Abstract
In this paper I present the exploitation of birds at the Ottoman Period (16th–17th century) rural site of Visegrád-Alsóvár located in North Hungary. Four poultry species and the jackdaw were identified from the 213 avian remains that formed 7.3% of the total bone assemblage. The species composition of the bird bone assemblage suggested that fowling was not practiced at the site, but various domestic birds were exploited for their meat, eggs, and perhaps other secondary products, such as feathers and dung. The representation of bones from poultry even exceeded that of the pig well reflecting the importance of avian meat and egg in addition to the preference for mutton in the diet of the Muslim population that inhabited the area of the Lower Castle after 1544, when Visegrád fell to the advancing Ottoman Turkish army.
Sexing and ageing of several avian remains were possible owing to the presence of the medullary bone tissue in certain remains and the good preservation of tarsometatarsi from the domestic chicken. The latter also allowed biometrical analysis targeting the size of chicken raised at Visegrád-Alsóvár and its comparison with coeval and recent chickens. The presence of a medium and large size type suggested the advanced nature of bird breeding in addition to the variety of poultry at this site.
Introduction
Visegrád, located on the right bank of the Danube Gorge in North Hungary, had strategic importance due to its position already by the Roman Period when fortifications of the limes were built along the Danube (Fig. 1). Although it has been a permanently inhabited place since the 8th century AD, Visegrád gained its new rank after the establishment of the Christian Hungarian state in 1000 AD, when it became one of the most frequently visited royal centers in the kingdom.1
The location of Visegrád within the Ottoman Empire (top) in relation to neighboring territories during the 16th century (bottom). Drawing by László Bartosiewicz
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
After the raid of Mongol Tartars in 1242, two castle systems (the Lower Castle or Salamon-torony and the Upper Castle or Citadel) and the Palace complex were built in Visegrád, which flourished during the 14th–15th centuries when it became a royal town. In 1544, Visegrád fell to the Ottomans for 140 years with a ten-year gap (1595–1605) when Christian forces recaptured the town. It finally was liberated by the Habsburg imperial forces in 1684 (Fig. 2).2
View of Visegrád under Turkish occupation in the book by Johann Martin Lerch (1684). After Twigg (2012) 199, Fig. 2
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
Following long-lasting archaeological excavations conducted by Miklós Héjj, Júlia Kovalovszky, and Mátyás Szőke in the second part of the 20th century, several assemblages including hundreds and thousands of animal bone remains were brought to light from several rural, urban, and elite sites within the Visegrád complex. Numerous mammalian remains from these archaeological campaigns were identified on location by zooarchaeologist Sándor Bökönyi who published his results in his main work on the history of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe.3 The avian remains were determined by palaeo-ornithologist Dénes Jánossy, who published the results in two papers.4
The animal bone assemblage from Visegrád-Alsóvár was recovered from 45 refuse pits and excavation units, and one house floor during the excavation carried out by Miklós Héjj and Mátyás Szőke in 1968–1969. It represented the butchery, food, and workshop debris of the Turkish garrison's Muslim and allied Christian population of South Slavic origins who settled the area around the Lower Castle during the Ottoman Turkish occupation of Visegrád.5
First, the worked antler remains were analysed and published in 2009.6 Part of the zooarchaeological assemblage, representing bone material from ten features, was studied and published by zooarchaeologist Johanna Twigg in 2012.7 In addition to the 2,710 mammalian remains identified by her, a few fish and several avian bones were also found in this assemblage, the latter forming the subject of the present paper. They contribute to the discussion of the differing social status of the Visegrád sites.
Material and methods
Following the zooarchaeological analyses by J. Twigg, I received 213 avian remains weighing 377 g. These bird bones, collected by hand just like the other animal remains, were found in three different contexts at the site of Visegrád-Alsóvár in 1969:
Pits 4–5–6 recovered in the area of the medieval smelting workshop in the inner courtyard (54 remains);
Workplace 63/20. Ottoman Period refuse pit on the North side of the buttress of the Western defense wall (107 remains);
Squares 21–22 general area (38 remains);
The context of the additional 14 avian remains was not indicated on the specimen label.
Owing to the good preservation of bird bones, several (partial) skeletons were recognized. Many bones survived completely allowing the recording of measurements and analysis of their size.
The identification of bones was carried out by using a recent comparative bone collection and various manuals.8 Osteometric data on 19th to 21st-century specimens collected by the author in several European museums were also used for the identification of remains and drawing scatter plot diagrams. Bone measurements were recorded by a digital calliper (0.1 mm) according to the standard developed by Angela von den Driesch.9 These data are presented in the Appendix.
Results
Six bird taxa were recognized from the 213 avian bones. Five of them could be identified at the species level, while a humerus from a juvenile bird could be identified at the family level only. The distribution of remains is summarised in Table 1.
The distribution of avian remains by species
Species | Common name | Number of identified specimens (NISP) | Minimal number of individuals (MNI) | Weight (g) |
Anas cf. domestica | Domestic duck | 8 | 1 | 8 |
Anser cf. domesticus | Domestic goose | 6 | 1 | 12 |
Gallus domesticus | Domestic hen | 186 | 22 | 352 |
Columba cf. domestica | Domestic pigeon | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Accipitriformes sp. indet. | Diurnal bird of prey | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Coloeus monedula | Jackdaw | 10 | 1 | 3 |
Total | 213 | 27 | 377 |
Domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus Linnaeus, 1758)
Remains from the domestic chicken dominated in the avian assemblage by 186 bones (87.3%). At least six juvenile, four subadult, and 12 adult birds could be identified according to the degree of ossification and anatomical distribution of the remains. Medullary bone tissue indicative of females in lay was found in a distal fragment of femur. The sexing of specimens according to the presence or absence of the spur on the tarsometatarsus indicated at least six female and five male birds among the remains of adult domestic chickens (Fig. 3).
Humerus displaying gnawing marks (left) and a spurred tarsometatarsus (right) from domestic chicken. Photo by Erika Gál
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
Several remains showed modifications made by humans. Butchery marks on the end of long bones (humerus, femur, tibiotarsus, and tarsometatarsus) pointed to the disarticulation of slaughtered birds. Traces of heat on bones evidenced their contact with fire or hot ash. Gnawing marks assigned to a cat could also be identified on the distal part of a humerus (Fig. 3).
Bone diseases could be traced on two chicken remains (Fig. 4). A left pelvis presented torsion and new bone formation in the acetabulum due to the inflammation of the hip joint. On a left ulna, thin bone growths developed between some quill knobs (papillae remigales ventrales) in the middle of the diaphysis. Since the quill knobs serve for the attachment of the follicles of secondary flight feathers,10 a possible explanation for the new bone formation might be the lesions from self-trauma due to feather plucking. This hypothesis, however, needs evidence.
Pathological pelvis (left) and ulna (right) from domestic chicken. Photo by Erika Gál
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
Domestic goose (Anser cf. domesticus)
A total of six goose remains came from two contexts. Fragments of an ulna and a femur each and a complete phalanx 1 digit 2 from the wing were found in Workplace 63/20. The medullary bone tissue in the femur indicated that a laying goose was also slaughtered at the site in addition to the aforementioned chicken. Three other fragments from a mandible, a sternum, and a tibiotarsus were found in Squares 21–22.
The identification of remains from the domestic goose (Anser domesticus Linnaeus, 1758) and its wild ancestor, the graylag goose (Anser anser Linnaeus, 1758), represents a continuous challenge for archaeo-ornithologists owing to the morphological identity and the overlap in sizes in the two forms (Fig. 5).11 The latter is even exacerbated by the sexual dimorphism existing in anatids, that is male birds are larger than female birds.
Illustration of geese from the 17th century (detail from Collaert)11
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
The distal width of the femur (19.5 mm) from Visegrád-Alsóvár fits well with the average size (19.4 mm) of this bone in female graylag geese, while the distal depth (15.5 mm) even exceeded the average size (15.1 mm) of male birds in this species. Both sizes, however, fell below or hardly fit into the limits of domestic geese (20.1–25.0 mm and 15.0–22.0 mm, respectively) according to the database by Alois Bacher, who collected measurements of goose specimens in German, Danish, and Swedish reference collections.12 On the other hand, the ratios of the two sizes from the femur largely overlap in the wild and domestic forms on the scatter plot illustrated in the manual developed by James G. Poland for the identification of duck and goose remains from archaeological sites.13
The distal width of the ulna (16.1 mm) from Visegrád-Alsóvár was the closest to the mean size of female graylag geese (16.0 mm) and slightly below the average (16.8 mm) of the same measurement in the domestic form.14
When tentatively assigning the remains under study to the domestic goose, I considered two reasons. On the one hand, recent domestic geese whose skeletons were collected in the last dozens of years must have been larger than their counterparts from archaeological bone materials. On the other hand, medullary bone tissue is considered one of the indicators of domestication.15 Nevertheless, it has been noted that medullary bone tissue is rarely found in domestic geese as adult female birds were usually not eaten in the breeding season.16
Domestic duck (Anas cf. domestica)
Eight bones forming the partial skeleton of a domestic duck (Anas domestica Linnaeus, 1758) or mallard (Anas platyrhychos Linnaeus, 1758) were found in Workplace 63/20. All bones were complete and some of them displayed traces of burning (Fig. 6).
Partial skeleton (furcula, coracoid, carpometacarpus, femur, tibiotarsus, tarsometatarsus, and a phalanx ungualis) of a domestic duck. Photo by Erika Gál
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
Most of the bone sizes in this skeleton pointed to a male mallard according to the manual by Elisabeth Woelfle, who also collected biometrical data from several West European and Scandinavian reference collections.17 However, some measurements of the femur and tibiotarsus, which are the meatiest skeletal parts in the hind limb, fall between the sizes of the mallard and the domestic duck. Certain size ratios of these two bones also fall between the values of the wild and domestic forms on the scatter plots in the manual by James G. Poland.18
This skeleton was tentatively assigned to the domestic duck based on these biometric features in addition to the aforementioned speculation concerning the size difference between the recent and subfossil domestic anatids, as well as the underrepresentation of game animals (NISP = 52; 1.9%) in the zooarchaeological assemblage from Visegrád-Alsóvár.19
Domestic pigeon (Columba cf. domestica)
An almost complete sternum and right humerus were found in the area of the smelting workshop. The crest of the sternum presented traces of burning (Fig. 7).
Sternum (left) and humerus (right) from a domestic pigeon. Photo by Erika Gál
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
The estimated length (40.0 mm) of the humerus does not reach the mean value of the length in any recent pigeon species of the Columba genus published in the specialist literature20 or those measured by the author in museum collections. Therefore, a scatter plot of the total length (GL) and the smallest width of the diaphysis (SC) of the humerus was prepared to compare the Visegrád specimen with recent and archaeological pigeon specimens from and outside of Hungary (Fig. 8).
Scatter plot of the greatest length (GL) and smallest width of the diaphysis (SC) in Columba humerus. Small circles stand for the recent specimens; large circles stand for the medieval specimens from Hungary; triangles stand for the medieval specimens from outside of Hungary
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
First, the rock dove (Columba livia Gmelin, 1789) was selected for drawing the trend line that shows the relationship between the two variables (SC: x-axis, GL: y-axis, respectively). On the one hand, this species is the wild ancestor of the domestic pigeon (Columba domestica Linnaeus, 1758). On the other – along with the wood pigeon (Columba palumbus Linnaeus, 1758) –, the rock dove furnished the greatest number of measurements, nine records each. The black trend line was obtained using the least squares method on the data of rock dove only. It is supported by a high correlation indicative of a marked relationship (r = 0.7743).21 This method involves the risk that the direction of the trend line depends on which of the two sizes is chosen as the independent variable (SC in our case).
Therefore, the reduced major axis (RMA) regression was also applied, since this method is specifically formulated to handle errors in both the x and y variables. In this calculation, all the 40 records from the recent and archaeological specimens available were considered. This second trend line (red in the graph) generally characterizes the Columba genus, not only a single species. The correlation for this larger group between the two variables was even higher (r = 0.9008).
According to both methods, most measurements of recent domestic pigeons and ancient specimens fell well below the Columba trend line indicating the greater width of the humerus relative to its lengths. Several archaeological specimens including the one from Visegrád-Alsóvár presented such a stout humerus that might be the result of selecting and breeding ‘meaty’ types with a greater economic value.
It is worth mentioning that the rock dove is not a native species in the Carpathian Basin (or Central Europe), but its European distribution is restricted to the Mediterranean region (as far North as the Alps) as well as Ireland, the British Islands, and the Norwegian seaboard.22 Its domestication most likely took place in the Near East between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Domesticated specimens were already known by the second half of the first millennium BC in Greece.23 The earliest archaeological evidence for the domestic pigeon came from several Roman Period sites in Hungary.24 Post-Roman evidence includes two finds from Avar Period cemeteries,25 while eight sites yielded 10th−17th century finds in Hungary.26
In contrast, the wood pigeon and the stock dove (Columba oenas Linnaeus, 1758) occur in the breeding season from February to November in present-day Hungary,27 but their medieval and Early Modern Age bone evidence is quite sporadic. The wood pigeon was identified from three elite settlements by a single remain each: the 14th–15th century assemblage of Visegrád-Palota, the 15th–17th century site of Visegrád-Salamon-torony, and the 16th century castle of Bajcsa.28 The stock dove furnished three remains from a single bird at the 10th–13th century rural site of Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa.29
Diurnal bird of prey
A not completely ossified humerus from a diurnal bird of prey presenting the size of a sparrow hawk (Accipiter nisus Linnaeus, 1758) was recognized in the assemblage. The undeveloped osteological features of the bone, however, impeded its assignment to a certain genus or species with confidence.
Jackdaw (Coloeus monedula Linnaeus, 1758)
This species was identified from a partial skeleton found in Workplace 63/20 (Fig. 9). The recovered bones, except for the sternum, were complete and did not indicate any human modification.
Partial skeleton (furcula, scapula, pelvis, femora, tibiotarsi, and tarsometatarsi) of a jackdaw. Photo by Erika Gál
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
The jackdaw, a resident species in Hungary, is one of the small-sized corvids inhabiting gallery forests and human settlements alike. When living in a village or town (or city), it nests in the corners of buildings and visits the gardens and orchards just like the streets and dumps for food.30
Discussion
Intra-site analysis
The avian assemblage presented in this study is the second bone material from Visegrád which brings information on the exploitation of birds in the rural context at this place (Table 2). The moderate size animal bone assemblage (NISP = 822) recovered from the 10th–12th century site of Visegrád-Várkert comprised only 34 avian remains (4.1%) from which merely the two most frequent poultry species, the domestic chicken and the domestic goose were identified.31
The distribution of bird remains and species in the bone assemblages from Visegrád sites. NISP = number of identified specimens
Visegrád-Várkert 10th–12th c. rural site (NISP = 822) | Visegrád-Kálvária 14th c. urban site (NISP = 1,878) | Visegrád-Szálloda-udvar 14th c. tower (NISP = 147) | Visegrád-Palota 14th–15th c. royal palace (NISP = 3,980) | Visegrád-Fő utca 73. 14th–15th c. houses (NISP = 274) | Visegrád-Rév utca 14th–16th c. monastery (NISP = 1,363) | Visegrád-Salamon torony 15th–17th c. castle (NISP = 8,439) | Visegrád-Alsóvár 16th–17th c. rural site (NISP = 2,923) | Visegrád-Palota 16th–17th c. royal palace (NISP = 1,195) | Visegrád-Fellegvár 15th–18th c. castle (NISP = 367) | |
Domestic goose (Anser domesticus) | 4 | 60 | 32 | 2 | 6 | |||||
Domestic duck (Anas domestica) | 2 | 2 | 59 | 8 | 37 | 6 | ||||
Domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus) | 30 | 599 | 1 | 1,051 | 12 | 63 | 2,040 | 186 | 414 | 121 |
Domestic pigeon (Columba domestica) | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
Guinea fowl(?) (Numida meleagris) | 1 | |||||||||
Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Poultry | 34 (4.1%) | 662 (35.3%) | 1 (0.7%) | 1,088 (27.3%) | 12 (4.4%) | 63 (4.6%) | 2,102 (24.9%) | 202 (6.9%) | 451 (37.7%) | 127 (34.6%) |
Garganey (A. querquedula) | 1 | |||||||||
Cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus) | 1 | |||||||||
Black kite (Milvus cf. migrans) | 1 | |||||||||
Accipitriformes gen. et sp. indet. | 1 | |||||||||
Black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) | 1 | |||||||||
Partridge (Perdix perdix) | 21 | 33 | 1 | 7 | ||||||
Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) | 3 | 1 | ||||||||
Coot (Fulica atra) | 1 | |||||||||
Wood pigeon (Columba palumbus) | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Tawny owl (Stix aluco) | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
Eagle owl (Bubo bubo) | 2 | |||||||||
Hoopoe (Upupa epops) | 1 | |||||||||
Jackdaw (Coloeus monedula) | 10 | |||||||||
Rook (Corvus frugilegus) | 1 | |||||||||
Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) | 1 | |||||||||
Mistle thrush (T. viscivorus) | 1 | |||||||||
Turdus sp. | 1 | |||||||||
Bird (Aves sp. div.) | 38 | 4 | 105 | 5 | 2 | |||||
Wild bird | 26 (1.3%) | 79 (2%) | 4 (0.3%) | 112 (1.3%) | 11 (0.4%) | 15 (1.3%) | 2 (0.5%) | |||
Bird total | 34 (4.1%) | 688 (36.6%) | 1 (0.7%) | 1,167 (29.3%) | 12 (4.4%) | 67 (4.9%) | 2,214 (26.2%) | 213 (7.3%) | 466 (39.0%) | 129 (35.1%) |
In contrast, bird remains made up more than one-third of the assemblage in the 14th century urban site of Visegrád-Kálvária (Fig. 10). This bird material yielded the domestic duck and the Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758) in addition to the two aforementioned poultry as well as three wild species.32 Of the latter, the partridge (Perdix peridx Linnaeus, 1758) and the pheasant (Phasianus colchicus Linnaeus, 1758) were hunted for their meat. The black kite (Milvus migrans Boddaert, 1783) lives in forested areas near rivers and lakes but often visits human settlements endangering poultry.33 Therefore, the humerus fragment from this species most likely originated from a pest.34
The composition of animal bone assemblages (NISP≥500) from the settlements of the Visegrád complex
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
The other four well-represented assemblages dated to the period between the 14th–17th centuries were recovered from sites representing elite settlements. The greatest variety of both domestic and wild species including the domestic pigeon, peafowl, and thrushes was identified from the 14th–15th century assemblage of Visegrád-Palota (Palace). The richness and the abundance of avian remains (29.3%) along with the marked presence of game animals and fish reflect the delicate food consumed by high-ranking people in the royal palace.35 Of the eight wild birds identified from this site, the two fragments of humeri from a tawny owl (Strix aluco Linnaeus, 1758) are likely to have originated from a bird persecuted for superstitious reasons or an individual that died of natural causes. This species regularly occurs in the human environment nesting in towers and unused chimneys.36 Because of the nocturnal life and hooting sound typical of owls, this group of birds has been associated with misfortune and death in the past.37
The 15th–17th century aristocratic site of Visegrád-Salamon torony and the 16th–17th century assemblage from Visegrád-Palota were similarly abundant in avian remains (26.2 and 39%, respectively), though yielded fewer species both from poultry and game birds (Table 2). In these assemblages, the cinereous vulture (Aegypius monachus Linnaeus, 1766), the tawny owl, and the eagle owl (Bubo bubo Linnaeus, 1758) – which furnished one or two remains each – represented the non-edible species.38 The complete carpometacarpus from the cinereous vulture suggests the use of feathers of this large diurnal bird of prey as primary remiges articulate to this skeletal part (and the manual fingers).39 The complete and fragmented radii from the eagle owl also point to the use of wings.40
Surprisingly, the 14th–16th monastery of Visegrád-Rév utca yielded a few dozen chicken remains only. Not only bird bones (4.9%) were under-represented in this assemblage compared to mammalian bones, but merely five remains (0.4%) evidence the consumption of fish.41
The recently studied avian assemblage from Visegrád-Alsóvár, comprising only 213 remains (7.3%), belongs to the poorly represented bird bone materials in Visegrád (Table 2). Nevertheless, it is much greater in size and poultry diversity alike than the other rural assemblage (Visegrád-Várkert), dated to the 10th–12th century. The difference may indicate the increased role of fowl in the Ottoman diet of villagers on the one hand. This is especially noteworthy in the view of results from the analysis of mammalian remains, which indicated the under-representation of pig remains (4.5%) compared to cattle (35.5%), caprine (32.9%), and even poultry (6.9%).42 The increased importance of beef and mutton and the avoidance of pork are often reflected in the bone materials of Ottoman Period sites.43 On the other hand, poultry keeping must have advanced during the period of 500–600 years from the 10th–12th to the 16th–17th centuries. This subject is being further discussed in the next chapter.
Inter-site analysis
A recent survey on the occurrence of domestic and wild animals in the medieval and Early Modern Age Carpathian Basin summarised 81 rural assemblages among which four bone materials were dated to the 16th–17th centuries.44 The representation of bird remains ranged from 1.8% (Szentkirály) to 14.9% (Csepel sziget-M0 autópálya), the latter outstanding value resulting from 110 chicken and 82 jackdaw remains, which were found in early 16th-century grain storage pits.45
Typically, a few domestic goose remains were found in addition to dozens of chicken remains in the bone assemblages recovered from these Early Modern Age villages (Table 3). Therefore, the domestic duck and pigeon identified from Visegrád-Alsóvár represent new records concerning the exploitation of these poultry species in the 16th–17th centuries. It has to be taken into account, however, that while the remains of chicken and goose are usually easily identified by zooarchaeologists who are not specialized in avian bones, many bird remains that might represent additional species remain unidentified owing to the lack of expertise and reference material.
The distribution of bird remains and species in 16th–17th century bone assemblages from rural sites in the Carpathian Basin. NISP = number of identified specimens
Site (Total NISP) | Domestic chicken | % | Domestic goose | % | Domestic duck | % | Domestic pigeon | % | Jackdaw | % | Aves indet. | NISP Birds | % Birds | Reference |
Visegrád-Alsóvár (2,923) | 186 | 6.4 | 6 | 0.2 | 8 | 0.3 | 2 | <0.1 | 10 | 0.3 | 1 | 213 | 7.3 | Twigg (2012), Gál (this paper) |
Csepel-M0 autópálya (1,306) | 110 | 8.4 | 82 | 6.3 | 2 | 194 | 14.9 | Vörös (1998) | ||||||
Szentkirály-Lászlófalva (4,405) | 70 | 1.6 | 9 | 0.2 | 79 | 1.8 | Kőrösi (2006), Nyerges and Bartosiewicz (2006) | |||||||
Hahót-Telekszeg (1,489) | 54 | 3.6 | 8 | 0.5 | 10 | 72 | 8.1 | Bartosiewicz (1995) | ||||||
Csekefalva-Lok (881) | 16 | 1.8 | 10 | 1.1 | 3 | 29 | 3.3 | Gál (2012) |
Even considering the few undetermined avian bones from the four sites listed, neither fowling nor hunting of mammalian game seem to have been practiced in these villages.46 The occurrence of jackdaw remains in bone materials is usually attributed to the death of pets, especially when (partial) skeletons with unmodified bones were found, as this species – similarly to other corvids – is easy to tame and shows interest towards humans and their environment. This could also have been the case with the specimen whose bones were found in the 15th–16th century cesspool of the bishop's palace at Székesfehérvár-Sziget.47
Naturally died or persecuted birds should be also considered when coming across jackdaw remains since people often view corvids visiting the human environment as pests. In his study on the cultural history of crows in the Hungarian Middle Ages, László Bartosiewicz found that except for jay (Garrulus glandarius Linnaeus, 1758), the attitude towards the other species tended to be negative both in oral tradition and historical sources.48
Ultimately, the consumption of the jackdaw at certain sites cannot be ruled out either. In addition to ethnographic records and archaeological evidence for the occasional eating of crows,49 the already mentioned 82 jackdaw remains representing selected body parts from 11 adult and three juvenile birds might involve the eating of these fowl as meat supplements to quotidian diets.50
Owing to the many complete and sexed tarsometatarsi from domestic chicken in the assemblage, it was possible to analyse the size range of Visegrád specimens and their comparison with coeval chicken from the Carpathian Basin.51 The scatter plot of the greatest length (GL) and the smallest width of the diaphysis (SC) revealed that two types of chicken were raised at Visegrád-Alsóvár. Longer and stouter tarsometatarsi from a female and male specimen each, showing a difference in size from the rest of the chicken measurements from this site and the majority of 16th–17th century specimens from Hungary, indicated the presence of large chicken in addition to the medium-size type (Fig. 11).
Scatter plot of the greatest length (GL) and smallest width of the diaphysis (SC) in the tarsometatarsus of domestic chicken from 16th–17th century sites and recent types in Hungary
Citation: Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 75, 2; 10.1556/072.2024.00020
This large type so far was identified only from two settlements in Hungary. One of them is the archbishopric residence at Esztergom-Várhegy-Kőbánya in North Hungary, where domestic chicken was the leading species in the late medieval assemblage by 27.1% of the animal remains. The 15th century bone material from this site comprised an 85.7 mm long tarsometatarsus from a cock.52
The assemblage from the Ottoman Turkish palisade fort of Barcs located in South Hungary comprised remains from both sexes of the large chicken. Here, the chicken was the second best-represented species by 9.5% of the bones, following the overwhelming dominance of cattle remains (76.0%).53 This site even yielded evidence of a small and an extra-large type of chicken. The size of the former type was almost as small as the dimensions of present-day dwarf chickens. In contrast, the measurements of the extra-large type approached the sizes of Speckled Transylvanian Naked Neck chickens among the recent forms.
Interestingly, not only the frequency of chicken in the bone assemblage was similar at Visegrád-Alsóvár and the castle of Barcs, but the latter site also yielded a femur and a pelvis presenting an analogous hip joint inflammation, similar to the one illustrated in Fig. 4.54 Although the rate of pathological finds in bone materials usually increases with the assemblage size,55 no parallels can be drawn between the two assemblages owing to the complex etiology of bone inflammations.56
Conclusions
The 16th–17th bird bone assemblage recovered from Visegrád-Alsóvár is the most abundant and richest among the avian bone materials known from coeval rural sites in Hungary. In turn, it also resembles them in the scarcity of remains from wild birds suggesting that fowling was not practiced in villages in this period. The paucity of remains from mammalian game animals also supports the minor role of hunting at these sites.
Both the frequency and variety of domestic birds and the identification of females in lay from chicken and goose indicate the importance of fowl and egg in the diet of people at this site, a feature often noted in food remains of ethnic or religious populations whose eating habits prohibit the consumption of pork.
The presence of the domestic duck and pigeon, new poultry species compared both to the earlier rural site from Visegrád and the coeval villages in the country, suggest an advanced nature of poultry farming at Visegrád-Alsóvár during the Ottoman Period. This also seems to have been supported by the presence of a large type of chicken yet identified in Hungary only from a 15th century bishopric palace and a 16th–17th century castle inhabited by Ottoman army personnel.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to archaeologist István Kováts (Mátyás Király Museum, Visegrád) for the invitation to study the avian bones and information regarding the site. Zooarchaeologist Johanna Twigg is thanked for separating the bird remains from the rest of the animal bones, and sharing information on the archaeological contexts. I am grateful to zooarchaeologist László Bartosiewicz for introducing me to the statistical method of reduced major axis (RMA) regression and for his help in completing this analysis. Senior museologist Mihály Gasparik kindly provided access to the recent comparative bird bone collection housed at the Department of Geology and Palaeontology of the Natural History Museum of Hungary. I also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and linguistic corrections which improved the quality of the paper.
References
Bacher, A. (1967). Vergleichend morphologische Untersuchungen an Einzelknochen des postkranialen Skeletts in Mitteleuropa vorkommender Schwäne und Gänse. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der tiermedizinischen Doktorwürde der Tierarztlichcn Fakulät. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.
Baker, J. and Brothwell, D. (1980). Animal diseases in archaeology. Academic Press, London etc.
Bartosiewicz, L. (1984). Faunal material from the medieval cess-pool at Székesfehérvár–Sziget. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 12–13: 241–251.
Bartosiewicz, L. (1995). Archaeozoological studies from the Hahót Basin, SW Hungary. Antaeus, 22: 307–367.
Bartosiewicz, L. (2004). Data on the culture history of crows (Corvidae) in the Hungarian Middle Ages. In: Kovács, Gy. (Ed.), „Quasi liber et pictura”. Tanulmányok Kubinyi András hetvenedik születésnapjára. ELTE Régészettudományi Intézet, Budapest, pp. 37–45.
Baumel, J.J. (1993). Handbook of avian anatomy – Nomina anatomica avium, 2nd ed. Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge, MA.
Bökönyi, S. (1974). History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Bökönyi, S. and Jánossy, D. (1965). Szubfosszilis vadmadár-leletek Magyarországon (Subfossile Wildvogelfunde aus Ungarn). Vertebrata Hungarica, 7: 85–99.
Buzás, G. (2013). History of the Visegrád Royal Palace. In: Buzás, G., and Laszlovszky, J. (Eds.), The medieval royal palace at Visegrád. Archaeolingua, Series maior, 27. Archaeolingua, Budapest, pp. 17–140.
Collaert, A. (1617). Avium vivae icones. Anvers (reprint: Culture et Civilization, Bruxelles, 1967).
Daróczi-Szabó, M. (2009). Szendrő-Felsővár kora újkori állatcsontjainak vizsgálata (Early Modern Age animal remains from Szendrő-Felsővár, Hungary). In: Bartosiewicz, L., Gál, E., and Kováts, I. (Eds.), Csontvázak a szekrényből (Skeletons from the cupboard). Opitz Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 151–171.
von den Driesch, A. (1976). A guide to the measurements of animal bones from archaeological sites. Peabody Museum bulletins, 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Fick, O.K.W. (1974). Vergleichend morphologische Untersuchungen an Einzelknochen europäischer Taubenarten. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der tiermedizinischen Doktorwürde der Tierarztlichcn Fakulät. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.
Gál, E. (2005). Vogelfunde aus der Festung von Bajcsavár. In: Kramer, D. (Ed.), Auf Sand gebaut. Weitschawar / Bajcsa-Vár. Eine steirische Festung in Ungarn. Forschungen zur geschichtlichen Landeskunde der Steiermark, 48. Graz, pp. 120–124.
Gál, E. (2008). A székelykeresztúri késő középkori udvarház állatcsontleletei [Animal bone remains from the late medieval manor house at Székelykeresztúr]. In: Benkő, E., and Székely, A. (Eds.), Középkori udvarház a Székelyföldön. (Medieval manor house and nobility in Székelyland). Nap Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 301–355.
Gál, E. (2012). Állatcsontleletek a középkori Székelyföldről (Animal bones from the Szekler land in the Middle Ages) In: Benkő, E. (Ed.), A középkori Székelyföld, II. MTA BTK Régészeti Intézet, Budapest, pp. 663–750.
Gál, E. (2021a). Archaeozoological assessment of the refuse deposit of the archiepiscopal residence in Esztergom. Antaeus, 37: 421–472.
Gál, E. (2021b). Háziállatok és vadászott állatok a középkori Kárpát-medencében (Domestic and hunted animals in the medieval Carpathian Basin). In: Benkő, E. and Zatykó, Cs. (Eds.), A középkori Kárpát-medence környezettörténete (Environmental history of the medieval and early modern Carpathian Basin). Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Régészeti Intézet, Budapest, pp. 189–248.
Gál, E. and Bartosiewicz, L. (2016). Animal remains from the Ottoman-Turkish palisaded fort at Barcs, Southwest Hungary. In: Kovács, Gy. and Zatykó, Cs. (Eds.), “per sylvam et per lacus nimios”. The Medieval and Ottoman Period in Southern Transdanubia, Southwest Hungary: The contribution of the natural sciences. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of Archaeology, Budapest, pp. 181–252.
Gál, E. and Bartosiewicz, L. (2023). Integrating new prehistoric palaeopathological finds from Hungary. Animals, 13(12): 1994, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121994.
Haraszthy, L. (2022). Barna kánya – Milvus migrans. In: Haraszthy, L. and Bagyura, J. (Eds.), Magyarország ragadozómadarai és baglyai, 1: Vágómadár-alakúak. Magyar Madártani és Természetvédelmi Terület, Budapest, pp. 665–691.
Hume, R. (2003). Madárvilág Európában [Birds of Europe]. Panemex, Budapest.
Iván, L. (2010). Visegrád a török korban, 1526–1685 (Visegrád in the Turkish Period). Altum Castrum, 7: 25–47.
Jánossy, D. (1985). Wildvogelreste aus archäologischen Grabungen in Ungarn (Neolithikum bis Mittelalter). Fragmenta Mineralogica Palaeontologica, 12: 67–103.
Johnston, R. (2000). Pigeons. In: Kiple, K.F. and Ornelas, K.C. (Eds.), The Cambridge world history of food. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 561–565.
Kováts, I. (2009). XVI–XVII. századi megmunkált agancsleletek a visegrádi Alsóvárból (Worked antler finds from the 16th–17th century part of the Lower Castle in Visegrád, Hungary). In: Bartosiewicz, L., Gál, E., and Kováts, I. (Eds.), Csontvázak a szekrényből (Skeletons from the cupboard). Opitz Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 263–272.
Kováts, I. (2010). A hódoltság korának régészeti kutatása Visegrádon (Archaeological excavation of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sites in Visegrád). Altum Castrum, 7: 48–70.
Kőrösi, A. (2005). A székkutas-kápolnadűlői avar temető archaeozoológiai vizsgálata (Archäozoologische untersuchungen im Awarischen Gräberfeld von Székkutas-Kápolna dűlő). Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Studia Archaeologia, 11: 229–276.
Kőrösi, A. (2006). Szentkirály (Bács-Kiskun megye) késő középkori falu 2. gödöróljának állatcsontleletei (Animal bone finds from the pit-stall nr. 2 in the late medieval village of Szentkirály (Bács-Kiskun County). Studia Caroliensia, 3–4: 353–381.
Kőrösi, A. (2007). Tierknochenfunde der römischen Villa von Babarc. In: Fazekas, F. (Ed.), Die römische Siedlung bei Babarc, Komitat Baranya/Ungarn. Passauer Universitätsschriften für Archäologie, 12. Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh., Rahden-Westf., pp. 146–166.
Kőrösi, A. (2010). Felgyő, Ürmös-tanya avar temető állatcsontmellékletei (The animal remains from the Avar cemetery at Felgyő, Ürmös-tanya). Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve – Monumenta Archaeologica, 1: 393–426.
Laszlovszky, J. and Szende, K. (2014). Cities and towns as princely seats: Medieval Visegrad in the context of royal residences and urban development in Europe and Hungary. In: Buzás, G., Laszlovszky, J., and Mészáros, O. (Eds.), The medieval royal town at Visegrád. Royal centre, urban settlement, churches. Archaeolingua, Series maior, 32. Archaeolingua, Budapest, pp. 9–44.
Nyerges, É.Á. and Bartosiewicz, L. (2006). Szentkirály állattartása a középkori régészeti állattani adatok tükrében (Animal keeping at Szentkirály in light of archaeozoological data from the Middle Ages). Studia Caroliensia, 3–4: 331–352.
Pócs, É., Tóth, G.P., and Zombory, A. (2024). Hiedelemszövegek [Hungarian folk beliefs]. Online database of the ERC Project No 324 214. MTA BTK Néprajztudományi Intézet, Budapest, https://hiedelemszovegek.boszorkanykorok.hu/szo.html?szoId=2439 (Accessed on 21 June 2024).
Poland, J.G. (2018). A methodological approach to the identification of duck and goose remains from archaeological sites with an application to Roman Britain. PhD Dissertation. The University of Sheffield, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Sheffield.
Serjeantson, D. (2009). Birds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Szalai, G. and Hegyi, Z. (2022). Macskabagoly – Strix aluco. In: Haraszthy, L. and Bagyura, J. (Eds.), Magyarország ragadozómadarai és baglyai, 2: Sólyom-alakúak és bagoly-alakúak. Magyar Madártani és Természetvédelmi Terület, Budapest, pp. 105–125.
Twigg, J. (2012). Animal remains from Visegrád-Lower Castle. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 63: 197–220.
Vörös, I. (1988). Az ugodi vár középkori állatcsontmaradványai (Tierknochen aus dem Mittelalter in der Burg von Ugod). Pápai Múzeumi Értesítő, 1: 99–129.
Vörös, I. (1998). Későközépkori gabonásvermek állatcsont leletei a Csepel-szigeten (Animal bone remains from the late medieval grain storage pits on Csepel Island). Budapest Régiségei, 32: 323–328.
Williams, F. (1979). Reasoning with statistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York etc.
Woelfle, E. (1967). Vergleichend morphologische Untersuchungen an Einzelknochen des postcranialen Skelettes in Mitteleuropa vorkommender Enten, Halbgänse und Säger. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der tierrmedizinischen Doktorwürde der Tieräztlichen Fakultät. Ludwig-Maximilians-Uniwersität, München.
Appendix. Measurements (mm) of avian bones according to the standard by Angela von den Driesch.57 (a LM in the sternum and LS in the pelvis; b LP in the skull; c Dic in the scapula, Dip in the ulna and tibiotarsus; d Bb in the coracoideum; e BF in the coracoideum, Did in the ulna and carpometacarpus.
Skeletal part | Side | Note | GLa | Lmb | Bp | Dpc | SC | Bdd | Dde | Context |
Anser cf. domesticus | ||||||||||
ulna | sin | 16.1 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||||
ph alae | 37.2 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
femur | sin | female | 7.6 | 19.5 | 15.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
Anas cf. domestica | ||||||||||
clavicula | 40.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
coracoid | dex | 53.8 | 49.7 | 23.6 | 21.2 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
scapula | dex | 72.9 | 12.9 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
carpometacarpus | dex | 54.4 | 13.8 | 8.1 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||
femur | sin | 54.1 | 51.6 | 13.1 | 9.7 | 4.9 | 12.6 | 9.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |
tibiotarsus | dex | 92.8 | 16.1 | 5.0 | 10.2 | 11.6 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
tarsometatarsus | dex | 48.2 | 10.8 | 5.1 | 11.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
Gallus domesticus | ||||||||||
cranium | 36.6 | Squares 21–22 | ||||||||
cranium | 38.1 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
cranium | 39.0 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
mandibula | 49.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
mandibula | 50.7 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
mandibula | 52.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
clavicula | 54.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
clavicula | 55.5 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||||||
clavicula | 58.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
coracoid | dex | 51.1 | 48.5 | 14.2 | 11.4 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
coracoid | sin | 51.5 | 48.8 | 14.8 | 11.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
coracoid | sin | 58.1 | 55.2 | 16.0 | 13.0 | Squares 21–22 | ||||
scapula | dex | 64.0 | 11.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
scapula | sin | 64.6 | 11.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
scapula | sin | 65.0 | 10.4 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||||
scapula | sin | 68.9 | 11.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
humerus | dex | 60.0 | 17.6 | 5.6 | 13.0 | Squares 21–22 | ||||
humerus | sin | 63.2 | 18.2 | 6.2 | 13.4 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||
humerus | dex | 63.5 | 19.1 | 6.7 | ||||||
humerus | sin | 63.9 | 18.5 | 6.3 | 14.1 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||
humerus | sin | 64.0 | 17.9 | 6.1 | 13.6 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||
humerus | dex | 64.0 | 18.2 | 6.4 | 13.6 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||
humerus | sin | 64.4 | 18.7 | 6.2 | 14.2 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
humerus | sin | 65.3 | 19.0 | 6.2 | 14.1 | |||||
humerus | sin | 65.5 | 18.6 | 6.6 | 14.2 | Squares 21–22 | ||||
humerus | sin | 66.4 | 6.6 | 14.1 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||
humerus | dex | 66.5 | 17.8 | 5.8 | 14.3 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||
humerus | 67.7 | 19.3 | 7.8 | 14.7 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||||
humerus | dex | 68.0 | 18.5 | 6.5 | 14.2 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||
humerus | sin | 68.3 | 19.3 | 6.8 | 14.7 | Smelting workshop | ||||
humerus | sin | 71.8 | 21.2 | 7.1 | Squares 21–22 | |||||
humerus | dex | 17.9 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||||
humerus | dex | 18.3 | 6.5 | 13.7 | Smelting workshop | |||||
humerus | sin | 19.7 | 7.0 | Squares 21–22 | ||||||
humerus | sin | 6.2 | 13.0 | Smelting workshop | ||||||
humerus | dex | 6.3 | 13.5 | Squares 21–22 | ||||||
humerus | dex | 6.2 | 14.5 | |||||||
humerus | dex | 7.5 | 15.5 | Squares 21–22 | ||||||
radius | dex | 59.2 | 2.8 | 6.7 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||
radius | sin | 59.5 | 3.1 | 6.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||
radius | sin | 70.1 | 3.1 | 6.9 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||
radius | dex | 70.2 | 3.1 | 6.9 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||
ulna | sin | 62.5 | 8.5 | 12.1 | 4.3 | 8.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
ulna | dex | 62.7 | 8.5 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 8.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
ulna | dex | 64.4 | 8.7 | 12.6 | 4.2 | 9.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
ulna | dex | 65.5 | 8.9 | 12.1 | 3.7 | 8.7 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
ulna | sin | 75.7 | 10.3 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 10.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
ulna | dex | 8.6 | 12.2 | 3.8 | Smelting workshop | |||||
ulna | sin | 9.0 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||||
carpometacarpus | dex | 34.1 | 30.1 | 11.2 | 6.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
carpometacarpus | dex | 35.6 | 31.0 | 11.6 | 6.6 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
femur | dex | 69.3 | 64.5 | 14.6 | 10.0 | 5.7 | 13.7 | 11.0 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |
femur | sin | 69.5 | 65.7 | 14.2 | 9.6 | 6.0 | 13.1 | 11.0 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |
femur | dex | 70.6 | 66.3 | 14.5 | 9.6 | 6.0 | 13.5 | 11.8 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |
femur | sin | 73.3 | 68.1 | 15.3 | 9.8 | 6.3 | 14.4 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||
femur | sin | 75.8 | 69.3 | 15.7 | 10.8 | 5.7 | 14.4 | 12.0 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |
femur | sin | 75.9 | 69.8 | 15.6 | 10.2 | 5.8 | 14.5 | 11.8 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |
femur | dex | female | 5.9 | 13.9 | 11.1 | Smelting workshop | ||||
femur | dex | 16.2 | 13.7 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||||
tibiotarsus | dex | 91.1 | 17.4 | 4.8 | 10.3 | 10.4 | ||||
tibiotarsus | dex | 95.5 | 18.9 | 5.2 | 10.2 | 10.2 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 95.5 | 19.0 | 5.6 | 11.1 | 11.0 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 97.1 | 17.8 | 5.2 | 10.0 | 10.4 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 97.6 | 18.3 | 5.1 | 10.1 | 10.6 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 98.5 | 19.5 | 5.2 | 10.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||
tibiotarsus | sin | 102.2 | 20.6 | 6.1 | 11.4 | 11.6 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 102.4 | 20.8 | 5.8 | 11.5 | 11.5 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 102.7 | 18.1 | 5.7 | 10.3 | 11.1 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 104.2 | 19.0 | 5.3 | 11.2 | 10.8 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 104.8 | 19.2 | 5.4 | 11.3 | 10.9 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 106.8 | 20.5 | 5.3 | 11.4 | 11.9 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 107.1 | 20.3 | 5.4 | 11.0 | 12.0 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 107.2 | 20.7 | 5.9 | 11.0 | 11.7 | Squares 21–22 | |||
tibiotarsus | dex | 115.0 | 23.1 | 6.6 | 12.0 | 12.5 | ||||
tibiotarsus | dex | 116.7 | 21.8 | 6.7 | 11.8 | 12.2 | Squares 21–22 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 120.4 | 23.3 | 6.8 | 12.7 | 12.8 | ||||
tibiotarsus | dex | 19.1 | 5.2 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
tibiotarsus | dex | 5.4 | 10.2 | 11.1 | Squares 21–22 | |||||
tibiotarsus | sin | 5.5 | 10.3 | 10.6 | ||||||
tibiotarsus | dex | 5.7 | 11.2 | 12.0 | ||||||
tibiotarsus | sin | female | 6.6 | 11.5 | 12.1 | |||||
tarsometatarsus | sin | female | 64.7 | 11.7 | 5.4 | 11.6 | 8.7 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | female | 65.3 | 11.8 | 5.6 | 12.3 | 9.3 | Smelting workshop | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | female | 65.6 | 11.4 | 5.6 | 12.1 | 9.3 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | sin | female | 67.0 | 12.2 | 5.6 | 12.2 | 9.0 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | female | 67.3 | 12.8 | 5.8 | 12.6 | 10.0 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | sin | female | 68.3 | 12.3 | 5.3 | 12.9 | 9.1 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | female | 69.0 | 11.8 | 5.5 | 12.0 | 8.1 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | sin | female | 70.0 | 12.5 | 6.2 | 13.2 | 9.9 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||
tarsometatarsus | sin | male | 73.6 | 13.5 | 6.7 | 13.7 | 8.6 | |||
tarsometatarsus | dex | male | 74.5 | 14.1 | 7.1 | 14.8 | 9.0 | Smelting workshop | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | male | 74.8 | 13.7 | 6.4 | 13.4 | 10.4 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | male | 77.5 | 15.0 | 6.9 | 14.5 | 11.1 | |||
tarsometatarsus | dex | male | 78.9 | 13.7 | 6.7 | 14.4 | 10.3 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | dex | male | 83.0 | 14.1 | 7.4 | 14.4 | 10.3 | Squares 21–22 | ||
tarsometatarsus | sin | 11.5 | 5.8 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
tarsometatarsus | sin | 11.9 | 5.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
tarsometatarsus | dex | 12.1 | 5.4 | Squares 21–22 | ||||||
Columba cf. domestica | ||||||||||
sternum | 63.2 | Smelting workshop, 4–5–6 | ||||||||
Coloeus monedula | ||||||||||
clavicula | 31.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||||
scapula | sin | 39.1 | 8.7 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||||||
pelvis | 31.0 | 13.5 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||||||
femur | dex | 37.7 | 35.6 | 7.9 | 3.6 | 7.9 | 6.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||
femur | sin | 37.9 | 35.6 | 7.9 | 3.6 | 8.0 | 6.3 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | ||
tibiotarsus | dex | 66.2 | 9.8 | 3.0 | 6.4 | 5.9 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
tibiotarsus | sin | 66.3 | 10.0 | 3.1 | 6.4 | 5.9 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
tarsometatarsus | dex | 43.6 | 7.4 | 2.7 | 5.4 | 3.1 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 | |||
tarsometatarsus | sin | 43.8 | 7.4 | 2.7 | 5.7 | 3.0 | Workplace 63/20, VIII 8–9 |
Kováts (2009) 263.
Baumel (1993) 162.
Bacher (1967) 71–74.
Poland (2018) Appendix 5, 911.
Bacher (1967) 69–74.
Serjeantson (2009) 298.
Poland (2018) Appendix 4.
Fick (1974) 44–47.
Hume (2003) (232); Serjeantson (2009) 305.
Kőrösi (2007) 160.
Kőrösi (2005) 233; Kőrösi (2010) 402.
Gál (2021a) 440–441, Fig. 15.
Hume (2003) 233.
Gál (2021b) Appendix 9.
Gál (2021b) Appendix 7.
Hume (2003) 368.
Bökönyi (1974) 431.
Bökönyi (1974) 424.
Jánossy (1985) 75.
Bökönyi (1974) 426.
Bökönyi (1974) 427–429.
Jánossy (1985) Plate 1/9.
Bökönyi (1974) 428.
Twigg (2012) 203, Table 1.
Gál (2021b); Twigg (2012) 212.
Gál (2021b) Appendix 1.
Gál (2021b) 191, Figure 2.
Bartosiewicz (1984) 171; Daróczi-Szabó (2009) 151.
Vörös (1998) 324–325.
Gál and Bartosiewicz (2016) 198, Fig. 14.
Gál and Bartosiewicz (2023) Fig. 10.
Baker and Brothwell (1980) 63–68.