How Did Conquering Hungarians Prepare and Serve their Food?

How Did Conquering Hungarians Prepare and Serve their Food?

Mikl6s Tak cs

The body of data available conceming the response to the question posed in the title seems hopelessly inadequate at first sight. Thus, for example, written sources conce ing conquering Hungarians hardly ever make reference to cooking vessels or table sets. To be precise, the eating habits of 1 01h century Hungarians are discussed only by a single medieval author, Friar Ekkehard in his work entitled „St. Gallen Histories“. 1 According to the description of Heribald, who was captured when Hungarians took over the monastery, their chie ains „sat right on the green grass without chairs to have their meals (…) they ate the shoulder blades and other parts ofthe livestock sacri ced halfraw, using no knives, gnawing off the meat, therea er merrily tossing the bones at each other“. In all probability, their cheerful mood was further enhanced by the fact that „the wine, in a ll pail [cubba], which was placed in the middle was equally available to anyone, and they could drink as much as they liked.“ This quote will not be mentioned again, and not only because Ekkehard never described how the meat was prepared (i.e. it remains unknown whether the

· meat was grilled or cooked). More impo antly, even at that time, the eating habits of a marauding army were only to a limited extent typical ofan entire ethnic group. It is worth mentioning, however, that the cubba, according to several medieval Latin dictionaries, means a tub, a caldron or anything similarly !arge. It is unlikely, on the other hand, that conquering Hungarians would have carried such a bulky wooden vessel with them on their military tours to the rest of Europe. It seems more likely that the vessel under discussion here was a type characteristically used in viticulture all over westem Europe. In addition, the Hungarian origins of the vessel are rther

1Pe :MGSS.II. 104-111.

98

into the grave that, according to the beliefs of relatives le behind, may have been needed by the deceased in the Other World or during the long

joumey there.
It is worth considering a few details of these three forms of

deposition. Since little can be said about hoards in the pot, this form will be discussed rst. Theoretically, such nds should offer an excellent opportunity for dating. This possibility, unfortunately, o en remains theoretical, since such randomly discovered small ceramic vessels are routinely crushed, as soon as the nder begins to suspect that they may contain some sort of treasure. Thus, for example, both the Nagyharsany Dirhem nd as weil as the Zsennye hoard came to light during the course of tillage work. The discoverers, however, were not even able to band over the tiniest sherd to the museum. The broken pot was discarded soon as the precious meta! had been retrieved. 4

Moreover, specialists in Hungary have started realizing only in recent decades that conquering Hungarians had actually already established relatively permanent settlements at the time of the Period of the Hungarian Conquest, and that these sites are worth investigating using archaeological methods.5 Previously, it was rather generally believed that, due to their

4 Mesterhäzy, K.: Zsennye. ln: „Oseinketfelhoza ‚ … op. cit., 378; Koväcs, L.: Münzen aus der ungarischen Landnahmezeit. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Budapest, 1989, 45-46.
5 The most si ificant excavations of IO’h- l llh settlements within the whole of the tenitory occupied by Hungarians in those days in recent decades included: Gömöri, J.: Kora csäszärkori es äd-kori települes, X. szäzadi vasolvaszt6 mühely Sopronban (Tenth century I n smelting workshop in Sopron from the Early Imperial Period and Period ofthe Arpäd Dynasty). Arrabona 15 (1973) 69-119; Szab6, J. Gy.: äd-kori falu es temetöje Sarud hataräban II. A települes. ( äd Period village and its cemetery in the outskirts of Sarud. ll. The settlement). Egri Muzeum Evkönyve 13 (1975) 19-62; Mesterhäzy, K.: Települesäsatäsok Veresegyhäz – Ivacson (Settlement excavations at Veresegyhaz – 1vacs). Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1983, 133-162; Horedt, K.: Mor�ti 2. Grabungen in einer miuelalterlichen Siedlung in Siebenbürgen. Bonn 1984; Certain tendentious statements of this work have been criticis by B6na, 1.: ädenzeit1iche Dörfer, Kirche und Friedhof am Marosfluss. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37 (1985) 223-236; Vekony G.: K ö nepvändorläskori es Arpäd-kori települesek Tatabänya – D6zsakertben (Late Mi ation Period and Arpäd Period Settlements from Tatabänya – D6zsakert). : Komarom me e törtenete. I. kötet (The history of Komarom county, Vol. I.). Edit by Gombkötö, G., Komarom [ 1 988], 283-3 16; Wolf, M.: Elözetes jelentes a borsodi földvar äsatäsair61 (1987-1990). (Pre1iminary report on the excavations at the bill-fort of Borsod [1987- 1990]) J6sa Andras Muzeum Evkönyve 30-32 (1987-1989), Nyiregyhäza 1992, 427-428; Jankovich, 8. D.: Szondaz6 äsatäs Szarvas – R6zsäson {Test excavations at Szarvas –

100

equestrian nomadic way of life, l 01h century Hungarians could not have inhabited such settlements.6 The changing of this view was significantly in uenced by ceramic nds. Vessel types, previously unknown in the Carpathian Basin, were discovered during the course of excavations at 1 O century settlements. These included the so-called vessels with ribbed necks7 and ceramic kettles8 that imitated the shapes of their metal Counterparts. Their interpretation as Hungarian products is supported by the presence of

R6zsäs). : A kökort61 a zepkorig. Tanulmanyok Trogmayer Ott6 60. születesnapjara. (From the Stone Age to the Middle Ages. Studies in honor of the 60th birthday of Ott6 Trogmayer) Edited by G. Lörinczy, Szeg 1994. Takäcs, M.: Honfoglaläs- es korai ad-kori telepäsatäsok M I aut6pälya nyugat-magyarorszägi szakaszän (Excavations at Settlements from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest and the early Period of the ad Dynasty in the section of the MI Motorway in westem Hungary). : A ma ar honfoglalas koranak regeszeti emlekei (Archaeological monuments of the Period of the Hungarian Conquest ). Edited by M. Wolf- L. Revesz, Miskolc, 1996, 197-207.

6 For the criticism of this opinion see: Takäcs, M.: A I 0. szäzadi magyar-szläv viszonyr61 es a honfogla16 magyarok ele 6djär6l. (Nehäny me egyzes Krist6 Gyula: A magyar ällam megszületese. Szeged 1995. c. könyveröl). (On Hung ian-Slavic relations in the 10 century and the lifeways of conquering Hungarians. [Comments of the book “ e birth ofthe Hungarian State“ by Gyula Krist6, Szeg , 1995]). Szazadok 131 (1997)/I,

168-215.

7 The rst vessels with ribbed necks was published in: Mesterhäzy, K.: Honfoglaläs kori kerämiänk keleti kapcsolatai (The eastem connections of ceramies from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest ). Folia Archaeologica 26 (1975) 99-1 15. relation to thls probl see also: Fodor, Honfoglaläs kori bordäzott nyakU edenyeink sz a zäsär61 (The origins of vessels with ribbed necks from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest ). Folia Archaeologica 36 (1985) 165-170; Kopersky, A. – Parczewsky, M.: Das altunga sche Reiter ab von Przemysl (Südpolen). Acta Archaeo/ogica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 30 (1978) 223-224.

8 The cultural and et ic back ounds ofpottery kettles were rst analysed by Szöke, B.: Cserepbo äcsaink kerdesehez (The question of Hungarian pottery kettles). Archaeologiai Ertesitö 82 (1955) 86-90; additional arguments for associations with Hungarian ethnicity were listed in: Fodor, Cserepüstjeink szärmazäsa (The origins of Hungarian pottery kettles). Archaeologiai Ertesitö 102 (1975) 250-264; a Ionger version of thls work was published in German under the title: Der Ursprung der in Ung gefundenen TonkesseL Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29 ( 1 977) 323-349. The systematic ea ent of pottery kettles was attempted in the disse ation by Takäcs, M.: Die arpadenzeitlichen Ton sel im Karpatenbec n. VAH [ I ] . Budapest, 1986; while in a later work an e ort was made to make the chronology ofthls vessel type more precise: Idem: A kisalföldi, ad-kori cserepbo äcsok pontosabb idörendje (Egy kiserlet a leletanyag rendszerezesere). (A more precise chronology for pottery kettles from the Period of the Dynasty [ attempt for the systematisation of find materials]). Herman Otto M zeum Evkönyve 30-3 1/2 ( 1 993) 447-479.

101

their stylistic Counterparts in areas, where Hungarians lived prior to the conquest of the Carpathian Basin.9 The importance of ceramic vessels brought to light at excavations is rther increased by the fact that it was these finds that made it clear that the households of the common people used the same variety of mundane vessels during the IO’h- l l century as during the 12 – 1 3 century. Before this recognition, the generally held view was that only tiny vessels were manufactured during the earlier period, since it was usually that size range which was represented in the grave miture.10 Comparisons between ceramies recovered om Settlements and cemeteries also made it clear that no special pottery was produced for mortuary purposes. Namely, vessels placed within burials were manufactured in the same manner as those used in everyday life. It seems likely, therefore, that at that time even wealthy people ate from pottery whose production would be considered rather simple, actually primitive, by mode standards. For example, ceramic vessels as part of the grave miture in the unusually rich cemetery of Karos were made using the same techniques as their Counterparts used by common people at the time. The coiled technique of manufacturing hand-thrown vessels, however, should not be regarded as a re ection of nomadic lifeways. Potters in the neighboring Germanie and weste Slavic territories used this same technique during the lOch- 1 1 century. In connection with the food placed into the grave, the fr uent occurrence of large animal bones should also be mentioned in addition to those of the deceased. These specimens seem to have been placed upon the

9 See, for examp1e: Postike, G. I.: G1injani’e kotli na territorii Mo1davii v rannesrednevekovi) period, Slovens Archaeologia 1985/3, 2 3 1 -238.
10 Si i cant numbers of vesse1s from ave goods were pub1ished by Török, Gy.: Die Bewohner von Halimba im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. ArchHun 39. Budapest 1962; K , B.: Honfogla1äs kori magyar temetö Szeg – Algyön (E1özetes beszämo16). (Hungarian cemetery from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest at Szeg – Algyö [A preliminary report]) Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkönyve 1978-79/1. 337; and Revesz, L.: E1özetes

je1entes a karosi honfog1a1askori temetö äsatäsär61 (1986-87). (Pre1imina report on the excavations at the Karos cemetery from the Period ofthe Hungarian Conquest [ 1 986-87]) Archaeologiai Ert itö 1 1 6 { 1 989) 36-37; Rejholcovä, M.: Pohrebisko v Cak ovciah (9. – 12. storocie). Katalog. Ni a 1995. The vessels of these aves were systematiz by Kvassay, J.: Keramia a X- . szazadi sirokban (Ceramics from 1 01h- l llh century aves). Doctora1 Thesis in and Humanities, manuscript, Budapest, 1982. The ritual back ound to the use of vessels as ave goods was analys in Kiss, A.: Über die mit Keramik verbundenen Bestattungsarten im Karpatenbecken des I 0- 1 1 . Jahrhunderts, MoraFerencMuzeumEv nyve 1969/2, 175-182; Tettamanti, S.: Temetkezesi szokäsok a X-XI. szäzadban a Kärpät-medenceben (Buria1 customs the Ca athian Basin during the 101h- l l1h century). Studia Comitetensia 3 {1975) 104-108.

102

oor of the grave. In such cases, however, one may justifiably hypothesize that this type of meat dish was placed in the grave on some type of a plate or bowl made om organic materials such as wood. A few small, carved bone pipes are also known, especially from the burials of men. These, in all probability, can be interpreted as the only surviving undecayed part of leather asks. Beyond these bone spouts, a number of other indications exist that food as grave goods (and the vessel containing it) varied by the gender and age of the deceased. Thus, the osseous remains om meat dishes tend to come to light om men’s burials. Pottery vessels indicative of mushier meals, on the other hand, are o en found in the graves of children and, to a lesser extent, those of women.

This somewhat Iengthy review of the archaeological material should end with a few general remarks. The dominant proportion of pottery in particular results om a factor that has already been mentioned. Under the climatic conditions of the Carpathian Basin, vessels made om organic materials have been preserved only under very special circumstances, e. g. in the water-logged bottom of old wells. Unfortunately, however, no such wooden or leather vessel has come to light yet om wells dated to the Period of the Hungarian Conquest. The absence of such finds may also be explained by the fact that this type of settlement feature at I 01h century sites is rare. Wells om the Period of the Hungarian Conquest are only known om Zalavär – Värsziget in weste Hungary, and the Slovakian sites of Kisvärad (Nitriansky Hradok) and Nyitraegerszeg (Je!Sovce). 1 1

The absence ofmeta! vessels from IOth century graves Iooks even more peculiar, especially when Hungarians are compared to other peoples of the Migration Period such as the Avars. To date, precious meta! vessels are known only om a few, exceptionally rich, „chie ains“ burials. Such finds include a cup that came to light in Zemplen (Zemplin, Slov a), and a small bowl om Ketp6 that was made om the sawn-off bottom quarter of a coevaljug.12 The rare use ofmeta! vessels as grave goods may not be related to any scarcity of such vessels. It may have more to do with the image

11 S6s, A. Cs.: DieAusgrabungen Geza Fehers in Zalavar. AH 41, Budapest, 1963, 148. old; 39. t. 3-4; Habovstiak, A.: Stredove dedina na Slovensku. Bratislava 1985, p. 1 10. old.; Figure b on p. 1 1 1 . Kudläcek, J.: Zächranny v skum v Je!Sovciach (okr. Ni a) r. 1952 S/ovensk Archaeo/6gia 6 (1958) 55-56. old; 8. t. 1-3. As opposed to e 9th century dating reported by the excavator, is weil was dated to the 101h-IIth century by A. Habovstiak: ibid., 280.

12 Budinsky-Kricka, V. – Fettich, N.: Das altungarische Fürstengrab von Zemplin, Bratislava 1 973, 8 1 -90; „Öseinketfelhoz d“ … op. cit. 236-237.

103

conquering Hungarians cultivated of the „Other World“. In contrast to coeval peoples, Hungarians almost always placed no more than a single vessel within the grave. This difference is especially dramatic when contrasted to the mortuary practices of Germans of the early Migration Period. These Jatter peoples sometimes placed gear for an entire kitchen in the grave, including caldrons, ng pans, mortars, strainers and spoons. 13 The „puritanical“ Iook of the Hungarian mortuary practice may hypothetically be explained by the possibility that the soul of the deceased needed earthly food only until it reached the „Other World“. Later either no food was necessary, or this demand bad to be satis ed by sacri ces in the forest that surrounded the resting place of the ancestors. (Such offerings were strictly banned by one of the laws introduced by King Läszl6 tbe Saint at the end ofthe 1 1tb century).

Having reviewed the archaeological material, another small detour is worth taking here. lt should be explained why the 23 golden vessels of tbe unusually rieb Nagyszentmik16s hoard were not mentioned within the context of meta! vessels. My reasoning is simple: I agree with scholars, wbo date this unique treasure to the 9th century Avar Period. 14

Let us now examine what types of vessels were contained in a 10 ­ century kitchen ensemble? On the basis of archaeological excavations, the „average household“ in that period possessed the following t es of

l l

pottery: pots, kettles, mugs, bowls, cups and bottles. 15

It is also of particular interest that these same types of vessels are equally likely to occur in the households of common people and among nobility. Thus, it may be stated with great certainty that the food of the privileged was cooked in the same t e of pottery as that of the common people. The individual status of a household can be much better characterized by the nurober and perhaps also by the capacity of its vessels. In spite of this, tbere must have been a major difference between the tables set for poor and wealthy people respectively, more exactly in the tableware in which food was served. This statement can be maintained in spite of the aforementioned fact that only a minimal nurober of meta! vessels have been

13 See, for example: Die Alamannen [exhibition catalogue] . Edited by Fuchs, K., Stuttgart 1997, p. 87, Figure 69; p. 91, Figure 73; etc.
14 See, for example: Daim, F. – Stadler, P.: Der Goldschatz von Sinnicolaul Mare agyszen ikl6s). In: Reitervölker aus dem Osten. Hunnen + Awaren. [exhibition

catalogue] Bad Vöslau 1 996, 439-445.
1 5 For the detailed presentation of individual forms see: Takacs, M . : Formschatz und exaktere Chronologie …op. cit. 135-195.

104

found at cemeteries and settlements of the 1o•h century. Pottery tableware, however, occurred in many simple forms, as will be detailed below.

Similarly to later phases of the Middle Ages, pots were already the most common form of ceramies following the Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin. The equent occurrence of tbis form may be explained by the important roJe played by pots in the households of that time. The medium-size pot was one of the most important cooking vessels used during the I o•h- 1 1 •h century. Larger specimens functioned as Storage vessels, while smaller pots, also called mugs, were mostly used for serving food. lt should be mentioned, however, that in some concrete cases classification by nction may sometimes yield uncertain results. Thus, for example, small, pot-shaped vessels of about 10 cm in height may be considered to have functioned as mugs that were used in senring some sort of a kasha-like meal. In spite of this, however, similarly to !arger pots, the outer surface of such vessels is also o en covered by soot. That is, mugs were also frequently used for cooking or at least warming food. The same kind of uncertainty must be reckoned with in the case of !arger than average size pots, whose outer surface can also be covered by sooty spots. This phenomenon may, perhaps, be explained by the fact that such vessels served in cooking for !arger groups of people, while „average“ families used them for storage.

The bodies of pots used during the Period of the Hungarian Conquest bulged moderately or even strongly. Their strongly everted rim sat on a more-or-less arched neck which connected to the pot’s shoulder with no particular edge to the profile line. Small pots from the 1O – 1 1 century, also called mugs or cups, occurred in two forms. They either displayed the proportions and shape of !arger pots or looked like vertically compressed versions of those pots. In this latter case, their height was half or one third that of the medium size pots, while their dia eter was the same. The opposite of the distorted proportions of mugs appeared in the case of !arger than usual pots. In the case of these vessels, capacity was increased by „building“ the pot’s wall higher thereby creating a taller form. These various techniques followed by potters are always worth keeping in mind since certain schools of archaeology (especially in the former Soviel Union) characterized vessel type by the ratios calculated from their dimensions, hoping that the proportions thus arrived at would be idiosyncratic from a cultural or manufacturing point of view. Due to the aforementioned variability in individual techniques, however, such numerical results appear somewhat dubious.

105

The mouths of these pots were described here only briefly since their shapes correspond to that of the most generally distributed form, characteristic of almost all medieval archaeological cultures even on an overall, Eurasian Ievel. In the case of the pottery used by conquering Hungarians, however, a particular type of rim deserves attention. Following the Period of the Hungarian Conquest, a special type of medium-size or small pot became common. It had a cylindrical neck either divided by horizontal ribs or not. Another important typologically characteristic feature of these vessels is that two small handles may also occur on the shoulder. Variations between these possibilities can be de ned as sub-types. That is, both pots with or without ribbed necks may or may not have handles.

Instead offormal typology, however, nction should be discussed in this study. It has been rather widely accepted by Hungarian archaeologists (although documentary evidence is poor) that the vessels‘ vertical necks were closed by some membrane that could be easily stretched over the pot’s mouth. Should additional evidence be available, it would suggest that this type of pot was used as a storage vessel. That hypothesis might be best tested by archaeobotanical studies. Unfortunately, such investigations are limited, because most vessels with tall necks originate from old excavations where the soil inside such pots was not yet being sampled for laboratory studies.

Due to the relative rarity of the aforementioned pots and mugs with cylindrical necks, another characteristic vessel type of pottery kettle formed on a hand wheel, also deserves distinguished attention. This most frequently occurring vessel type in the Carpathian Basin is easte in origin. It occurred not only du ng the times that followed the Period of the Hungarian Conquest, but survived until the second third ofthe 14th century. Even without an in-depth typological description, a few details must be singled out here. The term „pottery kettle“ encorporates at least three, or even four, morphologically unrelated vessel types. One of these is bucket­ like, another Iooks like a pot, while the third has a hemispherical Jower portion most reminiscent of meta! kettles.16 In addition, a bowl-like form may also be classi ed within this group. The existence of such vessels may be hypothesized on the basis of a hand-thrown, inner-handle fragment brought to light at the site of Tatabänya-D6zsakert during the course of

16 Ta cs, M: Die arpadenzeitlichen Tonkessel …op. cit. 92-103. 106

excavations directed by Gabor Vekony.17 On the other hand, among the types of pottery kettle described above, the one with a hemispherical lower portion, reminiscent of meta! kettles, came to light most equently. lt was manufactured both in deeper and shallower varieties. The parallel occurrence and use of these two forms during the early Period of the ad Dynasty refute the ideas conceming the chronologically diagnostic nature of „flattening“ or „heightening“ observed in the shape of meta! kettle-like pottery vessels. The compressed or tall shapes of pottery kettles are in no way related to the development of this type, since this duality in form reflects two different cooking techniques. It is not an accident that flat meta! kettles in Kide (Cidia, Transylvania!Romania) were called “ ame users“ in Hungarian even during the 1 940’s, while deep kettles were known as „ember users“. 18 On the basis of this analogy it may be assumed that deeper kettles

were used in lengthy cooking on embers, while at kettles served in cooking procedures when great and sudden heat was needed.

This statement Ieads us back from typology to function. spite of their stylistic variability, the aforementioned types of kettles are nctionally Jinked by their similar modes ofuse: cooking over open fire. This manner of cooking explains their popularity as weil, since it fit in weil with the semi­ nomadic lifeways pursued by Hungarians. This vessel type was not used inside the ovens found in semi-subterranean dwellings but could be used over open re that required only a light structure in the surroundings of the habitation. Sometimes it happened, however, that pottery kettles were not hung over the fire for the purposes of cooking. Namely, there are specimens, whose handles were not or were only partially formed. Moreover, iron tripods have also been found at some sites. Aside from such tripods, it is also known that people in the steppe built caldron-like clay support structures for the same pmpose. Unfortunately, such features have yet to be found at the Settlements of conquering Hungarians.

Analyzing the possible forms of use one may also speculate whether, similarly to more recent pastoral peoples, some of the conquering Hungarians might have used this vessel for frying. Sometimes the inside of such vessels is covered by a layer of soot that is heavier than the soot on the kettle’s outer surface. In addition, on the basis of sheep-milking techniques

17 Vekony, G.: Honfogla/6 ma ar szall s. X szazadi ma arfalu az Altal-er mellett (Hungarian habitation from the Period of the Hungarian Conquest. A tenth century Hungarian village by e Altal Creek). [exhibition catalogue]. Tatabänya 1 9 96, 12.
18 Koväcs, L. K . : Päsztortuzhe1yek Erdelyben 1 900 köriil (Herders‘ replaces i n Transylvania around 1 900). NKNT 2-3 ( 1 969) 28.

107

observed in tbe Mezöseg region of Transylvania, Gyula Läszl6 also raised tbe possibility tbat kettles witb a bemispberical lower portion (reminiscent of meta! kettles) may bave been used as milking vessels.19 His idea, bowever, cannot be supported since tbis form of sbeep exploitation is unambiguously cbaracteristic of transbumance pastoralism practiced0 by Romanian communities and tbus cannot predate tbe 1 3 – 1 4tb century? In addition, tbe overwbelming majority of pottery kettles indeed displays evidence of cooking in tbe form of soot tbat was deposited on tbe vessels‘ surface.

Finally, at tbe end oftbis brief description of pottery kettles, it must be mentioned tbat only tbe ceramic versions oftbis vessel type are available for study om arcbaeological excavations. There is not a single 1 O centu meta! kettle in tbe arcbaeological beritage of tbe Ca atbian Basin. Tbis absence bowever is, in all probability, only appparent. One may reasonably bypothesize that once bronze or iron kettles bad been damaged and rendered useless, tbeir precious raw materials were re-smelted.

Tbe Iist of cooking vessels sbould be closed by tbe so-called baking bells. These !arge conical, robust pottery vessels served in baking some sort of a at bread that may bave been tbe 1 0 century ancestor of „asb baked muffins“ known from Hungarian folk tales. lt must be mentioned, bowever, tbat at least for the time being, tbis type of vessel remains unknown om arcbaeological assemblages om 9’h century Moldavia, Bessarabia and Ukraine. On the otber band, tbis form is one of tbe most cbaracteristically occurring types at g•h-9’h centuries settlements in tbe Carpatbian Basin.21 It may tbus be reasonably assumed tbat Hungarians became familiar witb tbe use of baking bells only a er tbey bad crossed tbrougb the passes of tbe Carpathian mountains. It seems, however, tbat tbe use of bakingtbells was never lly adopted by Hungarians. Following the end of tbe 1 1 h century, baking bells simply disappeared from the housebolds of co on people and did not reappear until the l 61h- 1 7th century.

ln addition to baking bells, locally produced bowls witb inverted rims and pottery bottles (i.e. made by Avar and/or Slavic potters in the

19 szl6,Gy.:Alpadnepe(Thep pleofArpad).Helikon[Budapest,1988.]p.140,Fig. 148.

20 Makkai, L.: A rendi tärsadalom kialakuläsa ( 1 1 62-1 526). (The fo ation of social orders [ 1 1 62 – 1 526]). : Erdely rövid törtenete (Short istory of Transylvania). Edited byKöpeczi, 8., Budapest, 1989, 162-171.
21 Bälint, Cs.: Die spätawarenzeitliche Siedlung von Eperjes (Ko . Cson äd). VAH 4, Budapest, 1991, 58-6 1 .

108

Carpathian Basin) remained in use during the century that followed the Hungarian Conquest. These fo s frequently occurred in g _g centu artifactual assemblages from the Carpathian Basin and their later varieties differ only in negligible details.22 It should be pointed out, however, that it would be an oversimplification if all bowls would automatically be regarded as „surviving forms“. The find material from the hili-fort of Borsod, however, contains types ofbowls that never occurred before.23

Instead of further elaborating on these typologies, however, we should again concentrate on use. In the spirit of the title of this paper it is worth stating that both bowls and bottles were unambiguously part of the tableware, that is, they were used in serving foods and beverages. Bowls must have contained mushy meals while evidently drinks were offered in bottles.

In addition to locally made pottery, imported ware also occurs in the times that followed the Period of the Hungarian Conquest. Such specimens may have come om three different directions. Links with the East European steppe are illustrated by the jug with smoothed design that came to light om Grave 66 at the site ofKaros24, as weil as the vessel discovered in Grave 27 in the Algyö cemetery.25 On the other band, the occurrence of Austrian graphite pottery in weste Hungary at the tu of the 1O -1 1 centuries is a sign of a new orientation?6 Nevertheless, in accordance with evidence provided by historical sources, Austrian import ceramies very rarely occur before the 1 2 century even in the country’s weste most regions. The third, Byzantine source of import has been clearly illustrated for half a century based on a two-handled jug, in fact amphora, found in the S6shartyän burial.27 Studying this specimen, however, scholars agreed that

22 S6s, A. Cs.: Die Aus abungen … op. cit. Plate 57/8; Plate 65/8; Plate 92/1, 2, 8.
23 Wolf, M.: Elözetes jelen �s a borsodi földvär äsatisair61 (1987 – 1990). [Vorläu ger Bericht über die Aus abURg d Erdburg von Borsod ( 1 9 8 7 – 1 990).] J6sa Andras M m Evkönyve 30-32 ( 1 987 – 1 989) 24/2 äbra.
24 Revesz, L.: Honfog/a/6 vezerek nepe KarOSO (The people of conquering chieftains at Karos). [exhibition catalogue] Budapest, 1 990, 4. (with no pagination); id .: A magyar honfoglaläs kora (The Period of the Hungarian Conquest ). : Mit rankha tak a szazadok … (What the centuries Jeft …). Guide to the pe anent archa lo cal exhibitions ofthe He an Ott6 M zeum. Edit by L. Revesz, Miskolc 1 994. 59.
25 Kürti, B.: Honfoglaläs kori magyar t etö … op. cit. 337.
26 Tomka, P.: Györi ispäni vär (The baili s castle in Györ). .: „6seinketfelhozad“… op. cit., p. 424, Fig. 1 .
27 Fodor, I.: S6shartyän. In.: „6sein t felhozad“… op. cit., p. 405, gure without reference number.

109

the real object of commercial import was probably not the amphora itself, but the wine or oil that it must have contained. On the other band, since the 1936 discovery of the S6shartyan nd only a single similar amphora has been found, this at the site of Balatonmagyar6d/8 thus these amphorae cannot be looked upon as evidence of intensive trading. It is possible, however, that the validity of this argument will soon be brought into question. The number of sherds associated with Byzantine impo s has been rapidly increased by several recent excavations in the Great Hungarian Plain. Denes B. Jankovich draws interesting conclusions conce ing the character of the 101h-1 1th century Byzantine trade on the basis of a neck fragment om a green glazed bottle (?) found at the site of Szarvas – R6zsäs. According to his slightly sha but realistic description, the green glazed bottle gment from Szarvas – R6zsäs is a „peripherally occurring mass produced vessel type“.29 Since this particular sherd cannot be linked with polychrome glazed jugs and bowls with engraved designs widespread in the central Byzantine region, it should be regarded a local copy made in the empire’s periphery. Thus, it did not nd its way to the Carpathian Basin from the center of the Byzantine Empire but possibly oro the northe

regions ofthe Balkan Peninsula.

Following this final statement conce ing archaeological finds, the question posed in the title of this paper should again be repeated. This is important, since some may consider even the question itself an absurdity. Poor familiarity with the material culture of conquering Hungarians is exacerbated by a topos that has survived since classical times. According to this view, nomadic Hungarians did not cook or bake, since they ate raw meat that was made tender by having been placed under their saddles. In my opinion, the evidence listed above makes it clear that this observation by Ammianus Marcellinus for Huns could in no way have conce Hungarians. On the basis of ceramies brought to light om their graves and cemeteries it is clear that Hungarians ate cooked food and may have placed meat under the saddle at most to eure saddle sores on the horse’s back. 30

28 Vändor, L.: Landnahme- und ädenzeit. In: Sieben Jahrtausende am Balaton. Von­ der Ur- und Frühgeschichte bis zum Ende der rkenkriege. [ iällit si katal6gus] . Edit by R. I. Müller, Mannheim 1989, Taf. 23.
29 Jankovich B. D.: Szondäz6 äsatäs … op. cit. 410.

30 This method of curing horses is described in detail by Läszl6, Gy.: A honfog/a/6 ma ar nep elete ( e life of the Conquering Hungarian p ple). Budapest, 1944, 330- 332.

110

Figs. 2-6: Pots and mugs from Beny/Bi a(2,6), Menföcsanak – Szeles dülö (3-4), Beny/Bi a – Cenapa (5)

112

a

Figs. 7- 1 0 : Decorated pottery: S6shartyan (7), Zirc (8), Szob (9), ( 1 0) 1 13

I I

I/

,,

—

___

II II ,,

I II

,,

o cm

Fig. 1 4 : Conquest Period and Early Arpadian Age potte kettles om Csoma and Men csanak

117

Fig. 15: Early Arpadian Age pottery kettles om Obecse/Becej, Szabadka/Subotica, Mako and Hunya

1 18

Tender Meat under the Saddle

Customs of Eating, i ing d Hospitality among Conqu ing Hung ians d Nomadic P pl

MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ

SONDERBAND VII

=

STAMRA

(Studia archaeologica mediae recentisque aevorum Universitatis Scientiarum de Rolando Eötvös nominatae)

ED ITED BY JOZSEF LASZLOVSZKY

VOLUME II

Tender Meat under the Saddle

Customs of Eating, Dri ing and Hospitality among Conquering Hungarians and Nomadic Peoples

In Memo of G laUszl6 (1910- 1998)

Edited by J6zsef Laszlovsz

ems 1998

The articles have been part of a conference organized by the College of Commerce, Catering and Tourism, the Society of Old-Hungarian Culture, and the Department of Medieval and Postmedieval Archa logy, Eötvös

Lorand University, Budapest (October 1 0- l l , 1 996). Translated om Hungarian

by Alice M. Choyke and Läszl6 Ba osiewicz
Cover illustration: The seven chiefs of the Hungarians (detail),

J. Thur6czi, Chronica Hungarorum, Brünn 1486.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten – ISBN3-901094105

Herausgeber: Medium Ae m Quotidianum. Gesellscha zur Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Kö ermarkt 13, A – 3500 Krems, Österreich. – Druck: KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8 – I0, A -1050 Wien.

Table ofContents

Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Istvän Fodor, The Culture ofConquering Hungarians ……………………………. 9

J6zsefLaszlovszky, Research Possibilities into the History

and Material Culture ofEating, Drinking and Hospitality

during the Period of Hungarian Conquest …………………………………. Gabor Vekony, Feasting and Hospitality

among Eastem Nomadic Peoples ……………………………………………… Peter Tomka, Customs of Eating and Hospitality

among Nomadic Peoples of the Migration Period …………………….. Mik16s Takacs, How Did Conquering Hungarians Prepare and Serve

their Food? …………………………………………………………………………….. Ferenc Gyulai, Archaeobotanical Sources in Investigating the Diet

44

6 1

75

98

ofConqueringHungarians . . . …….. ….. ………………………………………. 120 Laszl6 Bartosiewicz, Mobile Pastoralism and Meat Consumption:

an Archa zoological Perspective ………………….. ……………………… 1 57

5

Preface

1996 was the year of millecentennial celebrations of the Hungarian conquest. Many scholarly conferences and popular progr e s were organised for this occasion. The theme of this volume was the topic of a programme organised by the College of Commerce, Catering and Tourism, The Society for Old-Hungarian Culture and by the Department of Medieval and Postmedieval Archaeology, Eötvös Loränd University, Budapest. The rst part of the programme was the conference on the archaeological, historical and natural scientific researches on the customs of food consumption of the Hungarian conquest period. These papers are representing a new approach as weil an upswing in the study of eve day life and material culture. Thus, the study of archa logical food remains and the research on the culture of conquest period Hungarians were relevant contributions for the organisers to the 1996 millecentenary celebrations in Hunga . The conference was not only li ted to the 9 – 1 0 century conquering Hungarians, but also was concemed with the pastoral nomads om the Migration period and the Middle Ages.1

The scholarly progra e of the conference was followed by an exhibition on the archaeological food remains and nds, on the objects of nomadic peoples from early mode period and on mode art objects inspired by these ancient cultures.

The most exotic part of the programme was the dinner organis by the college. This was an attempt to help this institution to create standards for historical tourism and experimental pro ammes. The special feature of this dinner was the cooperation between scholars of historical studies and specialists of catering and tourism. Particular attention was paid to the authenticity of ingredients nown from historical sources and

1 The rst version of some of the papers presented at this conference w published in Hunga an. „Nyereg alatt puhi uk“. Vendeglat i es et zesi szo sok a honfog/a/6 ma aro al es a rokon kultUraju lovasnepeknel. Szerk. szlovszky, J. 6magyar Ku1tUra 10 (1997) különsz . = Tudomänyos Közlemenyek II. Keresk e , Vendeglät6ipari ldegenforgalmi Föiskola, Budapest 1997.

7

archaeological evidence), while the modes of preparation and se ing were obviously suited to mode equipment, conditions and contemporary tastes. We regarded this experiment an important step in the cooparation between scholars and specialists of historical tourism, since dilettant reconstructions of conquest period every day life were also present in the programmes of 1996.

The title of this volume refers to that strange ancient, but o en present day, understanding of the customs of „barbars“ or nomadic peoples which has also influenced scholarly studies for a long time. Ammianus Marcellinus om the 4 century wrote: „the Huns . . . eat meat om all so s of animals, which they place on their horse’s back under their thighs thereby making it tender and warm.“ A part of this observation is interesting for the ancient history of food consumption or animal husbandry, either reflecting the practice that horsemen took some sort of dried meat with them on long rides, or recording another practice to eure the horses‘ back with pieces of raw meat. The other part of this sentence is just an example for the topoi of „civilised people“ as they misinterpreted some customs of the „barbars“.

We dedicate this volume to the memory of Gyula Laszl6, professor of archaeology, who was the most important gure in Hungarian archaeology to introduce a new approach: to see the people and their life in the archaeological nds and objects. His pioneer work The Life of the Conquering Hungarian People is regarded by the authors of this volume as a Standard for those who want to reconstruct the past.

8

J6zsef Laszlovszky