification of Hungary.
By capturing Buda, the central part of the Hungarian Kingdom
fell into the hands of the Sultan. The campaign of 1543 that
followed aimed at ensuring an Ottoman fortification system
that would defend Buda, occupying a chain of castles (Pécs,
Esztergom, Tata, Fehérvár, Visegrád, Nógrád, and Hatvan as
the most important ones). John Sigismund kept the eastern
territories beyond the river Tisza (the so-called Partium) and
Transylvania, but was obliged to pay a yearly tribute to the
Porte.8 With the western parts in the hands of Ferdinand, the
territory of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom was divided into
three parts. The partition was reinforced by a peace agreement
between the Ottoman and the Habsburg empires in 1547. The
formation of the borderlines was, however, a longer process
that went on during the following decades.
Attempts in the 1540s and 1550s to reunify the western and
eastern parts in the hands of the Habsburg ruler all failed, and
the 1552 campaign of the Porte resulted in an expansion of the
border zone on behalf of the Ottoman territories.9 Following
the last, 1566 campaign of Suleyman, a second peace accord
was signed in Adrianople by Emperor Maximilian and Sultan
Selim II, confirming the territorial division of Hungary. The
Principality of Transylvania was legally formed in the 1570
Agreement of Speyer, according to which John Sigismund
gave up the title of King of Hungary, and took that of the Prince
of Transylvania and the Partium. The Principality maintained
its independence until the end of the seventeenth century,
ruled by a series of princes, who were elected by the diet, but
could only be invested after they had received the approval
of the Sultan (see Fig. 4).10 The three parts of the country
governed by separate political powers were influenced by the
Ottoman advancement in varying form and extent, directly
or indirectly, and the manifestation of interactions across the
frontiers were manifold and changing in time, according to
regions and groups of the population, concerning a variety of
spheres of life.
The administration of Hungary: merged into two empires
The three political units had separate and differing administra-
tive systems. The western and middle part of the country was
included in and adjusted to the standards of the administration
8
During the Middle Ages, Transylvania formed a separate territorial unit
of the Hungarian Kingdom. From the middle of the fourteenth century
onwards, a considerable part of its territory was divided into seven
counties, governed by a voivode appointed by the king. The area called
Partium consisted of those counties of the medieval Hungarian Kingdom
(dominus partium regni Hungariae) that historically did not belong to
Transylvania, but, after the tripartition of Hungary, were ordered under
the rule of the Prince of Transylvania. The frontiers of this territory were
modified according to the power relations between the Principality of
Transylvania and Habsburg Hungary.
9
Szakály 1990: 85–86; Hegyi 2000/b: 163–168.
10
Barta 1994: 255–264; Pálffy 2000/a: 90–96; Tóth 2005/a: 191–197.
16
Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

Fig. 3. The Hungarian Kingdom in the fifteenth century. (After Tóth ed. 2005: 170.)
17
Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest

Fig. 4. Hungary divided into three parts in 1590. (After Tóth ed. 2005: 184.)
 Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest
of two large empires. The political borderline between the
spheres of interest of Habsburg Hungary and the Ottoman
Empire was, however, continuously changing, according to
the actual military situation.
The Habsburg Emperor as the joint ruler of Habsburg
Hungary and the Austrian and the Czech throne established his
power by creating a centralized administrative system for all
the provinces and countries belonging under the three crowns,
and the office ensuring the adaptation of Hungary had already
been set up by Ferdinand I. The emperor, being resident
outside of the country, appointed a Lieutenant-Governor who
fulfilled governmental and judicial functions. The Hungarian
Treasury was responsible for all state revenues on behalf of
the Hungarian Kingdom, but as a subordinate of the Court
Treasury. Also, military affairs became centralized under the
direction of the Military Court Council.
The territories under Ottoman occupation were still
considered to be owned by the Kingdom, and the occupation
as being temporary and unlawful. It was a practice to levy state
and even church income from the occupied territories as well,
and the various forms of income were collected by offices
subordinated to the Treasury that, in the conquest area, relied
on the constraining military assistance of the local garrison
troops. This was the way to also collect the manorial taxes by
the landowners residing outside the borders in the estates that
had fallen under Ottoman control.11 The centralized system
of the two empires coexisted with the local administration
of counties and towns inherited from the Late Middle Ages,
which were units with the right of self-determination, and
which did not give up exercising their rights. Royal free cities
(civitas) were exempt from the authority of the counties; they
were represented at the diet and had the privilege of electing
their own leaders.12
Royal Hungary claimed rights over the area under Ottoman
rule, but, at the same time, it was often not able to prevent
Ottoman intervention in the life of the territories belonging
to the Kingdom.13 The structure and operation of the Ottoman
administrative system was suited to the military organization.
The occupied territories were divided into provinces called
vilayets as administrative units that functioned through
smaller parts called sancaks, with beglerbeys and sancakbeys
as their heads. The settlements of the occupied territory
were surveyed by state tax collectors with regard to their
tax-paying population. These registers, the defters, serve as
important sources for the population of the occupied areas.14
Judicial and notarial tasks were supplied by the kadis, whose
activity, through the supervision of matters related to the
practice of crafts, trade, and religious life, could theoretically
have been the field of direct influence on the population of the
subjected areas. The level of interference within the life of the
inhabitants varied, however, locally.15
11
Szakály 1990: 90–91; Borsodi 2005: 274–277, 281–282 ; Pálffy 2000/a:
41–42.
12
Szakály 1990: 91; Borsodi 2005: 277–278.
13
Hegyi 2000/a: 90, 92.
14
Altogether seven vilayets were established in the territory of Hungary
with the advance of the Ottoman occupation: 1541: Buda; 1552: Temesvár
(Timişoara, Romania); 1598: Győr; 1596: Eger; 1600: Kanizsa and Várad
(Oradea, Romania); 1663: Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky, Slovakia). (Pálffy
2000/a: 39). For a brief presentation of the Ottoman military system in
Hungary, see Hegyi 1994.
15
Hegyi and Zimányi 1989: 106–120; Szakály 1990: 87. Ágoston 2005/a:
279–281; Pálffy 2000/a: 36–45.
18
The double taxation system exercised by the Hungarian
Kingdom and the Ottoman Porte that affected the conquest
area and nearby territories has been labeled as condominium
in Hungarian historiography.16 As research on the economic
history of the period has pointed out, double taxation did not
result in a complete draining of the area: sources indicate a
strengthening in agriculture during the 1570s, and Hungarian
cattle export culminated in the 1580s.17
Society in transformation: status, wealth, and religion
The position of the peasantry varied according to their wealth
and mobility. During the first half of the seventeenth century,
relocation became forbidden to serfs in most places, except
for those undertaking military service. State of war, however,
meant an opportunity to escape and resettle with more
favorable conditions, so landlords often agreed to peasants
unburdening themselves from the obligations of serfdom
by paying a certain sum. Differences in wealth within the
peasantry increased during the seventeenth century. Many
had some other form of income besides farming, such as craft,
trading, or viticulture, so the size of the plot did not indicate a
real financial status any longer.18
The possession of most members of the nobility did not
exceed that of wealthy peasants, as many owned no more
than one plot (nobiles unius sessionis), or had the title of a
noble, but lived on a serf’s plot (armalistae). Their numbers
increased in the second half of the 17th century, when border
castle soldiers could advance into the ranks of the nobility,
and well-off peasants had the opportunity to acquire the title
by payment. Every member of the nobility shared the same
privileges, as it was set down in the law collection of István
Werbőczy in 1514. In practice however, nobles who possessed
land with serfs did not have to pay tax, while those without
serfs had to pay the tax for themselves. The leadership of
the counties of the Hungarian kingdom was constituted
of the land-owning nobility, and their council elected the
representatives in the Hungarian diet.19 Noblemen whose
estates were situated in the occupied areas of Hungary often
moved their residence to towns, preserving their noble rights.
The patrician families, the leading stratum of the towns, were
willing to establish closer ties with them, which, together with
rivalry and changing economic conditions, lead to a tendency
of following the values and certain elements of lifestyle of the
nobility among burghers.20
Market-towns (oppidum) were privileged settlements that
remained under the authority of the landowner, but had the
right to hold markets and fairs, and to elect their judge and the
magistrate who collected the tax they owed to the landlord.
Their inhabitants played an important role in agriculture also
in the area under Ottoman occupation, especially by stock
raising and trade directed towards the markets in Austria,
16
Szakály 1981; Szakály 1990: 88–89; Ágoston 2000: 293–294; Hegyi
2000: 88, 90; Ágoston 2005/a: 281.282; in the context of the Ottoman
Empire, see Ágoston 2003.
17
Ágoston 2000: 293–294.
18
Zimányi 1987: 27–38; 78–79, 104; on Transylvania: Péter 1994: 301–
302.
19
E. Kovács 2005: 153–154, Tóth 2005/b: 259–263; Borsodi 2005: 277–
278; Pálffy 2000/a: 148–154; For the Latin and English edition of the law
collection of Werbőczy, see: Bak et al. ed. 2005.
20
Zimányi 1987: 57–58; Szakály 1990: 88; Kalmár 2005: 264–265; Pálffy
2000/a: 164–165.
 Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest
the South German towns, and Italy. This gave a chance for
the so-called cives, “peasant-burghers,” and also members of
the nobility who chose to take advantage of the integration
of Hungary into the European economic development, to
accumulate considerable riches. At the same time, cheap
products – textile, metal implements, spices, small wares
– imported from the western countries did not favor the
improvement of local crafts still operating within the frames
of guilds.21
In the Principality of Transylvania the three privileged
layers of the society, the three “nations” represented in the
diet, were the land-owning nobility – the most powerful of
whom, due to his overwhelmingly large estates, was the
Prince of Transylvania –, the Saxons, and the Szeklers.22 The
privileges of Szeklers inhabiting the south-eastern border
of Transylvania were guaranteed by virtue of their military
service, which determined their medieval social order based
on equality.23 The process of their diversification started in the
fifteenth century, and was furthered by the new circumstances
created by the establishment of the Principality, though
their privileges were confirmed by the actual princes who
counted on their military support.24 Although Romanians in
the Transylvanian Principality were not part of the “three
nations,” those advancing to the ranks of the nobility, such as
members of other ethnic groups – Germans, Slavs – ascending
similarly in Royal Hungary and Transylvania, were completely
integrated regardless of their ethnic background.25
Wealthy Saxon towns in the Principality of Transylvania
were lead by the richest patricians, craftsmen, and
merchants.26 They were supplied with agricultural products
by the peasants of surrounding villages possessing Saxon
privileges. All members of the Saxon nation shared the same
rights, but Saxon peasants were subject to the administration
of urban patricians. The highest organ of their nation was the
Saxon University (Universitas Saxonum), constituted by the
elected representatives of the Saxon autonomous units (sedes
Saxonum). Besides electing their own leaders, Saxons were
also granted the right of paying the state tax in one amount;
they preserved their medieval privileges in the Principality as
well.27
The theses of Martin Luther found adherents among the
German-speaking population of Transylvania, Buda, and the
towns of Upper Hungary. Protestant denominations started to
diverge in Hungary from the mid-sixteenth century onwards;
their church organization developed in parallel. While
Germans adopted the Lutheran faith, Calvinism, supported by
members of the nobility, spread rapidly among Hungarians,
and some remained adherents of the Catholic confession. In
21
Zimányi 1987: 17–27, 43–55, 75–76, 93–94; Péter 1990: 106–107; Pálffy
2000/a: 119–125, 129–139. On livestock breeding and trade, see Makkai
1971; Blanchard 1986; Bartosiewicz 1995; Lyublyanovics 2008: 95–98.
22
Makkai 1994: 221–223; Péter 1994: 333–338.
23
Szeklers are a Hungarian-speaking group that were treated in medieval
sources as being distinct from the Hungarians, but, nevertheless, closely
related to them. Their origin and the time of their entering the Carpathian
Basin have been debated in the scholarship. Makkai 2001: 414–420.
24
Pálffy 2000/a: 109–115; Barta 1994: 282–285; Barta 2001: 708–716;
Péter 1994: 335–336; Péter 2001: 166–171; Oborni 2005: 266–268.
25
Péter 1994: 338; Ágoston 2005/b: 253–254.
26
The settling and organization of the Saxons in certain areas of Transylvania
took place during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Makkai 2001: 420–
428; Makkai 1994: 180–184.
27
Péter 2002: 171–176; Makkai 1994: 233–235; Péter 1994: 336–338;
Oborni 2005: 266–267.
19
Transylvania the diet recognized four denominations, the so-
called “four accepted – Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and
Unitarian – religions” of the Saxons and Hungarians, while
Romanians belonged to the Orthodoxy. In Habsburg Hungary,
a forceful re-Catholicization began following a conspiracy
against the Habsburg monarch in 1670 that relied on the
support of the Protestant lesser nobility, and from that time on
the issue of freedom of worship was highly dependent on the
actual balance of power.28
The ideas of Reformation spread in those territories also
that were under Ottoman occupation. Though Christianity as
a whole was tolerated in the Ottoman Empire, local Turkish
commanders decided on matters of religion. In general,
Protestants enjoyed more trust than Catholics, who were
represented by the state power of the Ottomans’ main enemy
in the region. Catholic bishops were not able to fulfill their
duties in the occupied area, so the Pope sent apostolic visitors
and appointed missionary bishops to take care of the faithful,
in which the mendicant orders also played an important
role.29
Demographical changes in Hungary during
the Ottoman Period
The availability of demographical sources varies concerning
the political units of Ottoman-period Hungary. The most
informative sources related to taxation do not provide a
comprehensive picture, as their character depends on the
fiscal system, which was different in all three areas adjusted
to the practice of the reigning power of the territory. Royal tax
registers cover about one-third of the territory of the country,
reckoning peasant portae, while from 1598 houses were
considered as taxation units. Fiscal source types available
for Transylvania are similar, though of a different quality of
evidence due to the differing administration. Similar data on
the counties under Ottoman rule are missing; demographic
research of the area can rely on the defters compiled by the
Ottoman administration, which are more reliable for the
sixteenth century, but were less precisely managed during the
seventeenth century. 30
The long-lasting state of war in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries caused significant changes in the structure of the
society and the settlements in Hungary. Due to large-scale
immigration, there was a slow increase in the population, but
it still fell behind the average growth and population density
in Western Europe.31 The degree and the character of the
demographical changes varied according to areas and periods
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The territories that
were not affected by the conquest witnessed an increase in
population numbers by reproduction and immigration. Climatic
28
Barta 2001: 664–675; Péter 2004; Evans 1985; Murdock 2000; Horn
2005; Barta 1994: 287–293; Tóth 2005/c: 222–230; Tóth 2005/d. After
the expulsion of the Ottomans from Hungary and the consolidation of the
Habsburg rule, a restricting law was issued and, as a consequence, the
majority of the population converted to Catholicism by the end of the 18th
century.
29
Tóth 2005/d: 243–248; On Reformation in the occupied territories, see
Szakály 1995.
30
On the character of the sources concerning the three parts of the country
and the problems of interpretation, see Kubinyi 1997, Zimányi 1987: 12–
13; Zimányi 1997: 193–196; Dávid 1997: 141–145; Oborni 1997; Dávid
2007: 136–141, 169–173; Hegyi 2002.
31
Dávid 1997: 151, 171; Dávid 2007: 141–148; Zimányi 1987: 9–13;
Zimányi 1997: 194; Pálffy 2001:121.
 Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest
changes also contributed to a restructuring of cultivated areas
and marshlands, and thus to an inland migration process.32
The number of inhabitants of war-stricken territories basically
stagnated, but behind the numeric data there was a significant
ethnic recomposition.33
Migration was less intensive before the long war, that is, the
Fifteen Years’ War (1591/1593–1606), which broke out after
two decades of relative peace. There were areas temporarily
depopulated by incursions and fights, the population of which
returned in more peaceful times. At the beginning of the 1590s
Sultan Murat III declared war on Emperor Rudolph, with the
long-term goal of capturing Vienna and the occupation of the
remaining, western part of Hungary. At the same time, the
Emperor hoped to drive out the Ottomans from Europe. Fifteen
years of devastation, however, lead to no significant changes
in the territorial boundaries. The systematic campaigns in
the 1590s, as well as the famine and plague that followed,
demolished the system of settlements and depopulated the
directly affected areas.34 Hungarians inhabiting the midlands
of the country suffered the greatest losses caused by the
Ottoman occupation. Often nearly the entire Hungarian
population fled from settlements that became administrative
or military centers of the Ottoman Empire.35
Changes in the ethnic composition
The Ottoman advance, as early as the fifteenth century, had
its first influence on the southern parts of the country: Croatia,
Slavonia,36 and the region of Szerémség (Srijem, Srem;
see Fig. 3).37 At that time the ethno-linguistic boundary ran
along the Drave River, with a Slavic-speaking population to
the south.38 After the Ottoman conquest of Serbia in 1459,
Serbs took refuge in the Hungarian Kingdom and played
an important role in organizing the defense of the southern
borderland, forming troops of light cavalry.39 In the second
half of the fifteenth century, Valkó and Szerém counties
already had Serb populations. A significant number of them
lived in Temes County, replacing the Hungarian inhabitants
who gradually escaped regular fights with the Ottomans;40
scattered groups of South Slavs could be found in Bács,
Bodrog, Torontál, Csongrád, and Békés counties, and in the
32
On climatic changes in the Carpathian Basin during the Early Modern
Age, see Zimányi 1987: 10; Tóth 1999: 156–157; Rácz 1999; Rácz 2001;
Rácz 2003. On Transylvania, see Péter 1994: 301–303.
33
The proportion of Hungarians within the population of the kingdom before
the battle of Mohács has been evaluated as 80%. By the third part of the
sixteenth century about 60% were Hungarian, which fell to 50% after the
reconquest. Dávid 1997: 168, 169 and 171; Pálffy 2001: 123–124.
34
See Zimányi 1987: 14–17, 75; Péter 1990: 100–102; Pálffy 2000/a: 45–
50; Pálffy 2001: 116–118, 119; Ágoston 2002: 103–107; Dávid 2007:
159–169.
35
Dávid 1997: 155; Pálffy 2000/a: 172–173; on the Ottoman military and
provincial administration, see Ágoston 2002: 91–101.
36
The western part of the area between the Drave and Sava rivers and along
the Sava in the Middle Ages.
37
The region of Szerémség (Srijem, Srem) is the eastern part of the area
between the Drave and Sava rivers. Its name came from that of the
Classical Roman town, Sirmium.
38
Blazovich 1997: 117.
39
Pálffy 2000/a: 174.
40
The Temes area was finally occupied in 1552. Most of the Hungarian
population moved away and a chain of settlements of South Slav (or Rasci
as they were labeled on a map from 1577) came into existence via a slow
and continuous process. Pálffy 2000/a: 175–176; Blazovich 1997: 121;
Pálffy 2001: 122; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 334–341.
20
southern part of Transylvania.41
The first coherent wave of South Slavic immigrants arrived
in Bács and Bodrog counties from the Szerémség area in
the 1520s, pushed by the advancing Ottoman forces after
the fall of Belgrade and Mohács.42 Following the Ottoman
advancement of the 1540–1550s, further groups arrived
in Pozsega, Baranya, Tolna, Somogy, and Fejér counties.
They included not only Orthodox Serbs, but also Catholic
Bosnians, Croats, and an ethnic group from the north Balkans,
also of a Orthodox Christian confession, called Oláh, Eflak, or
Vlachus in the sources.43 At the turn of the sixteenth and in the
seventeenth century, peoples coming from Herzegovina and
Dalmatia through Bosnia, called in later sources Sokác and
Bunyevác, settled in Bács.44
The population south of the line along the towns of Mohács,
Szeged, and Arad (Romania) was replaced by newcomers from
Balkan ethnic groups, and by the middle of the seventeenth
century the southern area of Transdanubia also had a South
Slavic population.45 The change in the inhabitants of the
conquest area was characterized by a continuous migration:
a high percentage of the immigrants moved on within a short
time, replaced by new groups, especially the destitute ones.46
They often settled down in deserted settlements or in those
the original population of which decreased. Families of mixed
ethnicities and religions evolved.47
Serbs, as troops of light cavalry in the royal forces, settled
in Győr in the 1520–30s. Boatmen from the lower part of the
Danube served in the river fleet headquartered in Komárom.
After the sieges of the 1590s, Miklós Pálffy supplied the
devastated Transdanubian areas with Rác population moved
from the southern counties by force.48 An area inhabited
partially by Catholic Croats was formed at the western confines
of Hungary, as Croat noblemen fleeing to Hungary settled the
population of their southern estates on their properties in the
Hungarian Kingdom.49
Most members of the Ottoman military and administrative
system residing in Hungary had Balkan origins; they came
from all over the peninsula: Bosnia, Macedonia, and Serbia, as
is shown by written documents, and by cultural impacts. The
number of those coming from the eastern parts of the empire
was low. Many of them also originated from the Balkans, and
were ordered to serve in the Anatolian garrisons.50 Sources on
the garrison troops in the Buda vilayet are among those few
41
Pálffy 2000/a: 175; Blazovich 1997: 118–119.
42
Blazovich 1997: 118. For Bács county, see Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 304–305.
43
Zimányi 1987: 16–17; Pálffy 2000/a: 177–178; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 353.
44
Pálffy 2000/a: 177–178; Makkai 1985/a; Makkai 1985/b; Pálffy 2001:
122; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 353–354. Both Bunyevác and Sokác peoples were
Croats of Roman Catholic faith, Bunyevác originating from Herzegovina,
Sokác from Dalmatia (Bárth 1995: 17). From the eighteenth century
onwards, other Croat groups in Hungary were also labeled as Sokác.
(Sokcsevits 1998: 114–115).
45
Ágoston and Oborni 2000: 181.
46
Dávid 1997: 165.
47
Dávid 1997: 154–155, 168; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1. 262.
48
Pálffy 2000/a: 176–177. The adjective Rác as it has been used in sources
and secondary literature covers either Greek Orthodox Serbs or various
ethnic groups of Balkan origins. In the following I will discuss in detail
the problem of the meaning of such terms implying ethnicities. On the
development and structure of the defense system, see Pálffy 2002: 111–
135; Pálffy 2000/b: 3–69.
49
Pálffy 2000/a: 182–186; Pálffy 2001: 123; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 321–334.
50
Hegyi 2003: 23–32; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 239, 252–253; On the number and
structuring of military forces in conquered Hungary, see Ágoston 2000:
290–292.
 Hungary and its Population in the Period of the Ottoman Conquest
lists that indicate their origins. The analysis has demonstrated
that most of the soldiers came from the Balkans. They were
mostly Bosnians, but Serbs and Vlachs were also present
among them. As far as their religion is concerned, they
converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Islam, but the number
of Christians in Ottoman service gradually increased during
the seventeenth century.51 Towns occupied by the Ottoman
forces and turned to administrative, military, religious, and
cultural centers of the conquest area housed a wide variety
of ethnicities among the troops and civilian inhabitants:
besides soldiers and serfs of the above origins, there were
also Gypsies, Jews, Hungarians, and Ragusans.52 Besides the
garrison troops, the Ottoman defensive system also relied on
the Balkan soldier peasants who settled down in the conquest
area. These peasants were granted privileges in exchange for
military service.53 Concerning the ethnicity of these Balkan
peoples arriving to Hungary both through the Ottoman military
system and as “civilian” immigrants, historical research
has concluded that in most cases the sources at disposal do
not allow a precise identification of ethnicity among Slavic
peoples and Vlachs.54
Romanians inhabiting Maramureş and the highlands of
the western and southern parts of Transylvania gradually
moved towards the lowlands and mixed with the Hungarian
population of the estates. From the fifteenth century on they
formed more and more agricultural villages; their settlement
was organized by heads of the communities, called kenéz in
the sources. In the second half of the sixteenth century a more
intensive immigration started from Wallachia and Moldavia.
Romanians mostly remained adherents of the Orthodox
confession, though from the mid-sixteenth century onwards
Reformed denominations also found followers.55
Northern territories inhabited by Slovaks were not affected
directly by the wars. Slovaks started to move into the
51
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 269, 355–356.
52
Ágoston 2005/c.
53
Hegyi and Zimányi 1989: 68–69; Hegyi 2007: 315.
54
Dávid 1997: 168–169; Hegyi 2007: vol 1. 285–286, 301–302.
55
Barta 2001: 699–708;Péter 2002: 176–181; Barta 1994: 281–282; Péter
1994: 338–339. On the demographic sources for Transylvania and the
results, with further bibliography, see Oborni 1997: 187–192; Pálffy 2001:
123.
21
northern part of the Hungarian plain after the Fifteen Years’
War. Orthodox Ruthenians entered the northeastern counties;
other groups came from the northeast, labelled as Vlach in
the sources, who were a mixed Ruthenian, Slovak, and Polish
population dealing with stock-breeding.56
German burghers played an important role in the development
of towns in Hungary from the age of the Árpadian kings.57 Buda,
Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania), the western towns of Pozsony
(Bratislava, Slovakia) and Sopron, and the towns of Upper
Hungary had a significant number of Germans even in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although in the seventeenth
century part of the population of the conquered area moved into
the Upper Hungarian towns and the Germans became a minority
in many places. A decrease in the intensity of migration of
German burghers to Hungary as a continuous reinforcement to
the inhabitants of towns contributed to this process.58 Germans
living in the Saxon lands of Transylvania formed a privileged
group even in the seventeenth century.59 The role of the so-called
“Greek merchants,” originating from all over the Balkans under
Ottoman occupation and often from Ragusa, settling down also
in the towns of Transylvania and Hungary, became significant
in the external trade of the period.60
Though the expulsion of the Ottomans from Hungary has
been associated with the celebrated victory of the recapturing
Buda in 1686, it was a longer process that took about one
and a half decades. The reconquering fights, the plague
(like elsewhere in Europe), and finally a major epidemic
in 1709 and devastations during the anti-Habsburg war of
independence lead by Ferenc Rákóczi brought further decrease
in the population. The eighteenth century repopulation of the
devastated areas with Serb, German, Romanian, and Slovak
settlers resulted in a further significant ethnic and social
rearrangement. 61
56
Pálffy 2000/a: 179–180; Makkai 1985/c.
57
Besides Germans and Hungarians, other ethnicities, such as Jews, Italians,
Walloons, and Slavs constituted the population of medieval towns. Fügedi
1986 (1974): 471–507; Végh 2009; Szende 2009.
58
Zimányi 1987: 16, 57; Ágoston and Oborni 2000: 179; on the towns in the
sixteenth century, see Zimányi 1985: 353–383.
59
Draskóczy 1997: 125–140; Draskóczy 2007; Pálffy 2000/a: 183.
60
Bur 1985; Gecsényi 1998; Pakucs 2004; Niţu 2005; Pakucs-Willkocks
2007.
61
Wellmann 1985.
 Fig. 5. Location of the archaeological sites referred in chapters 4 to 9. Prepared by the author.

1. Almakerék (Malîncrav, Romania) 29. Fülek 55. Óföldeák

2. Alsórajk 30. Gernyeszeg (Gorneşti, Romania) 56. Ónod
3. Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania) 31. Győr 57. Ozora
4. Babócsa-Bolhó 32. Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, 58. Regéc
5. Bácsalmás Romania) 59. Ritopek (Serbia)
6. Bajót 33. Gyula-Fövenyes 60. Sárospatak
7. Balatonszárszó 34. Ják 61. Szada
8. Balatonszőlős 35. Kanizsa 62. Szent János-Elefánt (Horné
9. Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) 36. Kaposvár Lefantovce, Slovakia)
10. Barcarozsnyó (Rişnov, Romania) 37. Kaszaper 63. Szentendre
11. Báta 38. Katymár 64. Szolnok
12. Bátaszék 39. Kecskemét 65. Tiszanána-Ónána
13. Battonya 40. Keszthely 66. Tiszaörvény
14. Bodrogmonostorszeg (Bački 41. Kide (Chidea, Romania) 67. Tolna
Monoštor, Serbia) 42. Kőszeg 68. Tomaševac (Serbia)
15. Boldva 43. Küküllővár (Cetatea de Baltă, 69. Tunyog
16. Csenger Romania) 70. Vác
17. Damóc 44. Lászlófalva 71. Várad (Oradea, Romania)
18. Debrecen 45. Losonc (Lučenec, Slovakia) 72. Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia)
19. Denta (Romania) 46. Madaras 73. Zombor (Sombor, Serbia)
20. Dombóvár 47. Magyarcsanád-Bökénymindszent
21. Drégelypalánk 48. Mélykút
22. Dubovac (Serbia) 49. Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania)
23. Eger 50. Miskolc
24. Egervár 51. Nagybánya (Baia Mare, Romania)
25. Esztergom 52. Nagykároly – Bobald (Carei,
26. Feldebrő Romania)
27. Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás 53. Nagylózs
28. Fonyód 54. Nagyteremi (Tirimia, Romania)

22
 Chapter 3

Peoples and material culture in the archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period

Distinguishing the remains of a culture imported by an

ethnically different group of a different religion formed
the focus of interest from the very beginning in the study
of the Ottoman Period in Hungary.62 The remains of the
Muslim religion and Ottoman Turkish architecture offered
the most conspicuous contrasts with the local traditions;
the first antiquarian collection of epigraphic remains was
already established at the end of the seventeenth century.
Besides epigraphy, Ottoman buildings caught the eye
of nineteenth century scholars. In the second half of the
century reconstructions of medieval edifices revealed several
fragments of Ottoman-Turkish architecture, but according to
the practice of monument protection in the period they were
not conserved after their documentation. Systematic research
on Ottoman architecture has been characteristic of the
twentieth century, and large-scale reconstructions after World
War II were executed following excavations combined with
the thorough investigation of written and pictorial sources.
Apart from religious architecture, town houses, baths, and
fortifications were also studied; thus, both the Ottoman military
presence in Hungary and its manifestations in “everyday”
life got into the focus of research through material remains.63
Art historical analysis has revealed strong ties of “Turkish”
architecture in Hungary to similar monuments in the Balkans,
which corresponded to the network of personal relationships
of the commissioners coming from the Ottoman military
and administrative system.64 The fortification palisades both
on the Ottoman and Hungarian sides of the frontier defense
system have been in the center of research mostly since the
1980s, providing important data on the lifestyle of the local Fig. 6. Glazed Turkish pottery from the fortress at Szolnok,
representatives of the military forces and their interactions with 16th-17th c. Damjanich János Museum, Szolnok. (Kovács
the hinterland and the population of the nearby territories.65 Gy. 2003: 258, fig. 1.)
These excavations also meant an important shift in our
knowledge about the material culture of the Ottoman period of weaponry and textiles were imitated by local craftsmen.68
in Hungary. The most spectacular and valuable artifacts Archaeological finds and their interpretation – such as pottery
preserved in collections – oriental textiles, leather, and metal and other ceramic artifacts including pipes, stove tiles, and
objects (vessels, weapons, jewelry) – have also been in the coppersmith’s work – gave insight into a different sphere of
focus of attention for a long time.66 Written documents attest material culture and other levels of interactions.
that Turkish artifacts of high value, like carpets, embroidery, The increasing number of pottery assemblages led to
weaponry, and items of horse tack were possessed by high- distinguishing three basic groups beside the relatively small
status noble families in both Transylvania and Hungary, number of oriental and Western imported pottery items:69
most often purchased or received as presents as a result of glazed “Turkish” ware (Fig. 6), Hungarian ware, and a
diplomatic contacts, or acquired as parts of dowries, legacies, group of slow-turned pottery vessels including the so-called
and ransoms.67 The interaction was manifest also on similar “Bosnian” ware. This latter type has been identified as the
objects produced for the same social sphere: Turkish forms heritage of groups of people arriving from different parts of
the Balkan together with the Ottoman troops (Figs. 7 and 8).
62
On the development of academic studies on the material culture of the The interpretation of the relation between pottery types and
Ottoman period, see Laszlovszky and Rasson 2003: especially 377, 381 ethnic groups has been much more refined than the terms
and 382; Gerelyes 2005. suggest.70 The attribution of the slow-turned ware to the
63
The history of the research on Ottoman architecture does not pertain
closely to the topic of the present study. For further literature, see Gerő
peoples of Balkan origin has been based on the comparison
1980 and Gerő 2003.
64
Gerő 2003. 68
S. Kovács 2005; Palotay 1940; Tompos 2005. For a similar phenomenon
65
Kovács and Vándor 2003; Hatházi 2003 with further references. concerning ornamented tiles, see below.
66
See, e.g., Fehér 1975. On less valuable coppersmiths’ work, see, e.g, Fehér 69
On imported ornamental oriental ceramics, see Kovács, Gy. 2005.;
1968; Gaál 1983; Gaál 1991. For an overview, see Gerelyes 2005. Gerelyes 1994. On imported Western ware, see, e.g., Kovács, Gy. 2002.
67
See Pásztor 2005 with references to the relevant literature. 70
See, e.g., Kovács, Gy. 1991: especially 172–174.

23
 Peoples and material culture in the archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period
Fig. 7. Slow-turned pottery from the Bátaszék palisade.
Wosinsky Mór County Museum, Szekszárd.
(Pusztai 2003: 304, fig. 1.)
Fig. 8. So-called Bosnian jug from the fortress of Kanizsa,
17th c. Thúry György Museum, Nagykanizsa. (Kovács Gy.
2003: 261, fig. 4.)
of the spatial distribution of the finds – Turkish castles and
forts of southern Transdanubia – and the data of written
sources about the ethnicity of the population in these areas.71
71
The most representative historical sources on the problem are the payrolls
that indicate the name and – in many cases – the origins of the Ottoman
soldiers. They have been extensively studied by Klára Hegyi. See, e.g.,
Hegyi, 2003; Hegyi 2007.
24
Fig. 9. Grey jugs from Ónod castle. Hungarian National
Museum, Budapest. (Tomka 2003: 317, fig. 5.)
However, Gyöngyi Kovács has called attention to the survival
of medieval Hungarian slow-turned pottery up to the sixteenth
century in the area in question and the impact that the
neighboring settlements might have had on the composition
of the assemblage of material culture in the fortifications.72
Tamás Pusztai, comparing the pottery finds of fortifications,
emphasized the dominance of the local products of nearby
Hungarian villages, which resulted in regional differences in
the composition of the earthenware assemblages available
for archaeological research.73 The types of ceramic labeled
“Turkish ware” also reached Hungary through intervention
from the Balkans, and the forms, distribution, and composition
of assemblages in which it appears, combined with historical
data referring to individual sites, has provided a multicolored
and complex image of the ethnic and social interactions of the
producers and users.74
Pottery of oriental origin appears also among the finds
of fortifications that were continuously under the control of
Hungarian forces. A possible explanation is that they were
adopted together with some Turkish alimentary customs,
as Gábor Tomka has suggested about finjans and coffee
consumption.75 Concerning other vessel types, it has been
assumed that Hungarian potters on the Great Hungarian
Plain made gray ceramics fired in a reducing atmosphere that
72
Kovács, Gy. 1984: 13; Kovács, Gy. 2003: 260–261; Pusztai 2003,
comparing the data from the payrolls with the patterns in the composition
of the pottery. Further, see Kovács, Gy. 1991: 172–173; Kovács, Gy. 1998:
168.
73
Pusztai 2003.
74
Kovács, Gy. 1984: 18–44; Gerelyes 1985/a; Gerelyes 1987: 171, 175, 177;
Gerelyes 1990: 272–284.
75
Tomka 2003: 312. On the customs of coffee and tobacco consumption as
treated on the basis of historical sources, see Tóth 1999: 185–187.
 Peoples and material culture in the archaeology of Hungary in the Ottoman Period

followed the form and technology of Balkan ware (Fig. 9).76 transformed by Oriental influences; simultaneous influences
This phenomenon indicates the emergence of regionalism from the East and the West led to gradual changes.84
and a sort of specialization and market orientation in the As can be seen in the examples above, the problem of
Hungarian potter’s craft. The widespread trade covering large ethnicity has been manifest in research on Ottoman-period
areas is attested by written sources and increasing amounts material culture in all its complexity for considerable time:
of archaeological data.77 Such an example is provided by scholars had to deal with the presence of different cultural
pots produced in Gömör County in Northern Hungary, which traditions represented by the Hungarian, Turkish, Balkan, and
were spread out through trade both in the area under Ottoman Western groups of population that were present in the area.
occupation and in Habsburg Hungary. Analysis of artifacts The archaeological interpretation did not tend towards making
testify a continuity in material culture in spite of the political rigid distinctions so as to be able to connect elements of
changes: eighteenth-century pottery types inherited the forms material culture to ethnicities, but research has been directed
of the above mentioned Ottoman-period types of earthenware, towards investigating the manifold interactions on different
and objects characteristic of the Balkans remained in use due social levels, in various geographical regions, and in various
to trade relations that did not cease with the drawing back of contexts. Scholarly traditions in the research of cemeteries
the Ottoman Empire.78 from the period took, however, a different form, in which the
The problem of ornamental tiles found in the castles interpretation of clothing and burial customs along the lines of
of Sárospatak, Regéc,79 and Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, ethnicity played a determining role.
Romania) proved to be a similarly complex issue. According
to written sources, the decoration of the “tiled room” of
György Rákóczi I, Prince of Transylvania at Sárospatak,
was produced in Istanbul, and the same provenance was
suggested by the chemical analysis of the material. However,
the motifs indicate a knowledge of Western pattern books.80
The questions that emerged on the origins of the master of
the tiles, the place of production, and the provenance of the
motifs did not yield a clear-cut answer; scholars do not have a
single standpoint on whether the tiles were made in an Istanbul
workshop, by a Turkish master who came to Hungary,81 or
by Hungarians following Turkish patterns.82 Such complex
issues as ethnicity, workshop traditions, representative
functions, and trade have been involved in the explanations.
The tiles found in the Gyulafehérvár palace of the prince of
Transylvania, commissioned by Prince Gábor Bethlen, raised
further problems: copies made by Haban masters probably
substituted for damaged pieces of the originals, the provenance
of which is still debated (Fig. 10).83
A recent study investigated the emergence of Oriental
elements in Hungarian attire, resulting from the multilayered
interactions with Ottomans in the trade of textiles, embroidery
and the cut of garments, and the representative role of Fig. 10. Reconstruction of the design of Haban tiles from
Hungarian costumes on depictions. The author concluded that Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania).
the issue is far too complex to say when Hungarian costume was (Emődi 2003: 331. fig. 2.)

76
Tomka 2002: 313–314. On Ottoman and Balkan impacts on the Hungarian
potters’ craft, see Kovács, Gy. 1991: 174; Kovács, Gy. 1984: 38–40.
77
Kovács, Gy. 2003: 261–262; Lázár 1986: 46–47.
78
Lajkó 2003; Kovács, Gy. 2003.
79
Simon 2005; J. Dankó 2005.
80
Papp 2005: 45–47.
81
Gervers-Molnár 2005: 41–42.
82
Simon 2005: 33; Gerelyes 2005: 8–9.
83
Emődi 2003. Habans were a group of Anabaptists settled in Transylvania,
they produced high-quality multicolor glazed pottery. 84
Tompos 2005.

25
26
 Chapter 4
Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period
Although the most significant group of archaeological finds
related to burials are the remains of costumes, there are factors
inherent in the nature of archaeological record and research
that confine the possibilities of interpretation along the history
of costumes.85 Some limiting factors concern the relation of
the archaeological record to the entirety of the former material
culture. The deceased were dressed up in garments selected for
the special occasion of internment. Thus, the clothing items
that were placed into the grave represent the burial costumes,
and can serve as the basis of drawing conclusions only on
those, as opposed to the “everyday” clothing of individuals.
The context of the ritual and the role of clothing in dealing
with death should be taken into account as an interpretational
framework.
A major group of questions concerns the “taphonomy” of
finds and archaeological sites, that is, what has survived of those
that were buried in the graves. Clothing items made of textile
and leather – even dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries – are rarely known from the archaeological context
in Hungary. The possibility to reconstruct the tailoring has
been mostly confined to crypt findings, due to the specific
environmental conditions. Expectations of the archaeologist
excavating burials in cemeteries should not extend beyond
Fig. 11. Objects from the treasure
hoard found at Nagybánya (Baia Mare,
Romania). (Mihalik 1906 : 121.)
85
On the relation between archaeological record, archaeological research
and historical reality of everyday life see Hundsbichler 1997: 50.
27
the accessories made of inorganic materials; apart from rare
exceptions, the only organic fabric that might surface are
pieces of textiles conserved by interwoven metal threads or
those in connection with metal accessories.
The aims and possibilities of the archaeological research
are further limiting factors. Large-scale developments in the
last two decades brought a significant increase in the number
of excavations in Hungary, but in parallel, the opportunities
to conduct a research based on purely scholarly interests
have become sparse.86 This has consequences for the quantity
and character of the archaeological record available for
interpretation: certain types of sites are more often within
the scope of development-lead excavations, while others, as
for example those conducted in churchyards, rarely. The last
phase of the research process is making the results available
for further analysis, which is largely influenced by two factors:
1) the institutional background, determining the temporal
and economic conditions of the research; 2) the quantity
and quality of the results of the fieldwork and the personal
ambitions of the excavator.
In the following I will summarize the present stage of
research of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burials in
Hungary with a special emphasis on the above issues. I will
86
Jankovich B. and Nagy 2004: 19–20; Bozóki-Ernyey 2007: 112.
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period
Fig. 12. Belt ornaments from the treasure hoard found at
Denta (Romania). (Kövér 1897: 251, fig. XIV.)
describe the archaeological sources of garments with regard to
the specific research problems that have emerged in Hungarian
archaeology and which have significant consequences on
scholarly interpretation. For this reason I have distinguished
three groups of burial sites: 1) crypts and burials within
churches; 2) churchyards; and 3) the so-called South Slav
or Balkan cemeteries. My first two categories, that is, crypts
and churchyard cemeteries, denote specific structures and
spatial positions, which bear a direct relation to the religion
of the deceased, as the burial place is assigned by the church.
Furthermore, as it is commonplace that the church itself was
considered as the most valuable location to be interred, the
spatial position of the burial and the built structures have
conspicuous social and economic associations. The third
group, the Balkan cemeteries of the Ottoman period, which
has become the focus of research in the last few decades, have
been distinguished on the basis of descriptive characteristics,
and their distinctness has been interpreted along the lines of
ethnicity, by relying on historical sources. Thus, their general
presentation as a source group cannot be separated from a
review of their historiography.
Temporal dimensions also vary when taking into
consideration the three types of burial sites. Crypts were most
often intended to house the remains of members of a distinct
group, and were in use on a limited number of occasions.
Most churchyard cemeteries were used continuously from the
Middle Ages; however, there are some examples that were
established during the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. The
earliest graves in the South Slav cemeteries date back to the
sixteenth century, and in a number of cases members of the
population were still buried at the same site as their burial
place in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well.
28
It is necessary to add two further types of archaeological
contexts that often provide information on clothing, and
which I do not treat in detail. Elements of garments are found
in excavated settlements as discards, and traces of their
production also turn up, in the form of raw materials, tools,
and waste. Valuable accessories made of precious metals were
hidden in treasure hoards (see Figs. 11 and 12). According
to the dating of the coins, the number of deposits increased
especially in the periods of military campaigns. Treasure
hoards do not provide information about how, when, and by
whom the objects were worn, as it is only in exceptional cases
that the owner is known, and the jewelry appears in a context
different from the “everyday” use. It is not known either
whether these accumulated pieces were worn by the owner
every day under normal circumstances, or only at special
occasions, or were not worn at all. Pictorial and written sources
can help only in reconstructing the general use of the items,
but that might have been different in a specific context. Even
though most of the hoards contain coins, it does not make the
dating of the objects less problematic, as the hidden values
were often accumulated for generations. Hoards, however, can
be interpreted as topographical data for the spread of certain
types of jewelry. They suggest their contemporary evaluation,
too, as the pieces the hoards contained were considered to
be worthy enough to be included among the most precious
properties of the owner.87
Crypts and burials in churches
Crypts have attracted considerable interest for a long time,
thanks to the spectacular objects owned by the relatively
wealthy layers of society – nobility and burghers – and which
were generally preserved in a fairly good condition. What makes
the research even more exciting is that it is often possible to
identify the deceased person, whose name had been preserved
by the sources. The earliest data on an “excavated” crypt dates
back to the eighteenth century: in 1778, the Bethlens, one of
the most prominent Hungarian noble families, opened up the
seventeenth-century sepulcher of the related Apafi family in
Almakerék (Mălîncrav, Malmkrog, Romania), and unearthed
the remains while renovating the burial chapel. The objects
found in the grave of the Transylvanian nobleman and his
family have been lost since then, but a list has survived, which
contains the following items: a broken sword with a gilded
hilt, the mounts from its suspension belt, gilded silver coffin
nails, a golden bouquet ornamented with precious stones,
remains of textile worked with gold and silver, gold and silver
clasps and rings. 88
This sort of inquiry in the following century still meant
unearthing finds without documenting them and their
context. The collection of the Hungarian National Museum
has preserved a number of such objects, like the golden and
silver jewelry from Losonc (Lučenec, Slovakia)89 and a piece
of seventeenth-century headgear decorated with metal and
silk flowers with pearls from the crypt of the former Pauliner
church at Szent János-Elefánt (Horné Lefantovce, Slovakia)
87
On the numismatic interpretation of treasure hoards in Ottoman-period
Hungary, see V. Székely 2003; on the jewelry contained in treasure hoards,
see Gerelyes 1999: 41–48.
88
18–19 November 1778. Kovács, A. 2003: 632–633.
89
H. Kolba 1970.
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

that was cleared out in 1894.90 During the demolishing of

the medieval church of Tunyog in Szatmár County in 1900,
a local eye-witness recorded that she saw about two hundred
skeletons in the crypt, some of them still ornamented with
“green silk shreds of garment” (probably the remains of textile
interwoven with metal wire thus preserved) and headgear
decorated with pearls.91 The crypt of the church at Küküllővár
(Cetatea de Baltă, Romania) was opened up in 1897. They
found three female burials from the sixteenth century, all of
which could be identified with historically known members of
noble families: Zsófia Patóchy, wife of György Bebek; Zsófia
Kendy, wife of Menyhért Bogáthy; and Judit Bebek, wife of
Ferenc Kendy. The find material was rich in precious metal
jewelry: it contained ninety-five golden costume ornaments, a
gold buckle, a ring, and a collar.92
In 1908, the opening of the crypt of the church in Gernyeszeg
(Gorneşti, Romania) was a systematic archaeological
excavation, which was preceded by a thorough investigation
of the historical documents. The archaeologist unearthed
and identified the sepulchers of the seventeenth-century
Transylvanian aristocrat, Mihály Teleki; his wife, Judit Weér;
and one of their daughters. He found textile remains of the
silk cushion on which the head of the females rested and
of a head kerchief and corset, a textile belt, metal laces, a
headgear decorated with pearls, and jewelry (golden earrings
and rings). The male burial contained only corded buttons and
buttonholes.93
The same archeologist, Béla Pósta, published and accurately Fig. 13. Ornaments from the Csenger crypt. Hungarian
analyzed thirty-nine graves that he excavated in the cathedral National Museum, Budapest. (Höllrigl 1934: 102, fig. 80.)
of Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania), a traditional burial
site for the Transylvanian princes and nobility. Nine coffins he and the silver nails with which the black fabric was fixed on
unearthed in the southern aisle were not buried in a crypt, but the coffin during the burial service.96
in separate graves. The findings included armor and weapons, Research on the crypt in the protestant church in Csenger
soles of footwear, thongs, remains of a silk cushion, and transpired less fortunately than the Transylvanian cases.
assorted female and male garments, such as veils, bonnets, Only in 1931 were the finds taken to the Hungarian National
and silver buttons. In the northern aisle, graves of a female, Museum. József Höllrigl, the archaeologist who visited the
a male, and two infants were unearthed, in which similar site in the following year, was no longer able to distinguish the
pieces of garments had been preserved, as well as weaponry remains of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century burials, which
and the full set of armor placed on the coffin of the deceased. had already been disturbed by that time. He found pieces of
This latter find is an exceptional archaeological evidence for lace and clothes, amulets, coins, sabers, and fragments of
the early modern funeral service of noblemen, the so-called tombstones, but only the items of golden and silver jewelry
tropheum.94 Eighteenth-century burials in the crypts under have been published (more than seventy items, and several
the aisles were possible to identify by name, and they had fragments; see Fig. 13). Höllrigl tried to reconstruct the
concealed complete female costumes. Béla Pósta was able original composition of the ornaments using similar pieces as
to establish a relatively precise chronology of the burials analogies that had been preserved in collections.97
based on the finds in the sixteenth- to eighteenth-century Since the 1940s several excavations of burials of noblemen
graves. A series of articles of clothing from the remains could and burghers have been conducted inside churches, followed
be reconstructed, with the still visible original patterns and by the restoration and historical analysis of the garments.
colors of textiles. The publication is outstanding both for the The analysis has focused on the female headgear from the
significant finds and for its high-quality interpretation.95 burials of the patron family Viczay in the medieval church
Béla Pósta also investigated the burial of György Sükösd at Nagylózs.98 Further graves were found outside, on the
in the protestant church of Nagyteremi (Tirimia, Romania), southern side of the church, which have been interpreted as
which had originally been situated under one of the few the remains of members of other local noble families from
figural tombs of nobles preserved from seventeenth-century the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To cite some more
Transylvania (see Fig. 27). He only found two golden rings examples, sixteenth- and seventeenth-century male and female
costumes, footwear, and headgear have been reconstructed
from the crypts of the parish church at Sárospatak99 and the
90
Höllrigl 1934: 109.
91
Luby 2002: 11. 96
Kelemen 1977: 174.
92
Szádeczky 1897: 286–290, 293–295; Bunta 1977: 223–239. 97
Höllrigl 1934.
93
Pósta 1913. 98
Mojzsis 1984.
94
On the tropheum, see Szabó 1986: 115–123. 99
V. Ember 1968; on written sources and tombstones, see Gervers-Molnár
95
Pósta 1918. 1983.

29
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Fig. 14. Plan of trench S6B in the churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Field documentation.
Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs.

eighteenth-century items of the German burghers of Eger
buried in Rosalie Chapel.100
Excavation of crypts that were used in the eighteenth
century have a particular significance regarding costume
history; it is often possible to reconstruct clothing items
and accurately observe burial customs. One of the most
spectacular archaeological investigations of crypts in the last
few decades has been conducted in the Dominican church
at Vác, which had been the burial place of burghers, monks,
and the clergy. More than two hundred and sixty coffins
were brought to surface, containing conserved bodies and
completely preserved textiles thanks to the special climate of
the crypt, which made it possible to study both the outerwear
and the underclothes.101
Churchyard cemeteries
100
V. Ember 1957; V. Ember, 1961. Costumes from churchyard cemeteries
have also been reconstructed, e.g., from Debrecen (V. Szathmári 1991;
Erdei 2003).
101
Zomborka and Ráduly 1996; Zomborka and Ráduly 2000.
Researching cemeteries – especially churchyard cemeteries –
is a field of medieval and early modern archaeology that raises
peculiar problems.102 Most of the churchyard cemeteries in
Hungary were in continuous use from the Árpádian age up to
the eighteenth century, when new regulations were introduced
by the Habsburg administration, according to which it was
not allowed to bury the dead within the inhabited area of
the settlements. Despite the regulation, some churchyards
continued to be in use even up to the nineteenth century. In
areas that were characterized by significant village desertion,
due to the fact that they were under Ottoman rule for a long
period or belonged to the military border zone, burials in the
cemeteries ceased in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
at the same time when the settlements were depopulated. The
technical aspect of the excavation is complex in many cases
due to the great number of overlapping graves (see Figs. 14
102
These problems in Hungarian research were considered by Ágnes Ritoók
(Ritoók 1997). The same issue was brought up by László Révész in the
foreword to the conference on medieval cemeteries at the Hungarian
National Museum in 2003. (Ritoók and Simonyi, ed. 2005: 8).

30
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period
Fig. 15. Photograph of trench S6A in the churchyard
cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Field
documentation. Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare
(Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs.
and 15). Moreover, in Hungary it is extremely rare that a
cemetery is unearthed for its own sake, for research purposes,
and it is even more exceptional when the research exceeds the
opening of some trenches, and the whole site is excavated.103
There were a few early exceptions, however, such as the
excavation of the cemetery of Kide (Chidea, Romania) that
operated between the twelfth and the nineteenth centuries.
This cemetery furnished the basic experience that enabled
archaeologist István Méri to establish those methods of
excavating churchyards which are influential for Hungarian
archaeologists even today.104 In his report he emphasized that
he considered the seventeenth and eighteenth century burials
as the most significant ones from the point of view of costume
history.105 Kálmán Szabó excavated and analyzed cemeteries
on the Great Hungarian Plain as sources of medieval peasant
life. These sites were populated until the Ottoman conquest,
but, searching for ethnographic analogies, he demonstrated
103
In the volume summarizing the stage of archaeology in Hungary at the
turn of the Millenium that covers all the historical periods and types of
archaeological sites only one paragraph was dedicated to the churchyard
cemeteries within the chapter on medieval archaeology, fitted under the
subtitle “Village Churches” (Visy and Nagy ed. 2003: 386) , though this
suggests a situation that is much worse that the reality.
104
Méri 1986.
105
The complete documentation of István Méri has been published by Júlia
Kovalovszki (Kovalovszki 1986).
31
that some of the sixteenth-century types of objects survived in
the area in the following centuries as well.106
As they appear in the publications of the last half century,
burials have often been considered as no more than additional
data for the reconstruction of the building history, that is, as
sources for the chronology of churches. Thus, research of
churchyard cemeteries has been dominated by architectural
interests. Sometimes this has meant hundreds of graves that
needed to be unearthed inside and outside the church, such
as the Franciscan Church in Kecskemét.107 However, in many
cases only a few burials were dealt with, as for instance in
the case of the medieval church of Balatonszőlős, where eight
late medieval graves were unearthed in the sanctuary and nine
early modern burials in the nave.108
Neither does the academic approach determine those rescue
excavations where the site is uncovered accidentally, thanks
to some sort of construction project during which significant
portions of soil get to be moved; this is how most of the
early modern cemeteries are discovered. It always depends
on the construction project which part of the cemetery is
unearthed. There are cases when a considerable number
of graves is concerned, as in the case of the churchyard of
Tiszanána-Ónána, where eighty-six early modern graves were
excavated thanks to dam construction on the river Tisza.109 As
a special result of large-scale development-lead excavations,
765 graves have been recently unearthed at Balatonszárszó
in a churchyard dating from the thirteenth to the eighteenth
century.110 If just a small part of the site is planned to be
destroyed, development-lead research covers a smaller area
of the cemetery. Such an instance is Egervár, where a road
in the process of construction cut through the slope of the
hill, where the church and the cemetery of the early modern
settlement were situated. About thirty or forty graves had
already been disturbed by the time the archaeologist was
informed, and he was only able to excavate and document
twenty-six burials.111
Often only a few burials turn up during earthworks or purely
out of accident, and the only thing the archaeologist can do is
to localize the site, document the graves, and take the finds to
the museum. For instance, a collapsing bluff of loess in Báta
brought to surface the walls of a medieval church and two
graves. Though there were no excavations, the archaeologist
was able to identify the site with a church already known
from written sources.112 Another mound with a cemetery was
disturbed by a sand borrow pit at Damóc, and several finds
from early modern burials were taken to the local museum,
among which, according to the short report, there must have
been some significant pieces.113
There are many similar cases; however, due to the
methodological, temporal, and economic confines, few
medieval cemeteries in Hungary have been excavated
completely. One of the rare examples is a churchyard cemetery
in Kaposvár, where, although a third of the cemetery had
106
Szabó 1938.
107
Biczó 1976.
108
László 1980.
109
Parádi 1995.
110
Belényesi, Marton, and Oros 2002.
111
Fehér 1957.
112
The name of the site is Báta-Régitemető-völgy (Gaál 1978).
113
J. Dankó 1975.
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period
already been destroyed, 1,244 graves were unearthed, dated
between the eleventh and eighteenth centuries.114
The publication and the analysis of churchyard sites have
brought further problems along with them. Most of the results
are introduced to researchers through the yearly issue of short
archaeological reports of all the excavations done in the given
period.115 Before electronic databases, there was no possibility
to publish the often more than a hundred or thousand graves,
even in the more detailed studies. Thus, only a selection
of the results has been made available for further analysis
or as comparative material: those graves that had been
considered to be important or interesting for some reason by
the excavator. These difficulties characterize seventeenth and
eighteenth century burials even more: the latest graves are
often mentioned in the publications without any illustrations;
the studies in most cases concentrate on the age of the
Árpádian kings (eleventh-thirteenth centuries) as the earliest
period of the site. The dating of the early modern objects and
graves is not well distinguished, and the information that is
provided in the publication is not sufficient to decide whether
a burial comes from the sixteenth or the eighteenth century.
However, because this period was usually the last phase of
those cemeteries that had been in use for several centuries,
the number of graves that were not disturbed by later burials
is much higher than those from the earlier periods. There are
only a few churchyard cemeteries unearthed and published
that date solely from the early modern age; the reason for this
phenomenon might be the problematic appreciation of such
archaeological research.116
This ambiguity – why to excavate seventeenth-century
cemeteries when such a high number of written sources is
available for the period – became manifest at the conference
on medieval churchyards, which was organized by the
Hungarian National Museum in 2003. However, the conference
contributed great significance to not just the medieval, but
to the early modern cemeteries as well.117 Several wholly or
partially excavated cemeteries were published or re-published,
and a whole chapter appeared on the late medieval and the
early modern era. Some questions arose on methodology and
interpretation, too; apparently the excavation and analysis
of cemeteries cannot be neglected any longer as a field of
archaeology of the early modern period, which itself has come
to the foreground in Hungary during the last few decades.
Cemeteries of Balkan groups
At the same conference another group of Ottoman-period
cemeteries was treated: burials of those ethnic groups in
Hungary that had arrived from the South, together with the
conquering Ottomans. Some of the methodological difficulties
that have been mentioned in connection with the churchyards
come up in such cases as well. Most of the so-called South
Slav or Balkan cemeteries have been unearthed during rescue
excavations, so other aspects than the scientific interest have
determined the extent of the area investigated. As there is
114
Bárdos 1987.
115
Régészeti Füzetek (Archaeological Booklets), which was published
annually in Budapest by the Hungarian National Museum between
1958 and 2001. Since 2001, the title has been Régészeti Kutatások
(Archaeological Research in Hungary).
116
Such examples are the cemeteries at Egervár (Fehér 1957); Bobáld (Szőcs,
Mérai and Eng 2005); Poroszló (Szabó, J. Gy. 1979).
117
Ritoók and Simonyi, ed. 2005.
32
no church or any other feature on the surface that would
indicate the burials, usually many of the graves had already
been disturbed by the time the archeologist was informed.
However, the analysis and publication is less complicated
because the number of the graves is generally smaller than
in churchyards; the complex superpositions are absent, and
the features date more or less to the same period. Thus, the
publications are more detailed, with descriptions and drawings
of a high number of the graves.
The earliest archaeological interpretation relating
archaeological records to South Slav ethnicity in Hungary
was reported by Kálmán Gubicza in the early twentieth
century. In the vicinity of the remains of a medieval church at
Bodrogmonostorszeg (Bački Monoštor, Serbia), he unearthed
some graves that he dated to the period of the Ottoman
conquest, and related to the ethnicity called Sokác, a group of
Croats.118 At the turn of the nineteenth century, there was still a
Sokác population living in the area, who identified themselves
as the descendants of the groups that had immigrated three
hundred years before. It was this local historical tradition
involving a sense of ethnic continuity and the general
historical knowledge on early modern migrations towards
the area that served as the basis of ethnic identification of the
burials. Gubicza regarded the graves as interesting in studying
the folk costume of the Sokác people.119 The finds from the
cemetery are difficult to study nowadays, as they have been
moved without documenting their context and were mixed up
with a treasure hoard that had turned up nearby.120
Although such fragments of cemeteries had already
been excavated in the 1940s and 1950s, they remained
unpublished at that time. József Korek published the results
of his excavation at Zombor (Sombor, Serbia) written in 1944
almost half a century later.121 He dated the cemetery to the
sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and found that the
composition of the finds is different from that of other sites
in Hungary originating from the same period. In his report
following the excavation, which remained in manuscript form,
but was referred to by the physical anthropologist analyzing
the skeletal remains of the burials, he wrote about the mixed
Hungarian, German, and Serb population of the settlement
and assumed that their archaeological remains could not be
distinguished.122 According to his analysis, however, which
was published in the form of an article, he related the arrival
of the population found in the cemetery to the great settling
actions of the Serbs, and identified their ethnicity as Slav,
Bunyevác. Because the text of the study was composed in the
forties, he added a paragraph on the occasion of publishing
it, in which he still insisted on his former opinion that the
cemetery belonged to a Southern Slav ethnic group called
Sokác.123 As comparative material, he referred to a cemetery
unearthed at Dombóvár that had been published since his own
fieldwork and which was defined as belonging to the Vlach
ethnic group.
118
Gubicza 1902.
119
Gubicza 1902: 7; Wicker 2008: 11, footnote 5 presents the content of the
unpublished documentation of Gubicza.
120
Korek 1994: 189–190 and plates IV–V; Wicker 2008: 12.
121
Korek 1992.
122
The report of József Korek was cited by the anthropologist László Bartucz
(Bartucz 1960).
123
Korek 1994: 197–198. Both Bunyevác and Sokác were groups of Croats,
arriving at the end of the seventeenth century.
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Fig. 16. Plan of the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2003/b: 64, plate I.)

Attila Gaál regarded the Zombor cemetery as the closest
analogy concerning the composition of the finds, when
publishing his interpretation of the burial site at Dombóvár-
Békató.124 He assumed that certain pieces of the costumes that
he found had never been recovered before in the cemeteries
of Hungarian ethnicity, and he found ethnographic parallels
for the burial customs among the late nineteenth- and early
twentieth century Southern Slav population of Baranya
County.125 He identified the population of the cemetery with
that of the former village Békató, which belonged to the ethnic
group called Eflák or Vlach according to the written sources,
and he dated the cemetery to the period from the second half
of the sixteenth century up to the 1680s. The fact that he had
not found any traces of a church and that the graves were
arranged parallel without any superposition made him presume
that the buried were not even Christian, but Muslim.126 Kinga
Éry, the author of the physical anthropological analysis of
the remains, referred to these assumptions, and she found the
closest anthropological parallels among the Vlach population
of the territory of present-day Albania, Crna Gora, and the
northwestern part of Greece.127 Although she expressed her
methodological doubts concerning the comparison of an early
modern and a twentieth-century population,128 her results
on the Balkan origins of the group have taken root in the
Hungarian literature as a reference point, together with the
conclusions of Attila Gaál concerning the relation between the
finds belonging to the garments on the one hand and ethnicity
on the other.
In the 1980s burials were unearthed in an area of the town
of Győr, which was called “Rác” cemetery in a historical
document dating from 1598. The four coins found in the
graves support this dating, as they were minted in the mid-
sixteenth century. The archaeologist suggested that the site was
probably the cemetery of the South Slavic military forces (and
their families) stationed in the town. The ethnic identification
was supported by the local tradition that in 1913 a wooden
cross was still found there on the surface with Cyrillic texts,
as the last remains of the cemetery.129
The cemetery of Győr was cited as the closest analogy for
the composition of the finds at a site excavated in Esztergom;
this is one of the reasons why the archaeologist raised that the
burials could have been those of a Serb group.130 The author
was uncertain about ethnic identification due to the historical
events in the area and the lack of direct written sources that
could be related to the burials,131 and neither did the physical
anthropological analysis attempt to identify the skeletal
129
Mithay 1985: 196–197.
130
Lázár 1999; Lázár 2003. Excavated by Alajos Bálint (1959), Piroska
Biczó and Sarolta Lázár (1988).
131
Lázár 1999: 316–317; Lázár 2003: 235–236.

124
Gaál 1980; Gaál 2003.
125
Gaál 1980: 171. The author refers to the study by György Sarosácz
(Sarosácz 1968).
126
Gaál 2003: 230.
127
Éry 1980. Fig. 17. Cross sections of the graves in the cemetery at
128
Éry 1980: 247. Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2008: 228, figs. 3–4.)

33
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period
remains with historically known ethnic groups.132 Despite the
doubts of the authors however, the ethnic identification of the
burials found its way in later secondary literature, and the site
was unambiguously included among South Slav cemeteries
in Hungary.133
Graves unearthed in Szentendre have been defined as Serb
on the basis of topography, as the site lied close to that of the
Greek Catholic church. Due to the lack of dating finds, even
the chronological definition of the burials relied on ethnic
identification: it was suggested that the group interred there
probably belonged to the first generation of Serbs, who settled
down around 1690.134
Erika Wicker took up the question of South Slav cemeteries
in Hungary when she started to excavate the cemetery of
Bácsalmás-Óalmás that she dated to the late sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.135 She compiled a set of criteria on
the basis of Bácsalmás that she defined as the characteristic
132
Tánczos 1993.
133
Wicker 2001: 152; Wicker 2003/a: 229; Wicker 2005/b: 21–22; Wicker
2008: 14.
134
Rosner 1967.
135
Wicker 1999; Wicker 2001; Wicker 2002; Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b;
Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008.
34
Fig. 18. Finds from the Katymár
cemetery. Türr István Museum, Baja.
(Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 86–87,
plates XII–XIII.)
features of South Slav cemeteries, among which the research
of Bácsalmás produced by far the highest number of burials,
480 graves. According to these criteria, in the cemeteries of a
South Slavic population, there were no church buildings, and
the graves were excavated in one layer, without over-burials
(there are only a few exceptions within the sites) (Fig. 16).
Most often the orientation of the grave pits is Southwest–
Northeast or West–East; in some cases it is Northwest–
Southeast. Graves have a characteristic shape with sidewall
niches carved for placing the body, or the bottom of the grave
is deepened in the middle to serve as a coffin-like bed for
the corpse that had been rolled in a sheet (Fig. 17). In the
Bácsalmás cemetery Erika Wicker was able to observe that
after placing the dead in the above-mentioned delve, it was
covered with boughs, and the grave pit was then refilled. Thus,
in the overall cemetery only a small number of coffins was
used. The arms of the deceased were bent to the waist or to
the shoulder; generally, a great variety of arm positions could
be observed (see Fig. 29). She indicated also the body of finds
observed at Bácsalmás as being characteristic of cemeteries
of South Slavic peoples in the region.136
136
Wicker 2008: 14–15.
 Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

Together with one of the former excavators, she also

published and interpreted the cemetery of Katymár that had
been unearthed fifty years before.137 The site was related to
South Slavs, as no traces of a church had been found, and the
graves were situated in one layer, oriented West–East. Also,
the characteristic forms of the graves, the broad variety of arm
positions, and the composition of the body of finds showed
great similarity to those observed in the Bácsalmás cemetery
(Fig. 18).
Erika Wicker extended the circle of South Slav cemeteries
with a number of unpublished sites where no church
was documented, and the criteria defined on the basis of
Bácsalmás emerged.138 It is possible, however, that a church
was not found because only a small detail of the site had been
researched, as correctly put down by the author.139 Though
there were cases where no finds could serve as the basis of
dating, the population of Balkan origins, settling down in the
nearby villages, was mentioned by historical sources, and
none of the site observations have contradicted the connection
drawn between them.
The most recent archaeological research of a cemetery
about which a South Slavic ethnic identification has been
suggested is that of Fonyód – Bézseny in Transdanubia.140 The
complete cemetery, that is, 350 graves were excavated, and
no remains suggesting the existence of a church were found.
The only layer of graves was arranged in regular lines; the
burials were characterized by a broad variety of arm positions,
and the skeletal remains show the consequences of military
events. Based on these characteristics and the grave forms, it
is presumed that the cemetery was used by a Balkan group of
decisively Muslim religion.

137
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002.
138
Wicker 2005/b; Wicker 2008: 14–18.
139
Wicker 2008: 15.
140
Gallina 2004.

35
Archaeological research of burials from the Carpathian Basin in the Ottoman Period

36
 Chapter 5
Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary
The aim of the present study is to offer some perspectives
on the interpretation of the archaeological record related to
garments. As, however, the period in question is marked by
a relative abundance of written and pictorial evidence which
have been widely treated in the literature, it seems necessary
to provide a brief survey on the characteristics of various
source types with respect to their applicability to interpreting
the archaeological record.
The way early surveys on the history of costumes in Hungary
referred to images and documentary sources followed a more
traditional approach.141 A number of art historical studies
treating the symbolic role of garments in specific genres have
provided essential information to the criticism of sources for
the reconstruction of the former “real” costumes.142 A recent
study investigated the emergence of Oriental elements in the
attire of Hungarian nobility, considering the role of Hungarian
costumes in prestige representation on local and Western
European depictions.143 Ethnographers dealing with costume
history have also developed a critical approach to depictions
Fig. 19. View of Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania) from Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg, Civitates orbis terrarum
(Cologne, 1572–1617).
141
E.g., Szendrei 1907; Szendrei 1908; Höllrigl n.d.; V. Ember 1967 .
142
Cenner Wilhelmb 1972. On the symbolic role of anachronistic and
modern costumes in tomb sculpture and representative printed portraits,
see Galavics 1987.
143
Tompos 2005.
37
of peasantry from the sixteenth- and eighteenth-century
Carpathian Basin as source material.144
Pictorial and historical documents attest the way garments
were produced and worn in the Ottoman conquest period,
which would seem plausible to be used when relating the
archaeological record to certain social, ethnic, age, and gender
groups of the former society. The peculiarities of genres with
depictions and mentions of costumes must, however, be kept
in mind. They often present an ideal picture, relating concepts
of bad and good morals with clothing, or showing individual
situations that for various reasons might not display the same
patterning as archaeological evidence reveals in individual
cases.
Costumes depicted
The question of to what extent images can be considered
as authentic sources for costume history has been widely
discussed in the related international scholarly literature.145
144
Cserbák and Gáborján 1990; Flórián 1997; Fülemile 1989; Flórián
2001. I refer only to those Hungarian works that deal with sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century depictions and I do not discuss the approach of
secondary literature about medieval material that is not closely related to
my topic.
145
E.g., “Introduction” in Piponnier and Mane 1997: 3–7; Schmitt 2003;
Sutton 1998: 7–9; “Methodology,” in Ball 2005: 4–7.
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary
Fig. 20. “A Hungarian or Croatian nobleman” depicted in
Cesare Vecellio, Degli habiti antichi e moderni di diverse
parti del Mondo (Venice, 1590).
Fig. 21. A Hungarian peasant depicted
in Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica
(Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600).
38
The documentary value of the pictorial representations
differs from case to case. There are several important
factors to take into account when using images to interpret
the dress, such as the peculiarities of the genre, the complex
problem of symbolic meanings, the certitude of the dating,
and the quality of the artwork. It is the task of the analysis
of the art historical and social context to reveal patterns and
stereotypes that the representations follow and to examine
the expected audience and the purpose of the artwork so
as to point out how it is justified to serve as a source of
costume history.
The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were
characterized by a massive increase in the number of visual
sources depicting costumes due to the widespread use of
printing techniques. This was the period when a new genre
came into existence, with the main purpose of presenting
costumes, as is indicated even in the title of the so-called
“costume books.” Though in general a wide range of genres
of painting, graphics, and sculpture can serve as pictorial
sources for clothing, here I am only going to deal with them
insofar as they are peculiar for this geographic area with
regard to the scope of the present study.
The genre of costume codices that first appeared in the
second half of the sixteenth century in France, Italy, and
the German areas was closely related to the illustrated
cosmographies produced by the geographical interest
of Humanism.146 Costume books contained figures
wearing attires from all parts of the known world as an
encyclopedic collection with the same idea that lay behind
the cosmographies: to present the whole world. The
illustrations in Civitates orbis terrarum, published in six
volumes in Cologne by Georg Braun and Franz Hogenberg
between 1572 and 1617, even combined the topographical
depictions with the representation of the inhabitants in
the foreground, among which some Hungarian sites are
included as well (Fig. 19).147
The depictions in the costume books were organized
according to geographical and social origins, leading from
the more familiar to the more specific areas, from the higher
to the lower social strata; the series contain images ranging
from noblemen and burghers to peasants and servants
engaged in different activities. Captions inform us on the
geographical or ethnic origin; sometimes the age, social
standing, or profession; and moral status of the person
depicted. Attributes included in these short texts were the
ones that the costumes were supposed to reflect, and these
served as the bases of the encyclopedic classification of
peoples that the costume books presented for their readers.148
They represented rather generalized garments, emphasizing
some basic distinguishing features; the figures were often
copied from the printed images of formerly published works
or followed the representations of paintings.149
Even the earliest albums from the second half of the
sixteenth century comprise depictions of figures labeled
“Hungarian”; to cite a somewhat later example, the album
146
Ilg 2004: 29–33; Cenner Wilhelm 1972; Cenner Wilhelmb 1973;
Fülemile 1989; Tompos 2009: 28; in the German context, see Walther
1971: 77–96; Gabriele Mentges interpreted costume books from the
point of view of how they contribute “to compose the Western idea of
autonomous subject.” (Mentges 2004: 19–36).
147
Mentges 2004: 37–40.
148
Mentges 2004: 40–47. Galavics 1990: 61; Fülemile 1989: 118.
149
Ilg 2004: 33; Cenner Wilhelmb 1972 : 24; Tompos 2005: 87–88.
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary
Fig. 22. Saxon costumes depicted in Laurentius Toppeltinus
de Medgyes, Origines et occasus Transylvanorum seu erutae
nationes Transsylvaniae... (Lyon, 1667).
of Cesare Vecellio presents the image of a nobleman who
is Hungarian or Croatian according to the text (Fig. 20).150
Wilhelm Dillich published a whole book about Hungary in
Kassel in 1600 (Ungarische Chronica). It was illustrated with
views of forts and towns, and contains sixteen pages depicting
Hungarian noblemen, burghers, soldiers, and peasants deriving
from similar works published before; in the text the author
even described the way different people dressed (Fig.21; see
also fig. 68).151
In the seventeenth century similar volumes by local authors
dealt with selected regions of Hungary. The Transylvanian
Saxons, Johann Troestler from Hermannstadt (Sibiu) and
Laurentius Toppeltinus from Mediasch (Mediaş), published
their works in Germany and France about the origins, lifestyle,
customs, and costumes of Saxon, Romanian, and Hungarian
ethnic groups in Transylvania, with illustrations engraved in
Nuremberg and Lyon probably on the basis of Transylvanian
drawings (Fig. 22).152 Similarities between the figures in the
150
“Vngaro, o’ Crouato nobile,” Cesare Vecellio, Degli habiti antichi e
moderni di diverse parti del Mondo (Venice, 1590). For a summary of
early albums presenting Hungarian attire, see Cenner Wilhelmb 1972 :
24 ; Fülemile 1989: 116–117 ; Tompos 2009 : 29.
151
Wilhelm Dillich, Ungarische Chronica (Cassel: W. Wessel, 1600); Cenner
Wilhelmb 1972 ; Galavics 1990 : 68.
152
Johannes Troestler, Das alt- und neu-teutsche Dacia, das ist: neue
Beschreibung des Landes Siebenbürgen (Nuremberg, 1666); Laurentinus
Toppeltinus de Medgyes, Origines et occasus Transylvanorum seu erutae
nationes Transsylvaniae... (Lyon, 1667).
39
Fig. 23. “A Tzigane woman in her Sunday best.” Illustration
in a water colour costume codex (Costumebilder aus
Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart.
Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.
albums published abroad for foreign audience and locally
preserved painted images antedating the albums have been
interpreted as indicating that the patterns representing the
ethnic and social types were set by Transylvanian masters
based on their own observations.153
Some of the figures were copied and varied in water color
costume albums that were again painted for a foreign audience
– at least this is suggested by the fact that about a dozen of
such known works have been preserved in collections outside
Hungary.154 They contain images of Hungarian, Sekler,
Saxon, Romanian, Serb, Greek, Jewish, Armenian, Turkish,
Habán,155 and Gipsy figures from Transylvania wearing their
characteristic costumes (Figs. 23, 24; see also figs. 1, 2, 31,
53, 54, 55, 69, 70, and 71). The pages were copied, varied,
even extended; they bear thoroughly written captions or
scratched notes in German, Hungarian, English, or Latin that
153
Cenner Wilhelmb 1972: 25–26; Galavics 1990: 69–77; Bencsik 2009: 9;
Tompos 2009: 29.
154
For a differing opinion concerning certain series, see Bencsik 2009: 9.
The most significant volumes are preserved in the Marsigli collection in
Bologna and in the Library of the British Museum. In Hungary, besides the
volume in the National Széchényi Library, there are fragments, e.g., in the
collections of the University Library of Eötvös Loránd University and the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences. (Galavics 1990: 81–85; Oborni, Tompos,
and Bencsik 2009) For further examples, see Szendrei 1907: 193.
155
Groups of immigrant Anabaptists, settled in Transylvania in 1621 by
Prince Gábor Bethlen, were called Habán. They were excellent craftsmen,
especially famous for knives and ceramics, which is why the figure of the
Habán man holds a pot in his hand.
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary

Fig. 24. “A Jew from Transylvania.” Illustration in a water

colour costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen;
Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892).
Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.

give the same pieces of information as the printed versions

from Western Europe. Albums were created over the next
two centuries, following seventeenth century patterns with
anachronistic or more or less updated representations, which
have raised difficulties in dating the copies.156
Such typified depictions can contribute to the interpretation
of archaeological finds with information on what were those
qualities of the garment that were considered as the most
important to distinguish the outlook of various groups. These
also included characteristics that are rarely available through
the archaeological evidence, and if yes, only concerning
certain forms of burials that are specific to groups of people,
such as the color and cut of the garments, which seem to have
been considered as the most conspicuous elements of ethnic Fig. 25. Portrait of Kristóf Thurzó, Count of Szepes and
differences. Thus, these images make it easier to estimate Sáros from 1611. Hungarian National Museum. Courtesy of
how reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the appearance the Hungarian National Museum.
of costumes based only on grave finds as they are in this
part of Europe. They provide, however, a generalized and
idealized picture in accordance with the nature of the genre, and 60).157 This genre was rooted in the Renaissance galleries
and do not reflect the variability that might have characterized of heroes and prominent people of the past and served to
contemporary reality. express the legitimacy of Hungarian aristocratic families.
Except for these examples there are only sporadic visual Ancestors and contemporaries were depicted in gala dress.
representations of members of the lower social strata up to The role of sumptuous costume and the setting with objects
the nineteenth century, which became a period of emerging characterizing the lifestyle of the aristocracy was to indicate
interests in peasant culture. The number of sixteenth- and the high position of the portrayed, no matter how much earlier
seventeenth-century depictions is much higher for noblemen he or she had lived, and it was the painter’s task to conceive
and burghers. Noble families commissioned life-size portraits “how the Hungarians used to dress.”158 Several portraits of
depicting their ancestors and themselves, generally displayed sixteenth- and seventeenth-century personalities were created
in the halls of aristocratic residences (Fig. 25; see also figs. 58,
157
Buzási ed. 1988.
156
Cenner Wilhelmb 1972: 28–34; Galavics 1990: 102–106; Bencsik 2009: 9. 158
Gödölle 2001: 47.

40
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary

Fig. 26. Catafalque painting of Gáspár Illésházy from 1648. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum.

Fig. 27. Sepulchral monument of György Sükösd (1632). National Museum of Transylvanian History, Cluj (originally in the
Unitarian Church of Nagyteremi (Tirimia, Romania). Photo by the author.

41
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary
Fig. 28. Sepulchral monument of Christian Haas, Saxon
priest in Birthälm (Biertan, Romania), 1686.
Photo by the author.
in the eighteenth century, sometimes reproducing an earlier
work.
The painted illustrations of the volumes containing the
genealogy of noble families are close to the large-scale
portraits in form and content, although they were aimed at a
more restricted audience. Another genre of full-figure portraits
of large dimensions was related to a special occasion: the so-
called catafalque paintings used to commemorate the dead
(Fig. 26).159 Altogether the painted portraits have served as
159
Buzási 1975; Pigler 1957.
42
one of the primary sources in reconstructing the costume
of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century nobility, both in
identifying articles of clothing mentioned in written evidence
and in presenting the general appearance of the garments,
such as the oriental character of male costume and trends in
female dress.160
Tombstones are also potential pictorial sources for
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century costumes in Hungary.
Figural tombstones were carved for the members of the
nobility all over the country and for burghers of Transylvanian
towns (Figs. 27 and 28). The genre of sculpted or painted
epitaphs applied on the inner and outer walls of churches
with memorial, pious, and votive functions appeared also in
Hungarian towns, depicting the garments of the burghers and
members of the nobility.161 Similar representations appear
on votive paintings and altars as well. Various cultural and
social reasons lie behind the phenomenon that funeral genres
follow traditional standards, even with regard to the costume
worn by the effigy of the deceased.162 Thus, applying tomb
portraits as pictorial sources to clothing requires particular
circumspection.
The perception of Hungarian costumes from an external
point of view is not only recorded in Western sources, but it
is represented on Turkish miniatures as well. They represent
narrative scenes about historical events: military campaigns,
legations, and other diplomatic appointments, so they only
depict members of a layer that participated in such events.
They show the Hungarian characters in rather schematic
costumes, more or less distinguished by their headgear and
sometimes a short dolman coat.163
Writing about clothing
A significant increase in the number of written sources from
the sixteenth and especially the seventeenth century compared
to earlier periods involves a shift in the quantity of the
evidence on clothing and costumes as well; in the following
I will discuss only source groups of interest to the present
issue. Apart from the names of various articles, information
on the appearance of people and the stages in the process of
production, trade, and consumption have managed to survive,
as well as the contemporary evaluation and interpretation of
elements of clothing.164
As it has been widely discussed in the literature, however,
the identification of certain items in the written sources with
surviving or depicted objects is rather problematic.165 The terms
they used often do not correspond to the attributes of present-
day classifications; for example, they generally labeled objects
according to their function, without any information on formal
qualities, which would be necessary to recognize these items
as visually known types. Only a complex analysis of various
160
László 1988: 48; László 1986: 309–319. I will deal with the problem
of adapting the terms used in written sources to depicted or surviving
objects.
161
Weckwerth 1957: 147–185.
162
On the survival of the medieval traditions in Western Hungary, see
Galavics 1987.
163
See Fehér 1978.
164
Walter Endrei analyzed the data of written sources on fabrics from this
point of view. (Endrei 1989: especially 11–35.)
165
On the issue in general, see “Typen und Namen,” in Jaritz 1989: 41–49;
“From Romance to Account Book” in Piponnier and Mane 1997: 7–9;
on the problem in the context of medieval Hungary, see Kubinyi 1991:
especially 16–19.
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary
source groups can make it feasible to match the categories
of the different systems of classification. Though the creation
of the individual types of written sources is related to certain
stages of production, they provide information about other
factors in the process and on the consumption as well.
Pattern-books, the most spectacular documents about
production, represent a transitional category between textual
and pictorial sources, as they contain both the descriptions and
the patterns of the articles of clothing that were required to be
made by the masters of the tailors’ guilds.166 Both Hungarian
and German tailors prepared custom-made clothes for
burghers and the nobles, though the members of the highest
nobility had their own tailors in their courts. The trade lists
and rates of the towns record similar items, indicating also
the prices.167 It appears that tailors produced clothes for both
German and Hungarian customers and articles of different
quality for higher and lower social strata, which is manifest in
the price. The products of tailors working for the market are
clearly distinguished even by their names.168
Lists of the external customs due, called the thirtieth,
contain the quantity and customs value of goods transported
across the border. The main items are livestock, salt, and
textiles, but they often include less valuable goods as well.169
The lists reveal the direction and route of trade, and even the
names of the merchants. The surviving thirtieth lists from
the area between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire indicate
the significant role of the so-called Greek merchants,170 the
stock-lists of whom – mainly from the eighteenth century
– contain ready-made clothes beside smaller wares, belts,
footwear, textiles, and cheap accessories. These tradesmen of
various ethnicities came from all over the Ottoman Empire,
transporting goods from the Turkish and Balkan areas. They
appealed for royal protection in 1665; probably their presence
dates back before the Ottoman Conquest.171 The documents
suggest intensive interethnic interactions; goods from Western
countries and from various parts of the Ottoman Empire
were available on the markets of several Hungarian towns
and market towns, such as Buda, Debrecen, Kassa (Košice,
Slovakia), Győr, Pécs, Nagykanizsa, Siklós, Kecskemét,
Mezőtúr.172 Documents attest the activity of Greek merchants
from the sixteenth and seventeenth century in Transylvanian
towns as well, such as Brassó (Braşov, Romania) and Szeben
(Sibiu, Romania). The sources culminate in the first part of
the eighteenth century with data from all over the country,
not exclusively from the areas that had formerly been under
Ottoman rule.173
Last wills, dowry lists, and inventories made for various
occasions inform about consumption and contain extensive
166
Domonkos 1997.
167
Domonkos 1991: 705–708, with references to further literature.
168
E.g., “Szolgának való vásári Mente” (A dolman for market for a servant)
“Rövid Paraszt Aszony Mente róka hátra” (A short dolman with fox fur
for a peasant’s wife) in the limitation of Somogy County issued in 1793.
(Domonkos 1991: 712–713.)
169
Pap 2000; Simon 2006: 817–882; Niţu 2005 with further literature.
170
Simon 2006: 857.
171
Simon 2006: 830–833; Gecsényi 1998: 188–189; Pakucs 2004: 155.
172
Pakucs 2004: 194, 202–203; Bur 1985: 252–254 and 272.
173
Domonkos 1991: 678, 684–686, 700; Bur 1985: 252–254 and 272; Endrei
1989: 7, 64.
43
data on the names and classifications of clothing items.174
Combined with representations, particularly large-scale
portrait paintings, these have been the most important sources
for works treating the costumes of the nobility.175 They use
well-known contemporary categories and provide only
some basic information to make the objects identifiable,
so their interpretation is rather problematic. Nevertheless,
their close connections to individuals of well-defined social
strata and to certain stages in these individuals’ lives, such
as marriage or death, open up otherwise hidden possibilities
for contextualization. Most of such private documents reflect
the elements and transmission in the material culture of the
nobility and burghers,176 but last wills of peasants have also
survived from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.177
Similar sources on craftsmen and merchants provide further
data on production through notes on tools, ready-made
artifacts, and debts.
Sumptuary laws on clothing have been preserved in Europe
from the thirteenth century onwards. Their purpose was to
limit the materials used and the fittings applied on various
elements of clothing in order to show one’s real social
status and preserve good social order, and to avoid wasting
financial resources on vanity and ostentation.178 In Hungary
such regulations have survived from a relatively late period,
concerning seventeenth-century costumes of different social
strata.179 The issue of clothing and the expected moral of
certain layers appeared in religious literature as well; in 1602
István Magyari found that one of the reasons for the decay of
the Hungarians was following trends that were inappropriate
to one’s social position.180 Such sources indicate that one
should not expect clear-cut distinctions among archaeological
finds; the interpretation needs to work on various levels.
They present an ideal picture on one hand, and conditions to
be regulated on the other; the archaeological record should
not be expected to correspond directly to the standards and
processes they reflect.
Surviving pieces of private correspondence of the higher
social strata may be informative about their acquisitions,
their standards, the impressions they made abroad, and even
their personal tastes.181 Similarly personal is the approach of
the authors of memoranda, chronicles, or the first Hungarian
zoographic work by Gáspár Miskolczi. Miskolczi and Péter
Apor are the most often cited authors, who both condemned
their contemporaries for adopting foreign styles of clothing;
Miskolczi disapproved of the Turkish, Polish, German, and
174
A great number of similar documents were published by Baron Béla
Radvánszky (Radvánszky: 1896), and in the volumes of Magyar
Történelmi Tár and Történelmi Tár, the journal of the Historical
Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences issued between
1855 and 1911. Inventories deriving from the territories under Ottoman
occupation have been treated by Ibolya Gerelyes (Gerelyes 1985/b), with
further literature.
175
E.g., Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 67–257; Höllrigl n.d.: 359–385; Tompos
2001.
176
Horváth 1996; Szende 2004.
177
Horváth 1999, with further references.
178
On sumptuary laws in general, see Hunt 1996. On clothing regulations in
Hungary, see Klaniczay 1982: 9–10; Endrei 1989: 112–116, on eighteenth-
century examples; on Transylvania, see Klusch 2003.
179
From 1640: Sopron, 1654, 1658: Lőcse, 1666: Sátoraljaújhely. Domonkos
1997: 7.
180
István Magyari, Az országokban való sok romlásnak okairól (Katona and
Makkai ed. 1979: 83–84).
181
Éva Deák analyzed the correspondence of Mihály Teleki, a Transylvanian
nobleman, in her MA thesis (Deák 2000, unpublished).
 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources of costume history in Hungary

Wallachian impact at the end of the seventeenth century and
Apor disfavored the “new mode” arriving from the West in the
first half of the eighteenth century.182 Travelogues by Western
and Eastern authors passing through Hungary record exotic
costumes. These works talk about general impressions, and offer
a perception of clothing without any detailed description.183
Written sources and images do not provide a “real” picture
on how people dressed and how and by whom certain items
of clothing were worn, but rather a perception of all of these
facets by the authors who created the texts and pictures for a
certain audience, with a specific purpose, and within a given
context. Material culture and text can be considered as different
projections of the same past; they were created with different
purposes so they transmit different aspects – or similar aspects
but a different way –, and the same holds true for depictions
and oral traditions. Former scholarly experience suggests that
since there are usually different categories in the separate
classifications of various source types, it is not necessary that
they overlap with each other – written sources rarely provide
the exact information the archaeologist needs. The alternative
is to compare patterns observed in the different source groups
and attempt to correlate them. Correspondences and non-
correspondences or direct contrasts all need to be taken into
account, as they all form the context together, and neglecting
any of them can lead to misinterpretation.

182
“A majomról” (On the Monkey), in Gáspár Miskolczi, Egy jeles Vad-
Kert, Avagy az oktalan állatoknak históriája Miskolczi Gáspár által (An
illustrious park, or the history of the brute beasts by Gáspár Miskolczi),
(Striling ed. 1983: 172); Péter Apor, Metamorphosis Transsylvaniae
(Kóczián and Lőrinczy ed. 1978: 25, 54–69).
183
Edward Brown, “A Brief Account of Some Travels in Hungaria, Servia...
With the Figures of Some Habits and Remarkable Places” (London,
1673), cited by R. Várkonyi 1990: 23; Evlia Cselebi török világutazó
magyarországi utazásai, 1660–1664 (Travels of Evliyā Celebi Turkish
traveler in Hungary 1660–1664), (Fodor ed. 1985: 145).

44
 Chapter 6
Approaches to Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary along the lines of ethnicities
The emergence of the problem of the relation between
historically known ethnic groups and archaeological evidence
was unavoidable in Hungarian archaeology on account of the
past of the geographical area, which was characterized by a
series of waves of nomadic peoples coming from the Eurasian
steppe and conquering the Carpathian Basin.184 Groups of
newcomers arrived also in the Middle Ages, even after the
formation of the Hungarian Kingdom, up to the fourteenth
century. Pechenegs, Cumans, and Iasians brought new
impulses from a different cultural sphere; attempts to identify
their archaeological remains through material culture and
traces of pagan rituals led to more general questions about their
social and cultural assimilation and interactions before and
after their arrival in Hungary.185 The issue of material culture
formation of the newly incoming groups and its relation to an
assimilation process appeared as a practical problem of the
archaeology dealing with these periods.
Recent literature summarizing trends within Hungarian
archaeological research has pointed to the phenomenon that
the discourse has been characterized by a general reluctance to
write directly about theoretical questions for various reasons.186
Archaeological discourse in Hungary has been dominated by
cultural history orientation up to the latest decades, in spite
of the fact that in the meantime new methodologies have
been adopted. The patterning of the archaeological record has
been considered as being suitable for an interpretation that
contributes to writing the history of peoples and regions –
when handled with the proper circumspection.187
As it has been conceived through an overview of trends in
archaeological theory in European context by Ian Hodder, the
dominance of the historical perspective in archaeology has
not been a peculiarity of only Hungarian archaeology, as it
appeared to be fitting a tendency dominant in Europe that had
been rooted in the relation between the birth of archaeology
and the formation of nation states.188 The analytical
framework for the archaeological records of those periods
that are approachable also through written sources has often
been dominated by documentary history, and the character
of archaeological practice was less interpretative, bound to
184
For a brief overview of the research, see Visy and Nagy ed. 2003: 263–280
(“The Barbaricum in the Roman Period,” with studies by Andrea Vaday,
Gábor Márkus, Eszter Istvánovits, and Valéria Kulcsár) and 281–317
(“The Migration Period” by Tivadar Vida, Ágnes B. Tóth, Róbert Müller,
Andrea Vaday, and Béla Miklós Szőke).
185
For a summary of the recent results, see Visy and Nagy ed. 2003: 388–397
(“Ethnic Groups and Cultures in Medieval Hungary” by Gábor Hatházi
and Katalin Szende).
186
Laszlovszky and Siklódi 1991; Bartosiewicz and Choyke 2002; Suhr
2005: especially 191–201; Langó 2005: 185; Bálint 2006; Marciniak
2006; Bartosiewicz, Csippán, and Mérai forthcoming.
187
See Laszlovszly and Siklódi 1991: 275–279, referring to the academic
oevre and impact of András Mócsy and István Bóna; Austin 1990: 5;
Bartosiewicz and Choyke 2002: 128; Marciniak 2006: 159–160 (in the
context of archaeological practice in Central Europe); Bartosiewicz,
Csippán, and Mérai forthcoming.
188
“Preface” by Ian Hodder in Hodder ed. 1991: vii; Hodder 1991: 4–11.
45
questions which had been formulated based on historical
documents.189
Remaining within the framework determined by the
persistence of the above expectations towards historical
archaeological research, a number of recent publications
have been marked by an impact of postmodern theories of
archaeology also in Hungary. Among other forms, this influence
has been manifest in joining the discussion in international
scholarship on how material culture formation is related to
ethnicity, and in emphasizing that archaeological practice
and interpretation is determined by the social, political, and
intellectual context within which it takes place.190 Theoretical
questions have been directly raised especially focusing on the
ethnogenesis and early history of Hungarians, which is a field
that has been a matter of primary interest from the nineteenth
century onwards, as in any other parts of Europe.191
When examining the treatment of Ottoman-period
cemeteries along the lines of ethnicities, two levels of
interpretation can be distinguished in Hungarian research,
both determined by the information deriving from historical
documents. Archaeologists aimed at distinguishing the
heritage of the peoples coming from the Balkans to the
conquest area from that of the original population represented
by churchyard cemeteries in the terms of archaeological
evidence; this concerned a broader distinction of cultural
traditions the justification of which was rooted in historical
research. There were, however, further attempts to offer a
precise ethnic identification of the archaeological record,
based on the view that it is able to serve as an indicator of the
ethnicity and place of origins of certain smaller groups.
A shift towards the claim for interpreting the finds in ethnic
terms can be observed in archaeological publications from
the 1980s onwards.192 Scholars systematically examining a
couple of hundreds of graves in the Ottoman conquest area,
in contrast with a handful of burials described by the earlier
reports that surfaced accidentally, saw a difference between
their sites and the familiar churchyard cemeteries. As it has
been long known from historical research that these areas
were populated by peoples coming from the Balkans in the
period to which the cemeteries were dated, the explanation for
the difference between these cemeteries and churchyards was
found in the differing ethnic origins of the population.
189
Austin 1990: 11–14; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Kaiser 1995: 101, 108–109;
Andrén 1998: 1–6, 30–32, 116–126; Funari, Jones, and Hall 1999: 3–4;
Jones 1999; Moreland 2001: 10–13; Courtney 2009. In more general
terms on the relation between the use of the past in constructing present
identities, see Shennan 1989; Jones and Graves-Brown 1996; Jones 1997:
1–14; Rowlands 2007.
190
See e.g. Langó 2005; Bálint 2006; Vida 2006; Langó 2006. In Hungarian
archaeology the idea that archaeology approaches towards the past with
the concepts of modern times has been already formulated by Gyula
László (Laszlovszky and Siklódi 1991:277 referring to László 1977: 56).
191
Laszlovszky and Siklódi 1991: 286–287. See e.g. the studies in Mende ed.
2005; Langó 2006; Bálint 2006.
192
See Gaál 1980; Lázár 1999/a; Wicker 1999; Wicker 2001; Wicker 2002;
Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008.
 Approaches to Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary along the lines of ethnicities
When the research of the Ottoman-period cemetery at
Bácsalmás was started, it had already been a commonplace
as the result of historical studies that the Bácska region was
populated by peoples coming from the Balkans in the centuries
when the site operated. Obviously, their archaeological
heritage must have surfaced here and there even before, but
Bácsalmás was the first systematic investigation covering
hundreds of burials, which appeared to serve as a good basis
to circumscribe the material culture and the funeral customs.193
Erika Wicker, the archaeologist of the site laid down the tasks
of the research, with the aim of identifying the sites and the
archaeological heritage of the population coming from the
Balkans: 1) the application of historical sources to interpret
the archaeological record; and 2) the analysis of the ethnic
aspects of the archaeological record itself.194
First she defined those burial customs and finds that
exclusively or mostly characterized Balkan peoples in Ottoman
Hungary. The set of criteria she compiled also involved
previously known burials, but they were mostly based on
Bácsalmás: the lack of a church, one layer of graves without
over-burials, the orientation of the burials, graves shaped with
sidewall niches or a depression in the bottom enclosing the
corpse, a low number of coffins, a variety of arm positions
and the composition of the finds. These criteria could now be
applied to find further sites of Balkan peoples in Hungary.195
On the basis of these known cemeteries, the remains of the
early modern Balkan population would be distinguishable
also among those sites that had been identified before as the
archaeological sites of the Hungarian population, and it would
be now possible to identify their heritage even in the existing
museum collections.196
Historical documents, archaeological record, and ethnicities
Some of the previously examined sites that were included into
the group of Balkan or South Slavic cemeteries show only a
few of the above criteria, as only a handful of burials have
turned up accidently.197 The presence of the Balkan population,
however, has been attested by historical sources in the area
of each of the sites in question. It even seemed possible to
involve further cemeteries by collecting data from historical
sources and identifying still existing place names that have
preserved ethnic labels.198 Thus, if the burials have been dated
to the Ottoman Period with archaeological methods, then the
main reason why these sites can be suspected to have been
the cemeteries of the South Slavic population lies in the
demographic history of the region reconstructed on the basis of
written documents. What this says about the ethnic relevance
of the material culture is a separate question. This method is
based on the dominant role attributed to written documents
when interpreting the archaeological record, which is a much
broader problem of historical archaeology, only a segment of
which concerns ethnic interpretations.
The analysis of the archaeological evidence can, however,
raise new questions concerning the history of a region. One
193
Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008.
194
Wicker 2001: 153–154.
195
Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2005/b; Wicker 2008: 15.
196
Wicker 2001; Wicker 2003/a: 242; Wicker 2005/b: 23–27; Wicker 2008:
15–18, 150.
197
See Wicker 2005/b; Wicker 2008: 15–18.
198
Wicker 2001: 154.
46
of the above cemeteries (Madaras – Bajmoki út) was situated
around a church that had been erected in the Middle Ages. It
was supposed that the cemetery was in continuous use up to
the sixteenth century, but, according to a recent interpretation,
the latest graves represent the heritage of the South Slav
population that settled down in the deserted nearby village,
and used the cemetery hill of the medieval Hungarian
population as their burial place.199 The situation is similar at
Bodrogmonostorszeg, where Ottoman-period burials were
found in a medieval chapel.200 Questions concerning the
continuity and discontinuity of settlements and population
have emerged in the settlement archaeology of the Ottoman
period.201 The analysis of these cemeteries in this respect is
closely related to the research of the processes of devastation
and resettlement with regard to the villages, and might
introduce new aspects.
Ethnic categories in written sources
The ethnic interpretation of Ottoman-period cemeteries in
Hungary has covered an attempt to define precise ethnic groups
within the Balkan peoples, and to identify the homelands of
the newcomers. This is manifest in the naming of the group
of cemeteries attributed to a population of Balkan origins as it
appears in scholarly literature: Rác,202 Serb,203 and Rác-Vlach
as the latest form.204 According to the expectations, with an
increase in the number of data, patterns in the archaeological
record will correspond to ethnic categories as they appear in
written documents and will be relevant in the identification
of the original homelands of the groups.205 Archaeological
research with the above assumptions, however, had to face
the problem that the meaning of the ethnic labels is far from
being unambiguous.206
It has long been known that the southern part of Hungary under
Ottoman rule underwent a complete change of the population,
and that groups of peoples coming from the direction of the
Balkans settled down in the devastated areas. When, in the
first half of the 20th century, archaeological record surfaced
in this part of Hungary dating from the Ottoman Period, it
was quite evidently related to this immigrant population, and
was placed in an ethnographic context, supposing a sort of
continuity in the local inhabitants since that time.207 Local
historical tradition preserved the name of Rác cemeteries
and quarters,208 and a sense of continuity made it obvious to
label the remains of Ottoman-period ancestors as Sokác, all
199
Wicker 2005/b: 26–27; Wicker 2008: 17–18.
200
Gubicza 1902: 4.
201
See Pálóczi Horvát 2003.
202
Here meaning Greek Orthodox Serbs (Wicker 2001: 155); Wicker and
Kőhegyi 2002.
203
Wicker 2003/a.
204
Wicker 2007; Wicker 2008; for the reasons for using the compound form,
see ibid., 28.
205
Such expectations are expressed by Gaál 1980: 180; Wicker 2001: 154–
155; Wicker 2008: 28, 34, 90, and 147.
206
This practical problem has been recognized by Erika Wicker on the basis
of the results of the analysis of historical documents by Klára Hegyi. (See
Wicker 2008: 24–25).
207
The expulsion of the Ottomans and political events in the first quarter of
the eighteenth century brought further radical changes in the population
of the conqest area, which was by no means continuous with the often
changing population of the Ottoman Period. (See Bárth 1995, Wellmann
1985.)
208
E.g. “Rácváros” in Esztergom (Lázár 1999/a: 316); Rác cemetery at Baja
(Wicker 2005/b: 24; Wicker 2008: 16).
 Approaches to Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary along the lines of ethnicities
the more so as their accessories were found to be similar to
the ones of recent folk costumes.209 From the 1980s onwards,
publications attest that attempts to identify the ethnicity of the
interred were based on the study of historical sources.210
Ethnic names in historical sources on the areas and period
in question most often inform on how groups of peoples were
called by others in a certain region. As we have learned, the
southern part of the conquest area was labeled as Rácország,
that is, “the land of Rác people.”211 The cemetery in Győr was
mentioned as “Rác” cemetery in a contemporary document,
and the inhabitants of the village in the vicinity of the
Dombóvár cemetery were called Vlach or Iflák.212 It is less
common for a document to inform on how an Ottoman-period
group called itself. In a contract signed by the principals of
the villages in the Bácska region in 1598, all the villages
identified themselves as Rác.213 Analysis of historical sources
has not lead to a precise geographical identification of the
newcomers’ ethnicity and original homeland within the
Balkans, but it is highly probable that the population called
Rác at the end of the century was far not homogenous in this
respect, and included Serbs, as well as Vlachs and Bosnians
probably, depending on the actual ethnic composition in the
various regions.214 Sometimes the term Rác covers peoples of
the Greek Orthodox religion, but Catholic groups were also
labeled as Rác.215
Another category appearing in sources and interpreted in
the context of ethnicities is that of Vlach, or Eflak in Turkish.
Historical research has revealed various layers of the term’s
meaning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which
makes it especially problematic to find Vlach people among
the Balkan population of the conquest area of Hungary.216
One of the meanings concerns their ethnogenesis: the Vlach
people arrived to the Balkans from their original homeland
of romanized, shepherding Proto-Rumanians. A further
understanding of the denomination refers to the lifestyle:
transhumant shepherds were labeled as Vlach. The word as it
appears in Ottoman sources indicates social status: the Vlach
were soldier peasants who acquired privileges for military
service. According to the historiography, however, one can
suspect a high number of Vlach people among the mixed
Balkan population in the area between the Danube and the
Tisza rivers with a military status different from that of the
Vlach.217 On the other hand, the adjective Vlach as applied
to the population of Somogy and Tolna counties by Ottoman
sources from the 1570s refers to the status of peoples of
different ethnic origins.218
209
Gubicza 1902: 7.
210
See Gaál 1980; Lázár 1999/a; Wicker 1999; Wicker 2001; Wicker 2002;
Wicker 2003/a; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker 2005/a; Wicker 2008.
211
Pálffy 2000: 178. The term Rácország, meaning “the land of Rác,”
originally referred to a specific geographical area that appeared in
documents from the tenth century, with the castle of Rasa, situated in
southern Serbia, as its center. The use of Rác as an adjective referring to a
people derived from the compound Rácország was documented from the
late fourteenth century. Benkő ed. 1976: vol. 3. 326; Benkő ed. 1994: vol.
2. 1224.
212
Mithay 1985: 196; Gaál 1980: 176.
213
Wicker 2004: 16–16; Wicker 2008: 31–32.
214
Makkai 1985: 1432–1434.
215
Makkai 1985: 1433; Sokcsevits 1998: 119–120.
216
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 286–287; Makkai 1985: 1442.
217
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 303–304.
218
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 321–323.
47
Names and genes as ethnic markers
Archaeological and historical research, having faced the
problem of a variety of meanings covered by the same ethnic
label, tried to avoid relying on the self-perception of the
former groups, and to turn to other disciplines to define the
ethnicity of peoples presented by their sources by examining
their names and the physical remains.
Historical research tried to define the ethnic origins of
the immigrants from tax lists compiled by the Ottoman
administration, which have preserved a number of
personal names of the inhabitants of the conquest area. The
lists, containing names according to settlements, would
theoretically enable scholars to distinguish among Slavic and
Vlach populations. The analysis of names in the lists on the
territories between the Danube and Tisza rivers, however,
has lead to the conclusion that they bear a mixed Slavic-
Vlach character, which could have already evolved even
before the entry into the territory of the medieval Hungarian
Kingdom. As historical research has concluded, Vlach names
(Rumanian in their form) in Ottoman sources in the conquest
area of Hungary could cover Slavic individuals and vice
versa, so personal names do not reflect the ethnicities of their
holders.219
Trust is still placed in physical anthropology: the analysis
can provide reliable information on the ethnic origins of the
groups of the Ottoman-period population, as based on their
skeletal remains, and thus help archaeology in interpreting
material culture along the lines of ethnicities. Previous
research analyzing the burials at Dombóvár found the closest
anthropological parallels among present-day populations
called Vlach, which seems to correspond to the ethnic name
applied in historical sources – whatever it meant.220 In the
frames of an ongoing project studying the skeletal remains
of the Ottoman-period population in Hungary, findings from
late medieval cemeteries have also been included in the
comparative set of data. According to a brief preliminary report
on the results, Balkan cemeteries appear as one group of the
cluster, with the exception of the Győr cemetery that lies close
to the material of late medieval Hungarian cemeteries.221
Anthropological examinations inform on the lifestyle of the
population samples known from the archaeological research
of cemeteries. Groups of agrarian occupation under peaceful
conditions showed distinct qualities from those pursuing
military activity. Deformations observed on the physical
remains of cemeteries of the Balkan population caused by
the weakened immune system have been explained with
endogamy, which must have been the consequence of having
a language and religion distinct from the environment.222 Such
219
Hegyi 2003: 32–33; Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 302–303; referred when
interpreting the archaeological record of cemeteries by Wicker 2008: 25.
The analysis of similar lists on Temes County has revealed that scribes
often compiled Serb forms of Hungarian names. Hegyi 2007: 337–338.
220
Éry 1980: 225–298.
221
Summary by Erika Molnár in Wicker 2008: 20–21. As only a brief
preliminary report has been published on the ongoing research project, the
participating scholars did not have the possibility to clarify yet what are
the criteria for selecting the Hungarian cemeteries of the sample. Keeping
in mind the complex issue of the ethnic composition of late medieval
population in Hungary as it has been presented by historical research, this
problem will beyond doubt be treated in the publication of the results. (On
the ethnic composition of late medieval population in Hungary, see Dávid
1997: 168.)
222
See the brief report by Erika Molnár in Wicker 2008: 21.
 Approaches to Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary along the lines of ethnicities
an explanation for the results of the analysis implies a reference
to an existing knowledge about the history of the region based
on written sources. The consequences on the archaeological
interpretation of material culture is a separate issue to treat:
whether characteristics of physical anthropological remains
necessarily show the same patterning as that of material
culture as reflected by burials.
Ethnicity, religion, and the archaeological record
When treating peoples from the Ottoman-period Balkans,
ethnicity and religion has to be regarded as being closely
related. Besides a distinction between Greek Orthodox Serbs
and Catholic Slavic peoples like Croats coming also from
Bosnia, historical and archaeological research has also taken
into consideration the process of islamisation that took place
in the Balkans before the Ottoman conquest of Hungary, and
the close coexistence of various groups.223 Interethnic and
interreligious contacts were common and constant, and the
mixing of ethnicities and religions happened even within
families.224
Observations on elements of burial rituals lead towards the
issue of religion through the manifestation of the approach
towards life and death. I will briefly survey some traces of
rituals that have been defined as indicators of ethnicity or
religion in the Hungarian research.
The custom of giving coins to the deceased has been
interpreted as a characteristically Southern Slav ritual in some
items of the secondary literature on early modern cemeteries.
Sándor Mithay, the excavator of the Győr cemetery, brought
in this interpretation, using data on Serbs in Baranya County
as an ethnographic parallel.225 It has taken root to such an
extent that even the (conditional) ethnic definition of the
Esztergom cemetery was partially based on this argument; the
archaeologist of the cemetery at Esztergom-Szentkirály cited
Győr-Gabonavásártér as the closest analogy of her own site
concerning the finds and the custom of giving coins.226
Giving coins was a practice throughout the Middle Ages,
with a different intensity in different areas.227 It became
increasingly characteristic in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. In the Balkan cemeteries it has been observed in
only a few graves; however, in the churchyard cemeteries it
is much more common compared to the overall number of
excavated graves.228 Ethnographic research indicates that
this tradition still held on in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries; explanations often concerned the “customs due”
223
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 259–264 and 302; Gaál 1980; Gaál 2003; Wicker
2002; Wicker 2007; Wicker 2008: especially 75–90.
224
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 262.
225
Mithay 1985: 194.
226
Lázár 1999/a: 316–317; Lázár 2003: 234.
227
On the custom of giving coins in earlier periods in Hungary, see Bárdos
1987: 10.
228
In Balkan cemeteries: Dombóvár-Békató: four graves (Gaál 1980: 175);
Győr-Gabonavásártér: one grave (Mithay 1985: 194); Bácsalmás-Óalmás:
two graves (Wicker 2003/a: 237; Wicker 2008: 140); Katymár-Téglagyár:
no coin was found (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002); Zombor-Bükkszállás: one
grave (Korek 1992: 183). In churchyard cemeteries: Kaposvár: fifty-six
graves from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Bárdos 1987: 10);
Ducó (Ducové, Slovakia): 152 graves from the overall 310 sixteenth- to
nineteenth-century graves (Ruttkay 2005: 34); Óföldeák: the archaeologist
refers to giving coins as a custom without an exact number (Béres 2005:
302); Bobáld: 13 graves from the 81 that have been excavated (Szőcs,
Mérai, and Eng 2005: 317).
48
Fig. 29. Variations of the positions of the arms in the
cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. (Wicker 2008: 228, fig. 7.)
to be paid on the journey to the other world.229 According to
the archaeological material, the custom of giving coins was
widespread in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it
cannot be related to any single ethnic group, as it has been
manifest among Hungarians, Wallachians, and Serbians.
Another element of the ritual that has been interpreted as
ethnicity-, or rather religion-specific is the position of the
arms. A wide variety of the positions of arms that characterize
South Slav cemeteries has been explained through analogies
with Greek Orthodox Christianity, based on a study by
János Győző Szabó.230 He analyzed this feature concerning
cemeteries in Hungary from the tenth and eleventh centuries,
and explained the position with the hands raised to the shoulder
as a possible indicator of Greek Orthodoxy; he mentions the
Balkan cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató as a late analogy.231
Following in his the footsteps, the positioning of the arms
were first observed in some of the Southern Slav cemeteries
in the Early Modern Period and connected to the identification
of the population as Greek Orthodox (Fig. 29).232 Similar
variations have, however, been documented in churchyard
cemeteries, especially in those that have been published since
the emergence of the question in the context of peoples of
Balkan origins (Fig. 30).233 These examples at least call for
caution until there is a sufficient amount of comparative data
from churchyards; features in the earlier period of the Middle
Ages and in the Early Modern Age should not be interpreted
implicitly in an analogous way.234
A further feature that has been connected to religion and
ethnicity is the form of the graves, to which comparative
material from churchyard cemeteries is completely lacking,
229
E.g., Bencsik 1970: 432–433; K. Kovács 2004 (1944): 127, 163; Csapó
1977: 180, 181; for further similar references, see Wicker 2008: 140–
142.
230
Szabó, J. Gy. 1983: 83–98.
231
However, Attila Gaál, the archaeologist of Dombóvár-Békató, assumed
that the population was not even Christian, but Muslim (Gaál 2003: 230).
232
Wicker 2003/b: 37–43; Wicker 2003/a: 239–242; Wicker and Kőhegyi
2002: 47–49. This was the only observable criterion of Balkan cemeteries
at Mélykút, as the only artifact found there was a button (Wicker 2001:
152; Wicker 2003/a: 242; Wicker 2004: 82).
233
Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 316 (it is not excluded that the population
was Orthodox); Béres 2005: 300 and fig. 4; Simonyi 2005: 308. In Bobáld,
Óföldeák, and Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás burials with hands laid on the
shoulder or the pelvis were found, as in Balkan cemeteries. The study on
Felsőzsolca did not exclude the possibility that burials in these positions
can be related to Ruthenian immigrants mentioned in written sources
(Simonyi 2005: 308).
234
Recently Miklós Takács has compared the positions of arms found in
ninth- to twelfth-century cemeteries of the North Balkans and concluded
that the position with hands raised to the shoulder “cannot be considered
as an indisputably interpretable ritual element” (Takács 2005: 93).
 Approaches to Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary along the lines of ethnicities
Fig. 30. Variations of the positions of the arms in the
churchyard cemetery at Óföldeák. (Béres 2005: 300, fig. 4.)
partly due to the high number of overburials. The absence of
superpositions in Southern Slav cemeteries has made it possible
to observe and document precisely the forms of the graves,
which is rarely feasible during excavations in churchyards.
Erika Wicker observed that in a great number of graves in
the cemeteries of the population coming from the Balkans the
deceased was not buried in a coffin, but was probably folded
in a shroud and placed in a side niche or hollow in the bottom
of the grave and covered with wood (see fig. 17). She found
analogies for these features in Islamic regions.235 She raised
the possibility that the burials with coffins indicate Christian
South Slavs, while graves with a niche or a depression for
the corpse might have belonged to the Vlach people. When
interpreting the differences between burials within the same
cemetery, she found it more probable that coffins belong to
Christian South-Slav-Vlach traditions, while the rites that are
different from this belong to the Islamized population or a
population, both South Slavic and Vlach, that took up Islam
funerary customs.236 The first explanation concerns ethnicity,
but in the second religion is involved as the decisive factor
behind the formation of the archaeological record.
Archaeology of the Islam as a distinct and recently emerged
research area within the archaeology of religions studies
the way the presence of a Muslim community is reflected
by the archaeological record. Burials of a Muslim group
should theoretically be recognizable archaeologically, as
the treatment of the body should have followed a prescribed
order including, besides other elements, single internment
and the use of a shroud to cover the body instead of coffin.
Besides following the tenets of religion by the individual
235
Wicker 2002; Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 41–47; Wicker 2003/b; Wicker
2005/a; Wicker 2008: 75–90.
236
Wicker 2008: 27.
49
or the community, there was, however, a range of other
aspects that contributed to the actual form of burial, as a
result of which reality was much more complex and diverse,
with variations according to regions, social strata, etc.
Archaeologists approaching Islam are warned to incorporate
the results of modern archaeological theory when handling
the archaeological record along identities among which Islam
appears as one form of religious identity.237
No written documents attest the conversion of the population
found in the so-called Balkan cemeteries of Ottoman-period
Hungary, but historical research has reckoned with a certain
level of conversion to Islam up to the mid-sixteenth century
not only in Ottoman regional centers, but also among the
population of villages.238 It has been assumed that the ancestors
of these peoples living for several generations under Ottoman
rule in the Balkans could have easily adopted certain elements
of the customs and practice of the Islam.239 The problem cannot
be handled separately from the general context of research on
conversions and that of religious syncretism in the Balkans,
with consequences in the social and cultural sphere, where
elements of lifestyle, status, and culture could change even
without religious conversion.240
Tracing migration through the archaeological record
The possibility of archaeological research for moving forward
and defining more precisely the ethnic and geographical
origins of the peoples whose cemeteries have been unearthed
has been seen as being based on the application of comparative
material from the Balkans concerning the burial customs and
the grave finds belonging to garments.241 The problem with
this approach has been defined as stemming from the present
research situation: the number of published and analyzed
cemeteries in the Balkans available as possible comparative
material for Hungarian scholarship is low (below five).242
Their chronological position does not correspond to the age
of the Ottoman conquest in Hungary, as they date from the
twelfth to the nineteenth centuries, and there is only one
cemetery which was in use in the period in question.243 Though
a general similarity in the finds have been observed, temporal
and regional variability is not possible to study. Thus, it has
not been confirmed whether searching for analogies to the
material objects and burial customs in the wide geographical
area from where these peoples have come can, in fact, be an
applicable method to determine more precisely the original
homelands of the Balkan groups migrating to Southern
Hungary.
Some specific grave finds have been considered to be
suitable to serve as the basis of tracing back the “original
homeland” of the population interred in the known cemeteries,
by finding their analogies on the Balkan peninsula. The
few pieces of jewelry (rings and a pair of earrings) whose
form and production technology is of a general Balkan style
237
Insoll 1999: 166–200; Baram and Carroll 2000: 19; Insoll 2001; Edwards
2005: 117–118; Insoll 2007/b; Baram 2009: 653.
238
Hegyi 2007: vol. 1, 302, footnote 139 and 307–308.
239
Wicker 2002: 113–114; Wicker 2007: 65; Wicker 2008: 88–89.
240
See Zhelyazkova 2002; Minkov 2004: 2; Buturović and Schick 2007. On
the archaeology of the Ottoman Empire as “the archaeology of a multi-
ethnic polity,” see Kohl 2000; Baram and Carroll 2000.
241
Gaál 1980: 180; Wicker 2003/a: 242–243; Wicker 2008: 20–21.
242
See Wicker 2008: 20–21.
243
Wicker 2003/a: 242–243; Wicker 2008: 21.
 Approaches to Ottoman-period cemeteries in Hungary along the lines of ethnicities
were not interpreted as being characteristic for the peoples
in question because of the low number of items.244 Objects
that appear to be more widespread in the cemeteries were
suggested to serve as a basis of identifying the homeland of
the groups; these included hairpins fixing female headwear
and female headgears decorated with cowries and pendants.245
The obstacle of localizing the original homelands within the
Balkans is seen in the lack of research in the scholarship
related to these object types.246
The question that is crucial in this respect is whether and to
what extent any archaeological criteria are eligible to identify
a cemetery in ethnic terms. In the case of sites for which
historical sources are able to confirm the Balkan origins of the
244
Wicker 2008: 148.
245
Gaál 1980: 172; Wicker 2008: 148.
246
Wicker 2008: 148.
50
inhabitants, this question concerns the explanations for the
material culture formation of a group whose distinct origins have
already been known. Where documents are lacking, however,
and the only hope of scholars with the above ambition lies in
the archaeological record, the answer to this question has been
vital.247 An optimistic view is reflected by the assumption that
with an increase in the number of archaeological data it will be
more and more possible to distinguish the heritage of Balkan
peoples.248 The suggested method is describing and classifying
material remains, equating the patterning of distribution
with historically known groups, and tracing their migrations
through searching for similarities in the archaeological record
of their supposed homeland.
247
In the case of the Esztergom cemetery, though cemeteries previously
attributed to Balkan peoples seemed to be the closest analogies, and
also some historical data seem to support conditionally such an ethnic
identification, the excavator had doubts whether it is justified to do so.
Lázár 1999/a: 316–317; Lázár 2003: 235–236.
248
See especially Wicker 2001; Wicker 2008: 19, 28, 34, and 90.
 Chapter 7
Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity
in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
The aspect of ethnicity in the interpretation of the
archaeological record
Overviews on how the relation of historically known ethnic
groups and the archaeological record has been treated
in international scholarship have distinguished different
traditions, and pointed out that the European practice of
archaeology cannot be approached through the simplified
model of a sequence of theoretical approaches in Anglo-
American archaeology.249 It has been formulated as a
generalized observation that the way scholars in Eastern,
Central and South-Eastern Europe used the concept of ethnicity
implied the existence of a shared understanding without a
defined theoretical background.250 The common elements
have been seen in an emphasis on the internal integrity and
historical continuity of ethnic units that is constituted by
also real cultural and linguistic elements besides subjective
perception and self identification.251
In the third quarter of the twentieth century a different
understanding of ethnicity as being a subjective construction
and primarily relational generated fundamental changes
in theapproach of“Western” archaeology towards the
relationship between ethnicity and material culture. It got the
impulses from anthropological research; ethnicity became
to be conceived as being dynamic, subjective, and existing
in the context of a we–they opposition.252 This more general
model has been refined through a variety of conceptions,
emphasizing the aspects of situational identity construction,
goal-orientation, and the role of socio-cultural and political
factors. As a result, a variety of theoretical approaches have
evolved in archaeology, replacing the concept of a direct
correspondence between language, culture, and ethnicity and
of the archaeological record as a passive reflection of relations
and distances between former groups.253 Ethnicity as a form
of identity has been treated within the context of exploring
the possibilities of archaeological approaches to past cultural
identities.254
Ethnoarchaeological studies, focusing on the role of artifacts
in maintaining ethnic boundaries and the way this contributed
to the spatial patterning of objects, have pointed out that only
some of the cultural traits (and not the culture as a whole)
are used by a group in identifying themselves, including
also verbal communication and non-verbal behavior besides
249
Trigger 1989; Hodder 1991a: viii;Johnson 1999: 26; Marciniak 2006:
165–166.
250
Trigger 1989: 234–235; Dragadze 1990; Kaiser 1995: 105–106; Renfew
1996; Bursche 1996: 229–230; Curta 2001: 15–18. On the existence of
national and regional traditions within Central Europe, see Marciniak
2006.
251
Kaiser 1995: 106; Jones 1997: 63; Jones and Graves-Brown 1996: 8–9.
252
Barth 1994 (1969): 9–38; Jones 1997: 51–55, 59–60, 72–79. On the
consequences of Barth’s theories within this process, see Shennan 1989:
11–14; Jones 1997: 109–110; Jones 1999; Lucy 2005: 94–94; Jones
2007.
253
Jones and Graves-Brown 1996: 5–7; Jones 1997: 56–83; Lucy 2005: 91–
92; Jones 2007.
254
Shennan 1989; Lucy 2005; Insoll 2007.
51
material culture.255 The most important question remained
how to define those elements that had a significance in this
respect within the archeological record.
Subsequent theories about material culture from the
seventies and eighties investigated the aspect of style and
its distinctive role in and among different groups of people.
Style was conceptualized on the one hand as symbolizing
ethnicity as a result of intention, and as a consequence of
unconscious factors on the other. The so-called “isochrestic”
model defines style as a result of culturally determined choices
of possible ways to do things that are equivalent in use. It
bears an imprint of ethnicity because of the infinite number
of potential combinations of choices. According to this
interpretation style is passive, and is viewed as a result of the
subconscious.256 The other mainstream of theories concerning
style in archaeology is characterized by a functional approach;
it suggests a conceptualization of style as a form of active
communication in a social context. In terms of material
culture, style refers to an active symbolic role of particular
characteristics of artifacts that have distinctive purposes,
such as supporting ethnicity, symbolizing social territories,
or being associated with ritual.257 A combination of conscious
and subconscious aspects lies behind a distinction drawn
between the “emblemic style” as a means of communicating
conscious affiliation and identity, and the “assertive style”
carrying information supporting individual identity and
applied either consciously or unconsciously. According to the
above theory, only the emblemic style appears in the form of
distinct distribution in the archaeological record in contrast
with random distributions of the assertive style, which makes
it possible to distinguish the two, though various other factors
contributing to the formation of the archaeological record
make the picture less clear.258
Both structuralist and functionalist theories have been
criticized from various points of view.259 One direction of
criticism refers to the active role material culture plays in
the mediation of social relations and the construction of
identities, and the different meanings it can have depending
upon different social contexts. In various contexts not even
the same cultural elements are involved in the communication
of ethnicity, which results in a complex pattern of overlapping
material culture distributions that appears in the form of a
web of stylistic boundaries rather than discrete monolithic
cultural entities. The method suggested is to employ a wide
255
Hodder 1982; Hodder 1992 (1986); for an overview of the historiography
of ethnoarchaeology, see David and Kramer 2001: 22–28.
256
Sackett 1990.
257
For this active role H. Martin Wobst introduced the notion of “stylistic
behavior.” See Wobst 1977: especially 317–321.
258
Wiessner 1983.
259
Shanks and Tilley 1992: 142–146
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
variety of independent contextual evidence, also taking into
consideration the temporal (historical) aspects of ethnicity.260
Recently ethnicity has been seen as a form of identity that
can work at a number of different levels, and which cross-
cuts other aspects of social identity, such as gender, age,
religion. Individual identity has been placed in the foreground
as opposed to group identity. It is seen as being fluid, very
much depending on the context in which the interaction takes
place.261 Contextual, temporal, relational, and reciprocal
aspects of identity have been emphasized; thus, ethnicity is
conceived as being constantly redefined. Members of ethnic
groups experience ethnicity differently depending on their
age, sex, class, etc; it cannot be studied in isolation from other
aspects of identity that get different emphasis in individual
contexts.262 Concerning group identity, communal similarity/
difference and population mobility are the terms offered
for those aspects that can be identified by archaeology and
scientific analyses; their relation to ethnicity and other forms
of identity and their contribution to the transformation of
identities is a question that should be handled separately.263
Turning to the methodological consequences of the above
conceptions, it is necessary not only to see the broad patterns
in sets of archaeological remains, but also to analyze them
within their individual context on the local level so as to find
out as much as possible about the structures and interactions
that lay behind their formation.264 There might be elements
of the material culture that had a role in constructing and
signaling ethnicities, while others did not or did not do so all
the time. Similar forms of material culture can communicate
different and multiple identities depending on the context.
The approach that considers certain items as being
applicable to reconstruct either the geographical or the ethnic
origins of the groups that arrived to southern Hungary in the
period of the Ottoman conquest is based on the presumption
that female headwear on the Balkans was determined by
ethnic or territorial affiliation, and the items suggested above
played a role – either consciously or unconsciously as it
has not been specified in the literature – in expressing this
sense of belonging. The form of female headgears and the
wearing of certain forms might have, however, been affected
by many other factors as well, for example age, social and
marital status, religion, and influences resulting from a variety
of interactions. The significance of using certain types might
have changed in different contexts – as in the case of the veil
of Muslim women that was also worn by Christians in the
same region265 – at different levels, including also that of
the individual, within the very complex historical, political,
social, and cultural situation in the Balkans ruled by the
260
Shanks and Tilley 1992: 155; Jones 1997: 88–100, 117–119; Jones, 2007:
72–75; Jones 1999, drawing on the habitus concept by Pierre Bourdieu;
Shennan 1989: 15–20, referring to the use of habitus concept by Bentley
1987. The concept of style as a passive aspect possessed by the object is
criticized also by the understanding that emphasizes the role of people
and their interactions involving the artifacts, building upon the chaîne
operatoire conception (Graves-Brown 1996: 89–91; Lucy 2005: 102–105).
261
Meskell 2001; Diaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005: 9; Lucy 2005: 86; Insoll
2007/a; White and Beaudry 2009.
262
Meskell 2001; Fowler 2004; Insoll 2007/a; White and Beaudry 2009.
263
Lucy 2005: 101–109; Jones 1997: 123; Jones 2007: 76.
264
Jones 1997: 125–126; Lucy 2005: 109. Ian Hodder emphasized the
importance of the combination of the two aspects. Ian (Hodder 1992
(1986): 182).
265
Insoll 1999: 122–123.
52
Ottomans, the analysis of which is beyond the scope of the
present work.266
Here, to make a detour, I would like to refer to the results
of the archaeology of the Late Middle Ages in Hungary, in the
frames of which the problem of interpreting the archaeological
remains of newly immigrating ethnic groups emerged for
the period that just predates the Ottoman era. The questions,
however, that have been raised by the research concerning the
presence of Cuman and Iasian groups in the Carpathian Basin
have been considerably different from those concerning the
cemeteries of various ethnicities in the Ottoman period.
The problem of ethnicity and costumes in the archaeological
research of late medieval Hungary
Cumans fleeing from the Mongol invasion arrived in Hungary
first in 1239 from the steppes of South Russia.267 As a late
wave of nomadic peoples to reach the Carpathian Basin,
they imported Eastern cultural elements from the steppe to
a kingdom characterized by Western and European culture;
their social structure, ethnicity, religion, economy, customs,
and material culture differed in a great extent from that of
the Hungarians. Written sources, visual representations,
and archaeological evidence testify that they preserved
their language and various elements of their original social
structure and cultural traditions for a long time. Their complete
assimilation lasted for about three centuries.268
The Cuman clans were settled on royal estates, and they
were allowed to preserve their partial autonomy. Their
nomadic light cavalry formed a considerable part of the royal
forces and had a crucial importance in supporting the king’s
power. This evoked a counteraction of the oligarchy and
the high clergy, who urged the ruler to compel the Cumans
to give up their nomadic and pagan customs and convert
to Christianity. These demands were laid down as a law in
1279, which lead to the protest of the Cumans. Their forces
were defeated in a battle in the following year and many of
them left the country. From the beginning of the thirteenth
up to the fifteenth century, the Cumans gradually lost their
military importance, simultaneously with their incorporation
into the feudal system. Their original social structure
gradually disintegrated by the end of the fourteenth century;
from the mid-fourteenth century the leading families were
able to transform the clan estates into their private domains.
In the second half of the century their nomadic settlements
were replaced by permanent villages, and the autonomous
government of the clans was inherited by territorial
administrative units called szék that were independent of the
system of counties. The adoption of Christianity was also
completed during the century. Commoners preserved their
free peasant status as collective privileges during the fifteenth
266
See the study of the formation of attire in South-Eastern Europe under
Ottoman and Western influences up to the 20th century by Scarce 2002
(1987); Jianu 2007.
267
After the Mongol invasion of the Hungarian Kingdom in 1240–42,
the Cumans were accused of spying for the enemy, and their khan was
murdered, so they left the country, plundering on their way. They stayed
on the plain of the Danube in Bulgaria when the Mongols withdrew from
Hungary. King Béla IV called the Cumans back to the Hungarian Kingdom
with a new alliance against an expected second invasion of the Mongols,
probably in about 1246. Pálóczi Horváth 1996: 22–23; Pálóczi Horváth
1989/a: 39–53.
268
See Győrffy 1953: 248–275; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 291–292.
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
Fig. 31. Finds from the Cuman cemetery at
Perkáta-Kőhalmi-dűlő: Gothic mounts, ring and
buckles; earrings of “Eastern European” style.
Intercisa Museum, Dunaújváros. (Hatházi 2004:
195, plate 31, figs. 3, 4, and 10; 196, plate 32, figs.
3, 14, 15, and 17-20.)
and sixteenth centuries. In the period of the Ottoman conquest
the migration of various groups concerned also the Cumans,
but by that time their assimilation was complete, and their
language had died out.269
The transformation and survival of old customs was
determined by counteractive tendencies. The royal court
urged the Cumans to convert and settle down, but at the
same time their role in the military system contributed to
preserving their privileges and separation, and to conserving
the nomadic costume and weapons of the light cavalry.270
Furthermore, written sources testify that a so-called Cuman
fashion emerged in the second half of the thirteenth century
among the Hungarians, and also in the neighboring German
and Austrian lands, against which even the apostolic delegate
had to take measures.271 The steppe innovations of armament
and horse equipment (e.g., certain types of saddle and reflex
bow) were widely adopted in Hungary.272 Cuman costume
and warfare can be studied from book illuminations, and a
considerable number of contemporary depictions on frescoes
about the legend of Saint Ladislaus representing the fight of
the king with the Cuman – the latter seen as a characteristic
nomadic warrior.273
Iasians in Hungary are first mentioned in historical sources
in 1318. The date of their immigration is still debated; it is
269
Pálóczi Horváth 1989/a: 27, 68–82; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 292; Pálóczi
Horváth 1996: 24–25; Berend 2001: especially 68–73, 87–93, 97–100,
134–140, 142–147, 171–183, 244–267.
270
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 89; Pálóczi Horváth 1980: 403–427; Pálóczi
Horváth 1989/a: 86–95. The author distinguished four phases of the
assimilation process: in chronological terms these took place in the 13th
century, in the first half of the 14th century, in the second half of the 14th
century, and from the 15th century onwards (Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b:
293).
271
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 90.
272
Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 294, with further references.
273
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 90–91; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 294; Newton
1980: 92–93. On the interpretation of such depictions in the Hungarian
Illumunated Chronicle, see Marosi 1995: 57–66; on the costumes
depicted in the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle see Kovács, A. 1998; for
an analysis of the depictions as reflecting perceptions of the Cumans in
medieval Hungary, see Berend 2001: 207–210.
53
assumed that they probably moved into the Carpathian Basin
at about the same time as the Cumans.274 The two groups had
common privileges, and archaeological research on them has
been characterized by similar problems.
Archaeological research has analyzed several aspects of the
process of assimilation based on the material remains. Burials
that reflect the respect for imported pagan customs marked
members of the Cuman clan aristocracy and can be dated up
to the middle of the fourteenth century. Remains of nomadic
armor, horse equipment, and weaponry have been found in
the graves of the male elite, and jewelry, metal elements of
the garments, and other grave goods, such as mirrors and
knives, in the graves of females.275 The origins of the objects
that these burials contain have been approached from three
directions. Most of the grave finds and the burial customs
point towards the Eastern steppe; another group of the objects
has Byzantine and Balkan analogies. The third component
is Western chivalric culture, represented by accessories with
Gothic decorations: chivalric scenes, heraldic elements, and
inscriptions that are prayers to patron saints (Fig. 31).276
From the mid-fourteenth century the Cuman aristocracy
must have adopted Christian practices, so the direct traces
of pagan customs disappeared, but remnants of superstitious
beliefs could be discovered within another form of the
burial site: the cemeteries of the populations of the Cuman
274
Selmeczi 1996/a: 69–80, especially 77–78, with further references; Pálóczi
Horváth 1989/a: 62–67; Langó 2000.
275
Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 293–294. The most recently excavated male
burial with a horse was published in Horváth 2001, with further references;
on a similar burial of a female, see Banner 1931: 187–204; Fodor 1972;
on the jewelry of a female burial from Balotapuszta, see Hatházi 2005:
41–54.
276
Pálóczi Horváth 1996: 30–31; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 294–295; Horváth
2001: 165–166; Hatházi 2005: 33–34, 56–59; Berend 2001: 257–258.
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
Fig. 32. “A Rác woman.” Illustration in a water colour
costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest,
National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of
the National Széchényi Library.
settlements.277 The earliest cemeteries belonging to the
settlements were probably established by the end of the
thirteenth century, and the churches were built later when the
population converted to Christianity.278 A great number of the
graves in these churchyard cemeteries are characterized by
the absence of grave finds; the quantity of grave goods and
costume accessories reflect the social and property status of
the deceased.279
Written sources and depictions testify that the Cumans in
Hungary persisted in their traditional way of clothing until
the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth
century. However, the organic materials like textiles and
leather vanished without any archaeologically observable
remains. Despite attempts to the contrary, it has been
confirmed that there are only a few archaeological finds
associated with garments that do not equally characterize
277
Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 295. It has been debated whether the burials
of converted leaders can be found in churchyard cemeteries. According
to András Pálóczi Horváth, they were buried in graves in churchyards
with relatively more grave goods (Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103). Hatházi
interprets these latter graves as the burials of the middle layer of free
Cumans because their accessories are not particularly valuable. Indeed,
they are on the level of the material culture of wealthy Hungarian peasants
(Hatházi 2004: 131–132).
278
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103; Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 295.
279
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103.
54
contemporary Hungarian cemeteries.280 According to visual
depictions, articles of traditional clothing were preserved in
the fourteenth century; metal accessories were, however, the
products of local craftsmen in the Hungarian Kingdom. At the
same time, the way of wearing them indicates the survival of
a fashion that Cumans had imported from the steppe; Gothic
buckles and clasps were applied on belts or to fasten oriental
caftan-like robes.281
The most extensively treated example of combining
eastern and western elements has been that of the belts, which
amalgamate the impact of all three cultural spheres. The
nomadic weapon belt was a part of the ancient steppe culture
as a symbol of the free warrior. A group of thirteenth-century
belt sets found in the earliest graves of the clan aristocracy
show, however, both the peculiarities of Eastern goldsmiths’
work and characteristics originating from Western chivalric
culture. No analogies have been found among the nomads
of the Eurasian steppe, but similar belts have turned up in
South-Eastern Europe, where they were worn by prominent
members of western societies. The Cumans seem to have
adopted a widespread European fashion for belts and adapted
them as a version of their traditional nomadic weapon belt.282
The popularity of some objects, earrings with spheriform
pendants for example, has been clearly related to the arrival
of late nomadic peoples, but they have been found in the
cemeteries of the neighboring Hungarian settlements as
well. They became an element of a more generally spread
fashion and did not exclusively characterize any ethnic
group.283 Analysis of the archaeological distribution of
bone-mounted belts has led to a similar conclusion.284 It is
the persistence of some pagan ritual elements that seems
to distinguish the burials of Cuman and Iasian populations
from the contemporary Hungarian ones: the relatively richly
decorated funeral costume, traces of fire in the grave, food
and tools provided for the afterlife.285 Settlement archaeology
investigating Cuman villages starting from the 1960s sheds
light on the process of their assimilation from further respect,
revealing a lack of significant difference between those and
the Hungarian ones.286
Based on the analysis of the artifacts and archaeological
features, it has been concluded that the various aspects of
social and cultural assimilation of the newcomers did not
necessarily proceed simultaneously.287 Though the ethnic
identification of the archaeological sites was built on
written sources, the typological analysis of the finds with
comprehensive comparative material from both the Eastern
steppe and Europe revealed that most of the items are not
280
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 103–104. The idea that the oriental object types
and customs from this period represent the archaeological remains of the
Cumans arose at the end of the nineteenth century. See, e.g., Nagy 1983:
105–117.
281
Hatházi 2004: 80–85; Hatházi 1996: 51.
282
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 94–101.
283
Hatházi 1996: 51.
284
For a survey of the problem and further literature, see K. Németh 2005:
275–288.
285
On these ornamented garments, see Hatházi 1996: 51–52 and especially
Hatházi 2004: 120–121. Gábor Hatházi provides a detailed analysis of
burial ceremonies tracing all the features in contemporary Hungarian
cemeteries as well, and avoids their evident interpretation as reminiscences
of pagan rituals imported from the steppe by the Cumans. Hatházi 2004:
120–127. On Iasians, see Selmeczi 1996/b: 85–86.
286
Pálóczi Horváth 1989/b: 296–300.
287
Hatházi 1996: 53.
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
Fig. 33. Finds from the Southern Slav
cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató. Wosinsky Mór
County Museum, Szekszárd. (Gaál 1980: 219,
plate VII.)
specific for the ethnic group, but form an integral part of
contemporary fashion. In most cases Cuman peculiarities were
not manifest in the single types of objects belonging to their
garments, but in the system of associated features and customs
in comparison to the contemporary Hungarian material.288
However, it has been noted as a problem of research that the
lack of the excavated and analyzed contemporary Hungarian
cemeteries as a comparative sample makes the validity of the
results limited.289
The revival of Cuman identity following their cultural
assimilation and fate similar to that of the disappearing
Hungarian population in the region during the period of the
Ottoman conquest is another interesting issue to mention.
Though the Cumans disappeared, Cuman identity was
preserved so as to obtain privileges of the Cuman region that
was exempt from the supremacy of the county until the late
nineteenth century. In this case, ethnic identity was clearly
related to legal status without a common descent and a
separate language.290
The period that is treated by the research of the Cuman
and Iasian populations just predates the Ottoman conquest,
288
Pálóczi Horváth 1982: 105.
289
Hatházi 2004: 127–128.
290
Bárth 1995: 9; Berend 2001: 90–93.
55
or even overlaps it. The problems that the research of the two
historical periods had to face are quite similar, but different
approaches have developed. The results of Cuman studies
reveal a complex system of interactions of the newcomers,
that is, with peoples who lived in their neighborhood before
entering the Carpathian Basin, and with the contemporary
population of the Hungarian Kingdom – as it is manifest in
the archaeological record.
Clothing, accessories and ethnicities in sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin
A new context – or a wide variety of new contexts – resulted
from the migration of the Balkan groups to the area under
Ottoman rule in Hungary. This area is characterized by the
presence of the burials of the original population as well,
which forms a specific framework for the archaeological
interpretation. Previous research of the cemeteries aimed at
distinguishing the material culture of these two groups of
different cultural-geographical origins, looking for features
and items that could be defined as indicators of ethnicity in
this broader sense.
Objects related to the costumes of the dead as found in the
cemeteries of the Ottoman-period Balkan peoples in Hungary
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
Fig. 34. Hairpins from grave 39 in the churchyard cemetery
at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu
Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of Péter
Levente Szőcs.
provide a rather fragmentary picture of their garment, as all
the textiles have perished, and only metal, glass, and bone
accessories have survived. The general picture drawn on their
outlook calculates with an overall oriental character, as it has
been a commonplace that the population of the Balkans was
heavily influenced by Ottoman culture that could have been
manifest also in their clothing, which concerned also non-
Muslims.291 Attempts to reconstruct garments limited by the
fragmentary character of the archaeological record interpret
individual cases within this general picture, suggesting
caftan-like robes and loose, baggy trousers on the basis of
Fig. 35. Hairpins from the cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás. Katona József
Museum, Kecskemét. (Wicker 2008: 243, plate III.)
291
Insoll 1999: 122–123; Scarce 2002 (1987): 98–99.
56
the position of clasps and buttons, and oriental-like veils or
scarves as female headgears fixed with pins.292
A difference between the grave finds in churchyards and
those in the cemeteries of the Balkan population has been
detected in the general composition of the finds. Attila Gaál
was the first to apply ethnic terms when explaining the unusual
features of the burials that have been related to a Balkan
population with reference to textual sources. He claimed that
certain pieces of costumes found in the cemetery at Dombóvár
had never turned up before in the cemeteries of Hungarians.293
The finds belonging to garments were the following: clasps
with hooks made of bronze and iron; hairpins made of bronze
with small, round heads or with a glass bead applied as a
head; shank buttons made of tin, bronze, bone, and glass;
glass beads; bronze and iron rings; a cap made of cloth; iron
shoe plates; remains of headgear decorated with cowries,
beads, and bronze and iron rings; triangular tin pendants; and
coins applied as pendants. The group of finds from Zombor
about which József Korek was on the view that it formed a
contrast to contemporary Hungarian material comprised the
following: bronze hairpins; headgear decorated with cowries;
shank buttons; clasps with hooks made of bronze and iron;
glass beads; and a seal-ring.294
Some objects among the grave finds have been suggested to
possess the capacity of indicating ethnicity, meaning Balkan
ethnicities in general as compared to the population of the
292
Gaál 2003: 225; Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 21 and 28; Wicker 2008: 97
and 231–233, figs 11–13.
293
Gaál 1980: 171.
294
Korek 1992: 197.
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

Fig. 36. Hairpins, iron clasps and belt in grave 110 Fig. 37. Hairpins in grave 773 in the churchyard cemetery at
in the churchyard cemetery at Kide. Kaposvár. (Bárdos 1987: 20, fig. 28.)
(Kovalovszki 1986: 22, fig. 17.)

Fig. 38. The disposition of hairpins

in graves 98 and 103 in the Southern
Slav cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató.
(Gaál 1980: 197, fig. 18.)

57
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
churchyards; these are simple bronze and iron hairpins,
ornamented hairpins with large, spherical head, cowries, and
pendants. In the case of some other objects that have been
recognized to be widespread also in churchyards, it is their
spatial position that has been considered as being specific for
Balkan ethnicities, indicating a specific dress cut. The same
questions emerge here as those raised concerning the relevance
of archaeological evidence in finding the original homelands
within the Balkans: to what extent any archaeological criteria
are eligible to identify a cemetery in ethnic terms, and how
archaeological record can be related to categories, events
and processes as known from historical documents. The first
step is to make an inquiry concerning the contexts in which
the above mentioned objects have turned up, meaning the
archaeological context of various burial sites and what is
known about the population interred from other sources also
concerning their ethnicity. Such an investigation reveals
whether these items characterize exclusively the cemeteries
of Balkan groups, that is, whether communal similarity and
difference can be detected.
Bronze and iron hairpins
The hairpins that are 6–8 cm long with a small, round head
of a 3–5 mm diameter were some of the most widespread
objects of late medieval and early modern sites. A glass
bead was often attached to them, but simple pins were used
as well (Figs. 33, 34, 35, 36). In the Hungarian secondary
literature they have been labeled hairpins, round pins, or
shawl/kerchief pins, which clearly indicate that no single and
uniform function has been defined. These objects appeared
at about the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the
fifteenth century, and they were articles of everyday use in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.295 These pins are
common finds in both the churchyard cemeteries (Figs. 34,
36, 37) and those cemeteries that have been related to Balkan
ethnic groups (Figs. 33, 35, 38),296 and they are present among
the archaeological finds of some castles as well.297 Also, the
overall state of research of churchyard cemeteries and the
often fragmentary excavations of the cemetery types calls for
caution when generalizing.298 Thus, the conclusion according
to which the object “characterizes the Rác to a greater degree
than contemporary Hungarian wear” 299 cannot be sustained.
Even less tenable is the assumption that the hairpins are
significant in the above-mentioned Rác or Balkan cemeteries
as indicators of date and ethnicity.300
295
In burials from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such as Makó-
Mezőkopáncs (Bálint 1936: plate No. 74); Karcag-Asszonyszállás
(Selmeczi 1973: 111). A piece from the sixteenth century is from grave
No. 170 at Alsórajk–Kastélydomb, dated with a coin from 1539 (Szőke
1996: 272 and plate No. 143 fig. 4).
296
Some examples of churchyard cemeteries with bronze hairpins in
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century graves: Bajót, grave No. 16 (Lázár
1999/b: 297); eighteen graves at Kaposvár (Bárdos1987: 20); Kide, graves
No. 103, 104, 110, and 112 (Kovalovszki 1986: 21–22). For similar data
concerning the Balkan cemeteries, see Wicker 2008: 93–94.
297
E.g., Köszeg (Bakay 1988: 86–87); Várad: a pin dated to the sixteenth
century (Rusu 2002: 93 and plate No. 59).
298
This cannot be excluded as a possible reason behind the lack of pins also
in the case of two cemeteries classified as Balkan, though there might be
many other explanations as well, such as the population interred there did
not wear hairpins. Lázár 1999/a; Lázár 2003; Wicker 2008: 93.
299
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 54 (my own translation of the Hungarian
origial); Wicker 2008: 92–93.
300
Wicker 2003/a: 238.
58
These simple and cheap accessories were neither
mentioned, nor depicted in the sources. The way in which
they were worn can only be reconstructed with the help of
the excavated burials. In most cases the pins belonged to
the female headgear. In some graves there are five to fifteen
pieces lying in a radius around the skull, often simple pins
combined with decorated ones. The positions of the pins
indicate that these women used to wear their hair in a bun,
or/and a veil, a kerchief or other headwear was fixed over it.
This headdress was typical in two excavated cemeteries. One
of them – Kaposvár – is a churchyard cemetery (Fig. 37), the
other – Dombóvár-Békató – is a cemetery of a population of
Balkan origins (Fig. 38).301
A pin found either on both sides or on one side of the skull
characterized several graves in Katymár, one of the so-called
Balkan cemeteries. On the basis of these an oriental head
covering with a veil that was led in front of the face or under
the chin, fixed with one or two pins has been reconstructed.302
However, a similar position of pins was observed in
churchyard cemeteries as well, as in Kide or Kaposvár.303
Also at Katymár the archaeologist found two graves where
the pins were applied to fix or decorate an ornamented band-
like headgear.304 Moreover, ethnographic analogies suggest
a common way of using the pins, as described in the so-
called Chronicle of Nagykőrös in the mid-nineteenth century,
according to which women used to fix their fine white batiste
headkerchiefs near their ears with two bead-headed hairpins.305
The most particular, but still well grounded conclusion one
can draw is that females belonging to different ethnic groups
used to fix their hair or some sort of textile headgear with the
help of these pins. With the lack of textile remains and direct
written or pictorial sources it is not possible to reconstruct any
specific wear, and even if there were such sources at disposal,
it is questionable whether interpreting all the gravefinds from
different contexts through generalizing on the bases of those
would be justified methodologically, as one cannot exclude
the existence of variations.
The pins usually belonged to the headdress of women,
but they have been found in burials of children and men as
well. This was the case in the Balkan cemetery of Dombóvár-
Békató, where several male and infant remains had pins on the
foreheads.306 In a grave at Magyarcsanád-Bökénymindszent
that has been dated to the first half of the nineteenth century,
an elderly man had a pin above the right orbit, which the
archaeologist interpreted as the trace of the traditional
headwear of aged men with a tuft fixed on the forehead.307
The pins do not always turn up around the skull. In the
churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár there was a pin on the
shoulder in the grave of a female and on the arm of another
301
Kaposvár, graves No. 94, 107, 183, 761, 772, 773, 810, 820, 1025 (Bárdos
1987: 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, and fig. 28); Dombóvár-Békató: graves No. 22,
26, 98, 234 (Gaál 1980: 136, 142, 156, and fig. 10 and 18).
302
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 21 and 28;Wicker 2008: 97–98 and 231–233,
figs 11–13.
303
Kide, on both sides of the skull of a young girl in grave No. 104
(Kovalovszky 1986: 21); Kaposvár, graves No. 930 and 978 (Bárdos
1987: 35).
304
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 54–55.
305
“...patyolat fejeken fehért hordoztanak, azokat két felől a füleik körül
gombos gyönggyel fűzött ezüst tükben ékességnek okáért tartottanak.”
(Török ed. 1970: 45).
306
Graves No. 35, 87, 94, and 107 (Gaál 1980: 137, 141, 142, and 144).
307
Banner 1926: 80–83.
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

one.308 At Kide a pin lay on the right side of the jaw of an

infant.309In the churchyard of Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás the
archaeologist described pins that belonged to the corset.310
The situation of the pins was the most diverse in the Balkan
cemeteries of Dombóvár and Zombor. They were observed
under the chins, on the clavicles, the arms, the chests, the
pelvises, and the hips of males, females, and infants.311
According to the latter examples the pins were applied to
secure the garments and probably also the mortuary clothes. It
seems that the use of the simple and cheap objects was general
and manifold, was not gender-specific, and when applied on
female headgear they do not seem to indicate ethnicity.

Silver hairpins with large spherical heads

Simple hairpins have been interpreted as pointing towards
Serbia as a homeland of the population within the Balkans, as
these were related to ornamented pieces that are known from
Balkan treasure hoards. The more spectacular silver pins have
a large, spherical, hollow head, made of two hemispheres
soldered together. Treasure hoards from Ritopek, Dubovac,
and Tomaševac in Serbia (see fig. 59), Peč in Kosovo, and
Battonya in Southern Hungary have been involved in the
investigation.312 In the treasure hoard from Battonya the pins
are connected with a silver tie decorated with drop-shaped
pendants, forming a sort of headgear.
Besides the hairpins these treasure hoards contain similar
headgear, but with round metal plates instead of pins, as well
as metal belts, brooches with flat, polygonal heads, pendants,
and earrings. The decoration of all of the objects is composed
of small bent circles of filigree, granulated silver beads, glass Fig. 40. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Bánffihunyad
(Huedin, Romania). (Cipăianu 1973: 654, plate I.)

Fig. 39. Pendant from the Southern Slav cemetery

at Katymár. Türr István Museum, Baja. Fig. 41. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Bánffihunyad
(Wicker 2008: 246, plate VI.) (Huedin, Romania). (Cipăianu 1973: 656, plate III.)

308
Graves No. 149 and 759 (Bárdos 1987: 26 and 32).
309
Kovalovszky 1986: 22.
310
Simonyi 2005: 310.
311
Dombóvár: graves No. 5, 36, 86, 103, and 227 (Gaál 1980: 134, 137, 141
and 143); Zombor (Korek 1992: 185–189).
312
Wicker 2001;.Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 54–55, footnote 145; Wicker
2003/a: 242.

59
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
Fig. 42. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from
Drégelypalánk. (Kövér 1892: 33.)
inlay, and small jingling plates applied as pendants.313 A pair
of ornaments that was to be applied on the veil or kerchief at
the temples or as earrings,314 a stray find from the Katymár
cemetery, is similar to this Balkan jewelry in its decoration
and function (Fig. 39 ), and there are also analogies in the
excavated cemeteries in Serbia and Macedonia. Thus, it
can be labeled as one of the Turkish-Balkan popular items
of jewelry.315 However, the identification of the items as
indicators of ethnicity is more problematic.
Similar hairpins in the collections of different museums in
Hungary have come from treasure hoards from other parts of
Hungary beside the southern areas. The first known pieces
were found in a hoard at Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania)
in 1882 (Figs. 40, 41). The hoard comprises six gilded silver
hairpins decorated with filigree work, a small triangular plate
with six golden tubes that served as an ornament on a garment,
and several coins of Prince Gábor Bethlen of Transylvania,
which were minted in 1622 and 1625.316 Two pairs of buckles
and two hairpins were found in a hoard at Drégelypalánk (Fig.
42).317
A hoard comprised of two pairs of gilded silver buckles,
a gilded silver ring, a silver spoon, a gilded silver pin with
filigree work, and the fourteenth-century typarium (seal)
of Nagybánya was found near Nagybánya (Baia Mare,
313
On treasure hoards and Turkish-Balkan jewelry, see Gerelyes 1999: 41–48.
314
Usually labeled “earrings,” but Erika Wicker assumed that the hooks
are unfit to set them in the ear (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 57; Wicker
2005/c).
315
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 56; Wicker 2005/c.
316
Pulszky and Radisics 1885: 9–10; Cipăianu 1973: 653–663.
317
Kövér 1892: 33.
60
Romania) (Fig. 11).318 Agricultural work turned up a hoard
in Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania). The objects now in the
Museum of Bistriţa (Romania) are two pendants with small
rhomboid rattlers and filigree work, a plate to be applied on
cloth, four hairpins, and two rings, all made of gilded silver,
and 149 silver coins (Fig. 43).319
Near Tolna, during agricultural work, another hoard was
discovered containing four silver cups, four spoons, four pair
of buckles and a fragment (see fig. 72), three hairpins with
filigree work and silver granulated beads (Fig. 44), the silver
parts of a belt, a piece of an openwork metal lace, and a pendant
decorated with a pomegranate.320 All of this goldsmith’s work
has been identified as coming from a garment of a woman
from the middle layer of the nobility from the sixteenth or the
beginning of the seventeenth century.
Other hairpins are known from archaeological contexts.
A gilded silver hairpin decorated with filigree and granulated
beads was found during archaeological research at the castle
of Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania), dated to the sixteenth
century (Fig 45).321 Another piece turned up in Saxon
surroundings, now on display in the castle of Barcarozsnyó
(Rişnov, Romania).322
Probably the reason for the low number of similar hairpins
from churchyard cemeteries is that only a few have been
excavated in Hungary.323 The earliest known example was
found in the medieval cemetery of Kaszaper.324 The churchyard
cemetery at Kaposvár revealed two female graves, each
containing pins with large spherical heads among the nine or
ten hairpins that were in a radius around the skull (Fig. 37,
46, and 47). In these cases the position of the pins indicates
the headdress: the pins probably fixed a sort of bonnet on the
bun.325
Some hairpins with large spherical heads are just briefly
mentioned in short excavation reports. Hairpins with
granulated ornaments are noted from the site of Babócsa-
Bolhó.326 A gilded silver hairpin decorated with openwork was
found in one of the eight graves excavated in the sanctuary of
the Calvinist church at Balatonszőlős (Fig 48).327 Two gilded
318
It was dated with the help of a silver quarter-taler of Emperor Ferdinand
I, minted in 1555, and a silver half-taler of Imperial Marshal August from
1564 (Mihalik 1906/a; Mihalik 1906/b).
319
The jewelry has been dated to the sixteenth century, but the dates of the
coins have not been published. (Telcean 1976). Telcean knows only one
analogy of the earrings from the nearby village Mittye (Mititei, Romania).
She assumes that they were made in a local Transylvanian workshop in
the fifteenth or sixteenth century, following fourteenth or fifteenth century
Byzantine patterns transmitted from the Lower Danube area (Telcean
1976: 215).
320
Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 219–244.
321
Rusu 1998: 36, 68, and fig. 130/25. The shank of the hairpin has been
bent back; probably it was applied in this secondary form as a button or a
pendant.
322
Unpublished.
323
It was Edith Bárdos, the archaeologist of the churchyard cemetery at
Kaposvár, who first stated this question, (Bárdos 1987: 22–23). On the
other hand, there might be many unpublished pieces in museum collections
all over Hungary, as it can be concluded from some informal data I was
provided by archaeologists.
324
Grave No. 407. The cemetery was dated to the age of Ferdinand I (1526–
1564) (Bálint 1938: 161 and plate 17, fig. 7). The author mentions an
analogy with a hairpin from the Gyula-Fövenyes cemetery.
325
In the same article the archaeologist mentions a similar finding in a
sixteenth-century grave in the churchyard cemetery around the Saint
Nicholas chapel in Keszthely (Bárdos 1987: 22, footnote 29).
326
Magyar 1981: 62, 69, and pl. 3, fig. 20–23.
327
Grave No. 4. Another of these burials is dated by a coin minted in 1535
(László 1980: 116 and 120, fig. 12).
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

Fig. 43. Objects from the treasure hoard found at Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania). Museum of Bistriţa (Romania). (Telcean
1976 : 214, plate I, and 215, plate II.)

silver hairpins are reported from the rescue excavation of

the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century cemetery at Damóc-
Temetődomb.328 A hairpin decorated with filigree work came
from one of five sixteenth- and seventeenth-century graves in
the church of Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia) (Fig. 49).329
Seven hairpins with large spherical heads from the site
Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld are on display in the Satu Mare
County Museum in Romania (Figs. 50, 51, 52).330 A pair of
gilded silver buckles, decorated with ornamental foliage held
in a bunch by a tiny human figure, is reported from the same
grave with one of the hairpins.331
There is only one Balkan cemetery where – according to
the archaeological report – a pin with large head was found.
In the publication of Zombor the author compares two pins to
the pieces known from Kaszaper and Nagybánya, but neither
does he provide a detailed description of the objects including
their material, nor a distinguishable illustration.332 The same
is true for the six hairpins coming from Bodrogmonostorszeg,

328
J. Dankó 1975: 116.
329
Ruttkay 1997: fig. 8/4.
330
The archaeologist János Németi published six of them that were found in
1966 (Németi 1982: 172–173 and plates XLIV-XLV). The seventh piece
turned up in 1994 (Németi 1995: 125). Further two pins were found in
1997; one as a stray find, the other by the scull of grave No. 5, together
with some pieces of textile and beads, which remained unpublished. I thank
János Németi and Attila Hágó for providing me with the information. See
fig. 53.
331
I did not have the opportunity to study the buckle personally; I used the
Fig. 44. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Tolna. description of János Németi (Németi 1982: 174 and plate XLV. fig. 4). The
Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Lovag and T. closest analogy of the buckle comes from the hoard of Nagybánya (Mihalik
Németh 1974: 229, fig. 6.) 1906/a: 121).
332
Korek 1992: 183.

61
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

Fig. 45. Hairpin found in the castle of Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos,

Romania). (Rusu 1998: 130, fig. 25.)

Fig. 46. Hairpins from grave 773 in the churchyard cemetery Fig. 48. Hairpin from grave 4 at Balatonszőlős. Hungarian
at Kaposvár. Museum of Somogy County, Kaposvár. (After National Museum, Budapest. (László 1980: 120, fig. 12.)
Bárdos 1987: 49, plate 2 and 50, plate 3.)

Fig. 47. Hairpins from grave 772 in the churchyard cemetery Fig. 49. Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at
at Kaposvár. Museum of Somogy County, Kaposvár. (After Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia). (Ruttkay, 1997: fig. 8.)
Bárdos 1987: 49, plate 2.)

62
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

Fig. 50. Hairpins from the churchyard cemetery at

Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu
Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

Fig. 52. Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at

Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu
Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

Fig. 51. Hairpin from the churchyard cemetery at Fig. 53. Hairpins from the churchyard cemetery at
Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum of Satu
Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi. Mare County. Courtesy of János Németi.

63
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
Fig. 54. “A Saxon woman from Bistritz (Bistriţa, Romania).”
Illustration in a water colour costume codex
(Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National
Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892). Courtesy of the
National Széchényi Library.
which have been compared to the ones from the Tomaševac
hoard.333 However, according to archaeological report it is not
clear whether they belonged to the cemetery or to a treasure
hoard that had been found nearby. Hairpins with large spherical
heads made of bronze or bad-quality silver but without any
ornamentation turned up in four graves at Bácsalmás and in
two burials at Katymár.334
Some hairpins with large, ornamented head of various forms
are referred to in written documents. Baron Béla Radvánszky,
who accumulated a huge collection of primary sources on the
material culture of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
nobility in the second half of the nineteenth century, concluded
that either they attached the veil to the hair on both sides with
clasps or decorated pins or they fixed the hair in a bun on
both sides with large hairpins.335 However, it seems that it was
not just the members of the nobility who wore such jewelry.
The Hungarian Chronicle by Dillich, issued in 1600, says
that among the Saxons in Transylvania “women twine their
veil round their head and they fasten it with big, spheriform
pins.”336 A painting preserved in the Bruckenthalmuseum in
Sibiu (Nagyszeben, Romania) represents a Saxon woman in
333
Korek 1992: 190. Another pair of pins was mentioned from Baja, Hunyadi
u. 2 (Wicker 2005/b: 24).
334
Wicker 2008: 95 and plate III, 11–16.
335
Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 247, 264.
336
Cited by Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 226, footnote 10; Bárdos 1987: 22,
footnote 35 (my translation).
64
Fig. 55. “A Saxon woman in winter clothing.” Illustration
in a water colour costume codex (Costumebilder aus
Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart.
Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.
Hungarian gala costume with clasp-form brooches, a silver
belt, and a handkerchief. Her veil is fixed on her hair with
two hairpins (one on each side).337 Pins pierced to various
forms of headgears of Saxon female burghers appear on the
illustrations of costume codices as well (Figs. 2, 54, 55, 56).
Similar objects are also known in ethnography. Their name is
“roll-up-pin,” and the process of “rolling-up” means wrapping
a fine kerchief around the head of a bride and securing it with
hairpins. This tradition was known in different areas and
among different ethnic groups of the Carpathian Basin even in
the first part of the twentieth century.338
In the case of the individual objects from archaeological
contexts it is not easy to define the members of which
ethnic groups used to wear them and how. The hairpin from
Barcarozsnyó was probably owned by an inhabitant of a
Saxon fortified town, and analysis of the written sources
revealed that the inhabitants of Bobáld who were buried in
the excavated cemetery belonged to a mixed Romanian and
Hungarian population.339
Different groups of sources indicate a widespread use
of gilded silver hairpins that were manufactured of similar
elements. They were not specific to any ethnic group, as it
seems that the pins are found equally among the Saxons,
337
Domanovszky ed: n.d.: 380. On the widespread use of hairpins among
Saxons with references to a variety of sources, see Niţu 2005: 142–143.
338
Ortutay ed. 1979: vol 2, 62–64.
339
Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 315–324; Mérai 2007.
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

Hungarians, and Romanians.340 They served as objects for

accumulation because of their precious material, without
any regard to the original function.341 In some cases they
were hidden together with jewelry of Turkish-Balkan types,
but there are hoards where they were associated with objects
that were in use in different parts of Hungary in different
social and ethnic layers from the Late Middle Ages onwards,
without any element that would relate them to the Balkans.
Thus, neither does the use of decorated pins essentially lead
towards this geographical direction.

Clasps, buttons, and reconstructions of oriental garments

Two-piece clasps consisting of an omega-shaped loop and
a hook are still used today. They occur in burials situated
in Hungary dating from the end of the fourteenth or the
beginning of the fifteenth century, made of bronze and iron,342
and a significant number of them is known from the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. The clasps with hooks were used
to fasten the clothes of both males and females, and they
have been found in diverse positions in the graves of various
cemeteries.
In the cemetery of the Balkan population at Dombóvár most
of the clasps were found in female graves. The archaeologist
assumed that they could have served to fasten the shirt, the
waistline of the skirt, or the loose, oriental trousers.343 A
similar female garment was represented on a seventeenth-
century watercolor of a Rác woman from Transylvania.344
Compared to the representations of other ethnic groups in the
same watercolor series, the depictions testify that the main
difference between the cloths of different ethnic groups was
perceived to lie in the cut and in the colors.345 However, only Fig. 56. “A Saxon peasant woman.” Illustration in a water
the metal parts that served to fasten the clothes are preserved colour costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen;
in the graves, and there is no information about the other Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892).
characteristics of the garments worn by the population of the Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.
particular cemetery. There is no reason to exclude that similar
buttons or clasps could have been applied on significantly along the front of the dolman.348 However, the features and
different garments, and the typical wear of the same group objects found in the graves reflect the burial customs, and not
could have been fastened with different accessories. Even the necessarily the way of wearing clothes, so even if the buttons
archaeological finds indicate this: clasps at similar places as are more frequent in one cemetery than another, this does not
in Dombóvár have been found in churchyard cemeteries as indicate the actual popularity of wearing a dolman,349 but may
well.346 Taking up the question of buttons, a similar cautious only reflect a difference in the funeral practice.350
approach is expedient when reconstructing oriental, caftan-
like clothes fastened by one, two, or three buttons situated on
the right side just below the neck.347
Shank buttons are common finds in both the churchyard
cemeteries and those of the Balkan peoples in Hungary. They
usually lie in a line parallel with the spine, as they were fixed

340
Besides, they were also used in Moldavia and Walachia (see Niţu
2005:143–144, with references to sources).
341
Nitu 2005: 142–147.
342
E.g., in the cemetery at Makó-Mezőkopáncs (Bálint 1936: plate No. LXXIV);
at Kaposvár in grave No. 411 dated with a coin of King Sigismund (Bárdos
1987: 27). At Csút in a fifteenth-century grave (Gerevich 1943: 156).
343
Gaál 1982: 168; Gaál 2003: 225; Wicker 2008: 127–129.
344
“A Rascian’s wife” (Jankovics, Galavics, and R. Várkonyi 1990: fig. 58).
345
E.g., “A Hungarian Trades man’s wife” wears a similar short dolman with
a row of shank buttons, and her hair is covered with a kerchief, but the
color and the cut of the dress are different (Jankovics, Galavics, and R. 348
Grave No. 19 and 96 in Katymár (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 15, 35);
Várkonyi 1990: fig. 12). grave No. 10 and 18 in Esztergom-Szentkirály (Lázár 1999/a: 220–221);
346
E.g., Kide, grave No. 110 (Kovalovszky 1986: 22); Kaposvár, graves No. eight graves at Győr-Gabonavásártér (Mithay 1985: 186–193); grave No.
99, 292, 550, 559, 933 (Bárdos 1987: 26, 28, 30, 35); Lászlófalva, grave 103 in Dombóvár (Gaál 1980: 143).
No. 40/II (Pálóczi Horváth 1976: 298); Dombóvár-Békató, grave No. 185 349
As interpreted by Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 59, footnote 163.
(Gaál 1980: 151). 350
It is known from ethnography that in several areas of Hungary they used
347
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 59, footnote 163. to bury the deceased in a shirt, e.g., Csapó 1977: 81.

65
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries

Fig. 57. Distribution of hairpins with large spherical head in Hungary. Prepared by the author.

1. Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania) 7. Damóc 13. Nagykároly – Bobald (Carei,

2. Babócsa-Bolhó 8. Drégelypalánk Romania)
3. Balatonszőlős 9. Kaposvár 14. Ráckeve
4. Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) 10. Kaszaper 15. Tolna
5. Barcarozsnyó (Rişnov, Romania) 11. Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania) 16. Tomaševac (Serbia)
6. Bodrogmonostorszeg 12. Nagybánya 17. Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia)
(Bački Monoštor, Serbia) (Baia Mare, Romania) 18. Zombor (Sombor, Serbia)

Objects exclusive to cemeteries of the Balkan peoples

There are objects belonging to garments that have only been
found in the cemeteries of Balkan groups up to now. Burying
women and infants in decorated headgear was general in
churchyard cemeteries as well, but the ornaments are different
and characteristic. In the Balkan cemeteries of Dombóvár
and Zombor several pieces of headgear were decorated with
cowries (Fig. 33).351 The graves of Bodrogmonostorszeg
were not properly documented, but there are many cowries
among the finds that could have belonged to the decoration
of headgear.352 In Bácsalmás cowries were found in four
graves.353 As opposed to the Slav cemeteries mentioned
above no cowries have been found in churchyard cemeteries
up to now. However, it is of peculiar interest that members
of the Hungarian nobility would use horse harness that was
351
Graves No. 65, 84, 100, 130, 224 at Dombóvár and graves No. 72 and 85
in Zombor (Gaál 1980: 139, 141, and 143; Korek 1992: 183).
352
Korek 1992: 190 and plate No. III.
353
Wicker 2003/a: 239; Wicker 2008: 100–103.
decorated with cowries, which is assumed to have resulted
from a Turkish, even an Arabic impact.354
Pendants meant to be worn above the temples are also
ornaments that characterized the headdress of the Balkan
groups, but not the population of the churchyard cemeteries.
However, the examples that have been found up to now do not
show a uniform pattern. The most valuable silver piece is from
Katymár, but, as it was a stray find, it is not known by whom
and how it was worn (Fig. 39). Analogies from the Balkans
suggest that similar objects were fixed on the headwear at the
temples.355 The same is true for the jingling triangular bronze
pendant among the finds from Bodrogmonostorszeg.356 There
was only one grave at Dombóvár in which triangular tin
pendants were found at the temples of a woman’s skull; the
354
Kovács, L.2003: 345–350.
355
Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 55–77 and fig. 7 on page 90; Wicker 2005/c.
356
Korek 1992: plate No. V, fig. ; Wicker 2008: 108–113.

66
 Archaeological evidence of clothing and the problem of ethnicity in the research of Ottoman-period cemeteries
other two pieces came from burials of male infants, possibly
from a necklace or just placed in the grave.357
The archaeological record has been considered by
previous research to be suitable for finding the homelands
of the immigrating groups within the Balkans. Comparing
burial customs and clothing of both the peoples coming
to Hungary and those living in the Balkans as a method
might raise a practical and a theoretical question. One is
whether there is a sufficient amount of data at disposal;
the other is whether it is the common place of origin, the
common religion, or the common ethnicity that might
underlie similarities and differences in the archaeological
record. If yes, then in what way, and if not, then what other
factors contributed to it. The same questions must be raised
when turning towards the other context where the same
groups, more precisely their cemeteries appear due to their
migration, that of the sites with burials of contemporary
Hungary.
Object types that have been considered as relevant in this
respect, such as bronze and iron hairpins with small, round
heads, became widespread from the fourteenth century onwards
in Hungary, and they are common finds both in cemeteries of
peoples coming from the Balkans and in churchyards from the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The position of the pins
is not enough information to be able to reconstruct a piece
of headgear that distinguishes Balkan groups, and the same
357
Grave No. 5 (Gaál 1980: 134, 174).
67
is true for the relations of clasps, hooks, and buttons to the
entire garments.
Ornamented silver hairpins with large spherical heads
have been found in Balkan treasure hoards together with
other Turkish–Balkan items of jewelry. Similar hairpins are
known, however, in treasure hoards from various parts of
Hungary and Transylvania containing objects of Gothic and
Renaissance character. Several pieces have been published
from churchyard cemeteries, and probably the reason for
not having even more is the small number of excavated and
published churchyards. A further piece was found in Alvinc
castle (Vinţu de Jos, Romania), and another one in a Saxon
settlement. Depictions and written sources also attest that
Saxon women fastened their veils with similar pins, and
portraits of the nobility represent how their more valuable
items were worn. Thus, silver hairpins with large spherical
heads cannot be considered as specific for any ethnic group.
However, there are types of jewelry that seem to characterize
Balkan cemeteries, while churchyards not at all, such as cowry
decoration of the headgear and metal pendants with filigree
and openwork. Still, in these cases, the use (and the absence)
of the objects pointing towards a wider region that was
distinct in certain aspects of the material culture of Hungary
might have also been related to age, status, and a series of
other factors besides ethnicity, such as what materials and
technologies were available for the groups and the individuals
during and after migration.
68
 Chapter 8

Experimenting with the context

In the previous chapter it has been demonstrated that

some of the object types that previously seemed as being
characteristic for groups of the population of Ottoman-period
Hungary arriving from the Balkans have appeared also in a
different context, suggesting a more widespread use that was
not determined by ethnicity or geographical homeland. The
analysis of the context of individual objects in respects other
than ethnicity through textual evidence (related either directly
or indirectly), archaeological record, and images might reveal
more about the way clothing items and accessories functioned
in social interactions. I will demonstrate through a handful
of object types that a closer look at the context might lead to
new questions, although I am aware that the possibilities for
such an attempt are limited due to the number of data at my
disposal. It is the social and financial status, as well as gender
and age, and a variety of social interactions that will most
often come to the foreground through the examples as being
decisive in the use of certain forms. In some cases ethnic
aspects are interwoven as well, while the formation of the
archaeological record was obviously influenced also by the
systems of beliefs and concepts of commemoration.

From diamonds and pearls to glass and beads: ornamented

hairpins

I have already treated the ethnic interpretation of hairpins

with large spherical heads, and concluded that they are not
specific to any ethnic group, as is indicated by the context of
the archaeological finds. It has also already been mentioned
that decorative hairpins formed a part of the headdress of
noble ladies and Saxon burghers as well.
Some similar, richly decorated hairpins are referred to in
written documents. Particularly valuable pieces are listed
in the inventories of the movables of seventeenth-century
aristocracy: “a golden hairpin in which there is one sapphire,
five rubies, an old [= big] pearl and two small ones” was
mentioned in 1639,358 “a pin to wear on the head and two
roll-up pins made of silver” in 1644,359 and “two pins with
gems, one with diamonds and rubies, the other with sapphires
and emeralds” in 1647.360 The heads of these sumptuous pins
were not always globes; “a hairpin with rubies in the form
of a rose” was listed in a dowry list in 1647, and a gilded
silver hairpin “on the top of which [is] a rose in which there
are 12 small rubies and in the midst an emerald” appears in a
testament from 1651.361 Depictions of noble ladies show how
hairpins were worn, e.g., in the so-called ancestors’ galleries
of aristocratic families that displayed life-sized portraits of
358
The personalia delivered by the wife of Mátyás Andrássy to the wife of
Zsigmond Thököly (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 270). The original texts are
in Hungarian, translated into English by me.
359
The testament of the wife of Mihály Bécsi (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2,
289).
360
Possessed by Ilona Woiszka (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 2, 294).
361
The dowry list of Judit Újfalussy, bride of László Zay (Radvánszky 1896:
vol. 2, 272); testament of Baroness Ilona Esterházy (Radvánszky 1896:
vol. 2, 312).
Fig. 58. Portrait of Kata Thököly, wife of Ferenc Esterházy.
1691. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Courtesy of
the Hungarian National Museum.
female members. On the portraits from the last decades of
the seventeenth century the hair of the ladies is bound up and
hairpins with large, round or rosette heads are stuck all around
it (Fig. 58).362
Besides the already quoted description by Dillich, depictions
also suggest that hairpins were considered to characterize the
headwear of Saxon burghers (see figs. 2, 54, 55, 56).363 In the
case of the objects from archaeological contexts it is more
difficult to define which social layers used them. The hairpin
found in the castle of Alvinc was associated with the sphere
of the highest nobility of Transylvania (see fig. 45), whereas
the one from Barcarozsnyó (Râşnov, Romania) was probably
owned by an inhabitant of a Saxon fortified town.
362
The portraits of Countess Kata Thököly and Éva Thököly, wives of Prince
Pál Esterházy (Buzási ed. 1988: figs.12 and 72).
363
For example, in the costume book of the British Museum, four Saxon
women are depicted wearing hairpins (Jankovics, R. Várkonyi, and
Galavics 1990: figs. 14, 18, 32, 42).

69
 Experimenting with the context

The identification of the population of cemeteries would

seem to be an obvious source to answer the question. The
present state of research in Hungary, however, limits the
possibilities of such an attempt. In the cases when hairpins
with large spherical pinheads were found in churchyard
cemeteries, no attempts were made to identify the social
status of the owner. In the churches of Balatonszőlős and
Zobordarázs (Dražovce, Slovakia) the graves in question were
situated in the sanctuary, which indicates that the deceased
were in some sense prominent personalities of the region (see
figs. 48 and 49).364 The historical study of the early modern
cemetery of Nagykároly-Bobáld, from which the greatest
number of hairpins has been published, led to contrasting
conclusions (see figs. 50-53).
The medieval and early modern village of Bobáld
was situated on an estate of the Károlyi family; the most
important sources for the population buried in the cemetery
are the taxation lists.365 Evidence from the second half of the
seventeenth century suggests that most of the mixed Hungarian
and Romanian population escaped the devastations by the
Turks and Tartars leaving the settlement, and the new layer that
replaced them had a different legal status. They did not own Fig. 59. Hairpins from the treasure hoard from Tomaševac.
the land anymore, so they were called inquilini. However, it (Kövér 1897: 247, plate 13.)
is clear from the documents recording their stocks of animals
that this was a rather wealthy stratum. Their legal relation to The problem of the relation between quality, dating, and
the land they cultivated, which, as the term inquilinus implies, social and financial status concerns hairpins as well. The hoard
would have meant poverty in medieval times, now ensured a from Tomaševac (Serbia) was related to rustic jewelry of
much more favorable status, with fewer obligations.366 Thus, Turkish–Balkan origin by the archaeologist Ibolya Gerelyes,
the gilded silver hairpins and the buckle from the graves were but she did not mention the hairpins in this context.371 She
owned by the members of a population who belonged to a referred to hoards from the Balkans and Serbia as analogies
wealthy, upwardly mobile layer of peasants. which had been dated to the second half or the end of the
In the case of treasure hoards there is no information either seventeenth century – according to associated coins. The
on the owner of the objects, nor on the person who hid them, jewelry of these hoards is rather rustic, made of worse quality
except for the hoard of Tolna (see figs. 44 and 72). One of silver, decorated with granulated silver beads, filigree-work,
the objects bears the inscribed name of Mátyás Kádas, who and glass plates. However, the pins from Tomasevác are not
probably belonged to a lower but wealthy layer of merchants. of this type; they are more elaborate, with rich, finely formed
The authors of the study of the hoard assumed that the jewelry filigree and without pendants (I have no information on the
was owned by a noblewoman and came into the possession of quality of the silver of any of the pins) (Fig. 59). Similar pieces
Mátyás Kádas as a pawn, or their owner entrusted him to hide from Alvinc (Vinţu de Jos, Romania), Nagybánya (Baia Mare,
them together with his own valuables.367 Gilded and silver Romania), and Balatonszőlős are from a sixteenth-century
mounts, buckles decorated with vegetal ornaments and small context (see figs. 11, 45, and 48). The question is whether the
figures, and a chain were originally applied on a textile band, rustic style and the rather low quality indicate a chronological
and constituted a type of belt that characterized the female difference, as seems to be the case with the belts, or different
costume of the middle layer of sixteenth-century nobility.368 economic possibilities, ambitions, and social status of the
However, similar belts of worse quality from Transylvania, owners. The answer cannot be given at the present state of
produced with a less elaborate technology, are found in research without the detailed archaeological context of each
the collections of the Hungarian National Museum and the object and historical studies concerning the settlements and
Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest; they were part of the the populations of the sites.
costumes of burghers in the second half of the seventeenth The decoration of the pinheads with granulated silver beads
century.369 A similar belt was represented on a painting of the and red and white glass inlay is a reminder of the pearl, ruby,
Bruckenthal Museum from about 1680, depicting a Saxon and diamond ornaments of the aristocracy; according to the
woman in gala dress.370 sources these latter were the most popular elements of such
jewelry.372 Hairpins are the only items of the Balkan treasure
364
Ruttkay 2005: 38; László 1980: 16. hoards that appear in churchyard cemeteries and among the
365
The documents related to the settlement are in the family archives, now in Saxons, probably because these were found suitable for the
the National Archives of Hungary. The related documents are in section P, clothing of this group (as the use of ornamented hairpins of
392, 397. For more details, see Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 318; Mérai
2007.
a different kind was obviously found suitable for the clothing
366
This phenomenon can be observed all over the country, although regionally of also the nobility), and other types were not. Balkan-type
in different degrees. See Varga 1969. hairpins were accessible and visible enough, like similar types
367
Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 219–244.
368
Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 224, 232 and 227, fig. 5.
369
Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 230, 233–234. 371
Gerelyes 1999: 41–49 and figs. 22–28.
370
Domanovszky ed. n.d.: vol. 3, 380. 372
Kiss 2001: 32.

70
 Experimenting with the context

of jewelry on the headgear of the highest strata, and burghers,

wealthy peasants, and the members of the lower nobility could
also afford to possess them and apply them to their traditional
headgear.
The place of production of the known items of pins has not
been identified; it is still to be investigated whether they are
products of Balkan craftsmen or were made in the territory
of Hungary or Transylvania.373 The distribution of the pins
can possibly be related to the activity of the so-called “Greek
merchants” in Hungary, merchants from all over the Balkans
under Ottoman rule and from Ragusa. Unfortunately, only
eighteenth-century lists of their stock have survived, which
contain household articles, spices, different sorts of textiles,
ready-made clothes, veils, and small items: buttons, clasps, and
also pins, in one case specified as báb-tű, which can mean a pin
with a head.374 Though not hairpins, but similar other goods of
Greek merchants were listed in the sixteenth century custom
registers of Sibiu (Nagyszeben, Romania).375 The presence of
these merchants of Balkan origins all over the country has
been mentioned above. For example, in Sibiu and Braşov they
appeared as early as the middle of the sixteenth century.376
In 1587 Rác (Balkan-origin) and Ragusan merchants were
expelled from certain regions of the Habsburg Empire.377 They
settled down in Transylvania and the Hungarian Kingdom
from the 1610s, and their significance is suggested by the fact
that Prince Gábor Bethlen issued a limitation on their goods
in 1627.378 Greek companies were formed in Szeben (Sibiu, Fig. 60. Detail of the portrait of Borbála Wesselényi.
Romania) in 1636 and in Brassó (Braşov, Romania) in 1678; Unknown master, 1662. Hungarian National Museum,
in the 1660s they were also active at Kassa (Košice, Slovakia) Budapest. Courtesy of the Hungarian National Museum.
and Szatmárnémeti (Satu Mare, Romania).379
but confine myself to the problem of the transmission of
As red as ruby: the female headgear called “párta”380 forms, and the relation of the quality and material to the
social position and financial possibilities of the owner, as this
The exact meaning of the word párta is still debated; it covers is a direction of inquiry that seems to be more suitable to the
different types of decorated women’s headgear. Various archaeological record, as the headwear of not all of the strata
adjectives specify the term in written sources referring to that are manifest in the archaeological evidence are covered
either the form or the function, or the marital status or age of by written documents.
the wearer, but the correspondence of the types listed in the The headgear of noble ladies was made of gold and silver or
documents with the objects known from depictions or finds precious textiles such as silk and velvet, decorated with pieces
is rather problematic.381 They are generally classified in the of boglár composed of diamonds, rubies, and a great number
secondary literature based on their decoration, which can be of pearls, usually in the form of a flower; often only these
embroidery or lace, pearls or beads, mounts, spirals of bronze ornaments are found in the archaeological record because the
wire, or composite ornaments (boglár).382 I do not discuss textile has disappeared. A sumptuous párta was depicted on
here the issues of definition, types, and symbolic meanings, the head of Borbála Wesselényi, a member of the aristocracy,
in 1662 (Fig. 60).383 The most valuable pieces are known only
373
The publishers of the finds from Mezőviszolya (Visuia, Romania) and from written sources, as usually they were not buried with
Bánffihunyad (Huedin, Romania) both assumed that the jewelry was the the owners, but were passed on to the heirs. They are often
product of a Transylvanian workshop (Telcean 1976: 213; Cipăianu 1973: listed in last wills, even of males, and not only members of the
663).
374
Bur 1985: 257–271.
nobility but wealthy burghers also owned golden headgear;
375
See Pakucs-Willkocks 2007. they were considered to be worth keeping.384
376
Pakucs 2004: 154–155. Valuable pieces as finds have been unearthed from the
377
Gecsényi 1998: 193. burials of noble ladies, some of whom were even possible to
378
Gecsényi 1998: 192.
379
Gecsényi 1998: 194, 202–203.
identify by name. This was not the case in Csenger, where
380
In this sub-chapter I have used the catalog of an MA thesis written by finds from disturbed burials contained forty-nine pieces
Borbála Kelényi at the Institute of Archaeology of Eötvös Loránd of gold boglár decorated with enamel and filigree; several
University, Budapest (Kelényi 2006). had goldsmith’s marks (see fig. 13).385 Similar ornaments
381
Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 229–235. The explanation provided by Irena
Turneau in the glossary of her book is a simplification of the meaning;
composed the headgear of a young girl excavated in Boldva,
párta can take various forms, not just semicircular, and neither does the
author refer to the diverse decoration patterns (Turnau 1991: 164).
382
Mojzsis 1984: 206–207; Béla Horváth provides a combined classification; 383
Hungarian National Museum, Anna Ridovics ed. 2001: 64.
some of the categories refer to the function, others to the decoration 384
Kelényi 2006: 79–80; Szende 2004: 140; Radvánszky 1896: vol.1, 232–
(Horváth 1970:162–163). The word boglár means a composite ornament 233.
that could be applied on any item of clothing. 385
Höllrigl 1934: 101–107.

71
 Experimenting with the context
Fig. 61. Ornament (boglár) from a headgear from a burial
at Boldva. (E. Nagy 1982: fig. 35.)
Fig. 62. Flower motive made of garnet from
the Csenger crypt. Hungarian National
Museum, Budapest.
(Höllrigl 1934: 102, fig. 80.)
Fig. 63. Headgear (párta) from Tiszaörvény. Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 158, fig. 1.)
Fig. 64. Ornaments (boglár) composed of rubies and red
glass plates on the headgear from Tiszaörvény. Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 159, fig. 2.)
dated to the third quarter of the sixteenth century (Fig. 61).386
A third párta was owned by one of the noble ladies buried in
the crypt of Küküllővár (Cetatea de Baltă, Romania): either
Zsófia Patóchy or her granddaughter, Zsófia Kendy.387 Similar
386
E. Nagy 1982: 58–59, figs 33, 34, 35, 72, fig 48.
387
Bunta 1977: 223–224.
72
ornaments were found in the grave of the daughter of Mihnea,
Prince of Walachia.388 According to the analysis of the forms,
all these ornaments were made in the same workshop at
Kolozsvár (Cluj, Romania).389 Golden ornaments found in
the disturbed crypt of Losonc (Lučenec, Slovakia) belonged
to the burial costume of a member of the Losonczy family,
based on historical data.390 Female members of the Dobozy
family buried in the Protestant cemetery of Debrecen had
embroidered silk headgear with golden ornaments with pearls,
and composed of enameled golden ornaments with rubies and
pearls, both marked by goldsmiths from Debrecen.391
In both Csenger and Debrecen, besides the headgear with
golden ornaments, flower motifs were formed of garnet
plates (Fig. 62).392 The archaeologist of Csenger listed four
sites where similar flower forms composed of garnets were
found,393 and some further examples have been published since
Fig. 65. Headgear (párta) from Szada. Hungarian National
Museum, Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 160, fig. 3.)
Fig. 66. Ornaments (boglár) composed of red glass plates
on the headgear from Szada. Hungarian National Museum,
Budapest. (Horváth 1970: 161, fig. 4.)
then. In Nagylózs and probably Ják, members of local noble
388
Bunta 1977: 231.
389
Bunta 1977: 235–236.
390
H. Kolba 1970: 181–182, 188 and figs 2, 3.
391
V. Szathmári 1991: 195.
392
Höllrigl 1934: 108; V. Szathmári 1991: 195.
393
Höllrigl 1934: 108–109. The pieces from Miskolc and Tiszaörvény have
already been published (Megay 1970: 133; Horváth, B. 1970: 157).
 Experimenting with the context
families were buried in such headwear in the churchyard.394 A
stray find is known from Bajót.395 The ornaments on a more
valuable piece of headgear from the churchyard cemetery
at Tiszaörvény comprise silver beads and rubies, but also
red glass imitating rubies; probably it was the product of
a workshop of nearby Debrecen (Figs. 63 and 64).396 On a
similar find from the churchyard at Szada there is only red
glass besides the pearls (Figs. 65 and 66).397 As ruby, garnet,
and red glass appear in similar ornaments – sometimes even
seem to be exchangeable –, it is very likely that garnet and
red glass substituted the ruby decoration of the objects of the
high nobility, as in the case of hairpins. Though the burials
listed above preserving headgears with ruby/garnet/red glass
decoration have not been attributed to particular families, it
seems that at least some of them can be assigned to the lower
nobility.
Another way to imitate the pieces of boglár on the headgear
of high nobility was to form knobs of paper, rags, or fibrous
plants, cover them with textile and decorate them with glass,
beads, copper, or bronze sequins and metal wire398 or simply
to group beads, spirals of bronze and textile twist, and sequins
in a way that they composed a flower motif that stood out in
relief (see e.g., fig. 67). These types of headgear characterize
churchyard cemeteries all over the country, but none of them
is formed in exactly the same way.399 In some cases it has
been proposed that such pieces of párta belonged to members
of the lower nobility.400 This type has been observed also in
historically known ethnic contexts, as in an assimilated Cuman
village at Lászlófalva,401 and in the cemetery of the Hungarian-
Romanian population of Bobáld.402 At the same time, it seems
that headgears in cemeteries of the peoples coming from the
Balkans are simpler, decorated with beads, coins, bronze
buttons, mounts and sequins, and cowries.403 Cowries have
not turned up in churchyard cemeteries, but only exclusively
in Balkan cemeteries. A párta decorated with Turkish coins
was also found in the churchyard cemetery of Kaposvár,404
although I do not know any other similar examples. This type
of decoration, though typically of Balkan character, has not
turned up in the cemeteries of Balkan groups in Hungary.405
It is easy to distinguish the headgear of the high nobility,
both because some of the burials have been identified by
name and because written sources and depictions provide
detailed information about the forms and the material. The
golden ornaments found in the archaeological context are the
394
Mojzsis 1984: 195–196 and 197, fig 1; Edőcs 2004: 361–362, and 365,
figs 1–7.
395
Lázár 1999/b: 294.
396
Horváth 1970: 157–158.
397
Horváth, B. 1970: 159.
398
E.g., in Feldebrő (S. Laczkovits 1989: 39); Kaposvár, grave No. 836
(Bárdos 1987: 17); Kéttornyúlak (S. Laczkovits 1989: 35); Óföldeák,
Grave No.74 (Béres 2003: 189).
399
S. Laczkovits 1989: 40, lists several examples, for further pieces, see
Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 316 and 323, figs. 7–8.
400
S. Laczkovits 1989: 35–41; Mojzsis 1984: especially 210.
401
Pálóczi Horváth 1976: 278–280 and 298–300.
402
Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 323, pl. 4, fig. 7.
403
E.g., graves No. 65, 84, 100, 130, 193, 224, 227 in Dombóvár-Békató
(Gaál1980: 161, 143, 146,152, 155, 169, 170, 171); graves No. 64 and 68
in Katymár (Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 25, 51); graves No. 42, 72, 85 in
Zombor-Bükkszállás (Korek 1992: 186–187).
404
Kaposvár, grave No. 970 (Bárdos 1987: 18, 35).
405
Wicker 2008: 105. There is no information available on the archaeological
context of the perforated coins from Bodrogmonostorszeg (Ibid., footnote
No. 871).
73
Fig. 67. Headgear (párta) from grave 1085
in the churchyard cemetery at Kaposvár.
(Bárdos 1987: 59, plate 12, figs. 1-2.)
products of craftsmen of guilds, and written sources testify
that noblemen also invited specialists of pearl decoration to
their courts.406
Examples of párta with garnets have been attributed
to less prominent noble families, although they were also
found in the same context as gold pieces, as in Csenger and
Debrecen. József Höllrigl suggested that garnet ornaments
were purchased through trade, probably from Bohemia.407
Headgear was constructed by specialists in making items
decorated with pearls and beads and embroiderers residing
in towns, but such craftsmen did not belong to any of the
guilds.408 Sources mention eighteenth-century pártamakers in
Debrecen, still without a guild.409 Retailers also sold ready-
made pieces; a párta was listed in the stock inventory of a
shop in Szombathely at the beginning of the seventeenth
century, and Greek merchants offered various elements
that were needed to fabricate one.410 Many items of simple
headgear decorated with beads and cowries must have been
home-made. There seems to have been no clear distinction
between the objects owned by the lower layers of the nobility
and wealthy peasants. There are transitional forms of varying
value; it may depend on how members of various strata
acquired the headgear. In some cases this is indicated by
written sources as well; the inventory of the goods owned by
Baron Benedek Serédy lists a párta with a peasant’s boglár
that is not decorated with jewels but with beads.411
The cut of female dress
Oriental and Western influences in female and male attire of
sixteenth- and seventeenth century Hungary have been widely
406
Bona Nyilasy was mentioned in 1567 as the specialist in pearl decoration
of the Transylvanian prince. Originally she went from Kassa (Košice,
Slovakia) to Eger to work for a female member of the Magochy family,
then to the court in Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia, Romania). It is also known
from the sources that a similar craftsman from Sopron worked for the
palatine Miklós Esterházy (Kemény 1895: 285).
407
There are data on significant Transylvanian garnet sources too, though
only from the eighteenth century. Bohemian garnets are of the pyrope
type, which occur in much smaller pieces and which might have been the
reason for distributing them in flower forms. I kindly thank Eszter Horváth
for this information.
408
Lajos Kemény published fifteenth- to seventeenth-century data on
specialists in pearl decoration and embroiderers in Buda and Kassa
(Košice, Slovakia), and he assumed that they produced the headgear
(Kemény 1904: 446–447).
409
V. Szathmári 1991: 198, 201.
410
Flórián 2001: 83 refers to Horváth, A. 1956: 256–272.
411
“...paraszt bogláros, nem köves, hanem gyöngy az tetejében,” V.
Szathmári 1991: 201. “Peasant’s” is an adjective that means “simple” in
the sources.
 Experimenting with the context
Fig. 68. A Hungarian
peasant’s wife
depicted in Wilhelm
Dillich, Ungarische
Chronica (Cassel: W.
Wessel, 1600).
Fig. 69. “A Hungarian countess.” Illustration in a water
colour costume codex (Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen;
Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart. Germ. 892).
Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.
treated in the literature.412 While Hungarian noblemen were
perceived by contemporaries as being similar to the Turks
in their attire, female garments of the nobility remained
influenced by Western trends, and the impact of interactions
with the Ottoman Empire were manifest in other spheres of
their lives. This would be an interesting issue to touch upon
concerning the possible interpretations of costumes and the
412
On the Turkish impact on Hungarian costume, see Tompos 2005; Gervers
1982: especially 12–15; Turnau 1991: 22–26.
74
role of ethnic stereotypes, gender, status, and age within, but
it would be mostly based on historical and pictorial evidence,
while I wish to remain with the archaeological record that
is rather limited in this sense. Metal accessories of female
garments that survived in the burials of various social layers
might reflect some aspects of the spread of forms.
A characteristic piece of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century female garment was the corset. In the sixteenth century,
the cut of female dress took shape under a general Western
impact originating from Italy; it had an angular neckline on
both the front and back and was fastened with clasps on the
front. It was first seamed together with the skirt, while in the
second half of the century tailors made the corsets as separate
articles of clothing, often even in a different color, which were
called Hungarian bodices.413 At the end of the sixteenth and
the beginning of the seventeenth century, corsets with clasps
were used in parallel with pieces that were fastened with
Fig. 70. “A Szekler maiden in gala dress.” Illustration
in a water colour costume codex (Costumebilder aus
Siebenbürgen; Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Quart.
Germ. 892). Courtesy of the National Széchényi Library.
lacing on the front;414 the same form with a V-neckline, open
on the front and closed with lacing, became widespread from
the second half of the seventeenth century.415
413
Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 183–185; László, E, 1986: 317. Garments in
“Hungarian fashion” were already mentioned in fifteenth-century sources,
see Tompos 2005: 95–96. She also investigates eastern impacts on the cut
of female dresses (Tompos 2005: 96–97).
414
V. Ember 1968: 180, figs. 108, 114, 115, and 117.
415
Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 183, 191–193; Höllrigl n.d.: 376–379; V. Ember
1968: 180; Tompos 2001: 16; László, E. 1986: 317.
 Experimenting with the context
Fig. 71. Gala dress of Katalin of Brandenburg. First half of
the 17th century. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
(Ridovics ed. 2001: 23.)
Fig. 72. Clasps from the treasure hoard from Tolna.
Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. (Lovag and T.
Németh 1974: 227, fig. 5.)
The few surviving original garments and the representations
on portraits in the ancestors’ galleries reflect that this dress
was worn by noble ladies, but the stereotypical representations
in costume books also depict peasants in similar costumes,
as in the chronicle of Dillich (see figs. 58, 60, and 68) and
in the Transylvanian costume albums (Figs, 69 and 70).
Archaeological sources on corsets show that the dress cut was
75
Fig. 73. Corset from a burial at Boldva. Museum of Applied
Arts, Budapest. (E. Nagy 1982: 65, fig. 40.)
Fig. 74. “Hungarian corset” from the Sárospatak crypt.
Rákóczi Museum of the Hungarian National Museum,
Sárospatak. (V. Ember 1968: 170, fig. 109.)
followed by the lower layers in a simplified form. The lace of
the corset was most often led through rings or hooks that were
made of precious metal on the costumes of noble ladies (see
figs. 60 and 71), and the ornamented clasps on the front were
made of gold. This may have been the function of the items
comprised in the treasure hoard of Tolna (Fig. 72).416 However,
less elaborate pieces were also listed among the valuables in
inventories, like a corset with nineteen pairs of iron clasps and
narrow lace, owned by Ilona Esterházy in 1650.417
The form with angular neckline and clasps formed a part of
the preserved costume of a sixteenth-century girl from Boldva
(Fig. 73).418 Both the type with clasps and with lacing could
416
Lovag and T. Németh 1974: 224 and 227, fig. 5.
417
The inventory of Szittya castle, 1650 (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 192; Deák
1879).
418
E. Nagy 1982: 65, fig. 40; 66, fig. 41.
 Experimenting with the context

Fig. 75. Remains of the costume and headgear in grave

108/a in the churchyard cemetery at Kide (Romania).
(Kovalovszki 1986: 21, fig. 16.)

Fig. 77. Iron loops in grave 103 in the churchyard cemetery

at Kide (Romania). (Kovalovszki 1986: 21, fig. 15.)

Fig. 76. Iron loops of the corset from grave 14 in the

churchyard cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld
(Romania). Museum of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare
(Romania). Courtesy of Péter Levente Szőcs.

be restored among the finds from the crypt of Sárospatak419

(Fig. 74) and the graves in the cathedral in Gyulafehérvár.420
Finds in churchyard cemeteries also indicate both forms.
The earlier type fastened with clasps is represented by the
silk corset decorated with metal laces from the churchyard at
Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás that has been dated to the end of the
seventeenth century.421 The hooks along the spine of a woman
probably came from a corset in the cemetery at Esztergom-
Szentkirály that has been listed among southern Balkan sites;
the burial is dated with the help of nine coins to the sixteenth
century.422
It seems likely that the lace of the corset was pulled through
the three pairs of iron rings on the chest of a young girl in
a grave in Kide; even a piece of textile edge interwoven
with metal was observed on the clavicles (Fig. 75).423 In the Fig. 78. “Spanish corset” from the Sárospatak crypt.
southern Slav cemetery at Győr-Gabonavásártér there were Rákóczi Museum of the Hungarian National Museum,
four graves – that of three women and one young girl – in Sárospatak. (V. Ember 1968: 162, fig. 99.)
which rings of the corset were found.424 In the cemetery at
Bobáld, with the remains of a mixed Hungarian and Romanian
population, three graves contained similar rings, but only one in the churchyard cemetery of Kide could have had the same
was in the original context, in the grave of an elderly woman function (Fig. 77).426
(Fig. 76).425 Two lines of hooks along the spine of a female A new Western trend of dress cut was imported to Hungary
in the second half of the sixteenth century; the so-called
419
Corsets with clasps: V. Ember 1968: 174–176; with lacing: ibid., 175, 177,
and figs. 102–104.
Spanish corset appears in the inventories of the nobility.427
420
Pósta 1918: 42, fig. 23; 97, fig. 55; 132, fig. 81. It was closed with clasps in the front up to the chin, and it
421
Simonyi 2005: 310 and 311, fig. 6/10; 312, fig. 7/2.
422
Grave No. 34 (Lázár 2003: 233, 235). 426
Grave No. 103 (Kovalovszki 1986: 21 and fig. 15). A similar feature can
423
Kovalovszki 1986: 15 and fig 7. be seen in grave No. 108/I, but the anthropological identification was an
424
Graves No. 70/I, 85/Mg, 138/I and 168/I (Mithay 1985: 186 and 190). old male (Kovalovszky 1986: 21 and fig. 16).
425
Grave No. 14 (Szőcs, Mérai, and Eng 2005: 314). 427
Radvánszky 1986: vol. 1, 203–204.

76
 Experimenting with the context
had a ruffled stand-up collar.428 Dresses with Spanish cut were
found in the crypts at Sárospatak429 (Fig. 78) and Miskolc430
and in the cathedral of Gyulafehérvár.431 However, it was
worn only as a gala costume of the nobility; it did not become
widespread and did not replace the Hungarian corset, the
descendant of which was conserved as a Hungarian national
gala costume of the nobility and in folk costumes up to the
twentieth century.432
Shoe heel plates of iron
Archaeological interpretation uses the finds of cemeteries
to reconstruct contemporary clothing. However, such
interpretations primarily reflect burial customs that involve
the choice of the funeral costume. Last wills testify that people
stated in which of their clothes they wished to be buried,433 and
catafalque paintings depict noblemen and burghers laid out in
gala dress. Ethnographic descriptions mention that unmarried
girls were buried dressed as brides.434 Thus, it is not excluded
that the pattern of the archaeological distribution of an object
is the result of specific burial customs.435 This is indicated by
the distribution of shoe heel plates of iron.
Shoe heel plates are among infrequent finds in cemeteries;
only a few pieces have been found in either churchyards
Fig. 79. Shoe heel plate from grave 1 in the churchyard
cemetery at Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld (Romania). Museum
of Satu Mare County, Satu Mare (Romania). Courtesy of
Péter Levente Szőcs.
428
László, E. 1986: 317; Tompos 2001: 16.
429
V. Ember 1968: 166–173 and 162, figs. 98–100.
430
Grave No. 7 (Megay 1970: 133–134).
431
Pósta 1918: 146–148, 149, fig. 97; 151, fig. 98; 152, fig. 99.
432
Flórián, 2001: 32–33. Irena Turnau, based on the chronology of the finds
from Sárospatak and Eger, assumed that in the sixteenth century Spanish
fashion was widely accepted and it was only in the seventeenth century
that “in the impoverished country even magnates adopted more elements
of the national dress” (Turnau 1991: 29). The consideration of further
archaeological finds has lead to a different conclusion.
433
E.g., last wills of inhabitants of Győr from the 1630–1640s are cited by
Horváth 1996: 17.
434
Flórián 2001: 57.
435
On the same issue concerning buttons of dolmans, see chapter 7.
77
or cemeteries of Balkan groups (see figs. 79 and 80).436
This phenomenon does not indicate that their use was not
widespread; however, it is rather the result of the custom
of burying the deceased in foot cloth instead of footwear.
This explanation has been supported by ethnographic
observations.437 On the heels of eighteenth-century footwear
preserved in the crypt of the Dominican church in Vác the
traces of heel plates and spurs were visible, but they were
removed before the burial.438
The widespread use of footwear with heel plates is indicated
by written sources,439 and the high number of them among the
finds of castles and forts has even made it possible to classify
them and develop a chronological system (Fig. 81).440 It is
likely that in this case the explanation for their absence in
graves can be traced to burial customs.
Clothing should have corresponded to social status, but in
reality it was not always so – at least this is what sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century written sources suggest. Sumptuary laws
decreed against peasants wearing fashionable and decorated
clothes of good quality, which probably meant that often it
was hard to distinguish them from noblemen.441 Not only did
the regulations complain with the topoi that servants dressed
like burghers, and burghers dressed like nobility,442 but in
1602 the Protestant minister, István Magyari, also blamed the
trend of people not dressing according to their social status
as a symptom of the decay of the country.443 Péter Apor, a
Fig. 80. Shoe heel plates from the cemetery of Bácsalmás-
Óalmás. Katona József Museum, Kecskemét. (Wicker 2008:
251: plate XI, figs. 11-12.)
436
Graves No. 53 and 60 in Kide (Kovalovszki 1986: 16); grave No. 1145
in Kaposvár (Bárdos 1987: 36); grave No. 9 at Várhegy-Törpevízmű
(Magyar 1981: 60); graves No. 3, 7, 8, 25 in Egervár (Fehér 1957: 69–71);
in one grave at Óföldeák (Béres 2005: 302); in grave No. 78 in Katymár
(Wicker and Kőhegyi 2002: 31); in three graves at Dombóvár-Békató
(Gaál 1980: 174); grave No. 341 at Bácsalmás (Wicker 2008: 135).
437
Luby 2002 (1935): 181. Béres 2005: 302.
438
Zomborka and Ráduly 1996: 11.
439
E.g. the limitation of Prince Gábor Bethlen and the towns of the area
called Duna-mellék (Radvánszky 1896: vol. 1, 95).
440
Kalmár 1959: 13; Gere 2003: 106–119.
441
See, e.g. a sumptuary law issued in Sátoraljaújhely (Domonkos 1997: 26);
a law issued by the Transylvanian diet in 1650 (Kovács Kiss 2001: 60).
442
Kolozsvár 1603 (Kovács Kiss 2001: 62); Lőcse, 1654 (Domonkos 1997:
107 and 341, endnote 66).
443
István Magyari, Az országokban való sok romlásnak okairól (Katona and
Makkai ed. 1979: 83).
 Experimenting with the context
Transylvanian nobleman, described noble ladies wearing the
folded red boots of Saxon burghers.444
The analysis of archaeological sources might shed light on
the perception of clothing items from another angle through
revealing some aspects of the original individual contexts.
Financial possibilities determined the material and the quality
of the costumes and accessories, but the objects indicate
an attempt to imitate valuable materials with cheaper ones:
applying garnets or red glass instead of rubies according to
purchasing power, and reproducing the cut of female dress,
even with iron clasps and hooks instead of gold. This raises an
alternative explanation for the spread of Balkan-type hairpins
instead of a purely ethnic approach; they may have been widely
available as an alternative for the ruby- and diamond-covered
roses of the noble ladies, and they could have been applied
to the headdress of various strata. In the latter phenomenon
social and also ethnic aspects are interwoven depending on
the context, as in the case of Transylvanian Saxons, where
444
Péter Apor, Metamorphosis Transsylvaniae (Kóczián and Lőrinczy ed.
1978: 56).
78
Fig. 81. Shoe heel plates from the castle
of Ozora. Wosinsky Mór County Museum,
Szekszárd. (Gere 2003: 216, plate 72.)
group identity related to common privileges was manifest in
various layers of culture, including aspects of clothing, but
obviously not determining exclusively the distribution of
object types.
This issue leads to questions concerning the reasons behind
following models in particular contexts on the one hand, and
about acquisition on the other A thorough study of written
documents can reveal the pattern of trade through which
different groups acquired their clothes and accessories (from
the archaeological point of view the latter is more promising, as
finds of cemeteries of the lower strata rarely recover textiles).
The role of the so-called Greek merchants could have been
a contributing factor in the appearance of Balkan elements,
but it is hard to interpret the distribution of types unless more
finds are published properly and become contextualized by
historical research.
 Chapter 9
Conclusion
Seventeenth-century costume codices of Hungary emphasized
the differences between the outer appearances of various
ethnic groups. Costume books from the turn of the eighteenth
century, however, were already the results of a systematic
survey among the population of the country. They presented
the regional varieties in peasants’ costumes and differences
between the clothing of villagers and town dwellers. At the end
of the nineteenth century even differences within regions were
observed; this is the period when the concept of vernacular
dress developed.445 The approach towards rural costumes was
determined by a historic interest, as they conserved eighteenth
century forms, while contemporary fashion was adopted in
an urban context. This happened in parallel with a revival
of national costume that was developed from sixteenth and
seventeenth century garments of the nobility. Male costume
was shaped by Turkish influences, and looked oriental in
contrast with Western fashion.446 From the seventeenth century
its elements became widespread throughout South-Eastern
Europe via the costume of light cavalry troops called the
Hussars.447 Female “Hungarian” dress was based on a general
European costume originating from Italy, and survived in
parallel with the reception of later European trends. It was
a model followed and conserved by folk dress as well.448
During the revolts for independence of the late seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, Hungarian nobility emphasized their
claims by their refusal to follow courtly trends of clothing. In
the nineteenth-century strife for independence, the revival of
Hungarian national costume became a symbol, and apart from
a general inclination toward Romanticism, this phenomenon
determined the historic interest in vernacular costumes as
well.449
The questions of present-day costume history, or rather
clothing culture history, tend towards the subjective aspects
of sources and study clothing both as an element of material
culture and as a socially, mentally, and spiritually determined
and determining factor. Such issues that came to be a focus
of interest have been the role of clothing in the representation
and designation of gender, social, and ethnic identity, in
interactions between various groups of society, and in visual
445
Flórián 2001: 12. Institutionalized ethnography first dealt with homemade
peasants’ costumes. It was only in the first part of the twentieth century
that clothes produced by craftsmen that were adapted to the contemporary
trends and were created on the basis of regional ethnographic styles were
finally included into the investigation. On the developments of 19th-
century ethnographic literature on the various ethnicities of Hungary see
Paládi-Kovács 2006.
446
On the Turkish impact on Hungarian costume, see Tompos 2005; Gervers
1982: especially 12–15; Turnau 1991: 22–26. On various levels of oriental
impacts on Hungarian costume, see Gáborján 1985–88: 19–53.
447
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, similar forces followed the
Hungarian Hussar garment all over Europe. Schubert 1994: 429–431.
448
See chapter 8.
449
Fülemile 1999; Turnau 1991: 24–26.
79
culture.450 Similar questions characterize the archaeological
research of past identities and the role of material cultures
in expressing and shaping those, and the related scholarly
discussion cannot be disregarded when interpreting the
archaeological evidence of past, historically known groups.
As a result of the Ottoman Conquest, the ethnic composition
of the population in the Carpathian Basin changed
significantly. It is a peculiarity of Hungarian archaeological
research that the cemeteries of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century newcomers from the Balkans roused the interest of
scholars, and contemporary churchyard cemeteries pertaining
to other layers of the population have been excavated,
published, and analyzed less systematically. Research on the
cemeteries has been determined by a historical approach;
the ethnic identification of the population has been based
on written sources and the archaeological results have been
interpreted within this framework, determined by an attempt
to distinguish the material culture of ethnic groups, to trace
them back to their original homelands within the Balkans,
and to define their ethnicity within the mass of Balkan
peoples coming to Hungary with the Ottoman Conquest. As
a consequence of the nature of the sources, however, even
historical categories referring to ethnicities in the documents
are not unproblematic, the corresponding material culture to
which archaeology seeks to identify.
This was manifest concerning a historical and historical-
ethnographical examination of ethnic names applied to
Ottoman-period groups in the conquest area of Hungary:
the forms as they were used in the written sources did not
appear to be consistent in this sense, but the same terms
covered different, eventually partly overlapping things –
involving aspects of language, religion, geographical origins,
ethnogenesis, lifestyle, legal status – as used for and by certain
groups in different times and contexts. As the framework
for the archaeological interpretation of Ottoman-period
cemeteries and their finds in Hungary has been determined
by the distinction made between the burial sites of the Balkan
groups and the churchyards, referring to ethnic difference
and implying its relevance in this respect, it is unavoidable
to look at how the issue of ethnicity has been treated by the
archaeological research.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the definition
of ethnicity as a form of socially constructed identities
became widely accepted by international scholarship, which
had consequences on the interpretation of the archaeological
record: it has been both challenged and rejected that a
straightforward correspondence would exist between ethnic
categories that appear in historical sources and material
cultures. A variety of theories have been developed concerning
450
E.g., “Costume and Fashion,” in Braudel 1981: 311–333; “Introduction,”
in Newton 1988: especially 6–8; “Preface,” in Hollander 1993: XIV–
XV; Breward 1995: 9–13; Koslin and Snyder 2002: 1–3; Burman and
Turbin 2003: 1–6; “Conclusion,” in Piponnier and Mane 1997: 154–156;
Richardson 2004: 4–9; “Introduction,” in Ball 2005: 2;“Introduction” in
Gleba, Munkholt, and Nosch 2008: XIX–XX.
how the manifestation of ethnicity and other forms of
identities are possible to detect in the archaeological record.
The endeavor to identify the Balkan homelands of the specific
groups that moved to Hungary does not concern their ethnicity
in the above sense, as the inquiry does not cover the role of
the objects in the formation and expression of ethnic identity,
but rather the migration of a group as it is reflected by the
archaeological distribution of material objects. The hypothesis
implied by this approach is that the continuity of the group
concerning its constituting members and cultural continuity is
interdependent, concerns each (or a representative selection)
of the members and is possible to be accessed and identified
through the archaeological evidence at our disposal.
A more general distinction of the finds that characterize the
cemeteries of peoples moving to Hungary from the Balkans
under the Ottoman rule was made at the time of the very first
archaeological investigation of their cemeteries, as on the basis
of certain traits they were all identified with as representing a
cultural tradition different from that of pre-Ottoman-conquest
Hungary. Scholars dealing with late medieval Hungary have
faced a similar situation concerning the arrival and presence
of the Cumans in the Hungarian Kingdom, which had been
studied through the written sources. The analysis of their
archaeological record has resulted in a conclusion that in
certain times and respects it shows correspondences to the
ethnic situation as reflected by the documents, and in other
cases it does not. The Cumans’ culture changed during the
complex process of their assimilation, but it did not happen
simultaneously in various aspects, and was determined by
diverse factors on several levels of the social, political, and
ethnic context. It was not a one-sided influence: the reciprocal
relationship between the Cumans and the other layers of the
population affected the culture on both sides as it is manifest
in the elements of clothing.
A possible way to approach the archaeological record
related to the Balkan peoples in Hungary, who have been
recognized to belong to a different cultural tradition, is to see
how the interaction between the differing traditions happened
in the Ottoman Period, and in what way were material objects
relevant. As the analysis of those object types belonging to
the garments that have previously been identified as being
characteristic for the Balkan groups – or indicating ethnicity
– revealed, some of them, such as hairpins, were equally
found in contemporary churchyards from Hungary. Still,
it might have been a way of wearing them that would have
been characteristic of certain groups, but neither are there
significant differences in their situation in the graves, nor
do we have direct sources at our disposal in this respect.
However, there were also objects – such as cowry-decorated
headgears – that have turned up exclusively in the so-called
Balkan cemeteries. A general knowledge on the cultural
tradition characterizing the Balkans in this period, based on
historical, pictorial sources and ethnographical analogies from
the broad cultural area designated by the sphere of influence
of Islam and the Ottoman Empire, offers a framework for the
reconstruction of costume in individual instances of graves,
but searching for the distinguishing features in these on the
local level would be circular reasoning. Furthermore, the finds
in cemeteries do not necessarily reflect the actual clothing but
are more a representation of burial customs; for example, the
presence or lack of dolman buttons and iron shoe heel plates
in certain cemeteries does not necessarily indicate whether
80
the population used the items in general or not, because
people could be buried in a simple shirt and without shoe heel
plates.
A possible further direction is to investigate the reasons
why certain objects were distributed across various social
boundaries as it is suggested by historical knowledge, that is,
why they appear in churchyards and Balkan cemeteries as well,
not mentioning other types of contexts, such as inhabited sites
and treasure hoards, and involving also written and pictorial
data. Written sources about the female headgear called párta
transmit the view that various forms were considered to
symbolize obviously gender, but also age, and marital status,
which has not been successfully identified with object forms
known from the archaeological context. It is a question,
though, whether it is justified to expect that the classification
in the contemporary texts corresponded to and covered
completely the forms existing in reality and in what extent
were they actually used as such visual codes. Archaeological
record might reveal other aspects concerning the symbolic
role of forms, colors and materials in a broader sense. The
imitation of some elements in various contexts suggests that
they were considered as being especially prestigious: for a
similar effect, ruby, diamond, and pearl were replaced by
garnets, cheap red and white glass and beads. In connection to
this, the various forms of the so-called boglár ornaments were
also imitated with all sorts of material. This phenomenon can
be observed concerning other objects as well, and might be
a possible reason behind the widespread use of hairpins of
Balkan style. Hairpins with a large, ornamented head were not
only considered as being suitable to the proper and fashionable
outlook as opposed to other items of Balkan popular jewelry,
but their decoration reminded of the pins made of precious
metals and gems.
The use of similar forms and colors of a lower quality
material can be interpreted as an intentional imitation of
the higher social strata, but also as pertaining to other, less
conscious aspects of the complex phenomenon of fashion. It is
interesting to note that the items referred to here, the common
feature of which is that they all turned up in some form in
different archaeological contexts and arose in the previous
literature as a consequence – such as ornamented hairpins,
párta, and metal belts – all belong to womens’ wear and they
are all well visible accessories placed on the head or the front
part of the body.
The financial value of hairpins was the most important
concern when accumulating and hiding them as treasure
hoards, and valuable items of párta listed in last wills were
inherited by males as well. Financial possibilities and systems
of acquisition seem to have contributed in an interrelated
manner, and those on a different level might have determined
the wide-spread use of simple and cheap accessories as pins
and clasps.
The archaeological distribution of certain ornaments
suggests that they were spread by trade and members of
different social layers acquired their headgear according to
their financial resources. The production place of the items of
relatively cheaper goldsmiths’ work such as the ornamented
hairpins with a large spherical head has not been investigated
yet; it is not known whether they were made in Balkan
workshops or whether they were locally produced. A possible
distribution of similar items might be attributed to the so-called
Greek merchants of various Balkan origins, whose activity –
the merchandise of textiles, ready-made articles of clothing,
and accessories – is well attested by written documents all
over the Carpathian Basin.
The activity of the Greek merchants, which has been
documented even prior to the Ottoman Conquest and after its
end in the eighteenth century, indicates that patterns of culture
and trade did not correspond in every respect to political
boundaries either in space or in time. The Ottoman Period,
however, is also seen as characterized by the rise of world
empires, the consequences of which in the field of production
and consumption on global and local levels have been widely
treated by historical archaeology.451 The archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary has analyzed the sources with
regard to the influence of the situation of Hungary on the
boundary of two large geo-political and cultural areas in many
respects, and demonstrated the influence of both the local
traditions and those coming from the political and cultural
centers, and a variety of interactions between the two on
material culture, as in the case of forms of pottery.
As a result of various factors inherent in the above
changes, such as the birth of centralized administrations,
technological developments, increased radius of inter-
actions, and also of those contributing to the survival of
sources, the era was characterized by a shift in the number
of written sources and depictions of costumes compared
to the previous centuries. Documents from the sphere of
commerce, such as stock inventories, customs lists, and
limitations of prices, and a wide variety of sources from
the public and private sphere, such as clothing regulations,
literature, last wills, letters and portrait depictions throw
light on the origins, distribution, and use of raw materials
and articles of clothing concerning various social strata.
They, however, provide subjective perspectives of the past
reality and not an objective picture, and it is questionable
to take their categories and apply them directly when
interpreting the archeological record.452
Wealth as reflected by written sources often determines
the general picture of material culture pertaining to certain
layers, such as the clothing of a given social group.453 The
archaeological material does not always correspond to these
expectations, especially in a period that was characterized
by a certain restructuring of the society in many respects –
as it happened in the period of the Ottoman Conquest. The
relation between status and wealth was complex and certainly
not straightforward, and archaeological sources shed light on
those aspects of this phenomenon that remain hidden when
only consulting the written record. The wear of people buried
in the cemetery of Bobáld village reflects how a change in
451
For the archaeological approaches towards the processes of production
and consumption in the Ottoman world, see Kohl 2000; Carroll 2000.
On Hungarian historiography about the situation of Hungary within the
Ottoman Empire, see Dávid and Fodor 2002.
452
Johnson 1999: 29-30; Galloway 2000: 49; Hundsbichler 1997: 49.
453
Monks 1999: 211
81
the financial status of a layer of peasants influenced their
investments in material objects, in this case clothing accessories
– or rather those used as funeral garments –, thereby adding
to our understanding of the changing meaning of the terms
applied for the status in the documents. Such a context tells
of the social evaluation of the objects as well. In addition,
studies in economic history on the financial value of items
also contribute to the issue in this respect, showing the role of
metal accessories in accumulating wealth, how accessible the
items were, and how the replacement of precious materials
with cheaper ones increased the availability of object types
for the less affluent strata.454
It seems that the use and outlook of a clothing item or
accessory was determined by a variety of the interrelated factors
mentioned above, among which ethnicity was only one, and
definitely not the decisive element in every case or situation.
The use of hairpins with a large ornamented head among the
Saxon women would not indicate their distinct ethnic identity
in themselves, though a wide range of other sources attest that
in their case ethnicity was intensely conspicuous in several
respects, interwoven with legal and social status, supported
by and manifest in a distinct language and religion.
Individuals within the population of sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century Hungary could be defined as being the
members of a variety of groups concerning their gender, age,
social status, wealth, ethnicity, spoken language, submission
to political authority, association with territorial units, blood
relations, and so on; their clothing and material culture as a
whole operated within all these contexts. There is no other
monocausal explanation to offer instead of ethnicity, but a set
of alternative and intersecting explanations involving cultural
interchange, trade, and financial and mental factors of the
market for certain objects. A significant increase in the number
of available data from Balkan and churchyard cemeteries,
excavated, analyzed, and published, would form a much more
adequate basis of investigation. Even if this happened, still,
as a consequence of the character of sources, it would not
be possible to reach a desired “true and exact” knowledge in
the sense of a generally valid and stable picture about how
members of an ethnic or social group dressed in the past, partly
because they were in constant change in similarly changing
relations, and partly because it would be against the nature of
the sources. The questions of research need to be formulated
and adapted to the character of the sources: archaeological
remains, just like images and documents, offer perspectives
on the contemporary context, which must be taken into
consideration as the background for the interpretation in all
its available complexity.
454
See Nitu 2005.
82
 Bibliography
Ágoston, Gábor. 2000. “The Ottoman-Habsburg Frontier
in Hungary (1541–1699): a Comparison.” In The Great
Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed. Kemal Çiçek, vol 1,
287–296. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2000.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2002. “Ottoman Conquest and the Ottoman
Military Frontier in Hungary.” In A Millennium of
Hungarian Military History, ed. László Veszprémy and
Béla K. Király, 85–110. War and Society in East Central
Europe 37, East European Monographs 621, Atlantic
Studies on Society in Change 114. New York: Atlantic
Research and Publications.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2003. “A Flexible Empire: Authority and its
Limits on the Ottoman Frontiers.” In Ottoman Borderlands.
Issues, Personalities and Political Changes, ed. Kemal
H. Karpat and Robert W. Zens. Madison, WI: Center of
Turkish Studies, University of Wisconsin.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2005/a. “Ottoman Administration in
Hungary.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History
of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed.
István György Tóth, 278–282. Budapest: Osiris.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2005/b. “The Population of Hungary in
the Turkish Period.” In A Concise History of Hungary:
The History of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to
the Present, ed. István György Tóth, 250–254. Budapest:
Osiris.
Ágoston, Gábor. 2005/c. “Coexisting Cultures in Ottoman
Hungary.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History
of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed.
István György Tóth, 295–298. Budapest: Osiris.
Ágoston, Gábor and Teréz Oborni. 2000. A tizenhetedik század
története (The history of the seventeenth century). Magyar
Századok 7. Budapest: Pannonica.
Andrén, Anders. 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts. Historical
Archaeology in Global Perspective. New York: Plenum.
Austin, David. 1990. “The ‘Proper Study’ of Medieval
Archaeology.” In From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies
in Medieval Archaeology, ed. David Austin and Leslie
Alcock, 9–42. London: Unwin Hyman.
Bak, János M., Péter Banyó, and Martyn Rady, ed. 2005. The
Customary Law of the Renowned Kingdom of Hungary in
Three Parts: A Work in Three Parts Rendered by Stephen
Werbőczy (The “Tripartitum”). The Laws of Hungary
Series I: Volume 5. Idyllwild, CA: Charles Schlacks, Jr.
Bakay, Kornél. 1988. “Kőszeg-Alsóvár.” Régészeti Füzetek
Ser.1 No. 41: 86–87.
Bálint, Alajos. 1936. “A Makó-mezőkopáncsi középkori
temető sírleletei” (The grave finds of the medieval cemetery
at Makó-Mezőkopáncs). Dolgozatok 12: 222–241.
Bálint, Alajos. 1938. “A kaszaperi középkori templom és
temető” (The church and cemetery at Kaszaper). Dolgozatok
14: 139–190.
Bálint, Csanád. 1989. “Some Ethnospecific Features in
Central and Eastern European Archaeology during the
Early Middle Ages: the Case of Avars and Hungarians.”
In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. S.
83
Shennan, 185–194. London.
Bálint, Csanád. 2006. “Az ethnosz a kora középkorban”
(Ethnos in the Early Middle Ages). Századok 140, No. 2:
277–348.
Ball, Jennifer L. 2005. Byzantine Dress. Representations of
Secular Dress in Eighth- to Twelfth-Century Painting. New
York: Palgrave.
Banner, János. 1926. “Jelentés a Magyarcsanád-bökényi
próbaásatásokról” (Report on the trial excavations at
Magyarcsanád-Bökény). Dolgozatok 2: 72–122.
Banner, János. 1931. “A bánkúti lovassír” (A burial with horse
from Bánkút). Dolgozatok 7: 187–204.
Baram, Uzi. 2000. “Entangled Objects from the Palestinian
Past. Archaeological Perspectives for the Ottoman Period,
1500–1900.” In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman
Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda
Carroll, 137–159. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum
Publishers.
Baram, Uzi. 2009. “Above and Beyond Ancient Mounds: The
Archaeology of the Modern Periods in the Middle East
and Eastern Mediterranean.” In International Handbook of
Historical Archaeology, ed. Teresita Majewski and David
Gaimster, 647–662. New York: Springer.
Baram, Uzi and Lynda Carroll. 2000. “The Future of the
Ottoman Past.” In A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman
Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda
Carroll, 3–32. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum
Publishers.
Bárdos, Edith. 1987. “Középkori templom és temető Kaposvár
határában II.” (A medieval church and cemetery near
Kaposvár 2). Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 8: 8–57.
Barta, Gábor. 1994. “The Emergence of the Principality and
its First Crisis (1526–1606).” In History of Transylvania,
ed. Béla Köpeczi, 247–300. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Barta, Gábor. 2001. “The First Period of the Principality of
Transylvania (1526–1606).” In History of Transylvania,
ed. Béla Köpeczi, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to 1606,
ed. László Makkai and András Mócsy, 593–770. Boulder,
Colo. New York: Social Science Monographs.
Barth, Fredrik. 1994 (1969). “Introduction.” In Ethnic
Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture
Difference, ed. Fredrik Barth, 9–38. Reprint, 1st ed. 1969.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Bárth János. 1995. “Népcsoportok, néprajzi csoportok és
történeti-néprajzi tájak a Duna-Tisza közén” (Ethnic
groups, ethnographic groups and historical-ethnographic
landscape between the Danube and Tisza rivers). In
Dunáninnen-Tiszáninnen: a Duna-Tisza közén élő
népcsoportok hagyományait számbavevő Nemzetközi
Néprajzi Tudományos Konferencia előadásai. Baja, 1993.
júl. 8–9. (Over the Danube – over the Tisza: proceedings
of the International Ethnographic Conference treating
the traditions of ethnic groups between the Duna and
Tisza rivers. Baja, 8–9 July, 1993), ed. János Bárth, 7–21.
Kecskemét: Katona József Múzeum.
 Bibliography
Bartosiewicz, László. 1995. Animals in the Urban Landscape
in the Wake of the Middle Ages. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Bartosiewicz, László and Alice M. Choyke. 2002.
“Archaeozoology in Hungary.” Archaeofauna 11: 117–
129.
Bartosiewicz, László, Péter Csippán, and Dóra Mérai.
Forthcoming. “Dig up – Dig in: Practice and Theory in
Hungarian Archaeology.” In Archaeologies. A Comparative
view on the Science of the Past, ed. Ludomir Lozny. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Bartucz, László. 1960. “Die Anthropologischen Merkmale der
Bevölkerung aus der Umgebung von Zombor (Sombor) im
XV-XVII Jahrhundert.” Annales Universitatis Scientiarum
Budapestiensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio
Biologica 3: 25–28.
Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. 2005. “From Sárospatak to Cairo:
the Odyssey of a Design.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies
on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 51–54.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Belényesy, Károly, Tibor Marton, and Krisztián Oross. 2002.
“Balatonszárszó – Kis-erdei-dűlő.” In A tervezett M7-
es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszán 2000–2001-ben
végzett megelőző régészeti feltárások. Előzetes jelentés
II. (Archaeological research in 2000 and 2001 preceeding
the construction of Motorway M7 in Somogy County.
Preliminary Report 2), ed. Szilvia Honti et al. Somogy
Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 15: 9–15.
Bencsik, Gábor. 2009. “Ábrázolt történelem” (Depicted
history). In Teréz Oborni, Lilla Tompos and Gábor Bencsik,
A régi Erdély népeinek képeskönyve (A picture book of
peoples of ancient Transylvania), 7–10. Budapest: Magyar
Mercurius.
Bencsik, János. 1970. “Adatok a Hajdúságból a temetkezés
szokásának és hiedelemanyagának kutatásához” (New data
from the Hajdúság on the customs and beliefs about burial).
A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1969–70: 429–445.
Benkő, Loránd, ed. 1976. A magyar nyelv töréneti-etimológiai
szótára (Historical-etimological dictionary of the Hungarian
language). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Benkő, Loránd. ed. 1994. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Ungarischen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Bentley, G. Carter. 1987. “Ethnicity and Practice.”
Comparative Studies in Society and History 29: 24–55.
Berend, Nóra. 2001. At the Gates of Christendom. Jews,
Muslims and Pagans in Medieval Hungary. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Béres, Mária. 2003. “Előzetes jelentés az óföldeáki templom
körüli temetőről” (Report on the churchyard cemetery at
Óföldeák). In A legmakaibb makai. Tanulmányok a 75
éves dr. Tóth Ferenc tiszteletére (Studies in honor of the
seventy-five- year-old Ferenc Tóth), ed. Attila Marosvári
and István Zombori, 184–202. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei
Önkormányzat.
Béres, Mária. 2005. “Az óföldeáki temető üzenete” (The
heritage of the cemetery at Óföldeák). In “... a halál
árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli
temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003.
május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research
on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference
held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March,
84
2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 297–303.
Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Biczó, Piroska. 1976. “Jelentés a Kecskemét – Kossuth téren
végzett ásatásról” (Archaeological report on the excavation
at Kecskemét-Kistemplomtér). Cumania 4: 329–360.
Blanchard, Ian. 1986. “The Continental European Cattle
Trades, 1400–1600.” The Economic History Review 39/3:
427–460.
Blazovich, László. 1997. “Déli szlávok Magyarországon és a
Körös-Tisza-Maros közben a 15–16. században” (Southern
Slav population living in Hungary and between the Körös,
Tisza and Maros rivers in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The
historical demography of Hungary), ed. Kovacsics József,
117–124. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
Borovszky, Samu, ed. 1910. Magyarország vármegyéi
és városai. Szatmár vármegye. (Counties and towns in
Hungary. Szatmár County). Budapest: Légrády Testvérek.
Borsodi, Csaba. 2005. “The Government of Habsburg
Hungary.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History
of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed.
István György Tóth, 274–278. Budapest: Osiris.
Bozóki-Ernyey, Katalin. 2007. “Preventive Archaeology
in Hungary. One Step Behind.” In European Preventive
Archaeology. Papers of the EPAC Meeting 2004, Vilnius,
ed. Katalin Bozóki-Ernyey, 104–121. Budapest: National
Office of Cultural Heritage, Hungary – Council of Europe.
Braudel, Fernand. 1981. The Structures of Everyday Life. The
Limits of the Possible. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–
18th Century. Vol. 1. New York: Harper & Row.
Breward, Christopher. 1995. The Culture of Fashion.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bunta, Magdolna. 1977. “A küküllővári lelet” (The finds from
Küküllővár). Ars Hungarica 5: 223–239.
Bur, Márta. 1985. “A balkáni kereskedők és árukészleteik a
XVIII. századi Magyarországon (1737–1753)” (Merchants
from the Balkans and their stocks in eighteenth-century
Hungary [1737–1753]). Ethnographia 96: 251–275.
Burman, Barbara and Carole Turbin, ed. 2003. Material
Strategies. Dress and Gender in Historical Perspective.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bursche, Aleksander. 1996. “Archaeological Sources as
Ethnical Evidence. The Case of the Eastern Vistula Mouth.”
In Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction
of European Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-
Brown, and Clive Gamble, 229–237. London: Routledge.
Buturović, Amila and İrvin Cemil Schick. 2007. “Introduction.”
In Women in the Ottoman Balkans. Gender, Culture and
History, ed. Amila Buturović and İrvin Cemil Schick, 1–11.
London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD.
Buzási, Enikő. 1975. “17th Century Catafalque Painting in
Hungary.” Acta Historiae Artium Academiae Scientarum
Hungaricae 21: 87–124.
Buzási, Enikő, ed. 1988. Főúri ősgalériák, családi arcképek
a Magyar Történelmi Képcsarnokból. A Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum, az Iparművészeti Múzeum és a Magyar Nemzeti
Galéria kiállítása. Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 1988. március
– augusztus (Aristocratic ancestors’ galleries, family
portraits from the Hungarian Historical Gallery. Exhibition
of the Hungarian National Museum, Museum of Applied
Arts and the Hungarian National Gallery. Hungarian
 Bibliography
National Gallery, March – August 1988). Budapest: Magyar
Nemzeti Galéria.
Carroll, Lynda. 2000. “Toward an Archaeology of Non-Elite
Consumption in Late Ottoman Anatolia.” In A Historical
Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New
Ground, ed. Uzi Baram and Lynda Carroll, 162–180. New
York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers.
Cenner Wilhelmb, Gizella. 1972. “16–19. századi grafikus
viseletsorozatok – Közép-Európa nemzetiségi életének és
társadalmi helyzetének képes forrásai” (Graphic costume
cycles from the sixteenth to nineteenth century – pictorial
sources for the ethnic composition and social status of the
population of Central Europe). Folia Historica 1: 23–41.
Cenner Wilhelmb, Gizella. 1973. “Die graphische
Trachtenfolgen von 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert als
Bildquellen zum leben- und zur gesellschaftlichen Stellung
der Nationalitäten in Mitteleoropa.” Internationales
Kulturhistorisches Symposion, Mogersdorf 3: 129–154.
Cenner Wilhelmb, Gizella. 1977. “Halotti képmások,
ravatalképek” (Funeral portraits, catafalque paintings).
Művészet 1977: 32–36.
Cipăianu, Ana Maria. 1973. “Din istoricul orfevrăriei
transilvănene: acele de păr din tezaurul de la Huedin”
(From the history of transivanian silverwork. The hairpins
from the treasure hoard of Huedin). Acta Musei Napocensis
10: 653–663.
Courtney, Paul. 2009. “The Current Sate and Future Prospects
of Theory in European Post-Medieval Archaeology.” In
International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, ed.
Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 169–189. New
York: Springer.
Csapó, Júlia. 1977. A tarpai temetés (Burials at Tarpa).
Honismereti kutatások Szabolcs-Szatmárban 4.
Nyíregyháza: Jósa András Múzeum.
Cserbák, András and Alice Gáborján. 1990. “XVIII. századi
magyarországi parasztábrázolások és viselettörténeti
tanulságaik” (Eighteenth-century depictions of peasants
and their contribution to costume history). Ethnographia
101: 51–74.
Curta, Florin. 2001. The Making of the Slavs. History and
Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dávid, Géza. 1997. “Magyarország népessége a 16–17.
században” (The population of Hungary in the 16–17th
century). In Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The
historical demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics,
141–172. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
Dávid, Géza. 2007. “Die Bevölkerung Ungarns im 16.–17.
Jahrhundert.” In Historische Demographie Ungarns (896–
1996), ed. Gyula Kristó et al., 135–180. Herne: Gabriele
Schäfer Verlag.
Dávid, Géza and Pál Fodor. 2002. “Hungarian Studies in
Ottoman History.” In In The Ottomans and the Balkans.
A Discussion of Historiography, ed. Fikret Adanir and
Suraiya Faroqhi, 305–349. The Ottoman Empire and its
Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy 25. Leiden: Brill.
David, Nicholas and Carol Kramer. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology
in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deák, Farkas. 1879. “Ipartörténeti adatok” (New data on the
history of craftsmanship). Történelmi Tár 1879: 142–153.
Diaz-Andreu, Margarita and Sam Lucy. 2005. “Introduction.”
In Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and
85
David N. Edwards, The Archaeology of Identity, 1–12.
London: Routledge.
Domanovszky, Sándor, ed. N.d. (1939–1942). A kereszténység
védőbástyája (The bulwark of Christendom). Magyar
Művelődéstörténet (Hungarian cultural history),vol. 3.
Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat.
Domonkos, Ottó. 1991/a. “Ár- és bérszabályzatok”
(Limitations of prices and payments). In Kézművesség
(Crafts), ed. Iván Balassa, 705–726. Magyar Néprajz
(Hungarian Ethnography), vol. 3. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Domonkos, Ottó. 1991/b. “A magyar vásárok néprajza”
(The ethnography of Hungarian markets). In Kézművesség
(Crafts), ed. Iván Balassa, 637–702. Magyar Néprajz
(Hungarian Ethnography), vol. 3. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó..
Domonkos, Ottó. 1997. A magyarországi céhes szabók
mintakönyvei (Pattern books of tailors in Hungary).
Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Dragadze, Tamara. 1990. “Some Changes in Perspectives on
Ethnicity Theory in the 1980s:
A Brief Sketch.” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 31
2/3: 205–212.
Draskóczy, István. 1997. “Szászföldi összeírások és a
Szászföld lélekszáma a 15–16. század fordulóján” (The
population number and the censuses of the Saxon land
at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries). In
Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical
demography of Hungary), ed. Kovacsics József, 125–140.
Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
Draskóczy, István. 2007. “Die demographische Lage des
Sachsenlandes zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In
Historische Demographie Ungarns (896–1996), ed. Gyula
Kristó et al., 94–134. Herne: Gabriele Schäfer Verlag.
Edőcs, Judit. 2004. “Középkori párták a jáki templom mellől”
(Medieval headgear from the churchyard cemetery at Ják).
Savaria 28: 359–367.
Edwards, David N. 2005. “The Archaeology of Religion.”
In Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and
David N. Edwards, The Archaeology of Identity, 110–127.
London: Routledge.
E. Kovács, Péter. 2005. “Hungary in the Late Middle Ages” In
A concise history of Hungary: The history of Hungary from
the early Middle Ages to the present, ed. István György
Tóth, 115–117. Budapest: Corvina.
Emődi, Tamás. 2003. “The ‘Tiled Room’ in the Palace of the
Ruling Prince at Gyulafehérvár.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed Ibolya. Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 329–336.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
E. Nagy, Katalin. 1982. “Die Tracht eines vornehmen
ungarischen Mädchens aus dem 16. Jahrhundert.
Restaurierung und Rekonstrution des Boldvaer Fundes.”
Ars Decorativa 7: 29–79.
Endrei, Walter. 1989. Patyolat és posztó (Batiste and cloth).
Budapest: Magvető.
Erdei, Lilla. 2003. “A debreceni temető 17–18. századi textil
leletei” (Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century textiles from
the Dobozi cemetery in Debrecen). A Debreceni Déri
Múzeum Évkönyve (2002–2003): 285–304.
Éry, Kinga. 1980. “Balkáni eredetű, török kori népesség
 Bibliography
csontmaradványai Dombóvár határából” (Anthropological
remains of a population of Balkan origins in the period
of the Turkish conquest from the area of Dombóvár). A
Szekszárdi Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 10–11
(1979–80): 225–298.
Evans, R. J. W. 1985. “Calvinism in East-Central Europe:
Hungary and her Neighbours.” In International Calvinism
1541–1715, ed. Menna Prestwich, 169–196. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Fehér, Géza, Jr. 1957. “Az egervári leletmentő ásatás” (The
rescue excavation at Egervár). Archaeológiai Értesítő 84:
66–73.
Fehér, Géza, Jr. 1968. “Esztergomi török vörösrézedények”
(Turkish copper vessels from Esztergom). A Komárommegyei
Múzeumok Közleményei 1: 273–310.
Fehér, Géza, Jr. 1975. Török kori iparművészeti alkotások
(Products of the applied arts from the Ottoman period).
Budapest: Corvina.
Fehér, Géza. 1978. Turkish Miniatures from the Period of
Hungary’s Turkish Occupation. Budapest: Corvina.
Flórián, Mária. 1997. “Öltözködés” (Clothing). In Magyar
Néprajz (Hungarian ethnography), vol. 4, ed. István Balassa,
Endre Füzes and Eszter Kisbán, 585–767. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Flórián, Mária. 2001. Magyar parasztviseletek (Hungarian
peasant’s costumes). Budapest: Planétás.
Fodor, István. 1972. “Újabb adatok a bánkúti sír értékeléséhez”
(New data on the evaluation of the Bánkút grave). Folia
Archaeologica 23: 223–240.
Fodor, István. 2006. “A régészettudomány történetisége. A
magyar őstörténet példáján” (The historicity of archaeology.
The example of Hungarian prehistory). Archaeológiai
Értesítő 131: 89–112.
Fodor, Pál, ed. 1985. Evlia Cselebi török világutazó
magyarországi utazásai, 1660–1664 (Trarvels of Evliyā
Celebi Turkish traveler in Hungary 1660–1664), tr. Imre
Karácson. Budapest: Gondolat.
Fodor, Pál and Géza Dávid. 1994. “Hungarian-Ottoman
Peace Negotiations in 1512–1514.” In Hungarian-Ottoman
Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman
the Magnificent, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 9–45.
Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University, Dept. of Turkish
Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of
History.
Fowler, Chris. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood. An
Anthropological Approach. London: Routledge.
Fügedi, Erik. 1986 (1974). “Das mittelalterliche Königreich
Ungarn als Gastland.” In Die deutsche Ostsiedlung des
Mittelalters als Problem der europäischen Geschichte,
ed. Walter Schlesinger. Vorträge und Forschungen XVIII.
Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbeke Verlag, 1974. Re-published
in Erik Fügedi, Kings, Bishops, Nobles and Burghers in
Medieval Hungary, ed. János M. Bak. London: Variorum
Reprints.
Fülemile, Ágnes. 1989. “Viseletábrázolások a 16–17.
századi grafikában” (Depictions of garments in sixteenth-
seventeenth-century graphic arts). Ars Hungarica 1989/2:
115–132.
Fülemile, Ágnes. 1999. “Creation of National Image: Trends
of Court Dress in East Central Europe in the 19th Century.”
In Ethnic Communities, Ethnic Studies, Ethnic Costumes
Today, ed. János Kodolányi Jr., 169–180. Budapest:
86
Hungarian Ethnographical Society.
Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Siân Jones, and Martin Hall. 1999.
“Introduction: Archaeology in History.” In Historical
Archaeology. Back from the Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari,
Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, 1–19. London: Routledge.
Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, ed. 1999.
Historical Archaeology. Back from the Edge. London:
Routledge.
Gáborján, Alice. 1988. “Keleti elemek a magyar ruházatban”
(Oriental elements in Hungarian Clothing). Néprajzi
Értesítő 67–70 (1985–88): 19–53.
Gaál, Attila. 1978. “Későközépkori leletek Tolna megyéből”
(Late medieval finds from Tolna county). A Szekszárdi Béri
Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 8–9 (1977–78): 109–
131.
Gaál, Attila. 1980. “A dombóvár-békatói 16–17. századi
temető” (The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century cemetery
at Dombóvár-Békató). A Szekszárdi Béri Balogh Ádám
Múzeum Évkönyve 10–11 (1979–80): 133–223.
Gaál, Attila. 1983. “A Szekszárdi Múzeum hódoltság kori
rézedényei” (Copper vessels in the Museum of Szekszárd
from the period of the Ottoman Conquest). Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungariae (1983): 163–184.
Gaál, Attila. 1991. “A Szekszárdi Múzeum hódoltság
kori rézedényei II.” (Copper vessels in the Museum of
Szekszárd from the period of the Ottoman Conquest 2).
Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1991):
191–207.
Gaál, Attila. 2003. “The Sixteenth- to Seventeenth-century
Cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 221–230.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Galavics, Géza. 1987. “A magyar királyi udvar és a késő
reneszánsz képzőművészet” (The Hungarian royal court
and the art of the late Renaissance). In Magyar reneszánsz
udvari kultúra (Renaissance courtly culture in Hungary),
ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, 228–248. Budapest: Gondolat.
Galavics, Géza. 1990. “Erdélyi viseletalbumok a XVII-
XVIII. századból” (Transylvanian costume albums from
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). In József
Jankovics, Ágnes R. Várkonyi and Géza Galavics, Régi
erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII. századból (Ancient
Transylvanian garments. A costume codex from the
seventeenth century), 57–131. Budapest: Európa.
Gallina, Zsolt. “Fonyód-Bézseny-puszta (M7 S33 lelőhely)”
(Fonyód-Bézsenypuszta. Motorway M7, Site No. 33). In
Honti Szilvia et al., A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy
megyei szakaszának megelőző régészeti feltárása (2002–
2003) Előzetes jelentés III. (Preliminary Report III. The
preceding archaeological excavationa (2002–2003) of
the M7 Highway in Somogy County), 34–40. Somogyi
Múzeumok Közleményei 2004. Kaposvár: Somogy Megyei
Múzeumok Igazgatósága.
Galloway, Patricia. 2006. “Material Culture and Text:
Exploring the Spaces Within and Between.” In Historical
Archaeology, ed. Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman,
42–64. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gecsényi, Lajos. 1998. “‘Török áruk’ és ‘görög kereskedők’ a
16–17. századi királyi Magyarországon” (‘Turkish Goods’
and ‘Greek Merchants’ in Royal Hungary in the sixteenth and
 Bibliography
seventeenth centuries). In R. Várkonyi Ágnes emlékkönyv
születésének 70. évfordulója emlékére (Festschrift for the
seventieth birthday of Ágnes R. Várkonyi), ed. Péter Tusor,
185–203. Budapest: ELTE BTK.
Gere, László. 2003. Késő középkori és kora újkori fémleletek
az ozorai várkastélyból (Late medieval and early modern
metal finds from the fortified castle of Ozora). Budapest:
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1985/a. “Adatok a tabáni török díszkerámia
keltezéséhez” (New data on the dating of Turkish ornamental
pottery from Tabán). Folia Archaeologica 36: 225–229.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1985/b. “Inventories of Turkish Estates in
Hungary in the Second Half of the 16th Century.” Acta
Orientalia Scientiarum Hungariae XXXIX (2–3): 275–
338.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1987. “Török kerámia a visegrádi
Alsóvárból” (Turkish pottery from the Lower Castle at
Visegrád). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae
(1987): 167–179.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1990. “Die Balkanverbindungen der
türkischen Keramik von der Budaer Burg.” Acta
Archaeologiae Hungariae 42: 269–285.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1994. “Kerámia” (Pottery). In Nagy
Szulejmán szultán és kora (Sultan Suleyman the Great and
his age), ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 44–46. Budapest: Magyar
Nemzeti Múzeum.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 1999. Török ékszerek (Turkish jewelry).
Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 2005/a. “Editor’s Introduction,” In Turkish
Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya
Gerelyes, 8–9. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Gerelyes, Ibolya. 2005/b “A History of Research in Hungary
into Ottoman Art.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman
Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 11–18. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Gerevich, László. 1943. “A csúti középkori sírmező”
(Medieval cemetery at Csút). Budapest Régiségei 13: 103–
166.
Gerő, Győző. 1980. Az oszmán-török építészet Magyarországon
(The architecture of the Ottoman-Turkish period in
Hungary). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Gerő, Győző. 2003. “The History of Ottoman-Turkish
Archaeological Research in Hungary.” In Archaeology of
the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference
Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26
May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 17–
22. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Gervers, Veronika. 1982. The Influence of Ottoman Tukish
Textiles and Costume in Eastern Europe with particular
reference to Hungary. Toronto: The Royal Ontario
Museum.
Gervers-Molnár, Vera. 1983. Sárospataki síremlékek (Tombs
from Sárospatak). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Gervers-Molnár, Veronika. 2005. “Turkish Tiles of the 17th
Century and Their Export.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies
on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 35–44.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Gleba, Margarita, Cherine Munkholt and Marie-Louise
Nosch, ed. 2008. Dressing the Past. Ancient Textile Series
vol. 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gödölle, Mátyás. 2001. “Főúri udvarok ősgalériái” (Ancestors’
galleries in aristocratic courts). In A szépség dicsérete. 16–
87
17. századi magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október
(In Praise of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian
Aristocracy in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the
Hungarian National Museum, August – October 2001),
ed. Anna Ridovics, 47–50. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum.
Graves-Brown, Paul. 1996. “All things bright and beautiful?
Species, ethnicity and cultural dynamics.” In Cultural
Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European
Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-Brown, and
Clive Gamble, 81–95. London: Routledge.
Gubitza, Kálmán. 1902. “A Bodrogh-szigeti pálos monostor”
(The Pauliner monastery on Bodrogh Island). Archaeológiai
Értesítő 22: 1–7.
Győrffy, György. 1953. “A kunok feudalizálódása” (The
incorporation of Cumans to the feudal system). In
Tanulmányok a parasztság történetéhez Magyarországon
a 14. században (Studies on the history of the peasantry
in fourteenth-century Hungary), ed. György Székely, 248–
275. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Hatházi, Gábor. 1996. “Besenyők és kunok a Mezőföldön”
(Pechenegs and Cumans in Mezőföld). In Zúduló sasok.
Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori
Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors – Pechenegs,
Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain), ed. Péter
Havassy, 37–56. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum.
Hatházi, Gábor. 2003. “New Findings in the Research of
Turkish Palisades in Fejér County.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 113–136.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Hatházi, Gábor. 2004. A kunok régészeti emlékei a Kelet-
Dunántúlon (The archeaological remains of Cumans
in eastern Transdanubia). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum.
Hatházi, Gábor. 2005. Sírok, kincsek, rejtélyek (Graves,
treasures, misteries). Kiskunhalas: Thorma János
Múzeum.
Hegyi, Klára. 1994. “The Ottoman Military Force in Hungary”
In Hungarian-Ottoman military and diplomatic relations in
the age of Süleyman the Magnificent, ed. Géza Dávid and
Pál Fodor, 131–148. Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University,
Dept. of Turkish Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Institute of History.
Hegyi, Klára. 2000/a. “Ottoman Taxation in the Hungarian
Kingdom” In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed.
Kemal Çiçek et al., vol. 2, 87–94. 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni
Türkiye.
Hegyi, Klára. 2000/b. “The Ottoman Network of Fortresses
in Hungary.” In Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs
in Central Europe. The Military Confines in the Era of
Ottoman Conquest, ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 163–
193. Leiden: Brill.
Hegyi, Klára. 2002. “A török Bács” (The Ottoman-Turkish
Bács). In Tanulmányok Szakály Ferenc emlékére (Studies
in memoriam Ferenc Szakály). ed. Pál Fodor, Géza Pálffy,
and István György Tóth, 199–213. Budapest: MTA TKI.
Hegyi, Klára. 2003. “Balkan Garrison Troops and Soldier-
Peasants in the Vilayet of Buda.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
 Bibliography
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 23–32.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Hegyi, Klára. 2007. A török hódoltság várai és várkatonasága
(Fortifications and garrison troops of Hungary under Ottoman
conquest). 3 vols. Budapest: MTA Történettudományi
Intézete.
Hegyi, Klára and Zimányi Vera. 1989. The Ottoman Empire
in Europe. Budapest: Corvina.
H. Kolba, Judit. 1970. “A losonci ékszerlelet” (The jewelery
find from Losonc). Folia Archaeologica 40:175–193.
Hodder, Ian. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological
Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hodder, Ian. 1991. “Archaeological Theory in Contemporary
European Societies.” In Archaeological Theory in Europe,
ed. Ian Hodder, 1–24. London: Routledge.
Hodder, Ian. 1992 (1986). Reading the Past: Current
Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed. (1st
ed. 1986). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Hodder, Ian, ed. 1991. Archaeological Theory in Europe.
London: Routledge, 1991.
Hollander, Anne. 1993. Seeing Through Clothes. 4th ed.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Höllrigl, József. 1934. “A csengeri református templom
kriptájának leletei” (Archaeological finds from the crypt of
the Protestant church in Csenger). Archaeológiai Értesítő
48: 97–114.
Höllrigl, József. N.d. (1939–1942). “Magyar és törökös
viseletformák a XVI–XVII. században” (Hungarian
and Turkish-like forms of clothing in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries). In A kereszténység védőbástyája.
Magyar Művelődéstörténet (The bulwark of Christendom.
Hungarian culture history), vol. 3, ed. Sándor Domanovszky,
359–385. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat.
Horn, Ildikó. 2005. “Der ungarische Adel als Träger der
Reformation in Siebenbürgen.” In Konfessionsbildung und
Konfessionskultur in Siebenbürgen in der Frühen Neuzeit,
ed. Volker Leppin and Ulrich A. Wien, 165–178. Stuttgart:
Steiner.
Horváth, Antal. 1956. “Szombathelyi kereskedő üzleti leltára
a XVII. század közepén” (An inventory of the stock of a
merchant in Szombathely in the mid-seventeenth century).
Néprajzi Közlemények 1: 256–272.
Horváth, Béla. 1970. “A tiszaörvényi párta és pártaöv” (The
párta and belt from Tiszaörvény). Folia Archaeologica 21:
157–168.
Horváth, Ferenc. 2001. A csengelei kunok ura és népe (The
lord of the Cumans of Csengele and his people). Budapest:
Archaeolingua.
Horváth, József. 1996. “A XVII. századi győri végrendeletek
viselettörténeti adalékaiból” (Data on costume history in
seventeenth-century last wills from Győr). In Viselet és
történelem, viselet és jel. Az aszódi Petőfi Múzeumban
elhangzott néprajzi konferencia előadásai (Costume and
history, costume and sign. Papers of the ethnological
conference held in the Petőfi Museum in Aszód), ed. Zsuzsa
Korkes, 5–22. Aszód: Petőfi Múzeum.
Horváth, József. 1999. “Falusi végrendeletek formai és
tartalmi sajátosságai a Nyugat-Dunántúlon a 17–18.
században” (The form and content of last wills from
villages in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in
88
western Transdanubia). Soproni Szemle 53: 356–369.
Hundsbichler, Helmut. 1997. “Sampling or Proving ‘Reality?’
Co-ordinates for the Evaluation of Historical Archaeology
Research.” In The Age of Transition. The Archaeology of
English Culture 1400–1600, ed. David Gaimster and Paul
Stamper, 45–60. The Society for Medieval Archaeology
Monograph 15, Oxbow Monograph 98. Oxford: Oxbow
Books.
Hunt, Alan. 1996. Governance of the Consuming Passions: A
History of Sumptuary Law. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Ilg, Ulrike. 2004. “The Cultural Significance of Costume
Books in Sixteenth-Century Europe.” In Clothing Culture
1350–1650, ed. Catherine Richardson, 29–62. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Inalcik, Halil. 2000. “An Overview of the Ottoman History.”
In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed. Kemal
Çiçek et al., vol. 1, 3–90. 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye.
Insoll, Timothy. 1999. The Archaeology of Islam. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Insoll, Timothy. 2001. “The Archaeology of Islam.” In
Archaeology and World Religion, ed. Timothy Insoll, 123–
147. London: Routledge.
Insoll, Timothy. 2007/a. “Introduction. Configuring Identities
in Archaeology.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A
Reader, ed. Timothy Insoll, 1–18. London: Routledge.
Insoll, Timothy. 2007/b. “Changing Identities in the Arabian
Gulf. Archaeology, Religion and Ethnicity in Context.”
In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, ed. Timothy
Insoll, 309–325. London: Routledge.
Jankovich B., Dénes and Mihály Nagy. 2004. Felmérés a
régészet helyzetéről. 1989–1999 (Hungarian archaeology. A
survey. 1989–1999). Budapest: Nemzeti Kulturális Örökség
Minisztériuma, Műemléki és Régészeti Főosztály.
Jankovics, József. 1990. “Régi magyar irodalmunk
viseletképe” (The image of clothing in old Hungarian
literature). In József Jankovics, Ágnes R. Várkonyi and
Géza Galavics, Régi erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII.
századból (Ancient Transylvanian garments. A costume
codex from the seventeenth century), 5–21. Budapest:
Európa.
Jankovics, József, Ágnes R. Várkonyi, and Géza Galavics.
1990. Régi erdélyi viseletek. Viseletkódex a XVII. századból
(Ancient Transylvanian Garments. A costume codex from
the seventeenth century). Budapest: Európa.
Jaritz, Gerhard. 1989. Zwischen Augenblick und Ewigkeit:
Einführung in die Alltagsgeschichte des Mittelalters.
Vienna: Böhlau.
J. Dankó, Katalin. 1975. “Damóc-Temetődomb.” Régészeti
Füzetek Ser. 1, 28: 116.
J. Dankó, Katalin. 2005. “The ‘Tiled Room’ at Sárospatak
Castle.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in
Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 19–26. Budapest: Hungarian
National Museum.
Jianu, Angela. 2007. “Women, Fashion and Europeanization:
The Romanian Principalities, 1750–1830.” In Women in the
Ottoman Balkans. Gender, Culture and History, ed. Amila
Buturović and İrvin Cemil Schick, 201–230. London: I.B.
Tauris & CO LTD.
Johnson, Matthew H. 1999. “Rethinking Historical
Archaeology.” In Historical Archaeology. Back from the
Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin
Hall, 23–36. London: Routledge.
 Bibliography
Jones, Siân. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing
Identities in the Past and Present. London: Routledge,
1997.
Jones, Siân. 1999. “Historical Categories and the Praxis
of Identity: the Interpretation of Ethnicity in Historical
Archaeology.” In Historical Archaeology. Back from the
Edge, ed. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin
Hall, 219–232. London: Routledge.
Jones, Siân. 2007. “Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation
of the Past.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader, ed.
Timothy Insoll, 44–58. London: Routledge.
Jones, Siân and Paul Graves-Brown. 1996. “Introduction:
Archaeology and Cultural Identity in Europe.” In Cultural
Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European
Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-Brown, and
Clive Gamble, 1–24. London: Routledge.
Kaiser, Timothy. 1995. “Archaeology and Ideology in
Southeast Europe.” In Nationalism, Politics, and the
Practice of Archaeology, ed. Philip L. Kohl and Clare
Fawcett, 99–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kalmár, János. 1959. “A füleki vár XV-XVII. századi emlékei”
(The fifteenth- to seventeenth-century finds from Fülek
castle). Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 2 (1959): 13.
Kalmár, János. 2005. “Cities, Towns, Market-towns.” In A
Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from
the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György
Tóth, 263–266. Budapest: Osiris.
Katona, Tamás and László Makkai, ed. 1979. Magyari
István. Az országokban való sok romlásnak okairól (István
Magyari. The reasons for so much decay in the country).
Budapest: Magyar Helikon.
Kelemen, Lajos. 1977. “Sükösd György nagyteremi
síremléke” (The tomb of György Sükösd in Nagyteremi).
In Művészettörténeti tanulmányok (Studies on art history),
ed. Margit B. Nagy, 174. Bucharest: Kriterion.
Kelényi, Borbála. 2006. “Pártaviselet a 14–17. századi
Magyarországon” (Wearing of párta in Hungary from the
fourteenth to the seventeenth century). MA thesis, Eötvös
Loránd Tudományegyetem, Institute of Archaeology.
Budapest.
Kemény, Lajos. 1895. “Az erdélyi fejedelem gyöngyfűzője”
(The pearl decorator of the Transylvanian prince).
Archaeológiai Értesítő 29: 285.
Kemény, Lajos. 1904. “Gyöngyfűzők és hímvarrók” (Rearl
decorators and embroiderers). Archaeológiai Értesítő 38 :
446–447.
Kiss, Erika. 2001. “Arany művek, köves marhák” (Goldsmith’s
works, precious stones). In A szépség dicsérete. 16–17.
századi magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október
(In Praise of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian
Aristocracy in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the
Hungarian National Museum, August – October 2001),
ed. Anna Ridovics, 31–42. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum.
K. Kovács, László. 2004 (1944). A kolozsvári hóstátiak
temetkezése (The burial in the Hóstát district of Cluj). Repr.
ed. (1st ed. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Tudományos Intézet, 1944),
Budapest: Gondolat.
Klaniczay, Gábor. 1982. “Öltözködés és ideológia a
középkorban” (Clothing and ideology in the Middle Ages).
89
In Divatszociológia (The sociology of fashion), vol. 2,
ed. Gábor Klaniczay and Katalin S. Nagy, 7–34. 2 vols.
Budapest: Tömegkommunikációs Kutatóközpont.
Klusch, Horst. 2003. “Kleiderordnungen.” In Aus der
Volkskunde der Siebenbürger Sachsen, ed. Horst Klusch,
110–135. Hermannstadt: Honterus.
K. Németh, András. 2005. “Csontosövek a középkori
Magyarországon” (Bone-mounted belts from the medieval
Hungary). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében járok”
A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A Magyar
Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között megtartott
konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death” Research on medieval village
churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian
National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók
and Erika Simonyi, 275–288. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum.
Kóczián, László and Réka Lőrinczy, ed. 1978. Apor Péter.
Metamorphosis Transsylvaniae. Bucharest: Kriterion.
Kohl, Philip L. 2000. “Diverse Approaches to the Ottoman
Past. Toward a Globally Conceived, Regionally Specific
Historical Archaeology.” In A Historical Archaeology of
the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New Ground, ed. Uzi Baram
and Lynda Carroll, 253–260. New York: Kluwer Academic,
Plenum Publishers, 2000.
Kohl, Philip L. and Clare Fawcett. 1995. “Archaeology in
the Service of the State: Theoretical Considerations.” In
Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology,
ed. Philip L. Kohl and Clare Fawcett, 3–18. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Korek, József. 1992. “A zombor-bükkszállási 17. századi
temető sírleletei” (The finds in the graves of the seventeenth-
century cemetery at Zombor-Bükkszállás). A Móra Ferenc
Múzeum Évkönyve (1992): 181–200.
Koslin, Désirée and Janet Snyder. 2002. “Introduction.” In
Encountering Medieval Textiles and Dress. Objects, Texts,
Images, ed. Désirée Koslin and Janet Snyder, 1–6. New
York: Palgrave.
Kovács, András. 2003. “Apafi György almakereki
sírkápolnájáról” (On the burial chapel of György Apafi in
Almakerék). Református Szemle 96: 632–633.
Kovács, Annamária. 1998. “Court, Fashion and Representation:
the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle Revisited.” PhD
Thesis, Central European University. Budapest.
Kovács, Gyöngyi. 1984. Török kerámia Szolnokon (Turkish
pottery in Szolnok). Szolnok: Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi
Adattár.
Kovács, Gyöngyi. 1991. “16th–18th Century Hungarian
Pottery Types.” Antaeus 19–20 (1990–1991): 169–180,
351–361.
Kovács, Gyöngyi. 1998. “A barcsi török palánkvár
kerámialeletei” (The ceramic finds from the Turkish
palisade fort at Barcs). Communicationes Archaeologicae
Hungariae (1998), 155–180.
Kovács, Gyöngyi. 2002. “A bajcsai várásatás kerámia- és
üvegleletei” (The ceramics and glass finds from the
fort of Bajcsa). In Weitshawar/Bajcsa-Vár. Egy stájer
erődítmény Magyarországon a 16. század második
felében. Kiállítási katalógus (Weitshawar/Bajcsa-Vár. A
Styrian fort in Hungary in the second half of the sixteenth
century. Exhibition catalog), ed. Gyöngyi Kovács, 63–69.
Zalaegerszeg: Zala Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.
 Bibliography
Kovács, Gyöngyi. 2003. “Some Possible Directions for
Research into Ottoman-era Archaeological Finds in
Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in
Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya
Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 257–266. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum, 2003.
Kovács, Gyöngyi. 2005. “Iznik Pottery in Hungarian
Archaeological Research.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies
on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 69–86.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Kovács, Gyöngyi and László Vándor. 2003. “Remarks on
Archaeological Investigations into Smaller Ottoman-era
Palisades in Hungary.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman
Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the
Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 109–112.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Kovács, László. 2003. “Cowry Shells in Seventeenth- and
Eighteenth-century Hungary.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 345–350.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Kovács Kiss, György. 2001. “Adatok a viselet szabályozásáról
a XVI-XVII. századi Kolozsváron” (New data on the
regulation of clothing in sixteenth-seventeenth-century
Kolozsvár). In Kolozsvár 1000 éve (Thousand years of
Kolozsvár), ed. Tibor Kálmán Dáné et al., 60–62. Kolozsvár:
Erdélyi Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület.
Kovalovszki, Júlia. 1986. “A kidei középkori temető (Méri
István ásatása)” (The medieval cemetery in Kide [An
archaeological excavation by István Méri]). In A magyar
falu régésze. Méri István (The archaeologist of Hungarian
villages. István Méri), ed. Júlia Kovalovszki, 23–24.
Cegléd: Kossuth Lajos Múzeum.
Kovalovszki, Júlia, ed. 1986. A magyar falu régésze. Méri
István (The archaeologist of Hungarian villages. István
Méri). Cegléd: Kossuth Lajos Múzeum.
Kövér, Béla. 1892. “A középkori sodrony-zománcz
kérdéséhez” (On the problem of medieval cloisonné).
Archaeológiai Értesítő 12: 33.
Kövér, Béla. 1897. “Újabb adatok az ötvösség történetéhez
hazánkban” (New data on the history of goldsmith’s work
in Hungary). Archaeológiai Értesítő 17: 227–253.
Kristó, Gyula, et al. 2007. Historische Demographie Ungarns
(896–1996). Herne: Gabriele Schäfer Verlag.
Kubinyi, András. 1991. “Über das Alltagsleben im
spätmittelalterlichen Ungarn.” In Alltag und materielle
Kultur im mittelalterlichen Ungarn, ed. András Kubinyi and
József Laszlovszky, 9–31. Medium Aevum Quotidianum
22. Krems: Medium Aevum Quotidianum.
Kubiny, András. 1997. “A magyar királyság népessége a 15.
század végén” (The population of the Hungarian Kingdom at
the end of the fifteenth century). In Magyarország történeti
demográfiája (The historical demography of Hungary), ed.
József Kovacsics, 9–110. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai
Hivatal.
Lajkó, Orsolya. 2003. “Post-medieval Pottery Finds from
Hódmezővásárhely-Ótemplom.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
90
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 321–328.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Langó, Péter. 2000. “A jászok etnogenezise és korai
történetük” (The ethnogenesis and early history of the
Iasians). In Szállástól a mezővárosig. Tanulmányok a
Jászság és Jászfényszaru múltjából (From camp to oppidum.
Studies on the past of the Jászság and Jászfényszaru). ed.
Péter Langó, 83–109. Jászfényszaru: Fényszaruiak Baráti
Egyesülete.
Langó, Péter. 2006. “A Kárpát-medence 10. századi
emlékanyagának kutatása mint nemzeti régészet” (The
research of the heritage of tenth-century Carpathian Basin
as national archaeology). Korall 24–25: 89–117.
Langó, Péter. 2005. “Archaeological research on the
conquering Hungarians: a review” In Research on the
Prehistory of the Hungarians: A review, ed. Balázs Gusztáv
Mende, 175–340. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 18.
Budapest: MTA Régészeti Intézet.
László, Csaba. 1980. “A balatonszőlősi református templom
kutatása” (Archaeological research on the church
of Balatonszőlős). A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok
Közleményei 15: 113–124.
László, Emőke. 1986. “Textilmunkák” (Textiles). In Béla
Radvánszky, Magyar családélet és háztartás a XVI. és
XVII. században (Hungarian family life and households in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), reprint edition,
vol. 1, 309–319. 3 vols. Budapest: Helikon, 1986.
László, Emőke. 1988. “A magyar nemesi viselet a családi
arcképek tükrében” (The costume of the Hungarian nobility
reflected by the family portraits). In Főúri ősgalériák,
családi arcképek a Magyar Történelmi Képcsarnokból.
A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, az Iparművészeti Múzeum
és a Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiállítása. Magyar Nemzeti
Galéria, 1988. március – augusztus (Aristocratic
ancestors’ galleries, family portraits from the Hungarian
Historical Gallery. Exhibition of the Hungarian National
Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and the Hungarian
National Gallery. Hungarian National Gallery, March –
August 1988), ed. Enikő Buzási, 35–44. Budapest, Magyar
Nemzeti Galéria.
László, Gyula. 1977. Régészeti tanulmányok (Studies in
archaeology). Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó.
Laszlovszky, József and Csilla Siklódi. 1991. “Archaeological
Theory in Hungary since 1960: Theories without Theoretical
Archaeology.” In Archaeological Theory in Europe, ed.
Ian Hodder, 272–298. London: Routledge.
Laszlovszky, József and Judith Rasson. 2003. “Post-medieval
or Historical Archaeology: Terminology and Discourses in
the Archaeology of the Ottoman Period.” In Archaeology
of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference
Held at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26
May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 377–
382. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Lázár, Sarolta. 1986. “Az egri vár törökkori magyar
cserépedényei” (Hungarian ceramics from the Ottoman
period of the castle of Eger). Agria 22: 35–63.
Lázár, Sarolta. 1999/a. “Törökkori temető Esztergom-
Szentkirályon” (An Ottoman-age Cemetery at Esztergom-
Szentkirály). Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok
Közleményei 6: 307–320.
Lázár, Sarolta. 1999/b. “A bajóti római katolikus templom
kutatása” (Archaeological research on the Catholic
 Bibliography
church in Bajót). Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok
Közleményei 6: 291–306.
Lázár, Sarolta. 2003. “An Ottoman-age Cemetery at
Esztergom-Szentkirály,” In Archaeology of the Ottoman
Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the
Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 231–236.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Lovag, Zsuzsa and Annamária T. Németh. 1974. “A tolnai
XVI. századi kincslelet” (The sixteenth-century treasure
hoard from Tolna). Folia Archaeologica 25: 219–244.
Luby, Margit. 2002 (1935). A parasztélet rendje. Népi szokások,
illendő magatartás, babonák Szatmár vármegyében (The
order of peasants’ life. Folk traditions, superstitions, and
conventional behaviour in Szatmár County). 1st ed. 1935.
Budapest: Nap.
Lucy, Sam. 2005. “Ethnic and Cultural Identities.” In
Margarita Diaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and David
N. Edwards, The Archaeology of Identity, 86–109. London:
Routledge.
Lyublyanovics, Kyra. 2008. “Városi állattartás a
középkorban” (Animal breeding in medieval towns). In
Gazdaság és gazdálkodás a középkori Magyarországon:
gazdaságtörténet, anyagi kultúra, régészet (Economy
and farming in medieval Hungary: economic history,
material culture, archaeology), ed. András Kubinyi, József
Laszlovszky, and Péter Szabó, 95–98. Budapest: Martin
Opitz.
Magyar, Kálmán. 1981. “Ispánsági és nemzetségi
központok kutatása Somogyban I. Egyházak és temetők”
(Archaeological research at the seats of the comes and
kindreds 1. Churches and cemeteries). Somogyi Múzeumok
Közleményei 4: 43–81.
Makkai, László. 1971. “Der ungarische Viehhandel
1550–1650.” In Der Aussenhandel Ostmitteleuropas
1450–1650, ed. Ingomar Bog, 483–506. Köln: Böhlau.
Makkai, László. 1985/a. “Magyarok és rácok a Dunántúlon”
(Hungarian and Rác population in Transdanubia). In
Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary
1526–1686), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, vol. 2, 1430–1435.
Magyarország története 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Makkai, László. 1985/b, “Az Alföld” (The Hungarian plain),
In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary
1526–1686), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, vol. 2, 1440–1444.
Magyarország története 3. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Makkai, László. 1985/c. “Magyarok, szlovákok, németek a
Felföldön” (Hungarians, Slovaks and Germans in Upper
Hungary). In Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History
of Hungary 1526–1686), ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi, vol.
2, 1452–1456. Magyarország története 3. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Makkai, László. 1994. “ The Emergence of the Estates (1172–
1526).” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi, 178–
198. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Makkai, László. 2001. “Transylvania in the Medieval
Hungarian Kingdom” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla
Köpeczi. Vol. 1. From the Beginnings to 1606, ed. László
Makkai and András Mócsy, 333–590. Boulder, Colo. New
York: Social Science Monographs.
Marciniak, Arkadiusz. 2006. “Central European Archaeology
at the Crossroads.” In A Future for Archaeology, ed. Robert
91
Layton, Stephen Shennan, and Peter Stone, 157–172.
London: University College London Press.
Marosi, Ernő. 1995. “A Képes Krónika értelmezéséhez” (On
the interpretation of the Hungarian Illumunated Chronicle).
In Kép és hasonmás. Művészet és valóság a 14–15. századi
Magyarországon (Image and Likeness. Art and Reality
in the 14th and 15th Centuries in Hungary). Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Megay, Géza. 1970. “A miskolci avasi templom 1941. évi
ásatása” (Excavation in the church on Avas in Miskolc in
1941). A Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 9: 129–171.
Mende, Balázs Gusztáv, ed. 2005. Research on the prehistory
of the Hungarians: A review. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica
18. Budapest: MTA Régészeti Intézet.
Mentges, Gabriele. 2004. “Vestimentäres Mapping.
Trachtenbücher und Trachtenhandschriften des 16.
Jahrhunderts.” Waffen- und Kostümkunde 46: 19–36.
Mérai, Dóra. 2005. “A nagykároly-bobáldi kora újkori temető”
(The early modern cemetery in Nagykároly (Carei)-Bobáld).
MA thesis, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Institute of
Archaeology. Budapest.
Mérai, Dóra. 2007. “Bobáld, egy elpusztult szatmári falu
a források tükrében” (Bobáld, an Earstwhile Village
in Szatmár [Satu Mare] County). Satu Mare – Studii şi
Comunicǎrii 22–24 (2005–2007): 23–44.
Méri, István. 1986.“Középkori temetőink feltárásmódjáról.
Megfigyelések a kidei XII-XIX. századi temető ásatásakor”
(On the method of excavating medieval cemeteries. Notes
on the research on the twelfth-nineteenth-century cemetery
at Kide). In A magyar falu régésze. Méri István (The
archaeologist of Hungarian villages. István Méri), ed. Júlia
Kovalovszki, 26–40. Cegléd: Kossuth Lajos Múzeum.
Meskell, Lynn. 2001. “Archaeologies of Identity.” In
Archaeological Theory Today, ed. Ian Hodder, 187–213.
Cambridge: Polity.
Mihalik, József. 1906/a. “A nagybányai ékszerlelet” (The
jewelry hoard from Nagybánya). Archaeológiai Értesítő
26: 116–129.
Mihalik, József. 1906/b. “A nagybányai kincslelet ötvösművei”
(Goldsmiths’s work in the Nagybánya hoard). Magyar
Iparművészet IX/3: 112- 123.
Mithay, Sándor. 1985. “A győr-gabonavásártéri XVI-XVII.
századi temető” (The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
cemetery at Győr-Gabonavásártér). Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungaricae (1985): 185–198.
Mojzsis, Dóra. 1984. “XVI-XVII. századi női fejdíszek a
nagylózsi leletanyagból” (Sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century headgear in the finds from Nagylózs). Folia
Archaeologica 35: 185–210.
Monks, Gregory G. 1999. “On Rejecting the Concept of
Socio-economic Status in Historical Archaeology.” In
Historical Archaeology. Back from the Edge, ed. Pedro
Paulo A. Funari, Siân Jones, and Martin Hall, 204–216.
London: Routledge.
Moreland, John. 2001. Archaeology and Text. London:
Duckworth.
Murdock, Graeme. 2000. Calvinism on the Frontier, 1600–
1660: International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in
Hungary and Transylvania. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nagy, Géza. 1983. “A régi kunok temetkezése” (The burial of
the ancient Cumans). Archaeológiai Értesítő 13: 105–117.
Németi, Ioan. 1982. “Descoperiri arheologice din hotarul
 Bibliography
oraşului Carei” (Archaeological finds in the area of Carei).
Satu Mare – Studii şi Comunicǎrii 5–6 (1981–82): 167–
181.
Németi, Ioan. 1995. Descoperiri arheologice de la Carei-
Bobald în anul 1994 (Archaeological finds at Carei-Bobald
in the year 1994). Cercetări Arheologice Aria Nord Tracă 1.
Bucharest: Institutul Român de Tracologie.
Németi, Ioan. 1999. Repertoriul arheologie al zonei Careiului.
Bibliotheca Thracologica XXVIII. Bucureşti.
Németi, János and Zsolt Molnár. 2002. A tell telepek elterjedése
a Nagykárolyi-síkságon és az Ér völgyében (Distribution
of tell settlements on the Nagykároly plain and in the Ér
valley). Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca): Scientia Kiadó.
Németi, Ioan and Petre Roman. 1994–1995. “Epoca bronzului
timpuriu din Nord-Vestul Românei (Grupul Culturul
Sanislău)” (Bronze age in north-western Romania. Sanislău
Culture). Satu Mare – Studii şi Comunicǎrii 11–12 (1994–
95): 25–32.
Newton, Stella Mary. 1980. Fashion in the Age of the Black
Prince. A Study of the years 1340–1365. Woodbridge:
Suffolk.
Newton, Stella Mary. 1988. The Dress of the Venetians 1495–
1525. Aldershot, UK: Scholar Press.
Niţu, Florentina. 2005. Preţuri de podoabe şi orfevrărie din
metal preţios în spaţiul românesc (secolele XVI-XVII) (The
price of jewelry and goldsmith’s work of precious metal
on Romanian territory. Sixteenth and seventeenth century).
Bucureşti: Editura Universitătii din Bucureşti.
Oborni, Teréz. 1997. “Az Erdélyi Fejedelemség összeírásainak
demográfiai forrásértéke” (The demographic documentary
value of censuses in the Transylvanian Principality). In
Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical
demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics, 187–192.
Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
Oborni, Teréz. 2005. “Privileged Peoples in Transylvanian
Society: Saxons and Szeklers.” In A concise history of
Hungary: The history of Hungary from the early Middle
Ages to the present, ed István György Tóth, 266–269.
Budapest: Osiris.
Oborni, Teréz, Lilla Tompos and Gábor Bencsik. 2009. A régi
Erdély népeinek képeskönyve (A picture book of peoples of
the ancient Transylvania). Budapest: Magyar Mercurius.
Ortutay, Gyula, ed. 1979. Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon (The
encyclopedia of Hungarian ethnography). Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Pakucs, Mária. 2004. “The Trade of Sibiu in the Sixteenth
Century: the Evidence of the Town’s Custom Registers.”
PhD thesis, Central European University. Budapest.
Pakucs-Willkocks, Mária. 2007. Sibiu-Hermannstadt:
Oriental trade in sixteenth-century Transylvania. Cologne:
Böhlau.
Paládi-Kovács, Attila. 2006. “Nemzetiségek néprajza a
reformkorban” (Ethnography of ethnicities in the Reform
Period). In A nemzetiségek néprajzi felfedezői (Ethnographic
explorers of ethnicities), ed. Attila Paládi-Kovács, 7–27.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Pálffy, Géza. 2000/a. A tizenhatodik század története (The
sixteenth century). Magyar Századok 6. Budapest:
Pannonica.
Pálffy, Géza. 2000/b “The Origins and Development of
the Border Defence System against the Ottoman Empire
in Hungary (up to the Early Eighteenth Century).” In
92
Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe.
The Military Confines in the Era of the Ottoman Conquest,
ed. Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor, 3–69. Leiden: Brill.
Pálffy, Géza. 2001. “The Impact of the Ottoman Rule on
Hungary.” Hungarian Studies Review 28, 1–2, Special
Volume. Hungary: 1001–2001. A Millennial Retrospection
(2001): 109–132.
Pálffy, Géza. 2002. “The Border Defense System in
Hungary in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. “In
A Millennium of Hungarian Military History, ed. László
Veszprémy and Béla K. Király, 111–135. War and Society
in East Central Europe 37; East European Monographs
621, Atlantic Studies on Society in Change 114. New York:
Atlantic Research and Publications.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1976. “A Lászlófalván 1969–74.
évben végzett régészeti ásatások eredményei” (Results of
the excavations at Lászlófalva between 1969 and 1974).
Cumania 4: 275–303.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1980. “Le costume coman au
Moyen âge.” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 32: 403–427.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1982. “Régészeti adatok a kunok
viseletéhez” (Archaeological data on the costume of the
Cumans). Archaeológiai Értesítő 109: 89–107.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1989/a. Pechenegs, Cumans,
Iasians. Steppe Peoples in Medieval Hungary. Budapest:
Corvina.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1989/b. “Steppe traditions and the
assimilation of nomadic people: the Cumanians in Hungary
in the 13th–14th century.” In Archaeological approaches to
cultural identity, ed. Stephen Shennan, 291–302. London:
Routledge.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 1996. “Nomád népek a kelet-
európai steppén és a középkori Magyarországon” (Nomadic
peoples on the Eastern European steppe and Hungary). In
Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok
– a középkori Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors –
Pechenegs, Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain),
ed. Péter Havassy, 7–36. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum.
Pálóczi Horváth, András. 2003. “The Survival of Szentkirály
in the Ottoman Era.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period
in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya
Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 201–206. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Palotay, Gertrúd. 1940. Oszmán-török elemek a magyar
hímzésben (Ottoman Turkish motifs in Hungarian
embroidery). Budapest: Magyar Történeti Múzeum.
Pap, Ferenc. 2000. Kolozsvári harmincadjegyzékek, 1599–
1637. (Kolozsvár’s registers of thirtieth, 1599–1637).
Bukarest – Kolozsvár: Kriterion.
Papp, Adrienn. 2005. “Depiction of Pomegranates and
Sárospatak Wall-Tiles in the 16th and 17th Centuries.” In
Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed.
Ibolya Gerelyes, 45–50. Budapest: Hungarian National
Museum.
Parádi, Nándor. 1995. “A Tiszanána-Ónánai ásatás” (The
excavation at Tiszanána-Ónána). Folia Archaeologica 44:
151–189.
Pásztor, Emese. 2005. “Ottoman Saddlecloths, Saddles, Bow-
Cases and Quivers in Transylvania and Royal Hungary.
 Bibliography
Ottoman-Turkish Textiles n the Esterházy Collection at the
Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest.” In Turkish Flowers.
Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes,
101–114. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Perjés, Géza. 1989. The Fall of the Medieval Kingdom of
Hungary: Mohács 1526 – Buda 1541. Boulder, Colo.:
Social Science Monographs, 1989.
Péter, Katalin. 1990. “The Later Ottoman Period and Royal
Hungary.” In A History of Hungary, ed. Peter F. Sugar,
Péter Hanák, and Tibor Frank, 100–120. London: I.B.
Tauris & CO LTD.
Péter, Katalin. 1994. “The Golden Age of the Principality
(1606–1660).” In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla
Köpeczi, 301–358. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Péter, Katalin. 2002. “The Golden Age of the Principality”
In History of Transylvania, ed. Béla Köpeczi. Vol. 2. From
1606–1830, ed. László Makkai and Zoltán Szász, 3–229.
Boulder, Colo. New York : Social Science Monographs.
Péter, Katalin. 2004. A reformáció: kényszer vagy választás?
(Reformation: a force or a choice?). Budapest: Nemzeti
Tankönyvkiadó.
Pigler, Andor. 1957. “Portraying the Dead.” Acta Historiae
Artium Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 4: 1–75.
Piponnier, Françoise and Perrine Mane. 1997. Dress in the
Middle Ages. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pósta, Béla. 1913. “Teleki Mihály sírja” (The grave of Mihály
Teleki). Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem-és
Régiségtárából 4: 3–32.
Pósta, Béla. 1918. “A gyulafehérvári székesegyház sírleletei”
(Grave finds from the cathedral of Gyulafehérvár).
Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem-és Régiségtárából 8:
1–203.
Pulszky, Károly and Jenő Radisics. 1885. Az ötvösség remekei
a magyar történeti ötvöskiállításon (The masterpieces of
goldsmith’s work at the Hungarian historical goldsmiths’
exhibition). Budapest.
Pusztai, Tamás. 2003. “The Pottery of the Turkish Palisade
at Bátaszék.” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in
Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya
Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 301–310. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Rácz, Lajos. 1999. Climate History of Hungary Since 16th
Century: Past, Present and Future. Pécs: Centre for
Regional Studies Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Rácz, Lajos. 2003. “The Climate History of Central Europe
in the Modern Age.” In People and Nature, ed. József
Laszlovszky and Péter Szabó, 229–246. Budapest: CEU
Press.
Rácz, Lajos. 2001. Magyarország éghajlattörténete az újkor
idején (Climate History of Hungary in the Modern Age).
Szeged: Juhász Gyula Felsőoktatási Kiadó.
Radvánszky, Béla. 1896. Magyar családélet és háztartás
a XVI. és XVII. században (Hungarian family life and
households in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). 3
vols. Budapest: Hornyánszky.
Renfew, Colin. 1996. “Prehistory and the Identity of Europe
or, Don’t let’s be Beasty to the Hungarians.” In Cultural
Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European
Communities, ed. Siân Jones, Paul Graves-Brown, and
Clive Gamble, 125–137. London: Routledge.
Richardson, Catherine. “Introduction.” In Clothing Culture
93
1350–1650, ed. Catherine Richardson 1–19. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2004.
Ridovics, Anna, ed. 2001. A szépség dicsérete. 16–17. századi
magyar főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a Magyar
Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október (In Praise
of Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian Aristocracy
in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the Hungarian
National Museum, August – October 2001). Budapest:
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Ritoók, Ágnes. 1997. “A magyarországi falusi templom
körüli temetők feltárásának újabb eredményei” (The Latest
Results of Excavations of Village Churchyards in Hungary).
Folia Archaeologica 46: 165–176.
Ritoók, Ágnes and Erika Simonyi, ed. 2005. “... a halál
árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli
temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003.
május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research
on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference
held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March,
2003). Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Rosner, Gyula. 1947. “Szentendre, Paprikabíró u. 5.”
(Szentendre, Paprikabíró street No. 5). Régészeti Füzetek
Ser. 1, 20: 101.
Rowlands, Michael. 2007. “The Politics of Identity in
Archaeology.” In The Archaeology of Identities. A Reader,
ed. Timothy Insoll, 59–71. London: Routledge.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei. 1998. Gotic şi Renaştere la Vinţu de Jos
(Gothic and Renaissance in Vinţu de Jos). Satu Mare: Ed.
Muzeului Sătmărean.
Rusu, Adrian Andrei. 2002. Cetatea Oradea. Monografie
arheologicǎ,1. Zona palatului episcopal (The castle of
Oradea. Archaeological Monograph, 1. The zone of the
episcopal palace). Oradea: Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor.
Ruttkay, Alexander T. 1997. “Archeologický výskum
kostola sv. Michala v Nitre, čast’ Dražovce a v jeho okolí
– informácia o výsledkoch” (Archaeological research on
the church of St. Michael in Dražovce, a part of Nitra, and
its surroundings – a report on the results). Archaeologia
Historica 22: 9–20.
Ruttkay, Alexander T. 2005. “A szlovákiai templom
körüli temetők régészeti kutatásáról” (On the research
of churchyard cemeteries in Slovakia). In “... a halál
árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli
temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003.
május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on
medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held
in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003),
ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 31–58. Budapest:
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
R. Várkonyi, Ágnes. 1990. “Erdély társadalma és az európai
hatalmi egyensúly 1660–1711” in Jankovics, József, Ágnes
R. Várkonyi and Géza Galavics, Régi erdélyi viseletek.
Viseletkódex a XVII. századból (Ancient Transylvanian
Garments. A costume codex from the seventeenth century),
23–55. Budapest: Európa.
Sackett, James R. 1990. “Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology:
The Case for Isochretism.” In The Uses of Style in
Archaeology, ed. Margaret W. Conkey and Christine
Hastorf, 32–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarosácz, György. 1968. “Baranyai délszláv népszokások II.
 Bibliography
Temetkezési szokások a sokácoknál és a bosnyákoknál”
(Folk traditions of the Southern Slavs in Baranya county,
2. Funeral customs among the Sokac and the Bosniacs). A
Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 13: 152–168.
Scarce, Jennifer M. 2002 (1987). Women’s Costume of the
Near and Middle East. 1st. ed. 1987. London: Routledge.
Schmitt, Jean-Claude. 2003. “Images and the Historian.” In
History and Images. Towards a New Iconology, ed. Axel
Bolvig and Phillip Lindley, 19–44. Turnhout: Brepols,
2003.
Schubert, Gabriella. 1994. “A délkelet-európai népek
viseletei – szemiotikai megközelítésben” (Costumes of
peoples in South-Eastern Europe – a semiotic approach).
Ethnographia 105: 429–431.
Selmeczi, László. 1973. “Adatok és szempontok a kunok
régészeti kutatásához Szolnok megyében” (Data and aspects
of the archaeological research on Cumans in Szolnok
County). Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv 1: 105–115.
Selmeczi, László. 1996/a. “A jászok betelepülése a régészeti
leletek tükrében” (Immigration of Iasians reflected by the
archaeological finds). In Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók
– besenyők, kunok, jászok – a középkori Alföldön és
Mezőföldön (New conquerors – Pechenegs, Cumans and
Iasians – on the Hungarian plain), ed. Péter Havassy, 67–
80. Gyula: Erkel Ferenc Múzeum.
Selmeczi, László. 1996/b. “A magyarországi jászok régészeti
kutatása” (Archaeological research on Iasians in Hungary).
In Zúduló sasok. Új honfoglalók – besenyők, kunok, jászok
– a középkori Alföldön és Mezőföldön (New conquerors –
Pechenegs, Cumans and Iasians – on the Hungarian plain),
ed Péter Havassy, Gyula: 81–88. Erkel Ferenc Múzeum.
Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley. 1992. Re-constructing
Archaeology: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. London:
Routledge.
Shennan, Stephen. 1989. “Introduction.” In Archaeological
Approaches to Cultural Identity, ed. Stephen Shennan,
1–32. London: Routledge.
Shennan, Stephen, ed. 1989. Archaeological Approaches to
Cultural Identity. London: Routledge.
Simon, Zoltán. 2005. “Wall-Tiles from Regéc.” In Turkish
Flowers. Studies on Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya
Gerelyes, 27–34. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum,
2005.
Simon, Zsolt. 2006. “A baricsi és kölpényi harmincadok a 16.
század elején” (The thirtieth of Barics and Köpény in the
early sixteenth century). Századok 140: 817–882.
Simonyi, Erika. 2005. “Középkori és kora újkori temető
Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilváson” (A medieval and early modern
cemetery at Felsőzsolca-Nagyszilvás). In “... a halál
árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli
temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003.
május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research
on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference
held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March,
2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 305–314.
Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Sinkovics István. 1985. “Útkeresés Mohács után. Az ország
három részre szakadása (1526–1541),” “Az ország
megoszottságának állandósulása (1540–1570)” (Finding
the way after Mohács. The tripartition of the country, 1526–
1541. The stabilization of the tripartition, 1540–1570). In
94
Magyarország története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary
1526–1686), Magyarország története 3, vol. 1, ed. Ágnes
R. Várkonyi, 147–284. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
S. Kovács, Tibor. 2005. “Ottoman-Turkish Influences on
Hungarian Weapons.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on
Ottoman Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 115–130.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
S. Laczkovits, Emőke. 1989. “16–17. századi kéttornyúlaki
párták és párhuzamaik” (Sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century examples of párta from Kéttornyúlak and their
analogies). Veszprémi Történelmi Tár (1989): 31–44.
Sokcsevits, Dénes. 1998. “Horvátok” (Croats). In Toso Doncsev
at al., Nemzeti és etnikai kisebbségek Magyarországon
(National and ethnic minorities in Hungary), 101–135.
Budapest: Auktor.
Striling, János, ed. 1983. Egy jeles Vad-Kert, Avagy az
oktalan állatoknak históriája Miskolczi Gáspár által (An
illustrious park, or the history of the brute beasts by Gáspár
Miskolczi). Budapest: Magvető.
Sugar, Peter. 1990. “The Principality of Transylvania.” In A
History of Hungary, ed. Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, and
Tibor Frank, 121–137. London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD.
Suhr, Grietje. 2005. “Eine Chance für neue Paradigmen?
... theoretische Ansätze in der Archäologie Polens, der
Tschechischen Republik und Ungarns.” Dissertation an der
Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Europa-Universität
Viadrina.
Sutton, Anne. 1998. “Dress and Fashion c. 1470.” In Daily
Life in the Middle Ages, ed. Richard Britnell, 5–26. Stroud,
UK: Sutton Publishing, 1998.
Szabó, János Győző. 1979. “Poroszló, Földvár utca” (Poroszló,
Földvár street). Régészeti Füzetek Ser. 1, 32: 132.
Szabó, János Győző. 1983. “A keleti kereszténység egyik
ismertetőjele temetkezéseinkben” (A mark of Eastern
Christianity in burials). A Janus Pannonius Múzeum
Évkönyve 28: 83–98.
Szabó, Kálmán. 1938. Az alföldi magyar nép művelődéstörténeti
emlékei (The culture historical remains of the population of
the Hungarian Great Plain). Budapest: Országos Magyar
Történeti Múzeum.
Szabó, Péter. 1986. “A fegyverzet szerepe a főúri
gyászszertartáson” (The role of the armour in noble funeral
ceremonies). Ars Hungarica 15: 115–123.
Szádeczky, Lajos. 1897. “A küküllővári sírleletek és régiségek”
(Finds and antiquities from Küküllővár). Erdélyi Múzeum
14: 286–290, 293–295.
Szakály, Ferenc.1981. Magyar adóztatás a török hódoltságban
(Hungarian taxation under the Ottoman conquest).
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Szakály, Ferenc. 1990. “The Early Ottoman Period, Including
Royal Hungary, 1526–1606.” In A History of Hungary,
ed. Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, and Tibor Frank. 83–99.
London: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD.
Szakály, Ferenc. 1994. “Nándorfehérvár, 1521: The Beginning
of the End of the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom.” In
Hungarian-Ottoman military and diplomatic relations in
the age of Süleyman the Magnificent, ed. Géza Dávid and
Pál Fodor, 47–76. Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University,
Dept. of Turkish Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Institute of History.
Szakály, Ferenc. 1995. Mezőváros és reformáció. Tanulmányok
a korai magyar polgárosodás kérdéséhez (Oppidum and the
 Bibliography
Reformation. Studies on the early Hungarian bourgeoisie).
Budapest, Balassi Kiadó.
Szende, Katalin. 2004. Otthon a városban: társadalom és
anyagi kultúra a középkori Sopronban, Pozsonyban és
Eperjesen (Home in the town: Society and material culture
in medieval Sopron, Bratislava and Prešov). Budapest:
MTA Történettudományi Intézete.
Szende, Katalin. 2009. “Integration through Language:
The Multilingual Character of Late Medieval Towns.”
In Segregation – Integration – Assimilation. Religious
and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval Towns of Central and
Eastern Europe, ed. Derek Keene, Balázs Nagy and Katalin
Szende, 206–233. Farnham: Ashgate.
Szendrei, János. 1907. “Adatok az erdélyi női viselet
történetéhez” (New data on the history of female costume
in Transylvania). Archaeológiai Értesítő 27: 193–205.
Szendrei, János. 1908. “Adatok az erdélyi férfi viselet
történetéhez” (New data on the history of male costume in
Transylvania). Archaeológiai Értesítő 28: 97–122.
Szőcs Péter, Dóra Mérai, and Jacqueline T. Eng. 2005. “A
nagykároly-bobáldi temető és templom 2001. évi régészeti
kutatása” (Archaeological investigation of the Nagykároly-
Bobáld cemetery and church in 2001). In “... a halál
árnyékának völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli
temetők kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003.
május 13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death” Research
on medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference
held in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March,
2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 315–324.
Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Szőke, Béla Miklós. 1996. “Alsórajk-Kastélydomb.” Antaeus
Communicationes ex Instituto Archaeologico Academiae
Scientiarum Hungariae 23: 251–288.
Takács, Miklós. 2005. “Egy vitatott kéztartásról” (On a
debated gesture). In “... a halál árnyékának völgyében
járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők kutatása. A
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május 13–16. között
megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk through the
valley of the shadow of death” Research on medieval village
churchyards. Papers of a conference held in the Hungarian
National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003), ed. Ágnes Ritoók
and Erika Simonyi, 85–101. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum.
Tánczos, Nándor. 1993 “Embertani vizsgálatok Esztergom-
Rozmár 16–17. századi népességén” (Physical
anthropological analysis of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century population of Esztergom-Rozmár). Anthropológiai
Közlemények 35: 141–142.
Telcean, Ecaterina. 1976. “Tezaurul de la Visuia (sec. XVI)”
(The treasure of Visuia, sixteenth century). File de Istorie
4: 205–216.
Tomka, Gábor. 2003. “Finjans, Pipes, Grey Jugs. ‘Turkish’
Objects in the Hungarian Fortresses of Borsod County.” In
Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers
of a Conference Held at the Hungarian National Museum,
Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and
Gyöngyi Kovács, 311–320. Budapest: Hungarian National
Museum.
Tompos, Lilla. 2001. “Kamuka és korcovány. Textíliák és
öltözékek” (“Kamuka” and “korcovány.” Textiles and
95
garments). In A szépség dicsérete. 16–17. századi magyar
főúri öltözködés és kultúra. Kiállítás a Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeumban, 2001. augusztus – október (In Praise of
Beauty. Costumes and Habits of Hungarian Aristocracy
in the 16th –17th centuries. Exhibition in the Hungarian
National Museum, August – October 2001), ed. Anna
Ridovics, 9–26. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Tompos, Lilla. 2005. “Oriental and Western Influences on
Hungarian Attire.” In Turkish Flowers. Studies on Ottoman
Art in Hungary, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes, 87–100. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Tompos, Lilla. 2009. “A budapesti Costumebilder aus
Siebenbürgen kódex viselettörténeti áttekintése” (A costume
historical overview of the Costumebilder aus Siebenbürgen
codex from Budapest) In Oborni, Teréz, Lilla Tompos
and Gábor Bencsik, A régi Erdély népeinek képeskönyve
(A picture book of peoples of the ancient Transylvania),
28–39. Budapest: Magyar Mercurius.
Török, László, ed. 1970. Balla Gergely nagykőrösi krónikája
a honfoglalástól 1758-ig (The chronicle of Gergely Balla
of Nagykőrös from the Hungarian Conquest until 1758).
Nagykőrös-Kecskemét: Bács-Kiskun M. Ny.
Tóth, István György. 1999. “Hungarian Culture in the Early
Modern Age” In A Cultural History of Hungary, From the
Beginnings to the Eighteenth Century, ed. László Kósa,
154–228. Budapest: Corvina.
Tóth, István György. 2005/a. “The Century of Ottoman
Wars.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History of
Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed.
István György Tóth, 181–205. Budapest: Osiris.
Tóth, István György. 2005/b. “Aristocracy and Gentry.” In A
Concise History of Hungary: The History of Hungary from
the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed. István György
Tóth, 259–263. Budapest: Osiris.
Tóth, István György. 2005/c. “Between the Sultan and the
Emperor.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History
of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed.
István György Tóth, 206–231. Budapest: Osiris.
Tóth, István György. 2005/d. “Reformation and the Catholic
Revival.” In A Concise History of Hungary: The History
of Hungary from the Early Middle Ages to the Present, ed.
István György Tóth, 231–249. Budapest: Osiris.
Trigger, Bruce. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turnau, Irena. 1991. History of Dress in Central and Eastern
Europe from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century.
Warsaw: Institute of the History of Material Culture, Polish
Academy of Sciences.
Varga, János. 1969. Jobbágyrendszer a magyarországi
feudalizmus kései szakaszában 1566–1767 (The system of
villainage in the late period of the feudalism in Hungary
1566–1767). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
V. Ember, Mária. 1957. “Az egri Rozália kápolna textiljei”
(Textiles from the Rosalie chapel in Eger). Folia
Archaeologica 9: 119–236.
V. Ember, Mária. 1961. “Az egri Rozália kápolna cipői” (Shoes
from the Rosalie chapel in Eger). Folia Archaeologica 13:
251–268.
V. Ember, Mária. 1967. “Magyar viseletformák a XVI. és
XVII. században” (Hungarian forms of clothing in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). Folia Archaeologica
18: 205–226.
 Bibliography
V. Ember, Mária. 1968. “XVI. és XVII, századi ruhadarabok
a sárospataki templom kriptájából” (Sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century articles of clothing from the crypt of
the church at Sárospatak). Folia Archaeologica 19: 151–
184.
Végh, András. 2009. “Buda: The Multi-ethnic Capital of
Medieval Hungary.” In Segregation – Integration –
Assimilation. Religious and Ethnic Groups in the Medieval
Towns of Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Derek Keene,
Balázs Nagy and Katalin Szende, 88–99. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Vida, Tivadar. 2003. “Cross-roads of Peoples and Cultures.”
In Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Milleneum,
ed. Zsolt Visy and Mihály Nagy, 283–284. Budapest,
Ministry of National Cultural Heritage and Teleki László
Foundation.
Vida, Tivadar. 2006. “Az etnikum kérdése a német kora
középkori régészetben 1945 után” (The issue of ethnicity
in the German archaeology of the Early Middle Ages after
1945). Korall 24–25: 203–215.
Visy, Zsolt and Mihály Nagy ed. 2003. Hungarian Archaeology
at the Turn of the Milleneum. Budapest, Ministry of National
Cultural Heritage and Teleki László Foundation.
V. Szathmári, Ibolya. 1991. “A debreceni ún. ‘gyöngyös-
bogláros’ párta” (Párta from Debrecen decorated with
beads and boglár). A Debreceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve
(1991): 193–224.
V. Székely, György. 2003. “Differentiation or Homogenisation?
Structural Changes in the Composition of Coin Finds
in Sixteenth-Century Hungary.” In Archaeology of the
Ottoman Period in Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held
at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May
2000, ed. Ibolya Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 337–344.
Budapest: Hungarian National Museum.
Walther, Rolf. 1971. “Die Trachtenbilder im Thesaurus
Picturarum des Dr. Markus zum Lamm.” Waffen- und
Kostümkunde 13: 77–96.
Weckwerth, Alfred. 1957. “Der Ursprung des Bildepitaphs.”
Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 21: 147–185.
Wellmann, Imre. 1985. “Magyarország népességének fejlődése
a 18. században” (The development of the population of
Hungary in the eighteenth century). In Magyarország
története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686),
ed. Győző Ember and Gusztáv Heckenast, vol. 1, 23–80.
Magyarország története 4. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
White, Carolyn L. and Mary C. Beaudry. 2009. “Artifacts and
Personal Identity.” In International Handbook of Historical
Archaeology, ed. Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster,
209–225. New York: Springer.
Wicker, Erika. 1999. “Bácsalmás-Óalmás későközépkori rác
temetője” (Late medieval cemetery at Bácsalmás-Óalmás).
Múzeumi kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében 1998: 25–30.
Wicker, Erika. 2001. “Rácok A Duna-Tisza közén a XVI-
XVII. században” (Rác people between the Danube and the
Tisza rivers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). In
Ezer év a Duna-Tisza közén (A thousand years between the
Danube and the Tisza rivers), ed. János Bárth, 151- 157.
Kecskemét: Katoa József Múzeum.
Wicker, Erika. 2002 “Muzulmán elemek a hódoltság kori
rácok temetkezési szokásaiban” (Muslim elements in the
burial customs of the Rác population in the period of the
Turkish Conquest). Cumania 18: 95–124.
96
Wicker, Erika. 2003/a. “A Serb Cemetery from the Ottoman
Era in Hungary” In Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in
Hungary: Papers of a Conference Held at the Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest, 24–26 May 2000, ed. Ibolya
Gerelyes and Gyöngyi Kovács, 237–248. Budapest:
Hungarian National Museum.
Wicker, Erika. 2003/b. “Adatok a hódoltság kori délszlávok
temetkezési szokásaihoz” (New data on the burial customs
of the Southern Slav population in the period of the Turkish
Conquest). Cumania 19: 19–84.
Wicker, Erika. 2004. “Észak-Bácska a hódoltság korában”
(The northern part of Bácska in the period of the Ottoman
Conquest). Cumania 20: 5–111.
Wicker, Erika. 2005/a. “Újabb adatok a hódoltság kori
délszlávok temetkezési szokásaihoz” (New data on the
burial customs of Southern Slav population in the period
of the Ottoman conquest). In “... a halál árnyékának
völgyében járok” A középkori templom körüli temetők
kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban, 2003. május
13–16. között megtartott konferencia előadásai (“I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death” Research on
medieval village churchyards. Papers of a conference held
in the Hungarian National Museum, 13–16 March, 2003),
ed. Ágnes Ritoók and Erika Simonyi, 325–332. Budapest:
Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.
Wicker, Erika. 2005/b. “A hódoltság kori balkáni népesség
régészeti hagyatékának kutatása” (Research on the Balkan
population in the period of the Ottoman Conquest in Bács-
Kiskun county). Múzeumi kutatások Bács-Kiskun megyében
az ezredfordulón 10 (1999–2005): 19–29.
Wicker, Erika. 2005/c. “A katymár-téglagyári hódoltság kori
fülbevalópár” (A pair of earrings from Katymár-Téglagyár
from the period of the Ottoman conquest). Cumania 21:
5–56.
Wicker, Erika. 2007. “Azonosságok és hasonlóságok az
iszlám köznépi és a hódoltság kori rác-vlah temetkezési
szokásokban” (Correspondences and similarities between
the burial customs of Muslim commoners and the Rác-Vlach
population of Hungary under Ottoman rule). Cumania 23:
5–75.
Wicker, Erika. 2008. Rácok és vlahok a hódoltság kori Észak-
Bácskában (Rác and Vlach peoples in North Bácska in the
period of the Ottoman conquest). Kecskemét: Bács-Kiskun
Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumi Szervezete.
Wicker, Erika and Mihály Kőhegyi. 2002. “A katymári XVI-
XVII. századi rác temető” (The sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century Rác cemetery at Katymár). Cumania 18: 5–94.
Wiessner, Polly. 1983. “Style and Social Information in
Kalahari San Projectile Points.” American Antiquity 48/2:
253–276.
Wobst, H. Martin. 1977. “Stylistic Behavior and Information
Exchange.” In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor
of James B. Griffin, ed. Charles E. Cleland, 317–342. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan.
Zhelyazkova, Antonina. 2002. “Islamization in the Balkans
as an Historiographical Problem: The Southeastern-
European Perspective.” In The Ottomans and the Balkans.
A Discussion of Historiography, ed. Fikret Adanir and
Suraiya Faroqhi, 224–266. The Ottoman Empire and its
Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy 25. Leiden: Brill.
Zimányi, Vera. 1985. “Városfejlődés és polgárság”
(Development of towns and the burghers). In Magyarország
 Bibliography
története 1526–1686 (History of Hungary 1526–1686),
Magyarország története 3, vol. 1, ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi,
353–383. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Zimányi, Vera. 1987. Economy and society in sixteenth and
seventeenth century Hungary, 1526–1650. Budapest:
Akadémiai Kiadó.
Zimányi, Vera. 1997. “Magyarország 16–17. századi
demográfiatörténeti vizsgálatának problémái” (The
problems of research on the demographical history of
Hungary in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). In
97
Magyarország történeti demográfiája (The historical
demography of Hungary), ed. József Kovacsics, 193–196.
Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.
Zomborka, Márta and Emil Ráduly. 1996. “Vác, Fehérek
temploma, kriptafeltárás 1994–95” (Vác, Dominican
church, excavation of the crypt 1994–95). Magyar
Múzeumok (1996): 3–14.
Zomborka, Márta and Emil Ráduly. 2000. “The Finds of
the Crypt of the Dominican Church in Vác.” Hungarian
Museums, Special English Language Edition (2000): 26–28.
98