Archaeobotany, the study of plant macrofossils (seeds and fruits) obtained from archaeological excavations, becomes particularly important when there is very little or no archaeological, written or iconographical material available about the cultivation of the plants found. This is particularly the case in relation to the early Hungarian settlers. The most significant event of the 10th century in the Carpathian Basin was the Hungarian conquest, yet this is the most fiercely debated period of Hungarian history, and the subject, in some cases, of extreme views. The information available on the way of life of the early Hungarians is very sparse, especially as regards farming and crop production skills. The conquering Hungarians were “semi-nomadic”. This may equally include mobile pastoralism and a limited extent of tillage and plant cultivation. Other archaeobotanical evidence suggests that the early Hungarians were not nomadic. There are very few seed remains directly relevant to the period of the Hungarian Conquest: the leading strata of early Hungarian society probably practised mobile pastoralism of a fundamentally Turkish character. It can be presumed that plant cultivation was the occupation assigned to common people who pursued a more sedentary way of life. It was probably these people whose plant remains were found in Lébény-Billedomb (near Gyor) in 1993 and are presented in this paper. This is the first evidence of plant cultivation by the early Hungarians. The finds from the 10th century settlement are rich in cereal species such as common wheat, barley, rye and millet.
century from the northern part of the Carpathian Basin . In: Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and 10thCentury. Proceedings from the conference organised by Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and Institute of Archaeology University of
This paper is concerned with the problem of the appearance and distribution of the traditional nomadic weapon — the composite bow — in Ancient Rus. The authors have summarised evidence on fifteen complexes with new finds of composite bows at the most ancient Russian sites. The preserved overlays of the bows enable us to reconstruct the technology of assembling bows of various types. The article also summarises evidence on the characteristic items of the equipment of eastern archers, which together with a composite bow constituted a single set: bowcases for keeping the bows and quivers. The results of the present studies have drawn the authors to the conclusion about the wide distribution of complex nomadic bows throughout Ancient Rus in the 10th century. The outmost concentrations of the finds have proved to be related with early towns and the culture of the rising Ancient-Russian elite — “druzhinas”. In the present study, the use of two types of bows in Rus — the “Hungarian” and the “Pechenegian” (“Turkic”) types — has been demonstrated. Among the Ancient-Russian finds, bows of the “Hungarian” type hold a prominent place. The most ancient finds are dated to the third quarter of the 10th century. The appearance of composite bows was part of the process of distribution of items of armament, horse-gear, costume and accessories connected with the nomads of Eastern Europe among the Ancient-Russian military subculture. Some of the finds come from rich funerary complexes which belonged to professional warriors of a high social status, who may have been participating in the war campaigns of Prince Svyatoslav in the Balkans and on the Danube.
The pagan Bulgars on the Lower Danube have left only a few belt mounts. After Christianisation (864/5) the situation was changing, a lot of them have been found on the ground of old settlements and fortifications, esp. during the last decades with the help of metal detectors. During the 1930s and 1940s the Hungarian archaeologist Géza Fehér was the first who noticed the similarity with the findings of the Conquest Period in Hungary. In the article, prepared nearly 20 years ago, the specimens of a type selection have been collected, which may have formed complete sets. It is proposed that the Bulgarian belt garnitures, being dated between ca. 900 and ca. 1000 AD, are the result of the military conflicts with the Hungarians on the Lower Danube at the end of the 9th cent. and of cultural adoption by the Bulgarians (or vice versa).
In this paper we study the evolution of locative relative adverbs from Classical to Late Latin and Early Romance Languages. The focus is posed on a corpus of Iberian chartae from the 9th–10th centuries.
In 1998, during the archaeological excavations in the Kremlin of Kazan (Tatarstan) a harness mount was found in a mixed layer of the 16th century. It was made of silver, ornamented with a rosette and gilt background. This type of mounts frequently occurs in ancient Hungarian graves of the Carpathian Basin from the first part of the 10th century. The author tries to prove that the Kazan piece must also have been made in Hungary and transported by merchants to Volga Bulgaria. The trade between mediaeval Hungary and Volga Bulgaria is often mentioned in written sources and well documented also by the presence of archaeological finds of Hungarian origin in former Volga Bulgaria and 10th-century Muslim coins of Bulgarian provenance in ancient Hungarian graves of the Carpatian Basin.
From June to September 2013 I was organizing an exhibition entitled “Ancient Death Masks” in the Hungarian National Museum. The most important goal of the exhibition was to display for visitors an idea supported by scholarly research. According to this conclusion, silver and gold death masks observed in the graves of the 10th century Hungarians who settled in the Carpathian Basin originated from Magna Hungaria, the Uralian territory of the Hungarians. We displayed death masks found in three large regions of Eurasia: that of Tashtyk Culture in the Yenisei Valley (1st–5th cc.), 6th–11th century masks of the Ural Region, and 10th century masks from the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 1). Although the religious background of the masks in the three territories is similar, the forms of manifestation are different. From the shape of the masks we can clearly conclude that the 10th century Hungarians brought this burial custom from the Ural Region, Magna Hungaria. This can be cited among the few pieces of archaeological evidence (compeer to the historical evidence) attesting to the migration of the Hungarians from the east to the west.