The Bone Objects of the Roman Collection

An unlucky, impoverishing misunderstanding of our discipline is the idea that expects all issues to be solved by excavations – while there are such masses of unexplored find materials in our museums which may, in fact, provide us with important perceptions. Ever since in Hungary the unearthing of Roman sites is being carried, on the masses of fragmentary finds are continuously and boundlessly increasing and remaining unpublished. Certain groups of relics are entirely left out of investigations while from other groups only the finer pieces were published. There is no such group of relics which can boast with its material wholly published. Hungarian archaeologists have to re-discover the significance of museum catalogues and corpuses, genres tending towards dying out. These ideas were Professor András Mócsy's most frequently emphasized methodical admonitions in his last years to his students, to those engaged in Pannonian provincial archaeology. The bone catalogue of the Hungarian National Museum wishes to fill in this more than hundred year's hiatus. The oldest piece of the catalogue has come to the possession of the Museum from Vecel, Hunyad County, in 1869. The first step in the retrospective exploration of finds is their distinction and ranging into groups according to their material and technique. If we step over this typological phase then, inevitably, we must fall into the trap of arbitrary and inconsiderate interpretations. From the aspects of future distinction the first is the interpretation of the one time employment and destination of these archaeological relics. The present catalogue contains the Roman bone carvings of the Hungarian National Museum ranged according to their function. These groups created according to the employment of finds is followed by the descriptive part of the catalogue and by the plates with the figures giving graphic representations. All the finds are represented in life size and the figure numbers agree at the same time with the catalogue item of the descriptive part. The arranging method of the corpus is the one time employment of the respective find. Consequently, besides presenting data, the primary aim of my present contribution was to determine the archaeological finds functionally – it was within this that I have touched on technique and typology built on it. I did not undertake to date the finds unless there was a coin present that dated the respective object. I have avoided to date objects only on the basis of parallels because this – due to the disastrous lack of accessible international literature of the field in our libraries – would be simply the haphazard listing of analogies, further increasing uncertainty. I was more daring in reconstructing the carvings because here faults in determination will be more easily rectified when new data emerge. Owing to the acquisition sources of the Collection, too, its character is unsuitable for more than denoting the historical problems of dating and of local workshops. These bone carvings have accumulated in the Hungarian National Museum during roughly 150 years. They were partly purchased from occasional or professional art collectors or agents, partly have come from rescue excavations, and last, but not least they are preserved as the legacies of secular or ecclesiastical personalities. Three quarters of the carvings from Szőny are finds purchased from private persons like at the end of the 1800s M. Weisz, A. Spöttl, J. Radók, J. Cseley, J. Marossy and M. Sándor while from the 1930s J. Petrovics and Mrs. J. Czlenner are mentioned by the inventories. A large part of the relics was unearthed in the course of building the railway line cutting through the Castrum of Brigetio. The majority of bone carvings has come from the camps of the limes like Brigetio (Szőny), Azaum (Almásfüzitő), Castra ad Herculem (Pilismarót), Ulcisia Castra (Szentendre), Aquincum (Óbuda), Campona (Nagytétény), Matrica (Százhalombatta-Dunafüred), Intercisa (Dunapentele). Even the finds registered from camps of the limes are in a minor part results of excavations. At Szőny it is only A. Radnóti's material from the cremation cemetery of Sörházkert opened in 1940-1942 together with his probes carried on in the area of the Castrum and L. Barkóczi's finds from the beginning of the 1950s that come from authentic excavations. This amounts to 20 per cents of all carvings from Szőny at best. Apart from the excavations at Szőny we have knowledge of E. Thomas' and A. Mócsy's rescue excavations at Százhalombatta respectively those of F. Fülep carried on at Nagytétény and Almásfüzitő. The bone carvings from Dunapentele are the only ones coming entirely from excavations. This is however but a fragment of the huge find material preserved today in the Museum of Dunaújváros. From excavations at Őrhely carried on by A. Hekler and E. Mahler primarily stone relics were published respectively the lute being a prominently interesting, representative find. Even later M. Alföldi's bone catalogue has laid in most cases more stress on descriptions, therefore it is now for the first time that the bone carvings of these excavations are actually presented in this catalogue. From within the province we should lay stress on A. Radnóti's explorations at Ságvár, Tömlöchegy. The other objects have mostly come to the possession of the Collection from purchases at the end of the last century from Keszthely, Kanizsa and Csákberény. Lastly, from our sites mention must be made of the geographical units which has been parts of the one-time Austro–Hungarian Monarchy respectively of historical Hungary like Sziszek, Pancsova, Vecel, Torda and Petronell. Here I should like to hint at the geographical names; I have registered all objects with the geographical name used at the time of the excavation respectively the acquisition. The present catalogue is completed by a detailed list of geographical names giving both the present name and their Latin administrative name prevailing in the province of Pannónia....