I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN HUNGARY · The history of archaeological fieldwork in Hungary |15 THE...

I. ARCHAEOLOGICALRESEARCH IN HUNGARY

Fere

ncK

arac

s’ar

chae

olog

icalm

ap.C

oppe

ren

grav

ing,

1800

The history of archaeological fieldwork in Hungary | 15

THE HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

FIELDWORK IN HUNGARYGábor Vékony

Although the beginnings of modern archaeological field-work go back to the early 20th century, genuine planned re-search projects were only begun in the later 20th century. Itmust in all fairness be added that a few planned excavationscan be quoted from earlier times, for example in the studyof medieval monuments in the 1850s and 1860s (ImreHenszlman’s activity in Csanád, Kalocsa, Székesfehérvárand elsewhere) and in the prehistoric studies of the 1920sand 1930s (Ottokár Kadiæ’s cave excavations and FerencTompa’s settlement excavations). The circumstances offieldwork in Hungary were no different from those in otherparts of Europe and – disregarding the regions east andsoutheast of historical Hungary – the origins and history ofHungarian archaeology differed little from the emergenceof this discipline in Western Europe. Similarly to Hungar-ian scholarship in general, Hungarian archaeology grew outof imperial scholarship, first of the Holy Roman Empireand, later, of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Nationalmovements played an important role in the emergence ofarchaeology as an independent discipline, but neithershould we neglect the role of ecclesiastic scholars, most im-portantly of the Jesuits, who played a significant – often anexclusive – role in the early years of university education. Itmust also be noted – even if it cannot be discussed in detailhere – that a Protestant-Catholic conflict characterizedscholarship at the turn of the 18th–19th centuries (as well asin the preceding and ensuing periods). This conflict mostcertainly influenced the early students of archaeology, afield of research that became an independent discipline bythe later 19th century. Various antecedents can be named inthe development of 19th century archaeology: the archaeo-logical and numismatic collections housed in universities,the impact of the advances made in the natural sciences (es-pecially in geology) and, finally, the ‘naive’ study of whatwere believed to be the relics of the national past, one of theresults of the nationalist movements (such as the excava-tions of the ‘Hunnish’ graves at Érd and the investigationsat Százhalombatta). Hungarian archaeology of the 1870sand 1880s can be described as having been relatively ‘mod-ern’ even from a 20th century perspective, owing to itsfruitful collaboration with the natural sciences (Fig. 1).

The history of Hungarian archaeology and archaeologi-cal fieldwork began much earlier. In 1928, Sándor Eckhartnoted that Simon de Kéza, author of the Gesta Hungarorum(written between 1282 and 1285) can be regarded as thefirst Hungarian archaeologist. To which we may add thathe was one of the first Hungarian historians who used ar-chaeological data in his reconstruction of past events. TheHungarian (actually Transdanubian/Pannonian) sources ofSimon de Kéza’s narrative of the Huns’ history were theIron Age tumulus cemeteries at Százhalombatta and the still

visible remains of Roman towns and military forts(Brigetio/Szõny, etc). The first mention of a Pannonian in-scription can also be found in his chronicle: he believed thata Hun captain called Cuve had been buried in a locationmarked by a stone statue. This Roman stone relic remainedin its original place in the Vál valley southeast of Kajászó-szentpéter until 1928, when it was taken to Baracska. Thefigures of Athena, Bacchus and Juno can be seen on thethree sides of the 170 cm high and 60 cm thick altar stone;the fragmentary inscription on the front records that it waserected in honour of Jupiter. A double cross was engravedonto the altar stone sometime during the Middle Ages,probably in the 13th century. This relic is also quoted in anon-Hungarian chronicle. In his Descriptio Europae Orien-talis, written in 1308, a French Dominican monk mentionedthe “huge marble stone” between Sicambria (Óbuda) andAlba Regalis (Fehérvár) although it is almost certain thatthe author had not personally seen this relic.

In his reconstruction of past events, Simon de Kéza alsorelied on various other antiquities beside various remainsfrom the Iron Age and the Roman period. He linked the

Fig. 1. Excavation of a Roman mosaic in Szombathely, 1896

16 Archaeological research in Hungary

horse harness sets and the swords discovered at Mezõörs toa historical event, namely a battle fought in 1051, in whichthe Hungarians slaughtered Henry III’s German army atthis location. (As a matter of fact, the finds probably camefrom a Conquest period cemetery.)

Simon de Kéza’s archaeologicizing historiography wasby no means a unique phenomenon in 13th century Hun-gary. Roman monuments and Iron Age mounds also appearin the Gesta Hungarorum of Magister P., written sometimein the 13th century. To Magister P. (the Anonymus) the ru-ins of Aquincum represented “civitas Atthile regis”, King At-tila’s town – this was the only town he mentioned besideVeszprém and Savaria – in which Árpád and the seven lead-ers of the ancient Hungarians had settled and later held afeast in Attila’s palace (in palatio). His narrative of the pastdiffered from Kéza’s: the Romans occupied Pannonia afterAttila’s death and they ruled it until the arrival of the Hun-garians. Similar medieval historical reconstructions, basedon visible archaeological monuments, were fairly commonin contemporary Europe – a number of similar French andSpanish texts can be quoted. These reconstructions of thepast are nonetheless part of the history of Hungarian ar-chaeology since they represent the first efforts to incorpo-rate the archaeological evidence into a historical narrative.It would be worthwhile to analyze the work of both chroni-clers from an archaeological perspective; one study on whatSimon de Kéza wrote about Savaria has already appeared.This exercise would also be interesting since Hungarianhistoriography sometimes still grapples with the problem ofhow to use the available archaeological evidence, much inthe same way as Simon de Kéza in the 13th century.

The second important period in the history of Hungar-ian archaeology was the 15th–16th century, the age of Hun-garian humanists and the late humanists. MatthiasHunyadi’s reign (1458–1490) saw not only the foundationof the Bibliotheca Corviniana (that can, in a sense, be re-garded as part of the archaeology of the period), but also thecataloguing of Roman relics in Hungary, especially of theinscribed monuments of the Roman period. As a matter offact, the collection of Roman antiquities began under KingSigismund (1387–1437) and it seems likely that the interestin antiquities, emerging in the 13th century, remained un-broken. The interest of Italian humanists and Hungarianhumanists educated in Italy in Roman monuments was anew element, similarly to the appeal of the Roman and, also,the “romanus valachus” world of Transylvania owing toJános Hunyadi and Matthias’ “romanus” origins. PetrusRansanus (1420–1492) discovered Roman grave monu-ments in Szentendre, while Antonio Bonfini (†1502) men-tioned Roman antiquities in his Rerum ungaricarum decades,a chronicle recounting the history of Hungary. These an-tiquities included inscriptions and coins, and Bonfini evenwent as far as to invent various inscriptions (similarly to theFrench Dominican monk and others, up to our days). InMatthias’ age the relics of the past were not only collected,they were also catalogued. We know of at least four collec-

tions of inscriptions from this period. János Megyericsei’s(Mezericius) Dacian collection arrived in Buda on July 1,1489; the inscriptions were carefully copied by Bartholo-maeus Fontius. The excavation of Tata Castle revealed thatthe appreciation of antiquities in Matthias’ time was not re-stricted to Roman relics: the find context of pottery frag-ments of the Encrusted Pottery culture of the Bronze Agefound in the wing built under Matthias suggested that theywere part of a collection of antiquities.

A century later we witness the appearance of the firstgenuine scholarly work on archaeological finds, an epigra-phic study entitled Analecta lapidum vetustorum et nonnulla-rum in Dacia antiquitatum, written by Stephanus Zamosius(István Szamosközy, ?1565–1612) on antique Dacian in-scribed stones and other antiquities that was published inPadova in 1593. He continued the collection of antiquitiesafter his return from Italy; unfortunately, his overview ofthe inscriptions in the Apulum (Gyulafehérvár) area from1598 remained a manuscript. The book published inPadova is remarkable not only for its collection of stone rel-ics from antiquity, but also for the historical data containedin it. It is regrettable that only a fragment of Szamosközy’soeuvre survived, and that the progress of “early Hungarianarchaeology”, begun in Matthias’s time and continued inthe 16th century, was interrupted for a long time. There islittle to add to these early works from the period up to the18th century, and even the works in this field that can becited from the 18th century are very sporadic.

One of the most remarkable years of the period until the19th century was 1726, when a late medieval–post-medievalcollection was founded in the Bethlen College in Nagy-enyed and when Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, an Italiancount, published his Danubius Pannonico-Mysicus. Workingas a military engineer in Hungary in the late 17th century,Marsigli prepared a detailed map of the Danube region.The first description of the remains of the Roman limes is tobe found in his book (similarly to a number of other relicsand monuments that disappeared by the 20th century).This map can hardly be neglected in the research of the Ro-man castra of Brigetio, Aquincum and Intercisa, or in thestudy of the ramparts in the Bácska. Sámuel Mikoviny’s(1710–1750) observations and descriptions are equally valu-able. The other outstanding engineer of this period pro-vided an accurate description of the aqueduct of Brigetio.

The early achievements of modern Hungarian historiog-raphy include a number of works that have some relevancefor archaeology too. József Torkos, a Lutheran priest activein Gyõr, described a Roman stone sarcophagus in 1748. To-gether with the works of the 16th century humanists, thisstudy can be ranked among the pioneering studies on Romanepigraphy (Torkos was the first to compare the Hungarianlanguage to the Finno-Ugrian tongues, including the Vogullanguage). The first ‘excavations’ also took place at this time.In 1777 the Jesuit university of Nagyszombat was transferredto Buda and the same year saw the creation of a separate de-partment for the study of numismatics and antiquities


(Antiquaria et Numismatica), headed by Professor IstvánSchönvisner. Schönvisner unearthed the military bath inFlórián square in 1778. He summed up his findings in a bookentitled De Ruderibus Laconici Caldariique Romani. Liber unicus(Budae 1778). István Szilágyi (Salagius), canon of Pécs, pro-vided an overview of the historical monuments of Pannoniaat the same time.

The earlier 19th century can be characterized by an inter-est in “mixed antiquities”. University training was not con-tinuous (the heads of the department usually also held thepost of the director of the University Library). Studies andarticles with an archaeological relevance appeared in thejournal Tudományos Gyûjtemény, in a paper called Sas and inSokféle, the latter edited by István Sándor. The year 1802,when Count Ferenc Széchényi founded the Hungarian Na-tional Museum (the present building was only finished in1846), marked a definite turning point. An independent Nu-mismatic and Antiquities Collection was created in 1814; thecatalogue assembled by Ferdinánd Miller in 1825 contained arather mixed material (Cimeliotheca Musei Nationalis Hunga-rici…). Although the publication of the first Hungarian gravefrom the Conquest Period in 1834 is usually regarded as amajor landmark in the history of Hungarian archaeology, thegenuine beginning of archaeological fieldwork in the 19thcentury can be dated from 1846, when the Hungarian Na-tional Museum offered a post to János Luczenbacher, whoregularly excavated archaeological sites and published his

finds (he changed his name to Érdy after one of his excava-tion sites). He wrote a review of the three age division of pre-history introduced in 1836 by the Danish Christian Jür-gensen Thompsen in the 1847 issue of Akadémiai Értesítõ(“Stone, Copper and Iron Age graves and antiquities”) and healso submitted an account of his fieldwork in the same vol-ume (“Results of the excavation of the ‘Cumanian’ moundsabove the Tárnok valley”). His interest in this site was basedon a passage in Simon de Kéza’s 13th century chronicle – inother words, the heritage of Attila’s Huns were still believedto lie under the Early Iron Age tumuli of Százhalombatta,just as in Kéza’s time. János Érdy, however, can hardly be re-proached since his excavations and publications laid the foun-dations of prehistoric archaeology in Hungary.

There is a general consensus that Flóris Rómer (1815–1889) can be considered the father of Hungarian archaeol-ogy (Fig. 2). The son of Ferenc Rommer, a cobbler in Po-zsony (Bratislava, Slovakia), he became a Benedictine monkand was appointed professor of the natural sciences at the

Fig. 2. Flóris Rómer

Fig. 3. Arnold Ipolyi


Szatmár Peace Treaty, (b) the study of antiquities in gen-eral, insofar as it has any relevance for the past of our coun-try and enriches our knowledge of her archaeology”. In1862 Rómer moved to Pest and took up a post as teacherand director of the main gymnasium of Pest. From 1863 helectured on ‘historical archaeology’ at the university of Pest.The volume Mûrégészeti kalauz [Archaeological Guide],published by the Archaeological Committee in 1866, con-tained a chapter on prehistory written by Rómer, whileImre Henszlman authored the chapter on medieval archi-tecture. Rómer’s chapter on prehistory was not restricted toprehistoric archaeology since he also included relics of theRoman Age and the Migration period in his discussion. Thework is rounded off by a catalogue of Hungarian relics;what is apparent at first glance is that in contrast toHenszlman, Rómer used Hungarian data more extensivelythan his colleague, who placed his trust in foreign literature.It is not mere chance that Rómer’s Õskori mûrégészet [Pre-historic archaeology] became a handbook in the later 19thcentury, used by both amateur antiquarians and members ofthe freshly founded archaeological committees.

The year 1868 marked a milestone in Rómer’s activity.He was appointed professor at the university and thejournal Archaeologiai Értesítõ was launched on his initiative.He edited the journal (the first few issues contained articleswritten almost exclusively by him). Archaeologiai Értesítõ be-came, in Rómer’s words, the “driving force” of Hungarianarchaeology. A number of local museums and archaeologi-cal committees were founded, and the journal that hadstruggled with a lack of articles in its first few issues was

Fig. 4. The exhibitionorganized on the occasion of theCongress of Prehistory andProtohistory, 1876

Academy of Pozsony. In 1849, he was sentenced to eightyears of imprisonment for participating in the 1848–49Revolution and War of Independence (he was a sapper lieu-tenant). After regaining his freedom in 1854, he continuedlecturing from 1857 and from 1858 he worked in Gyõr. Hisarticles on Roman and other antiquities from this regionappeared in Gyõri Közlöny from 1859. His first major work,A Bakony. Természetrajzi és régészeti vázlat [The Bakony. Ageographical and archaeological sketch] appeared in 1860.This book brought him acclaim and he was elected corre-sponding member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Even though his inaugural lecture was devoted to the geo-graphical and natural conditions of medieval Hungary, hehad already turned to history and archaeology, as shown byhis papers published in Gyõri Történeti és Régészeti Füzetekfrom 1860 and the archaeological letters that appeared inVasárnapi Újság.

The change in Rómer’s interest was influenced by thefoundation of the Archaeological Committee of the Acad-emy in 1858 and the launching of the periodical Archaeo-logiai Közlemények in 1859 (the last issue appeared in 1899)that from volume II was edited by Arnold Ipolyi (Fig. 3),Rómer’s former school mate and a close friend of his. Hisinterest in the natural sciences did not wane: he participatedin the annual meetings of the Hungarian Physicists and Na-ture Explorers. From this time on, his activity was archaeo-logical in the sense determined by the regulation of the Ar-chaeological Committee: “The committee should pursuetwo main activities: (a) the study of antiquities proper, en-compassing the heritage of the Hungarian nation until the


(1849–1913) who succeeded Károly Torma at the univer-sity chair. From the 1880s Hampel published detailed over-views of the finds of practically all archaeological periods,from prehistory to the Migration period. The country wascaught up in the fervent preparations for celebrating themillenary of the Hungarian conquest, and it was hardly ac-cidental that the number of Conquest and Migration periodgrave finds increased significantly, due to the enthusiasm ofthe archaeological societies and the museums in the coun-try. Planned excavations were conducted mainly in westernHungary (Lajos Bella: Sopron–Burgstall; Ágost Sõtér:Gáta, etc.) and in Aquincum, where Bálint Kuzsinszky(1864–1938) investigated the Roman town between 1887and the first third of the 20th century (Fig. 6). Kuzsinszkycontributed the chapter on the Roman history of Dacia andPannonia in volume I of A Magyar Nemzet Története [His-tory of the Hungarian Nation] edited by Sándor Szilágyi in1895. (Interestingly enough, a brief summary of the preced-ing period based on the works of Herodotus, Strabo andPtolemy was written by Róbert Fröhlich. Géza Nagy wrotethe chapter on the Migration period, while József Hampel’sreview of the archaeological heritage of the ancient Hun-garians appeared in the volume A Magyar Honfoglalás Kútfõi[Sources of the Hungarian Conquest], published in 1900.)The close of the century was characterized by the unsys-tematic collection of finds and the publication of thesefinds. This picture is not basically modified by the cited ex-ceptions or Lajos Márton’s (1867–1934) excavations atTószeg, begun in 1906, that can be regarded as a systematic,planned project from 1910, and Antal Hekler’s excavationsat Dunapentele during the same period.

These initiatives (including the investigations at Aquin-cum) were swept away by World War 1 (although the uni-versity of Kolozsvár continued its excavations in Galiciaeven during the war years). The Hungarian universities,museums and archaeological societies were closed down inthe territories that were annexed to the successor states inaccordance with the Trianon Peace Treaty and even theearlier rather meagre funding was cut off. Archaeologicalresearch was now practically directed from Budapest. Thisdid have its advantages since from the end of the 1920s andin the 1930s the meagre financial budget had to be carefullyapportioned. In spite of these restricted financial possibili-ties, the Hungarian National Museum was able to receivegrants for smaller planned excavations from the VigyázóFoundation. This was the period when, for the first timesince János Érdy’s excavations, the number of completelyexcavated prehistoric cemeteries rose significantly (Bodrog-keresztúr, Pusztaistvánháza, etc.). Ferenc Tompa (1893–1945) conducted excavations at Tószeg from the 1920s, firstusing foreign and, later, Hungarian funds. From 1931 he in-vestigated the stratified Bronze Age settlement at Füzes-abony, as well as a number of other settlements. Beginninghis career at Szeged University in 1925, János Banner regu-larly conducted excavations in the Hódmezõvásárhely areafrom 1929 to the mid-1940s that were funded by the town.

Fig. 5. Jenõ Zichy and Béla Pósta

Flóris Rómer, who from 1869 was also a departmenthead in the Hungarian National Museum, played a majorrole in the organization of the Eighth Session of the Inter-national Congress of Prehistory and Protohistory in Hun-gary in 1876 (Fig. 4). The programme of the congress in-cluded a round of important archaeological sites and a visitto the recently unearthed Bronze Age settlement at Tószeg.The papers read at the congress were published in 1878.The volume can be regarded as a summary of the achieve-ments and findings of Hungarian archaeology until thenand it also represented the zenith of Rómer’s archaeologicalactivity since after his subsequent appointment as ‘literarycanon’ in Nagyvárad, he became less active in the capital(although he continued his archaeological activity with theexcavation of the Várad church in 1882–83).

The close of the 19th century was characterized by a pro-liferation of archaeological societies and museums all overthe country (although it must be noted that the Transyl-vanian Museum and Museum Association was founded al-ready in 1859 in Kolozsvár, and from 1899 courses on ar-chaeology were also held at the university by Béla Posta;Fig. 5). The archaeological activity of Budapest was cen-tered more on cataloging the finds collected earlier than onactual fieldwork. This was especially true of József Hampel


Important burial grounds of the Migration period were alsounearthed in the interwar period. These excavations wererelatively well documented compared to the cemetery exca-vations of the 19th century that were either poorly docu-mented or not documented at all. At the same time, thestudy of Roman period settlements declined (in part due tothe fact that these had mostly been conducted in Transyl-vania, where the former Roman province of Dacia lay) andpractically became restricted to the excavations at Aquin-cum directed by the Municipal History Museum; IstvánPaulovics’ excavations at Brigetio were also begun at thistime. The ranks of well-trained professionals were swelledby luminaries such as Ferenc Tompa (who was professor ofprehistory at the university from 1938), Nándor Fettich(1900–1971), Keeper of the Migration Period collection ofthe National Museum and András Alföldi (1895–1981), wholectured on the Roman Age and the Migration period in thedepartment that succeeded the old university institute.

By the 1930s and 1940s, there emerged a generally ac-cepted outline of the archaeology of Hungary, based on thefindings of various excavations, with clearly defined prehis-

toric periods, a fairly good idea of the Migration period anda rather detailed history of Pannonia. András Alföldi,Nándor Fettich and Ferenc Tompa all played a prominentrole in the advances made during this period. Alföldi editedthe Dissertationes Archaeologicae, whose volumes covered themost important finds of Roman Pannonia, while Fettichwas the editor of Archaeologia Hungarica, a series of mono-graphs on the Neolithic, the Copper Age, the Scythian Age,the Avar period and the Conquest period, many of whichcontain observations that have not lost their relevance.Ferenc Tompa wrote an overview of Hungarian prehistoryin a monograph published in 1934–35 and in volume I ofBudapest Története [History of Budapest] in 1942. The samevolume included chapters by András Alföldi and Lajos Nagyon the Roman period, containing many observations thatare still valid today, while Gyula László (1910– 1998) con-tributed the chapters on the Migration and the Conquestperiods. Archaeological research was at the time up to thegeneral standards of the period – unfortunately, in manycases this standard was not maintained after World War 2.It must also be noted that following the heated debates at

Fig. 6. Excavations at Aquincum, 1887–1888. Residential building and the laconicum of the Atilia Firma baths, from the east


the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, a fairly accurate pictureof the Hungarian “palaeoliths”, i.e. the stone artefacts of theOld Stone Age, emerged by the interwar period, mainly as aresult of the cave excavations conducted by Ottokár Kadiæ,Tivadar Kormos and others. The advances in this field wereso rapid that by 1935 Jenõ Hillebrand was able to write asummary of the Hungarian Palaeolithic, based predomi-nantly on cave sites (and, obviously, on Kadiæ’s findings).Only the Ságvár and Szeged–Öthalom campsites wereknown at that time. Another characteristic feature of theinterwar period was the lack of settlement research, the fewnotable exceptions being a handful of prehistoric sites,Kálmán Szabó’s excavation of a late medieval site nearKecskemét and József Csalogovics’ investigations at Ete. Asa result, the archaeology of various prehistoric periods, theMigration period and the early Middle Ages was based onthe information gained from cemeteries that in many casesgave a rather distorted picture of the periods in question. Asa matter of fact, Hungarian archaeological research has inmany respects still failed to remedy this shortcoming.

The possibility to improve this situation was given. Disre-garding the transitional period in the 1940s, archaeologicalresearch after World War 2 continued under rather unusualcircumstances. Hungary became a Soviet satellite and thecountry’s political system adopted the Soviet model thatbrought significant structural changes to the scholarly disci-plines, as well as to the educational system. A central institu-tion called the National Centre of Museums and Monumentswas created and vested with absolute authority in mattersconcerning excavations, budgets and professionals. Follow-ing the university reform, a museology course was introducedin 1948–49. As part of the planned economy, a “Five-yearplan of Hungarian archaeology” was prepared for 1950–1954. This plan expressed the ideas of distinguished scholarsactive at the time (some of whom, such András Alföldi,Sándor Gallus and István Foltiny, later fled the country),while the main goals outlined in it conformed wholly to thegiven political situation. Disregarding a few minor elements,the plan was rather poor. In some cases research projectswere overplanned to the extent that made the completion ofthe project practically impossible (suffice it here to mentionZalavár). Even so, the plan did have some positive results, forexample in Roman studies, especially regarding the investiga-tion of the limes, as well as in the study of the settlements ofthe Árpádian Age, a research project launched on the initia-tive of Gyula László and István Méri (1911–1976). Com-pared to the pre-war period, extensive excavations were alsobegun in consequence of the large-scale industrial projects sotypical of Soviet type economies (Intercisa, Tiszalök and, in-directly, the excavations at the Ózd–Stadion site). Hungarianarchaeological research, however, could not fully exploitthese opportunities. Significant advances in this period werereflected in the improvement of the general standard of uni-versity training after 1956 (and the re-establishment of an in-dependent archaeological department), the creation of theArchaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sci-

ences in 1958 (even if it was initially envisioned as a researchteam), and the relative independence given to county muse-ums from 1963. The achievements of Hungarian archaeolog-ical research in the later 20th century surpassed by far thoseof former periods, even though a comparison with the re-search standards of the 1930s and 1940s would not alwaysyield a positive result. The Hungarian Archaeological Topogra-phy project can similarly be regarded as a major advance. Be-gun in the late 1950s, the areas surveyed as part of this project– launched largely on the initiative of János Banner, who be-came professor at the Budapest university after WorldWar 2 – only make up a fragment of Hungary’s territory(Veszprém, Békés, Pest, Komárom–Esztergom and Zalacounties, although even in these counties some districts havenot been covered). Apart from the efforts of a few indefatiga-ble individuals, excavations over a larger area could only beconducted before the start of large-scale construction pro-jects. However, the archaeological information that can begained from these excavations is only a fragment of that pro-vided by meticulously planned excavation projects since thetopsoil and the upper layers containing the majority of the ar-chaeological information are usually removed mechanically(and destroyed in the process), meaning that although morecan be learnt about the overall layout of a particular settle-ment owing to the larger areas that are investigated, very lit-tle survives of the actual settlement. This is one of the reasonswhy so little is known about the various settlements of theAvar period. Although we now have a better knowledge ofthe lower levels of settlements owing to excavations of thistype, a more accurate picture can only be gained in caseswhen the archaeologist’s efforts enabled this (the Doboz andKölked sites can be cited as good examples). In spite of IstvánMéri’s initiatives, settlement archaeology has remained afield of research in which there is still much to be done forpractically all archaeological periods. Even so, it is now possi-ble to present a fairly accurate picture of every major periodfrom the Palaeolithic to the Middle Ages, to which archaeo-logical research in the later 20th century contributed manynew elements. This statement remains valid in spite of thefact that this picture often contains may hues that exceed theconclusions that can be drawn from the archaeological re-cord. To quote but one example: the number of graves fromthe Árpádian Age unearthed to date represents about 0.26per cent of the people buried during that period; as regardsthe earlier periods (with the exception of the Conquest pe-riod), this percentage is even lower. The fact that no morethan about 15 per cent of a culture can be recovered using ar-chaeological methods is a serious caveat and most certainlycalls for a reassessment of to what purpose and to what extentthe archaeological record can be used. Hungarian archaeol-ogy is still too historicizing, setting itself tasks that can hardlybe solved using archaeological methods, and in this sense it isa continuation of the ‘national’ archaeology of the 19th cen-tury. The introduction to Régészeti Kézikönyv [Handbook ofArchaeology], published in 1954, begins with a statementthat is hardly valid: “Archaeology is a historical discipline”.


Archaeology is suitable for recording various phenomena andfor attempting the determination of the chronological posi-tion of these phenomena. Any reconstruction calls for the useof non-archaeological methods and disciplines. Accordingly,historical reconstructions can be considered not only mis-leading, but often downright harmful, especially if these re-constructions concern the history of a nation (and in manycases, certain elements of these reconstructions tend to sug-gest that they refer to a modern period, rather than the onebeing examined). This is obviously valid not only for Hun-garian archaeology, but also for that of the neighbouringcountries.

UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGYAttila Gaál

THE EMERGENCE OF UNDERWATERARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNGARY

Underwater archaeology, the youngest branch of Hungar-ian archaeology, has a very short history. This discipline ap-peared in the later 1980s and no matter how astonishingthis may sound, its emergence was largely due to an acci-dental archaeological find, rather than a conscious profes-sional decision. The find in question was discovered in theBölcske section of the Danube, at a site that was alreadyknown, but had never been precisely located, called “Temp-lomos” [Templar] by the locals and Bölcske rock by water-men. Before discussing this find, a brief overview of the po-tentials of underwater archaeology seems in order, espe-cially since Hungary is a country that does not have seaswith good diving conditions. The largest body of still wateris Lake Balaton, the rivers are murky, and visibility is usu-ally between 0 and 50 cm, depending on depth, water tem-perature and various other factors.

Since Hungary has lost its former coastal areas and a greatpart of its rivers owing to the twists and turns in the coun-try’s history, the shipwrecks and archaeological finds discov-ered beyond the borders of the Hungary will not be dis-cussed here. The widely acclaimed attempts of Hungariandivers to find the Saint Stephen warship between 1994 and1997 is also beyond the scope of this section, even thoughthe Diver Archaeologist Department of the Society of Hun-garian Archaeology and Art History, founded in Szekszárdin 1992, was one of the organizers of this famous expedition.It must also be borne in mind that the date of the catastro-phe of this 151 m long and 28 m broad proud warship fallsoutside the upper time limit of archaeology, set at the begin-ning of the 18th century. It must also be mentioned in pass-ing that a number of Hungarian diver archaeologists partici-pated in underwater research projects and shipwreck explo-rations in Greece, Spain and the Republic of South Africa,indicating that their activity is well received.

THE CONDITIONS OF UNDERWATERARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNGARY

The thousands of finds recovered from Hungarian waterssince the start of Hungarian underwater archaeology cancompensate for much lost information. What must beborne in mind, however, is that the majority of these findswas not recovered by archaeologists, but by various ma-chines, dredgers and excavators, or they came to light acci-dentally. When finds were brought to light by archaeolo-gists, their work circumstances differed from the ones towhich foreign colleagues are accustomed to in seas, in theclear waters of mountain lakes and in oceans. Unfortu-nately, the conditions specific to Hungarian waters forcedus to accept that it is near impossible to make visual obser-vations, one of the most important tools of archaeology.Hungarian rivers, especially the Danube, have fast currentsthat dislocate the finds: their survey and drawing calls forspecial methods. Most Hungarian lakes have rather muddywaters, and Lake Balaton is no exception in spite of its rela-tively clear waters; the oxbows and smaller lakes often have50–80 cm thick floating or soft mud in them. The depth ofthe mud was 120 cm over almost the entire width in theTolna dead channel of the Danube, where we searched forthe remains of a wall that the locals had seen half a centuryago. Such conditions make excavation difficult and raisemany problems that need to be solved by Hungarian under-water archaeology that is currently under reorganizationowing to the decline following the initial upswing.

UNDERWATER FINDS, UNDERWATER SITES

In spite of the many finds that have been recovered fromrivers, lakes, wells, marshes and mud, there is no generalconsensus about what should be regarded as an underwaterarchaeological find and which sites belong to the sphere ofunderwater archaeology.

The wells of the Turkish palisade fort at Szekszárd–Pa-lánk and the Roman wells uncovered during the excavationspreceding the construction of the M1 motorway near Gyõr,for example, became refilled with water during the excava-tion, and the final phase of their excavation had to be per-formed under water. However, the finds recovered fromthese wells are not underwater finds in the strict sense andcan be assigned to the assemblages recovered by traditionalfield methods since the greater part of the work and docu-mentation was done using traditional field methods. Thenumber of finds uncovered during dredging operations andgravel mining runs into the thousands. Entire museumscould be filled with the fossil bones, Bronze Age, Celtic,Roman Age, medieval and Ottoman period finds that cameto light from the Danube between Dunaújváros and Paks.Unfortunately, most of these finds were lost to archaeologi-cal scholarship in spite of the fact that they are legally pro-tected; in more fortunate cases, these finds are acquired by

Underwater archaeology | 23

private collectors who often have more funds at their dis-posal than the average museum. These collectors keep aconstant patrol around the dredgers, and dispensing withthe paperwork, they pay cash on spot. Most of these finds,including an intact Bronze Age helmet of the Lausitz typefound at Paks in 1999 – a unique and outstanding find – areunderwater finds, even if their majority fell into the wateraccidentally, either during a battle, while fording the river,or when their owner drowned: we will never actually knowwhat happened. In other words, their findspot does not in-dicate the presence of an underwater site worthy of furtherinvestigations. In contrast, various architectural features,such as bridge remains, various buildings and forts, as wellas ship cargos consisting, for example, of Roman Age irontools, early 5th century pottery or Turkish copper vesselsthat are known from archival records, the archaeological lit-erature, the press or from the recollections of the locals,should be taken seriously and given every legal protection.These locations are archaeological sites in the strict sense ofthe word and their identification is an urgent task. GáborSzabó and János Attila Tóth, members of the Student DiverGroup of the Diver Archaeological Department of the Ar-chaeological Society, have done much in this respect. Theysystematically collected and documented the stray finds andsites that were already known or could be identified duringdiving sessions, compiling a register of these sites. Theyalso listed the investigations that had been conducted usingdiver archaeological methods in Hungary until 1994, whenthey completed their manuscript. Together with the fewunderwater excavations, this database – that already needsto be updated – is one of the most promising achievementsof Hungarian underwater archaeology.

UNDERWATER EXCAVATIONS IN HUNGARY

The first regular underwater archaeological excavation inHungary was conducted by the Wosinsky Mór Museum be-tween 1986 and 1996 at Bölcske with the help of scuba-di-vers. The importance of the early 4th century A.D. Romanfort guarding the port on right tributary of the Danube liesin the fact that its walls and ruins included secondarily usedaltar stones and grave altars transported here from two Ro-man towns, Campona/Nagytétény and, mainly, Aquincum/Óbuda. The number of inscribed stone monuments (nowexhibited in the Soproni Sándor Lapidarium at Bölcske andin front of the Szekszárd museum; Fig. 7) is over forty,while the smaller finds, mostly coins, recovered from theclearing of the ruins totals some one hundred. Over fiftystamped bricks were also found. Nearly all the stones fromÓbuda were altars erected by the local duumviri in honourof Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Teutanus in the first half of the3rd century A.D. These finds constitute an important cor-pus for the study of the civitas Eraviscorum.

The archaeological work was conducted from a pontoonserving as a diving base with the help of the Dunaferr Di-ving Club and the village of Bölcske amid great difficultiescaused by the 7–8 km/h flow velocity and often zero metrevisibility. It often happened that while a diver was loweredon a security rope to replace his colleague who had workedan hour to free an altar stone, the sand at the bottom of theriver bed reburied the find (Fig. 8). Apart from diving oper-ations in November and December, neither photos, norvideo films could be made, and even the shots made in thefreezing water, relatively free of algae, could only be evalu-ated by specialists. Archaeological field methods can hardly

Fig. 7. Roman altar stonesbrought to light between 1986and 1996, exhibited in thesquare before the Wosinsky MórMuseum in Szekszárd


be used under such circumstances: the divers could onlyrely on their fingers, and touching replaced eyesight. Nei-ther could the traditional techniques of surveying and draw-ing be employed. The experiences gained at this site defi-nitely indicated that underwater archaeological investiga-tions in Hungary can only be begun after a magnetometersurvey of the area, a technique that is generally employed,

and seismologic investigations along longitudinal andcrosswise sections since these reveal the location and direc-tion of the walls, the position of larger objects and their dis-tances relative to each other and the river bank. The experi-ences gained at Bölcske were very helpful in the excavationof the sarcophagus remains and inscribed tombstones withrelief carvings found at a depth of 7 m during gravel dredg-ing and other river operations in a small dead channel of theDanube at Vetus Salina/Adony in the summer of 2000(Fig. 9).

Other investigations conducted in various parts of thecountry between the two dates marked by the start of theBölcske and Adony investigations can also be quoted.These were mainly directed at locating mostly Roman Ageand, sometimes, medieval underwater sites. These in-cluded the Roman bridge at the Hajógyár Island in Óbudaand the search for a salt transporting boat with a cargo ofRoman stone relics that had sunk in the Tisza at Szeged.Under the supervision of archaeologists, scuba-diverssearched for Roman remains in the gravel pit of Barátföld-puszta at Lébényszentmiklós, an already known site, in thegravel pit of Máriakálnok and in the Toronyvár-dûlõ atKunsziget, while the remains of the village of Losta fromthe Árpádian Age were sought on the northern side ofLake Balaton. Following the initial enthusiasm sparked bythe Bölcske investigations, the help of the secretary-gen-eral of the Hungarian Diving Society was enlisted fortraining students of archaeology in diving and the organi-zation of archaeological courses for divers. At the sametime, a data sheet was prepared for registering underwaterfinds. This initial enthusiasm gradually faded, partly ow-ing to financial reasons and partly to the indifference ofboth parties.

This is all the more regrettable since countless dangersthreaten the underwater monuments, ranging from the de-cay of these sites to illegal diver activities and the dredgingof river basins. The most endangered areas at present arethe river banks close to the main Danube channel and theterritories between dead channels, where new gravel andsand pits are constantly opened. The dredging entrepre-neurs have been gradually ousted from the Danube andthey moved their operations to these bank regions on thepretext of rehabilitating formerly active branches. As a re-sult, it seems more than likely that their activity will damagea number of archaeological sites that presently lie concealedunder a several metres thick gravel layer.

OPINIONS AND COUNTER-OPINIONS

Finally, a few words about certain misunderstandings thatare often also voiced by professionals concerning underwa-ter archaeological finds. One frequent misconception isthat underwater archaeological finds do not necessarilyhave to be brought to light since they are quite safe andprotected under the water, whereas bringing them to the

Fig. 8. Diver archaeologists lift a Roman altar stone at Bölcske in1988

Fig. 9. The lifting of stone relics near the Roman ala fort of VetusSalina at Adony in June, 2000

Aerial archaeology in Hungary | 25

surface may mean certain decay. The conservation proper-ties of water, marshland and peat are in many cases indeedwonderful, but not for every type of material. Leather,wood, bone and some textiles survive under constantlymoist conditions, whereas certain metals, especially burntiron objects, decay within a few centuries. The iron core ofthe latter is often replaced by a cavity lined by oxide andfilled up with a putrid fluid. Beside the damage caused bythe iron bottom platings of boats, a network of fine fissurescan be made out on the limestone altar stones fromBölcske, caused by the constant fluctuation of the watertemperature; other damages include the ones caused byhuman intervention, such as the use of explosives at thetime of icy floods. The cylindrical handle without anytraces of wear and the brand new, clean blade of a Romantrowel dropped into the boiling mortar during the con-struction of the fort’s wall suggest that it was probably loston the very first day of its use, while many of the bronzecoins are so strongly oxidized that their identification wasoften problematic. Although the examples are often con-tradictory, it is our conviction that water is not a naturalenvironment for archaeological objects and they must beunearthed as soon as possible and conserved more carefullythan finds recovered from the ground.

The call to find the royal ships that had sunk in 1526was voiced repeatedly, especially after finds provokinggreat attention came to light, such as the gold plate foundat Visegrád. This idea is still periodically raised. However,it must be borne in mind that the current of the Danube isso fast even along the lower reaches of the river that it caneasily transport the metal body of a sunken ship filled withwater tens of kilometres away within a few hours. Even inknowledge of the fact that the river was not restricted bydams in the 17th century and, consequently, its flow wasslower, this was certainly not the case in the Visegrád sec-tion of the river, where it flows between hills. Many squarekilometres would have to be surveyed to find the ships, analmost impossible task given the present technical possi-bilities. Only the strict control of stray (and dredged up)finds, combined with careful underwater work based onthese bits and pieces of information, can lead to the possi-ble discovery of these ships.

THE FUTURE OF UNDERWATER RESEARCH

In spite of the difficulties described above, the declared in-tention of the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage thatHungary become a signatory of the UNESCO conventionon the protection of the underwater cultural heritage thatwould ensure the necessary protection for archaeologicalfinds and features not only in the seas, but also in rivers,lakes and marshlands – including the ones in Hungary – isdefinitely a promising sign. The ministry set up a workinggroup in late 1999 to elaborate the Hungarian point ofview. The group’s task was to study the draft convention

prepared by UNESCO and to make suggestions and modi-fications corresponding to the Hungarian conditions andneeds. A similarly important task is the organization of thetraining of archaeologists and conservators for underwaterwork, as well as training divers for archaeological work. Noless important is the ensuring of adequate funding for theexcavation of underwater archaeological sites and, also, thatunderwater archaeology be moved from the periphery to amore focal place in Hungarian archaeology.

AERIAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN HUNGARYZsolt Visy

The invention and use of zeppelins and airplanes was oneof the major advances of the late 19th century, fulfilling amany thousand years old dream of mankind. Until then,observations could be made only from mountain peaks,hills and higher elevations. The invention of flying ma-chines meant that observations could now be made fromany desired location and from any altitude. Maps of variousregions and towns, formerly drawn only from imagination,could now be based on personal experiences. With thespread of photography, the number of pictures taken fromhigher elevations increased, and photographs made fromballoons, the antecedents of real aerial photos, appeared atthe end of the 19th century. As it often happens in the caseof major inventions, the pioneering work in this field wasdone by the military. The advantages of aerial reconnais-sance and the potentials of recording observations on aphoto were quickly realized during World War 1. Obser-vation from a high altitude and the accompanying photo-graphs opened new perspectives for scientific research –the specialists of this new method soon determined the

Fig. 10. Late Neolithic or Early Copper Age enclosure and rampartat Jánoshida–Portelek


optimal conditions for its application and worked outwhen, from what altitude and at what time of day the bestresults could be obtained. They soon realized that manyfeatures that remained undetected on the ground becamevisible from the air and, also, that phenomena that ap-peared as random features on the ground formed a coher-ent pattern if viewed from above, revealing a number ofpoints that could never have been detected on the ground.A number of partially or totally buried remains and otherrelics of bygone ages could be identified (Fig. 10). Aerialphotography was one of the positive accomplishments ofWorld War 1; many pilots fighting in the war were thefirst to observe and register archaeological relics. After re-turning to civil life, they began to organize the systematicaerial reconnaissance, documentation and evaluation of ar-chaeological features.

The pioneers of aerial archaeology elaborated the meth-ods of this discipline in the 1920s and 1930s. In addition towork in Europe, they were also interested in the explorationof buried ruins in the desert areas of Africa and the NearEast. The doyens of the field, Theodor Wiegand, AntoinePoidebard and, later, Osbert Guy Stanhope Crawford, werejoined by Aurél Stein who began the aerial exploration ofthe Roman limes and other archaeological monuments inIraq in 1938, at the age of 76. Aerial archaeology in Hun-gary began more or less simultaneously with internationalexperiments in this field. In 1938, Lóránd Radnai publisheda paper in which he described the archaeological uses of ae-rial photography and the basic requirements of successfulobservation. The first aerial photos were published inArchaeologiai Értesitõ two years later: in his discussion ofthese photos Radnai convincingly proved his point anddemonstrated that aerial photography can be successfullyapplied under Hungarian conditions too.

Archaeologists soon became acquainted with this impor-

Fig. 11. Brigetio, marching camps VI and VII at Szõny

tant new research technique. A few years later AladárRadnóti published high quality photos that could be evalu-ated archaeologically in his study on the Dacian limes alongthe ridge of the Meszes mountains. Wartime conditionsgreatly contributed to advances in archaeological aerialphotography, but they also brought a number of restric-tions. While planned reconnaissance flights could rarely bemade, there were no objections to the archaeological analy-sis of the high number of excellent aerial photos made bythe army. Sándor Neógrády spent long years studying thesephotos. He accumulated an impressive collection of aerialphotos, publishing a part of his collection at the last possiblemoment in 1950. We can only hypothesize what else therewas in his collection that never became generally accessibleowing to the changes in the political climate. The all-perva-sive atmosphere of suspicion characterizing the Communistsystem did not allow the complex mapping of Hungary’sterritory and aerial reconnaissance was relegated to the cat-egory of military secrets.

The political thaw in the 1970s at last made possible theapplication of aerial photography for purposes other thanmilitary reconnaissance, obviously with the strict observanceof regulations. Aerial photography for archaeological re-search could at last begin, although the photographs madeduring this period often had little scientific value since theywere not always made at the optimal time and under optimalconditions, but when the flight was permitted. It now be-came possible to systematically study the photos made fortopographic or economic purposes on which archaeologicalfeatures could be clearly made out. Most important amongthese was a series from the early 1940s that showed the entireHungarian section of the Danube and other territories. Anumber of features that now lie concealed under buildingsand factories built since, or have been destroyed by intensivecultivation, are still visible on these photos. The photos madein the 1950s and later also contained much useful

Fig. 12. Annamatia, watchtower 9 with the limes roadat Dunakömlõd

Aerial archaeology in Hungary | 27

information and their study can still yield new data since thecareful inspection of these photos can lead to new discover-ies. The restrictions on aerial photography were graduallylifted, first by easing the strict regulations and, after the po-litical changes, by declassifying certain maps and photographtypes. The earlier strict regulation only allowed the aerialphotography of already known archaeological sites, meaningthat archaeological reconnaissance flights with the purposeof discovering and documenting new archaeological features

and remains were not permitted. The new regulation allowsflights over larger areas and the unrestricted photography ofthe assumed and identified features. The current Hungariansystem more or less conforms to the regulations in most Eu-ropean countries (Fig. 11).

The principle of detecting archaeological features fromthe air is essentially identical with the one enabling identi-fication during fieldwork: once the soil has been dis-turbed, the traces of these interventions are preserved inthe soil, often for long millennia in exceptionally fortunatecases. These interventions are reflected in the colour, thecompactness, the composition and moisture retention ofthe soil. Traces of human intervention can be distin-guished on aerial photos of a particular area much in thesame way as the different layers in the section of a trenchin an excavation. Aerial photos, however, often contain awealth of smaller details that are not apparent in the aver-age excavation section. Since the soil disturbed by humanactivity differs from its immediate environment, often thevegetation itself or the snow cover may indicate thatsomething lies hidden in the ground. Plants usually growhigher in the more humic soil filling pits and ditches,while they remain underdeveloped over the stone andmortar in the walls of buildings (Fig. 12). Micro-organ-isms thrive in the more humic soils, often generating suffi-cient heat to melt a thin layer of freshly fallen snow over aformer pit or the line of an ancient ditch. Of the various

Fig. 13. Roman period tumuli at Écs

Fig. 14. Medieval earthenhillfort and ramparts atGalgahévíz–Szentandrás-part


plants, cereals are the most suitable for indicating archae-ological features buried under the soil. Divergences fromthe surrounding area are reflected in the colour, the phaseof development and ripening and, very often, in height.These small differences are often caused by drought sincethe vegetation relies on the moisture and nourishment itcan attain through its roots, and differences can be consid-erable in stony or strongly humic rich soils. Similarly toother archaeological features that have survived as surfacereliefs, the slight differences in height can best be ob-served in the form of shadow marks cast by the rising orsetting sun.

Aerial photography plays an increasingly important role inarchaeology. Beside the identification of archaeological sites,these photos are invaluable for determining the extent, thestructure and the basic outlay of a site. The groundplan andlayout of the visible features are sometimes sufficient inthemselves for determining the date of these archaeologicalremains (Fig 13). In contrast to the obliquely photographedfeatures with a strong foreshortening whose mapping is arather complicated procedure, the mapping and identifica-tion of features photographed vertically is not particularlydifficult. Computer technology has brought a breakthroughin this respect too, since a few points are generally sufficientfor running a GIS modelling programme and the digitizedimage can be directly projected onto a map (Fig. 14).

Aerial archaeology has progressed at an unbelievable pacein Hungary during the last decade of the 20th century.Thousands of aerial photos have been made and several ma-jor projects were launched and carried out using GIS model-ling. Major advances have been made in mastering the neces-sary techniques and applications of aerial archaeology, as wellas in the creation of aerial photo databases. Aerial archaeol-ogy contributed greatly towards accelerating the pace of ar-chaeological topography and creating a national registry ofarchaeological sites. Similarly, the creation of a uniform ar-chaeological database through the co-operation of several in-stitutions is no longer a dream that can only be achieved inthe distant future (Fig. 15).

URBAN ARCHAEOLOGY: A SPECIAL

FIELD OF HERITAGE PROTECTIONPaula Zsidi

The conditions of archaeological fieldwork in rural and ur-ban areas differed significantly from the very beginning ofarchaeological research, although in Hungary urban ar-chaeology in the Western European sense only made its ap-pearance in the mid-1970s. Beside Budapest, urban archae-ology is pursued in all Hungarian towns that have a histori-cal centre and when the rescue and the conservation of therelics of the past must be considered in urban developmentprojects (as in Pécs, Sopron, Szombathely and elsewhere).

Urban archaeology is a direct outgrowth of urban plan-ning and construction projects. This can be especially wellobserved in Budapest, an excellent example being the terri-tory of Óbuda. The excavations of the civilian settlement ofAquincum began when the town wall of this settlement wasdemolished as part of a construction project. In the lack of acentral regulation, local regulations were passed in the1870s and 1880s to protect the monuments discovered inÓbuda and “to prevent their destruction”. Another regula-tion was passed in Budapest in 1928 that stipulated not onlythat the finds should be handed over to the appropriate au-thorities, but also that the discovered monuments “be ex-amined by the museum” even at the price of suspending thework for a week.

One major change in urban archaeology came in themid-1970s, when earth-moving operations were mecha-nized on construction projects. The pace of earth-movingoperations accelerated, posing a major threat to the archae-ological heritage and a significant rise in the number of ex-cavations (Fig. 16). Archaeologists had to come to termswith the fact that archaeological investigations became partof these construction projects. The same process had al-ready occurred earlier in Western Europe and Hungarianarchaeologists could thus familiarize themselves with themodern methods of urban archaeology through their inter-national contacts and at various international workshopsdevoted to this subject. The protection of the historicalcentres of Cologne, Bonn, London and other cities servedas models for the elaboration of the Hungarian practice inthis field. Hungary also signed a series of European conven-tions and treaties on the protection of historical town cen-tres and the protection of the archaeological heritage. Theprinciples and norms laid down in these conventions, suchas the Malta Convention signed in 1992 and ratified byHungary in 2000, were incorporated into Act CXL of 1997and, more emphatically, into Act LXIV of 2001.

As regards the protection of the historical town centres,the growing number of private construction projects meantan unusually acute threat from the early 1990s. Fortunately,the preparatory work based on the experiences of earlier de-cades and the continuously updated archaeological data-base, the improvement in technical equipment and the

Fig. 15. Roman fort. Sárszentágota

Urban archaeology: a special field of heritage protection | 29

familiarity with experiences gained in other Europeantowns was instrumental to surviving this period withoutmajor damages. Act CXL of 1997 provided a secure finan-cial background for the protection of the archaeologicalheritage and this enabled the continuation of excavationcampaigns without a major break. In order to achieve andmaintain the required high standards, urban archaeologyalso calls for the activity of highly qualified professionalswith experience in this field and the structural reform of theinstitutions involved in urban archaeology.

THE NATURE OF URBAN ARCHAEOLOGY

There are several features specific to urban archaeologythat distinguish this discipline from planned excavationsand from the usual fieldwork preceding large-scale green-field investment projects in areas that are not built up. Forexample, the start of the excavation campaign and its dura-tion is determined by the pace of the construction work.The excavation itself cannot be meticulously planned andthe investigations are rarely conducted on sites that wouldotherwise have been chosen for addressing specific prob-lems of a given archaeological period. There is need forconstant liaison with the appropriate construction authori-ties and the regional chief architects; at the same time, thetaxation and labour legislation that applies in these cases isnot always unambiguous. The gravest problem, however, isthe conservation, cataloguing and storage of the immensenumber of finds brought to light during the excavations.

Beside the protection of the archaeological heritage, theneeds of archaeological scholarship must also considered.The schedule of these construction projects, most of whichare usually unrelated to each other, is rarely determined by

the needs of the discipline. The findings of the excavationsassociated with construction projects can only be set intotheir genuine context and become useful historical sourcesif they are fitted into a database containing the relevantdata. Topographic research projects of different historicalperiods play an important role in urban archaeology sincethey provide a coherent framework into which the seem-ingly unrelated bits and pieces of information can be fitted.The Budapest History Museum has so-called regional su-pervisors co-ordinating the topographic research projects,whose main task is to ensure that the needs of the disciplineare taken into consideration. These regional supervisorskeep track of the excavations in their area, directing and co-ordinating the work of the archaeologists in the case of si-multaneously conducted excavations.

Urban archaeology often resembles a huge jig-saw puz-zle. An important new breakthrough is in many cases onlypossible after fitting together tiny details, obtained frommany years of patient work. The seemingly unrelated bitsand pieces of information are recorded and mapped, andonly later do they form a coherent picture and become auseful historical source. The different parts of a prehistoricsettlement or cemetery, or parts of a Roman period or me-dieval building are often discovered separately, and only af-ter many years or even decades can they be fitted into theoverall picture. An excavation usually means the very last,unrepeatable opportunity to recover and document the in-formation of an archaeological site. In the case of relics andmonuments that will be destroyed, the objective is theircomplete excavation as best as possible. Archaeometricmethods, such as archaeozoology, archaeobotany, dendro-chronology, archaeomagmetic surveys, etc., can be success-fully applied in these cases, as shown by the experiences ofmore recent years.

Fig. 16. Urban archaeology:excavation on the territory ofthe military town of Aquincumin Óbuda in the 1980s


URBAN EXCAVATIONS AND URBAN PLANNING

The continuous contact between institutions responsiblefor urban planning and the protection of the archaeologicalheritage is vital. According to the current legislation, the ar-chaeological importance of a given area must be taken intoconsideration during the initial phase of urban planningprojects and the preparation of the overall plans. This alsomeans that ‘unexpected rescue excavations’ and the inter-ruption of the construction work can be avoided – even if inmany cases these are not really unexpected, they can be asource of irritation for both investors and archaeologists.Trial excavations, combined with geophysical surveys and,in a few exceptional cases, aerial photos should precede thestart of a construction project since these can be of aid indetermining the archaeological features of a larger territorybefore it is built up. In Budapest, for example, the goodcontact between most of the district self-governments andthe Budapest History Museum ensured that the formerlyunknown areas of Aquincum, the seat of the Roman prov-ince of Pannonia, were identified at Budaújlak, the Filatoridam and in the Csúcshegy area (Budapest III, Óbuda). Acontinuous monitoring is obviously necessary to regularly

check and document the actual condition of archaeologi-cally important areas. At present, only the outstandinglyimportant archaeological areas are included in this survey.

Modern European heritage protection and the Europeanpractice of urban archaeology can hardly be conceivedwithout a presentation of the findings of the excavations tothe scholarly community, the general public and, also, theinvestors (Fig. 17). Suffice it here to quote AquincumiFüzetek, published at regular intervals since 1995, contain-ing reports about the recent results of the investigations atAquincum, the Roman predecessor of Budapest. The publi-cation of the excavation findings is not only an academicquestion, but also an ethical one. József Korek once re-marked that “research cannot be a goal in itself – research isonly valuable if it serves the public.”

THE PROTECTION OF THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

IN HUNGARYMihály Nagy

The concept of archaeological heritage is relatively new inHungary: its first mention in an official document can be

Fig. 17. Eastern gate of the legionary fortress of Aquincum, areconstructed monument in an urban environment

Fig. 18. Baron Gyula Forster

The protection of the archaeological heritage in Hungary | 31

found in the so-called Cultural Act of 1997. In common us-age the word ‘find’ denotes objects recovered from theearth, water, etc., that constitute a source material for ar-chaeology. This expression, however, is not precise since incertain cases ‘find’ only referred to movable objects (thissense of the word is also common in a few other Europeancountries). In contrast, the word ‘heritage’ covers both themovable and the immovable relics and, what is even moreimportant in terms of source value, their relation to eachother. Commenting on a draft bill on movable relics, BaronGyula Forster (Fig. 18), the one-time chairman of the Na-tional Committee of Monuments, defined ‘finds’ as archae-ological objects, as well as organic and inorganic remainswith a scientific value. Similarly to treasure troves, thesecould be considered ownerless (res nullius) in the legal sense.

A distinction is drawn between movable and immovablerelics and monuments in legal parlance. The former also in-cluded archaeological finds in certain periods, but inForster’s concept only artworks and artistic creations of theapplied arts were assigned to this category. Earlier effortstended to concentrate on objects that could be placed incollections, rather than on the site from which they hadbeen recovered (although we now know that the positionand context of a find is at least as important as the find it-self). One consequence of this approach was that the im-movable archaeological relics brought to light during earth-moving operations came under the same consideration asthe hidden sections of an extant building: they were not re-garded as ownerless goods, but as part of the immovableproperty that concealed them.

BEGINNINGS

Although there is evidence for the collection of archaeolog-ical finds from the close of the 15th century, the institu-tional protection of the Hungarian archaeological heritagecan only be dated from the mid-19th century.

Disregarding a few exceptions, only the objects wroughtof precious metal were considered valuable from amongthe archaeological finds recovered from the earth in theMiddle Ages. The changes in the determination of whohad ownership rights to the finds must also be briefly men-tioned in a historical overview of the protection of the ar-chaeological heritage, especially since the restrictions onownership rights often hindered the legal protection of ar-chaeological finds.

Forster argued that “the primary method of acquiringownership rights is appropriation, one variant of this beingfinding or discovery. This also applies to treasure troves, thecommon sense principle being that ownerless goods pass intothe ownership of the first acquirer. However, this is in contra-diction to the indirect mode of appropriation, namely theprinciple according to which any accretion passes into thepossession of the owner of the original property – and sincetreasure troves are regarded as an accretion, the right of ac-

quisition lies with the owner of the land.” Since the finder of atreasure trove is not necessarily the owner of the land, bothcan – at least theoretically – lay claim to the treasure. Hiddenobjects, whose ownership could not be established, fell underthe same consideration as the goods of inestate persons, inother words, they reverted to the royal treasury. The owner-ship rights to a treasure trove had to be established with re-spect to the interests of these three parties.

The earliest discussion of ownership rights in relation toa treasure trove in Hungary can be found in a charter issuedin 1229, recording that the finders of a treasure trove weresummoned by the Bishop of Várad since – neglecting theirduty – they failed to report the treasure trove and had thusrobbed the king. Other instances of the discovery of trea-sure troves are also known from the Middle Ages and thepost-medieval period. Although the details of these discov-eries were not always recorded, what clearly emerges is thatthe owner of the land and, in some cases, the king himselflaid claim to these treasure troves or a part of them.

A royal decree issued in 1776 opened a new era in thelegislation concerning treasure troves in Hungary. Thisdecree was in effect the adoption of Austrian legislativepractice. According to the decree, one-third of the treasuretrove went to the Treasury, one-third to the owner of theland and one-third to the finder. This only applied tobullions of outstanding value; however, since a royal de-cree from 1777 stated that the Treasury did not lay claimto one-third of treasure troves whose value was less than150 forints, treasure troves falling in this category wouldbe equally divided between the finder and the owner of theland. At the same time, the consideration of the academicvalue of these finds is reflected by the fact that a few coinsfrom one of these treasure troves were reserved for theRoyal and Imperial Coin Collection, and the finder andthe owner of the land were recompensed from the Trea-sury of the Hungarian Chamber. The practice of dividingtreasure troves into three parts remained a common prac-tice in Hungary until 1949, even though the claim of theTreasury to its one-third remained legally unfounded sincethe royal decrees had never been promulgated by Hungar-ian Parliament.

A decree of the Royal Chancellery issued in 1798 stipu-lated that ancient coins with a value of less than 150 forintsand even hoards that were worthless had to be reported. Theidea behind the extension of the concept of treasure trove inthis manner was to ensure the acquisition of antiquities thathad an academic value for the imperial collections.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FOUNDATION OFTHE HUNGARIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM

November 25, 1802, is regarded as an important mile-stone in the struggle for the creation of an independentnational culture. On that day Count Ferenc Széchényi(Fig. 19) announced his decision to donate his private


collection to the nation. This collection, whose curator-ship was entrusted to the Palatine József in the founda-tion deed, became the basis of the collections in the Hun-garian National Museum and the major public collectionsin other museums that later grew out of the museum.The Széchényi collection also included an assortment ofarchaeological finds; the collection of antiquities wascontinued after the foundation of the museum. When theSistaróc (ªiºtarovãþ, Romania) find was handed over tothe Chamber in 1813, the Palatine announced the royaldecision that the National Museum and the University ofPest had the right to make their own selection of thecoins rejected by Vienna (the finder and the owner of theland were recompensed by the museum and the univer-sity). This was the first instance that two Hungarian pub-lic collections could make a selection of articles from afind assemblage discovered in Hungary.

1846 was remarkable for two outstanding events. At thecongress of the Hungarian Physicists and Nature Explorersheld in Kassa, Imre Henszlman called attention to the im-portance of the protection of Hungarian antiquities. Thesame year the cataloguing of archaeological finds, similar tothe present practice, was introduced in the Hungarian Na-tional Museum. Articles recovered from a particular sitewere regarded as parts of the same find assemblage; the de-scription of the finds, accompanied by their drawing and ex-act measurements, enabled the unambiguous identificationof the finds in question.

THE ROLE OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMYOF SCIENCES

At the beginning of the next year, the Hungarian Academyof Sciences announced the need for the protection of mon-uments, a most urgent task since ancient monuments oftenfell prey to various construction projects or sheer indiffer-ence. The main purpose was to “kindle an awareness of his-tory, to shed light on ancient Hungarian culture and to up-raise national pride”. The circle of monuments in need ofprotection was also defined: the relics of the national past(up to the Szatmár Peace Treaty) that were reflections ofancient national culture and glory. These relics includedbuildings, carvings, casts, tumuli, paintings, engravings,weapons, furniture, vessels and jewellery. Although the pro-tection of these relics was envisioned within the legal frame-work defined by the academy’s statutes, an appeal to the pa-triotism of Hungarian citizens was also made.

The announcement did not go unheeded as shown by thefact that as head of the National Defence Committee dur-ing the 1848–49 Revolution and War of Independence,Lajos Kossuth issued a decree on November 30, 1848, stip-ulating that the antiquities found during the construction ofmilitary defenceworks be sent to the Hungarian NationalMuseum together with a description of their findspot and

Fig. 19. Portrait of Count Ferenc Széchényi Fig. 20. Section of the royal basilica at Székesfehérvár fromJános Érdy’s excavations in 1848. Contemporary drawing by JánosVarsányi


the depth at which they had been found; a second reportwas to be sent to the secretary of the Hungarian Academy ofSciences. The archaeological finds sent to the museumfound on the territory of Contra Aquincum during the con-struction of the Pest defenceworks indicate that Kossuth’sorders were observed. The first systematic archaeologicalexcavations can be dated from the same time. János Érdy,Keeper of the Antiquities Collection of the Hungarian Na-tional Museum, unearthed the grave of Béla III and his wife,Anna of Antioch, among the ruins of the royal basilica inSzékesfehérvár in December, 1848 (Fig. 20).

After the crushing of War of Independence, Francis Jo-seph I issued an imperial decree on December 31, 1850,for the creation of a committee (the so-called Centralkom-mission) to seek out major architectural monuments and toorganize their preservation. The authority of this commit-tee extended over the entire territory of the Monarchy, in-cluding Hungary, and remained in effect until November,1866.

A proposal was submitted to the general assembly of theHungarian Academy of Sciences in January, 1858, for thecreation of an Archaeological Committee within the His-torical Department. Similarly to the appeal of 1847, the ex-pression ‘monuments’ denoted “relics of antiquarian value”originating from the period before the Szatmár PeaceTreaty. It was also decided that the Committee would pub-lish its own journal, Archaeologiai Közlemények, the first ar-chaeological periodical in Hungary.

One of the concessions made by Austrian absolutismduring one of its periodic crises was the proclamation of aconstitution known as the October Diploma – grantingthe provinces of the empire greater autonomy in their in-ternal affairs – on October 20, 1860, by the EmperorFrancis Joseph I. Even though the pre-1848 governmentbodies were restored in Hungary, Hungarian Parliamentultimately refused to recognize the legality of the OctoberDiploma in 1861. (This date also marked the end of theactivity of the Centralkommission in Hungary.) In 1861 theConsilium requested that the Hungarian Academy of Sci-ences create a Hungarian committee similar to the Cent-rallcommission. The Academy, however, favoured the es-tablishment of a permanent committee, whose memberswould include a representative of the government, for thesimple reason that the Academy had no wish to become agovernment organization through a committee of thiskind. The debates over this issue went on for some fouryears without reaching a final decision. During this time,the archaeological finds and treasure troves were taken toVienna until 1867; Hungarian collections could maketheir selection from among the finds only after the impe-rial collection had taken its pick. On the initiatives of theMinister of Transport, the finds brought to light duringthe construction of railways and canals were reported tothe appropriate authorities who, depending on the loca-tion of the construction, notified the Hungarian or theTransylvanian National Museum.

LEGISLATION

Imre Henszlmann’s draft bill from 1869 proposed the cre-ation of a National Archaeological Inspectorate that wouldbe responsible for movable antiquities and of a National Ar-chaeological Committee that would act as a counsellingbody to the minister. This draft bill represented a major ad-vance regarding the principle of provenance. Although theHungarian National Museum still enjoyed absolute pri-macy in the selection of finds for its collections, the countrymuseums could now also keep some of the finds. The de-bate over the bill continued for many years, while the ar-chaeological societies active in the Hungarian counties de-manded that at least some of the finds discovered in theirarea of activity be given to their collections (Fig. 21).

In the meantime, article 366 of the Penal Code (Act V of1878) regulated the negligence of reporting a treasure troveand illicit treasure hunting. The relevant article of the lawdefined ‘treasure’ as an antiquity with an inherent or an ar-chaeological value, whose lawful owner could not be deter-mined. This piece of legislation was designed to ensure themuseums’ right of selecting and preserving the finds, as wellas punishing any losses inflicted on the Treasury. Viewedfrom the perspective of the history of archaeological heri-tage protection, the concept of treasure was – in the senseused by the Penal Code – extended to every archaeologicalfind.

The Upper House debated the draft bill submitted byHenszlmann on April 30, 1881. Arnold Ipolyi submitted an

Fig. 21. Imre Henszlmann


amendment in which he proposed that the force of the billalso be extended to movable antiquities. Forster noted that“Minister Trefort, however, found it unnecessary to amendthe text because, together with the Minister of Finance, heintended to introduce a separate bill on movable antiquities… [and] there was a fear that the inclusion of movable an-tiquities would fuel apprehensions that restrictions wouldbe imposed on private property owing to the nature of thematter, and that even a favourable solution for immovablerelics could be postponed for a long time.”

Act XXXIX on the preservation and maintenance ofmonuments was finally passed by both Houses of Parlia-ment on May 24, 1881, more than a decade after the draftbill had been submitted. The protection of movable and im-movable monuments was separated. Buildings and relicswith a historical value lying in the ground (what would to-day be called the immovable elements of the archaeologicalheritage) were also included among the monuments as de-fined by the law; it was also stipulated that the owner or theuser of the land must report the discovery of these monu-ments to the local authorities. The ministry would then de-cide whether or not the monument should be protected.

Forster noted that one weak point of the act was that it“restricted the concept of monuments to immovablegoods, architectural monuments and their elements, amistaken approach since this implied that only immovableobjects and their constituent parts were to be regarded asmonuments; it regrettably also projected the idea thateven if a movable relic were to qualify as a monumentfrom an academic or artistic point of view, or according toa general consensus, it would not be a monument accord-ing to the law.”

There was an attempt at the turn of the century to pass apiece of legislation that treated the various parts of the cul-tural heritage as an integral unit. In 1898, Gyula Forsterwas asked to work out a draft bill in which movable and im-movable antiquities (the latter including also palaeozoolo-gical and anthropological relics) were treated together. Jó-zsef Hampel, Keeper of the Department of Coins and An-tiquities of the Hungarian National Museum, was alsoasked for his comments. Hampel endorsed the idea of ex-tending maximally the concept of archaeological find (“Ev-ery man-made product created before the period to whichliving memory extends is an antiquity”), and, for the sake ofscholarship, he suggested that these be brought under theforce of the law. Forster was concerned about the negativeeffects of the limitation of private ownership. In contrast toHampel, his approach was more practical. His main inten-tion was that historically and artistically important objectsremain in the country, and he suggested that a separate fundbe created in the state budget for purchasing the finds. (Inhis scheme the owner of the land and the finder divided thepurchase price of the archaeological find between them.)He was also aware of the fact that the law would only be ex-ecutable if Church goods were also included in the inven-tory since this would ensure the state’s right of preemption.

In 1912, the National Council of Museums and Librariessubmitted a bill on movable antiquities; however, “Act XIon the regulation of the activity of museums, libraries andarchives” was only passed in 1929. Article 44 of this act an-nulled article 366 of the 1878 Penal Code. Instead, article18 stipulated the right of the Minister of Religion and Pub-lic Education to place a ban on excavating an area that con-cealed or had concealed archaeological, historical, anthro-pological, geological or palaeontological relics. Only the in-stitution appointed by the Council of Hungarian NationalCollections was permitted to investigate these areas. Thelaw also stipulated that stray finds and assemblages broughtto light in the course of excavations not supervised by pro-fessionals had to be reported to the Hungarian NationalMuseum either directly or through the local authorities.The finder of the archaeological relics and the owner of theland were to be recompensed up to a maximum of two-thirds of the value of the finds and this amount was to be di-vided equally between them.

This law remained in force until November, 1949, whenit was replaced by Law-decree 13 on Museums and Monu-ments. For the first time, the protection of movable and im-movable monuments was treated in the same law. This lawalso stipulated that accidentally discovered immovable ormovable relics be reported to the National Centre of Mu-seums and Monuments, either directly or through the localauthorities. The Centre would then advise the Minister ofReligion and Public Education on which monuments andareas of archaeological or historical significance should beprotected by law. One new element in this law was that allimmovable museal objects recovered from the ground werevested in the state treasury. Instead of the former recom-pensing for the finds, the Centre could offer a financial re-ward to the finder and the owner of the land. Monumentswere again treated separately after the Minister of Housingand Public Construction created the National Inspectorateof Monuments and the Municipal Council of Budapestfounded the Municipal Inspectorate of Monuments.

Law-decree 9 of 1963 (amended in 1975) on the protec-tion of objects of museal value again regulated the protec-tion of the archaeological heritage and declared that “allrelics and monuments with a museal value lying in or recov-ered from the ground, from water or elsewhere are vested inthe state”. This law-decree also stipulated that objects ofmuseal value found accidentally had to be reported to thelocal council. One new provision in this respect was that in-stead of the national centre, the territorially competent(“designated”) museum had to be notified, which, afterchecking the site, determined whether the earth-movingoperation that brought the find to light could be continuedor not. The other tasks and duties of the former nationalcentre were in part transferred to the Hungarian NationalMuseum and in part to the Excavation Committee. As re-gards archaeological finds, the law-decree only held out thepromise of a reward for the finder; the owner of the landwas not mentioned.


THE PROTECTION OF THE IMMOVABLEHERITAGE AT PRESENT

In 1992, the Minister of Environmental Protection and Re-gional Development created the National Agency for theProtection of Monuments (OMvH) to perform the neces-sary tasks concerning monument protection and deter-mined the tasks and duties of the Agency in the protectionof monuments and the supervision of construction projects,as well as the tasks and duties of the Directorate of Monu-ment Inspection.

Hungarian Parliament enacted the present law on cul-tural heritage protection in 1997 (Act LIV on monumentprotection and Act CXL on the protection of cultural goodsand museum institutions, on public library service and pub-lic education). The latter stipulates that the minister per-forms certain tasks through the Directorate of CulturalHeritage under his supervision. Certain tasks of the minis-try (the registration of protected areas in the land regis-tries), of the Hungarian National Museum (proposals forthe protection of sites, inventories) and of the ExcavationCommittee (excavation licences) were transferred to theDirectorate of Cultural Heritage, founded in 1998. The Di-rectorate is an administrative authority, although in the caseof areas with an archaeological significance, the authorita-tive rights are practised by the county museums.

The institutional framework for the protection of theimmovable cultural heritage (archaeology and monumentprotection) was fundamentally transformed in 1998, whenresponsibility for the protection of the national culturalheritage was transferred to the Ministry of National Cul-tural Heritage. As parts of these structural changes, a De-partment of Monuments was organized within the ministrythat incorporated the Department of Archaeological Mon-uments Protection and the Department of Built Monu-ments Protection. The main tasks of the ministry includethe creation and maintenance of a database, regular fund-ing, the creation of a network for the maintenance of monu-ments and a high level public education.

Although Acts LIV and CXL of 1997 were enacted af-ter a careful preparatory work, the experiences gained inthis field since their enactment indicate that furtheramendments to these laws are necessary. Following thecreation of the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage inthe summer of 1998, a few minor amendments were pro-posed. It soon became obvious that these could hardly leadto a modern regulation and a new draft bill for the protec-tion of the archaeological heritage was drawn up in early2000. Act LXIV of 2001 on the protection of the cultural

heritage that set heritage protection in a broader frame-work was passed by Parliament on June 19. The new billincorporated many new elements, such as the inventory,the principle of sustainable usage, the general protectionof all known archaeological sites and the various catego-ries of protection in the case of archaeological sites placedunder protection by ministerial decree. The act createdthe Agency of Cultural Heritage Protection by mergingthe National Agency for the Protection of Monumentsand the Directorate of Cultural Heritage; the new officestarted its activity on October 8, 2001. The new agencyhas nine regional offices.

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE

Hungary signed the international conventions after a sig-nificant delay in the past (for example the World HeritageConvention of 1972 was ratified and promulgated in 1985,the Malta Convention of 1992 on the protection of archae-ological heritage in 2000). European integration calls for alegal harmonization in this field also, and thus every effortmust be made for the adoption of international conventionson heritage protection in Hungary, as well as of the Euro-pean practice in the reorganization of the institutional sys-tem entrusted with heritage protection.

Two related tendencies can be observed in the developedEuropean countries. On the one hand, there is a gradual in-crease in the number of the protected areas that can be clas-sified as one of three categories (national, regional or local).The regulations concerning protection are less rigorouswhen moving from the national to the local level and thiscategorization also affects the distribution of central funds.On the other hand, parallel to the rise in the number of themonuments and their classification, there is a tendency toinvolve regional and local governments in heritage protec-tion by relegating certain tasks to these authorities. In spiteof a definite tendency towards decentralization, a certaindegree of centralization is nonetheless maintained – for ex-ample in the case of national monuments – with the neces-sary tasks performed by the government through a de-concentrated organization.

The updating of the planned inventory of protectedmonuments and archaeological sites in Hungary will nodoubt lead to an increase in the number of protected areas.A modernized institutional system will no doubt be able tocope with the growing number of tasks. The creation of thisnetwork and the legislative background will be one of themain tasks in the new millennium.

I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN HUNGARY · The history of archaeological fieldwork in Hungary |15 THE...

Documents

Transcript of I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN HUNGARY · The history of archaeological fieldwork in Hungary |15 THE...