Mohács Battlefield Survey-The Lessons Learned from the First National Archaeological Metal Detecting Rally (original) (raw)
Related papers
Heritage experts are debating over the use of metal detectors since its appearance. We still cannot talk about the widespread use of such devices in archaeological field surveys in Hungary, including, unfortunately, archaeological excavations. However, illegal metal detecting is still widespread and causes great harm to national cultural heritage in spite of recent legal changes. Hungarian archaeologists struggle to oppose this trend through individual initiatives and with the help of " museum-friendly " metal detector hobbyists. The aim of our initiative to explore the Mohács battlefield was, in addition to the anticipated professional results, to create a platform for these cooperations and to provide an opportunity to get to know each other and each other's methods.
2017
European University organised a round-table discussion. Many people are interested in searching for archaeological treasures, and the metal detector is one of the modern tools that can be used for this purpose. Yet not everyone is permitted to work with metal-detecting instruments. For private individuals, seeking finds at archaeological sites is actually illegal because, as they collect the items they seek, they destroy the sites. Only archaeologists are permitted to move objects at archaeological sites, and even they may only do so with a permit and with appropriate documentation. At the same time, the profession of archaeology has recognised the possible role that metal detectors and their highly-skilled amateur operators can play in modern research. The conversation concerned the new situation created by an amendment to the legislation regulating heritage protection, which has created an opportunity for amateur metal-detector operators to participate in archaeological research, and there are already several good examples of that form of cooperation. We invited to join the discussion archaeologists, museum managers and metal detector operators with experience and results in this field, whose collaboration may serve as an example for similar future initiatives.
HUNGARIAN ARCHAEOLOGY METAL-DETECTOR SURVEYS IN HUNGARY New projects and results
2017
European University organised a round-table discussion. Many people are interested in searching for archaeological treasures, and the metal detector is one of the modern tools that can be used for this purpose. Yet not everyone is permitted to work with metal-detecting instruments. For private individuals, seeking finds at archaeological sites is actually illegal because, as they collect the items they seek, they destroy the sites. Only archaeologists are permitted to move objects at archaeological sites, and even they may only do so with a permit and with appropriate documentation. At the same time, the profession of archaeology has recognised the possible role that metal detectors and their highly-skilled amateur operators can play in modern research. The conversation concerned the new situation created by an amendment to the legislation regulating heritage protection, which has created an opportunity for amateur metal-detector operators to participate in archaeological research, ...
Mohacs_battlefield_survey_-_the_lesson_l.pdf
Heritage experts are debating over the use of metal detectors since its appearance. 6 We still cannot talk about the widespread use of such devices in archaeological field surveys in Hungary, including, unfortunately, archaeological excavations. 7 However, illegal metal detecting is still widespread and causes great harm to national cultural heritage in spite of recent legal changes. Hungarian archaeologists struggle to oppose this trend through individual initiatives and with the help of "museum-friendly" metal detector hobbyists. The aim of our initiative to explore the Mohács battlefield was, in addition to the anticipated professional results, to create a platform for these cooperations and to provide an opportunity to get to know each other and each other's methods .
Hungarian Archaeology, 2020
The defeat of the Hungarian forces at the battle of Muhi was a key historical episode, since it opened the country to the Mongol invasion. This event had complex consequences that have not yet been fully clarified regarding the further development of Hungarian society and its economy. The identification of the site of the battlefield has contributed to the better understanding of the events of 11 April 1241. The known course of events has been established through subjective written sources that were often based on indirect information. The identification of certain elements of the battle can provide new information, since it may be possible to reconstruct the tactical options provided to the leadership of the Hungarian and Mongolian forces by the geographical circumstances and how the location influenced the outcome of the battle. The research on the battlefield of Muhi gained momentum through the assistance of volunteers associated with a number of museums using metal detectors. In this article, we investigate the following question: what kind of opportunities does community archaeology provide in the interdisciplinary investigation of an Árpád Period (1000-1301) battlefield, and what kind of practical and methodological problems face research using metal detectors?
Since metal detecting started in Austria in 1970, the National Heritage Agency (BDA) has focussed too much on prohibiting metal detecting. The strategy chosen, increasingly restrictive legislation, has turned out to be a failure. Rather than improving the protection of archaeological heritage from ‚unauthorised‘ metal detecting, the ‚hobby‘ has grown steadily. Yet, the changes to the law have made protecting archaeology more difficult and are restricting civil liberties, quite possibly making the law itself illegal. Five decades on, Austrian archaeology isn‘t better off, but considerably worse, and it is mainly our attempts to prevent metal detecting that are to blame.
2019
The legacy of the Late Bronze Age communities populating the Carpathian Basin between the fourteenth and tenth centuries BC represents the perhaps most colourful and numerous range of artefacts before the Roman conquest. These peoples transformed the landscape on a previously unprecedented scale with the erection of tumuli over their burials and the construction of monumental hillforts; they drew previously unbroken land into cultivation and founded many dozens of new settlements deep in the forest-covered hills and mountains. Their most spectacular relics are the hoards containing a dazzling array of bronze and gold articles, whose deposition and concealment has fuelled incessant debates for over a century. We now know that the assemblages containing valuable weapons, jewellery and a variety of tools and implements were assembled according to specific cultural norms. Each of these hoards has a different story to tell: some preserve the memory of journeys to distant lands, spectacular rituals and sumptuous feasts, others evoke the toils of daily life and bloody wars. The widespread deposition and concealment of hoards is solely attested in Bronze Age Europe during the second millennium BC – a similar practice is unknown during other periods in the history of Europe or on other continents. The research team headed by the author has systematically visited the known Bronze Age sites of Hungary and conducted metal detecting surveys in order to locate and salvage as many as possible of the Bronze Age treasures still hidden in the ground. This book offers a fascinating glimpse into this long bygone age through the discovered hoards, bringing us closer to the peoples who buried them and the possible events behind their concealment.
In Part One, we have outlined the evaluative system and preparation of preliminary archaeological documentation (henceforth: PAD), as well as the methodological possibilities of site-detection and analysis. In this part, we are going to address the difficulties due to professional, legal and other limitations, as well as failures resulting from these limitations or from other (subjective) factors. Nonetheless, we are on the opinion that the provision of preventive archaeology met the expectations set by legal regulations: heritage services prior to large-scale investments became plannable. Additionally, the results of excavations subsequent to the preparation of archaeological assessments significantly increased our knowledge on the potential archaeological sites, instigating several debates and considerations concerning methodological and theoretical aspects of archaeological prospection and site detection. DIFFICULTIES AND FAILURES The greatest difficulty in preparing PADs is when investigations substantiated by professional arguments cannot be carried out, or only partially. In Part One (Reményi, 2019), we outlined the practice of field-walking , and the limitations of aerial reconnaissence and geophysical surveys: field walking and aerial reconnais-sence are ineffective in built-up areas, or when the vegetation period is not suitable for observations to be made. The effectiveness of geophysical surveys is influenced by different limiting factors arising from soil conditions and the evenness of the surface: in case of uneven surfaces (e.g. ploughing), or when the area is much littered with metallic waste, the data from the magnetometer survey become too noisy and unreadable. Trial trenching faces similar difficulties. In those areas which had been built-up, paved, or dissected by public utility lines, it is generally not possible to carry out trial trenching, or it is unlikely to obtain representative data. In regard to these problems, § 39 Section 2 of the government decree no. 68/2018 underlines that trial trenching should take place only when unfavourable circumstances had been eliminated. However, in case of built-up areas this would imply the demolition of standing buildings. In the course of such projects-particularly when the respective buildings were cellared-it is already possible to find (and damage) cultural layers, including archaeological features, thus one would be able to clarify whether the demolition works pose a threat to the preservation of archaeological heritage, and there would be no need to subsequently schedule trial trenching. In these instances, the sole option-as proposed in PADs-is the excavation of the archaeological features which had been recovered during the demolition works. A similar situation occurs when the technology of the construction does not allow trial trenching, e.g. in case of railway renovations. Since the length of these interventions is minimized in order to avoid train stoppage, there is generally not enough time for trial trenching. However, archaeological features are likely to turn up during the replacement of old railways and banks, thus-with the exception of a few sites where there are already sufficient data available from earlier research-a watching brief is the method of assessment usually proposed. In most cases, this does not pose any practical problem for the archaeologists; however , as excavations within the frames of watching briefs cannot be planned in advance, the assessments would not significantly improve the planning process, but merely underline the risks involved concerning the preservation of archaeological heritage. The feasibility of PADs is only minimally or not influenced by weather conditions. When trial trenching is carried out in inappropriate seasons of the year, or in bad weather conditions, it is still possible to assess the risks involved. On the other hand, such conditions would not allow carrying out excavations according to desirable standards (Fig. 1).