ANNALES MUSEI DE HERMAN OTTÓ NOMINATI
A HERMAN OTTÓ MÚZEUM
ÉVKÖNYVE
LVI.
MISKOLC
2017
Jahrbuch des Herman Ottó Museums, Miskolc (Ungarn)
Yearbook of the Herman Ottó Museum, Miskolc (Hungary)
Les Annales du Musée Herman Ottó, Miskolc (Hongrie)
Szerkesztette:
SZOLYÁK PÉTER, CSENGERI PIROSKA
Olvasószerkesztő:
BÉKÉSI GÁBOR
Technikai szerkesztő:
JUHÁSZ TIBOR
ISSN 0544–4225
Borítóterv:
FEKETE RÓBERT, SZOLYÁK PÉTER
A tanulmányokat lektorálta:
Bardoly István, Csejdy Júlia, P. Fischl Klára, Gyulai Éva, Pap József, Simon Zoltán, Szőcs Tibor, Torbágyi Melinda
Angol fordítás:
Medve Csaba és a szerzők
Borítóképek (balról jobbra):
1. Bronz tokos balta Göncről / Bronze socketed axe from Gönc (Rajz: / Drawn by Tarbay, Anna Mária)
2. A templom a kastéllyal és a kastélypark részletével az 1867-es kataszteri térképen. ALSÓ KÉKED falu
Magyarországban, Abaúj megye, Zsadányi adóhivatal. 1867. 2. szelvény. Alsó Kéked K.o. XXIII. 17. oszt.
ce. (részlet). / The church along with the mansion and a section of the mansion park on the 1867 cadastral map. ALSÓ
KÉKED village, Hungary, Abaúj County, Zsadány tax office. 1867. section 2. Alsó Kéked K.o. XXIII. 17. oszt.ce. (excerpt).
3. Ferdinandy Tihamér és felesége (Bartóky Mária leánya). Veres József felvétele, 1930-as évek vége. (HOM
Fotótörténeti Gyűjtemény) / Tihamér Ferdinandy and his wife (Mária Bartóky’s daughter). Photo by József Veres,
late 1930s. (HOM Photo Archive)
A kötet megjelenését a Nemzeti Kulturális Alap Közgyűjtemények Kollégiuma támogatta.
Kiadja a miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum
Felelős kiadó: Dr. Tóth Arnold PhD, múzeumigazgató
A kötet megjelenését gondozta és a nyomdai előkészítést végezte:
Á. Tóth és Barátai Produkciós és Reklámügynökség Kft.
Felelős vezető: Á. Tóth József ügyvezető igazgató
Nyomda és kötészet: Kapitális Nyomdaipari Kft., Debrecen
Felelős vezető: Kapusi József ügyvezető igazgató
TARTALOM
RÉGÉSZET
TARBAY, János Gábor
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc ..................................................................................................................9
SIMON László
„Kincs, ami nincs” – Esettanulmány a meg yaszói római éremleletről ................................................................................29
SOÓS, Eszter–BÁRÁNY, Annamária–KÖHLER, Kitti–PUSZTAI, Tamás
Settlement and graves from Hernádvécse (NE-Hungary) in the 5th century AD:
relation of living space and burial place in the Hun Period ................................................................................................49
TÖRTÉNETTUDOMÁNY
KÁDÁR Tamás
Eg y megkésett tartományuraság-építési kísérlet a XIV. század eleji Mag yarországon:
Petenye fia Péter pályája ....................................................................................................................................................99
OLAJOS Csaba
A Kapyak ősi kúriája – A tállyai Maillot-kastély......................................................................................................... 113
BOCSI Zsófia–FAZEKAS Gyöngyi–GIBER Mihály–SZILÁGYI Krisztián Antal
Adatok a kékedi római katolikus templom történetéhez .................................................................................................129
SZALIPSZKI Péter
(Füzér)Komlós története a 19. század második felében ....................................................................................................165
BODNÁR Mónika
Üvegnegatívok Bódvavendégiből 2 – Péchy Gáspárné Bartóky Mária élete és munkássága ..............................................187
HAJDÚ Ildikó
Száz év a heg yaljai szövetkezetek életében .......................................................................................................................201
KÖZLEMÉNYEK
VIGA Gyula
A részben az egész: Balassa Iván regionális kutatásai Északkelet-Mag yarországon.......................................................221
Szerzői útmutató ..................................................................................................................................................................229
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARCHAEOLOGY
TARBAY, János Gábor
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc ..................................................................................................................9
SIMON, László
"Fool's Gold" - A case study of a Roman era coin find from Meg yaszó.............................................................................29
SOÓS, Eszter–BÁRÁNY, Annamária–KÖHLER, Kitti–PUSZTAI, Tamás
Settlement and graves from Hernádvécse (NE-Hungary) in the 5th century AD:
relation of living space and burial place in the Hun Period ................................................................................................49
HISTORY
KÁDÁR, Tamás
A late attempt at sovereign province-building in early XIV century Hungary:
the career of Péter, son of Petenye........................................................................................................................................99
OLAJOS, Csaba
The ancient Kapy mansion - the Maillot Castle of Tállya ................................................................................................ 113
BOCSI, Zsófia–FAZEKAS, Gyöngyi–GIBER, Mihály–SZILÁGYI, Krisztián Antal
Additional data to the history of the Roman Catholic church at Kéked ............................................................................129
SZALIPSZKI, Péter
The history of (Füzér)Komlós in the second half of the 19th century .................................................................................165
BODNÁR, Mónika
Glass Negatives from Bódvavendégi the Life and Work of Mária Bartóky ......................................................................187
HAJDÚ, Ildikó
A hundred years in the lives of cooperatives in Heg yalja ..................................................................................................201
ARTICLES
VIGA, Gyula
The whole in its parts: The regional research of Iván Balassa in northeastern Hungary ....................................................221
Author's guide ......................................................................................................................................................................229
A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve LVI (2017), 9–28.
NEW LATE BRONZE AGE METAL FINDS FROM GÖNC
Tarbay, János Gábor
Hungarian National Museum, Archaeological Department
Abstract: In 2018, thirty bronze artefacts were presented to the Herman Ottó Museum from a private collection. According to the
collector the artefacts were found in Gönc as part of a hoard. The study discusses the dating of the finds and their technological
properties. As a results of these analyses it seems that the finds can be dated between the Br D and Ha B1 periods of the Late Bronze
Age, of the Late Bronze Age, and one of them is most likely an ethnographic find.
Keywords: Late Bronze Age (Ha A-Ha B1), uncertain hoard, typo-chronology, use-wear, private collection
INTRODUCTION
On January 2018, the famous Bronze Age collection of
the Herman Ottó Museum, Miskolc has increased with
thirty new bronze artefacts (Inv. Nos. 2018.1–31). The
finds originate from a private collection and according
to their previous owner, the artefacts a multi-period site
near Gönc (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County). This new
site is going to be investigated in the future by colleagues
from both the museum and the ELTE Institute of
Archaeological Sciences.1 The aim of this brief study
is to give a summary on the finds and characterize
them with the aid of macroscopic observations and
also discuss their typo-chronological position.
The 30 bronze objects are made up of a sword, three
socketed axes, eleven tanged and knobbed sickles, a
cast object with disc-shaped head, a button and twelve
rings of different types (Plates 1–5). Both macroscopic
observations and the typological analysis suggest that
not all the finds could have been part of the same
assemblage. Although most objects can be dated to
the Late Bronze Age (LBA), their exact chronological
position varies, some are characteristic to the time
interval between the Br D and Ha A1, others can be
1 Gönc lies in the area of Telkibánya where the actions of a
group systematically performing illegal metal detector surveys
resulted in the looting of the prominent LBA site in TelkibányaCserhegy (V. Szabó 2011, 339). For the protection of the site
in Gönc area, here I will not discuss the exact topographic
position of the finds. For more information see the Notes
in the Archaeological Inventory Book of the Herman Otto
Museum, Miskolc, Hungary.
dated to the Ha A1 or to the Ha B1 periods. Most finds
are too common to be accurately dated within the Late
Bronze Age, and a ring is likely to be identified as an
ethnographic find (Cat. No. 30, Inv. No. 2018.1.31).2
CATALOGUE
1. sword (Inv. No. 2018.1.8): Rhomboid-sectioned
sword tip with outline grooves. According to the private
collector it was found broken into three pieces. Two
fragments were lost, and only one remained. The lower
part of the tip is missing due to recent breakage, the
upper part was altered by plow-damage. Its surface is
well-polished, and the cutting edges are sharp with
many blade impacts on one side (See Plate 6. 1). It might
be a result of intentional prehistoric damage caused by
a sharp-edged tool. Length: 67.09 mm; Width: 31.48
mm; Thickness: 6.21 mm; Weight: 34.2 g. (Plate 1. 1)
2. socketed axe (Inv. No. 2018.1.17): Intact, ovalsectioned socketed axe with asymmetrical beaked mouth
and a loop. Three curved, cast ribs are visible below
the bevelled and everted rim. The casting seams were
completely removed, only a slight mismatch defect can
be seen on one side of the tool. Due to the condition
2 I am not aware of comparable Bronze Age finds. According to
Zsuzsa Hajnal (Hungarian National Museum, Archaeological
Department), similar ribbed rings with the same rasping marks
are common in the Hungarian ethnographic material.
10
Tarbay, János Gábor
of the object, finer technological marks could not be
observed. The cutting edge is straight. The overall
morphological characteristics of the find suggests a
finished product. Length: 95.06 mm; Width (wide sides):
41.44 mm, 21.83 mm, 37.64 mm; Width (narrow sides):
25.15 mm, 15.08 mm, 2.84 mm; Thickness (rim): 2.93
mm, 3.03 mm; Thickness (loop): 3.68 mm; Depth of
the socket: 5.3 mm, Weight: 88.1 g. (Plate 1. 2)
3. socketed axe (Inv. No. 2018.1.16): Lower part of
a socketed axe with curved hexagonal section. Fine
hammer marks can be macroscopically observed along
all sides of the blade (See Plate 7. 1.1–1.2). The cutting
edge is asymmetrical and sharpened (See Plate 7. 2).
Plow-damage can be seen on the surface of the artefact.
Its breakage surface has shown porosity, core shift and
slight bending marks. Length: 67.93 mm; Width (wide
sides): 38.04 mm, 53.74 mm; Width (narrow sides): 24.08
mm, 2.74 mm; Thickness (wall): 3.82 mm, 2.36 mm;
Weight: 180.7 g. (Plate 2. 3)
4. socketed axe (Inv. No. 2018.1.14): Lower part of
a socketed axe with curved rectangular cross-section.
Fine hammer marks can be observed macroscopically on
the blade. The cutting edge is rounded and sharpened.
Object has shown traces of plow-damage. Core shift
defect and porosity can be seen along the breakage
surface. Length: 70.83 mm; Width (wide sides): 35.76
mm, 62.39 mm; Width (narrow sides): 24.13 mm, 2.05
mm; Thickness (wall): 3.87 mm, 5.29 mm; Weight:
246.6 g. (Plate 2. 4)
5. socketed axe (Inv. No. 2018.1.15): Lower part
of a socketed axe with slightly rounded cutting edge.
One blow mark and several notches on both sides
can be seen on the fragment. Some notches are near
to the breakage point, these are likely to be identified
as prehistoric (See Plate 6. 6). Hammer marks can be
observed along the edge. The edge is dull (See Plate 6.
5). Length: 37.35 mm; Width (wide sides): 43.09 mm,
55.61 mm; Width (narrow sides): 13.50 mm, 2.12 mm;
Weight: 85.4 g. (Plate 3. 5)
6. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.3): Tanged sickle with
a spur. Its straight base is amorphous and incomplete
due to a casting defect (See Plate 7. 4). The inner tang rib
is straight, the outer is continuous towards to the blade’s
back. The central tang rib is straight and crossed by
three smaller ones at the height of the spur. A blurred
inner blade rib is also visible. Hammer marks were
observed on the sprue, on the base and along the edge.
Recent notches can be seen along the cutting edge. The
sickle was deposited in a broken, folded state, and it
was straightened out later as the cracking marks on the
backside suggest. Length (in folded state): 94.66 mm;
Overall length: ca. 10.3 mm; Overall width: 58.11
mm; Width (base, tang, tang with sprue): 23–78 mm,
25.15 mm, 34.69 mm; Thickness (tang): 3.65 mm, 2.30
mm; Thickness (blade): 4.44 mm, 2.08 mm, 1.43 mm;
Weight: 58 g. (Plate 3. 6)
7. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.1): Blade fragment
of a tanged sickle with thick outer rib. There are two
inner blade ribs, joined in an arch, which is incomplete
due to casting defect (Plate 6. 3). Near to the defective
rib part, shrinkage porosity can be seen on the surface,
which continues to the lower parts of the edge and can
also be observed on the back side and on the breakage
surface as well. Despite the defects, fine hammer marks
were visible along the cutting edge as well as on the
outer and inner ribs. The middle part is cracked. Length:
91.32 mm; Width: 39.49 mm; Width (blade): 30.59 mm;
Thickness: 7.68 mm, 1.85 mm; Weight: 59.4 g. (Plate 3. 7)
8. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.9): Blade fragment
of a tanged sickle with thick outer and one inner rib.
The blade is narrow and hammer marks can be seen
near its edge. The chased pattern on the outer rib
shows traces of intensive abrasion (See Plate 6. 2). Recent
damage caused by modern edged tool or ploughing
can be seen in the middle. Length: 64.89 mm; Width:
27.98 mm; Width (blade): 24.61 mm; Thickness: 4.42
mm, 0.64 mm; Weight: 23.8 g. (Plate 3. 8).
9. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.10): Tip fragment
of a tanged sickle with thick outer and one inner rib.
Both are flattened due to hammering. The cutting edge
is fragmentary. Length: 62.99 mm; Width: 21.06 mm;
Width (blade): 20.06 mm; Thickness: 3.09 mm, 0.50
mm; Weight: 12.7 g. (Plate 3. 9)
10. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.7): Tip fragment
of a tanged sickle with sharp outer and inner ribs.
The inner rib is slightly amorphous due to a casting
defect. The cutting edge is fragmentary, only part of it
remained intact, showing hammering and sharpening
marks. Length: 77.18 mm; Width: 25.05 mm; Width
(blade): 22.77 mm; Thickness: 4.30 mm, 1.40 mm;
Weight: 23.8 g. (Plate 3. 10)
11. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.5): Tip fragment
of a tanged sickle with facetted surface and one slightly
hammered and rounded outer rib. The blade is wide,
and its cutting edge is fragmentary. Minor flash defect
is visible on the tip of the tool. Amateur cleaning can
be seen on the backside. The object is broken and
slightly bent. Length: 96.05 mm; Width: 41.63 mm;
Width (blade): 36.58 mm; Thickness: 5.07 mm, 1.42
mm; Weight: 27.7 g. (Plate 4. 11)
12. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.4): Blade fragment
of a tanged sickle. Its outer rib is blurred due to intensive
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
abrasion. The cutting edge is hammered and narrow.
Tool marks can be seen near the breakage point of the
object, at the back side (See Plate 6. 7). Length: 55.94 mm;
Width: 32.50 mm; Width (blade): 29.40 mm; Thickness:
4.28 mm, 0.77 mm; Weight: 27.3 g. (Plate 4. 12)
13. tanged sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.11): Tip fragment of
a tanged sickle. The outer rib is hammered and intensively
polished due to abrasion. The blade is hammered and
slightly facetted. The cutting edge is sharp and shows
many micro notches. A blow mark is visible near to
the tip. The object was broken from bending. Length:
50.50 mm; Width (blade): 23.34 mm; Thickness: 3.99
mm, 0.74 mm; Weight: 15 g. (Plate 4. 13)
14. sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.8): Tip fragment of an
unknown sickle type. The outer rib is hammered. The
blade is narrow, the cutting edge shows micro-notches.
As vertical cracks suggest, it was broken from bending.
Intensive abrasion traces can be seen near to the outer
rib from the backside. Length: 51.52 mm; Width: 15.42
mm; Width (blade): 14.32 mm; Thickness: 4.21 mm,
1.34 mm; Weight: 9.7 g. (Plate 4. 14)
15. knobbed sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.2, Inv. No.
2018.1.12): Knobbed sickle with high-arched, narrow
blade in two recent fragments. The tool is decorated
with sharp outer and inner ribs. The inner rib is defected
near to the base. The base is extended and shows sharp
breakage surface which can be associated with the
removal of the sprue. The cutting edge is hammered
from both sides. Length: 104.31 mm; Width: 37.48
mm; Width (blade): 19.5 mm; Width (base): 13.61 mm,
16.85 mm; Thickness: 4.34 mm, 1.33 mm; Weight: 35.7
g. (Plate 4. 15)
16. knobbed sickle (Inv. No. 2018.1.6): Intact knobbed
sickle with high-arched, narrow blade. The outer and
inner ribs are fused due to casting defect (See Plate 7. 3.
a–b). Imprint of the mould can be seen on the backside
(See Plate 6. 4). Hammer marks and sharpening can be
observed on the blade. The base is slightly extended and
shows sharp breakage surface which can be associated
with the removal of the sprue. Length: 100.74 mm;
Width: 56.88 mm; Width (blade): 22.84 mm; Width
(base): 19.94 mm, 13.38 mm; Thickness: 4.92 mm, 0.87
mm; Weight: 52.8 g. (Plate 4. 16)
17. pin/knob/rivet (Inv. No. 2018.1.24): Fragment of
a cast pin/knob/rivet with disc-shaped head and ovalsectioned shaft. It was broken from bending. Casting
seams are visible along the backside of the object. The
center of the disc-shaped head is decorated with a spike,
encircled by two ribs. The breakage surface shows traces
of mismatch defect. Diameter of the head: 27.88x28.95
mm; Thickness of the shaft: 4.5x8 mm; Thickness of
11
the head: 2 mm; Overall height: 16.57 mm; Weight:
7.5 g. (Plate 5. 17)
18. button (Inv. No. 2018.1.23): Convex, metal sheet
button with perforations. The object is fragmentary and
it was originally folded. Diameter: 41.66x39.86 mm;
Thickness: 0.36 mm; Weight: 6 g. (Plate 5. 18)
19. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.22): Rhomboid
sectioned, flattened annular ring. It shows a slight
mismatch defect. Its sprue was removed and polished.
Overall diameter: 65.08x62.84 mm; Inner diameter:
46.81x49.05 mm; Thickness: 8x2 mm, 7x2 mm; Weight:
20.9 g. (Plate 5. 19)
20. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.18): Half fragment
of a thick, rhomboid sectioned annular ring. The edges
show intensive traces of abrasion. Recent damage can
be observed on the inner part, most likely caused by
agricultural work. Length: 65.44 mm; Width: 30.53
mm; Thickness: 6.7x7.72 mm; Weight: 27 g. (Plate 5. 20)
21. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.26): Small-sized,
circle-sectioned annular ring in intact state. Overall
diameter: 36.79x37.66 mm, Inner diameter: 29.59x29.18
mm, Thickness: 3.47x3.89 mm, Weight: 10.7 g. (Plate 5. 21)
22. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.27): Small-sized,
circle-sectioned annular ring, slightly bent. Overall
diameter: 42.3x38.12 mm, Inner diameter: 30.3x35.2
mm, Thickness: 3.63x4.18 mm, Weight: 9.2 g. (Plate 5. 22)
23. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.25): Small-sized,
thick, circle-sectioned annular ring in intact state.
Overall diameter: 40.11x39.94 mm, Inner diameter:
30.13x30.41 mm, Thickness: 5.37x5.3 mm, Weight: 19
g. (Plate 5. 23)
24. “double annular ring” (Inv. No. 2018.1.21): cast
object made up of two flat, rhomboid-sectioned rings.
The remains of the sprue were polished. It shows traces
of mismatch. Abrasion is not visible on the object.
Length: 71.38 mm, Width: 34.66 mm, Thickness:
4.17x6.99 mm, Weight: 23 g. (Plate 5. 24)
25. “double annular ring” (Inv. No. 2018.1.20): cast
object made up of two flat, rhomboid-sectioned rings.
The remains of the sprue were polished. It shows traces
of mismatch. Abrasion is not visible on the object. Its
dimensions are close to Cat. No. 24. These two objects
were either cast in the same mould or their negatives
were made after a similar model. Length: 70.3 mm,
Width: 34.53 mm, Thickness: 4.07x7.11 mm, Weight:
20.2 g. (Plate 5. 25)
26. ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.19): Circle-sectioned, bent
fragment of a ring. Part of the object is missing due
to recent breakage. Recent damage can be seen in the
middle as well. Length: 119.39 cm, Thickness: 4.3x4.75
mm, Weight: 21.5 g. (Plate 5. 26)
12
Tarbay, János Gábor
27. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.28): Intact circlesectioned ring. Outer diameter: 22.2x.22.61 mm,
Thickness: 2.19x2.64 mm, Weight: 2.3 g. (Plate 5. 27)
28. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.30): Intact ring
with oval section. Outer diameter: 22.05x22.46 mm,
Thickness: 4.03x2.15 mm, Weight: 2.4 g. (Plate 5. 28)
29. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.29): Thin cast ring
with semicircular section. Its breakage is recent. Outer
diameter: 24.28x22.07 mm, Thickness: 1.16x3.52 mm,
Weight: 1.7 g. (Plate 5. 29)
30. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.31): Cast ring with
three ribs. Intensive rasping can be seen along the inner
part of the artefact. Outer diameter: 21.65x21.94 mm,
Thickness: 1.31x4.48 mm, Weight: 1.9 g. (Plate 5. 30)
MACROSCOPIC OBSERVATIONS
Macroscopic observations were performed with a dnt
DigiMicro Mobile camera on unrestored artefacts which
allowed me to reconstruct the original condition of
some finds, observe manufacturing and usage traces.
Observations were carried out on all artefacts and the
results are discussed in detail within the catalogue and
below (Cat. Nos. 1–30). Due to the scope of the study,
I can only present select macro- and micrographs of
this analysis (Plates 6–7).
Recent damage
Among the 30 objects, intact and broken artefacts
can equally be found. Unfortunately, the fragmentation
of the latter is far from representative. Many have
shown clear traces of recent damage (Cat. Nos. 1, 3–4,
8, 20–21, 26) and breakage (e.g. Cat. No. 29). Most of
these are the result of ploughing (Haldenby–R icHaRdS
2010). Some tools’ cutting edge have shown recent
notches (Cat. Nos. 4, 6), a ring was even incomplete
due to recent breakage (Cat. No. 26). The Cat. No.
15. knobbed sickle was reassembled from two recent
fragments. The original deposition state of one sickle
(Cat. No. 6) and the knob (Cat. No. 18) were altered.
The sickle was straightened out, based on the cracking
marks on the backside of the tool. Similar recent marks
were observed on the knob as well. Traces of amateur
cleaning were identified in one case on the backside
of the Cat. No. 11 sickle.
Possible prehistoric manipulations
According to the owner, the sword was found in
three pieces3 which is not a unique phenomenon. The
breakage of the weapon can be interpreted as symbolic.
The morphological character of the remaining fragment’s
breakage surface shows no traces of recent damage which
supports this idea. Moreover, deep notches caused by
a bladed tool were also found on one side of the edge
which can also be the result of intentional damage
(See Plate 6. 1). I am aware of a similar phenomenon
on a sword tip from the Lovasberény hoard (Szent
István Király Museum, Székesfehérvár, Inv. No. 9494;
MozSolicS 1985, Taf. 246.6). All in all, the morphological
character of the remaining fragment suggests a ritual
interpretation. However this remains hypothetical as
long as the other parts are missing. Edged-tool marks
associated with the deliberate breakage of the objects
were only observed in two cases, on a socketed axe
and a sickle (Cat. Nos. 5, 12) (Plate 6. 6–7). On a few
specimens, bending was also visible near to the breakage
point (e.g. Cat. Nos. 11, 13–14) which is a quite common
fragmentation phenomenon among bladed tools during
the LBA. The above mentioned folding of the Cat. No.
6 is also a common deposition practice. Fine examples
of this can be found in the Zemplín hoard, Slovakia
(novotná 2006, Taf. 49.9, Taf. 50.6).
Casting defects
Most objects are casts, showing common and clear
traces of this widespread LBA manufacturing technique.
Different types of casting defects were observed on
socketed axes, sickles, pin/knob/rivet, rings, such as
gas- and shrinkage porosity (Cat. Nos. 3–4, 7) (Plate
6. 3), core shift (Cat. Nos. 3–4), mismatch (Cat. Nos.
2, 17, 19, 24–25), incomplete casting (Cat. Nos. 6–7)
(Plate 7.4), amorphous, blurred or fused ribs (Cat. Nos.
6, 10, 15–16) (Plate 7.3), minor flash defect (Cat. No. 11).
All of them are basic types of defects that are not only
common in the LBA Carpathian material but in modern
industrial casting as well (R ajkolHe–k Han 2014). In the
case of the Gönc finds these defects mostly appeared
on artefacts showing clear traces of manufacturing and
use. Therefore similar to previous observations, these
can be interpreted as minor, aesthetic, and most of
all tolerated defects which did not affect the material
properties of the cast products.
3 The two other pieces have been given away by the owner long
ago.
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
Manufacturing traces
Almost all of the tools showed characteristic
manufacturing traces.4 Fine hammer marks were
observed on the edges of many axes and sickles (Cat.
Nos. 3–4, 7–10, 12, 15–16) (Plate 7. 1.1–1.2), as well as
sharpening (Cat. No. 1, 4, 10, 13, 16). In the case of the
sickles, hammer marks have also appeared on cast ribs
(Cat. Nos. 7, 9, 13–14), spur (Cat. No. 6) and bases (Cat.
No. 6). The sprues of the knobbed sickles (Cat. Nos.
15–16) were simply broken and left unworked, in the
case of three rings their traces were carefully worked and
polished (Cat. Nos. 19, 24–25). It is probable that Cat.
Nos. 24–25. “double rings” were made with the same
mould or after a same model due to their dimensions
and shape show close similarities.
Use-wear traces
As mentioned before most artefacts can be interpreted
as finished products. Some of them, especially the
tools, showed intensive and characteristic traces of
use. One socketed axe had an asymmetric edge (Cat.
No. 3) (Plate 7. 2), another had a completely dull edge
(Cat. No. 5) (Plate 6. 5). The sickles had narrow blades
(Cat. Nos. 8, 12, 14), some even showed intensive traces
of abrasion (Cat. Nos. 8, 12–14). Those with hammer
marks on the narrow blade (Cat. No. 8, 12) were most
likely used and maintained for a long period of time.
Notches were also found with the aid of microscope
camera (Cat. Nos. 12, 14). Abrasion was also visible on
one ring (Cat. No. 20).
Conclusions
Overall macroscopic character of the finds show
common Carpathian trends. Despite minor defects,
almost all artefacts were finished products with clear
traces of manufacturing and in some cases usage. The
most intensive usage marks were visible on sickles
and socketed axes. Observations suggest that they
were deposited both in intact and intentionally broken
state. However many of them showed recent damages
and alterations, therefore the overall fragmentation
character of the finds is not representative since it
provides unreliable data for future statistical analysis
on LBA fragmentation.
4 Cat. No. 11 sickle was hard to characterize by macroscopic
observations. Its interpretation as a finished product is uncertain.
13
TYPO-CHRONOLOGY
The finds from Gönc can be divided into five overlapping
functional groups: 1. weapons (Cat. No. 1. sword tip), 2.
multi-functional tools (Cat. Nos. 2–5. socketed axes), 3.
agricultural tools (Cat. Nos. 6–16. tanged and knobbed
sickles), 4. jewelry/clothing accessories (Cat. No. 17. Pin/
knob, Cat. No. 18. knob), 5. jewelry/multifunctional
objects (Cat. Nos. 19–30. annular rings, ring, annular
double rings). Most artefacts are common LBA types
which were manufactured and deposited during the Br
D-Ha A1 and Ha B1 periods. The dating of some objects
is uncertain (Cat. Nos. 27–29) or can be associated with
ethnographic material (Cat. Nos. 30). In the following
section, I will only discuss chronologically profound
objects which are therefore suitable for a somewhat
more detailed typo-chronological evaluation.5 Regarding
the scope of this study, this analysis will be as brief as
the previous one, focusing only on the most important
aspects and closest parallels of the finds.
Socketed axe with beaked mouth (Cat. No. 2) (Plate 1. 2)
Socketed axes with beaked mouth (Schnabeltüllenbeil )
are one of the most common Eastern European type
between the Br D and Ha B periods. They have been
discussed by many during the long years of research. Here,
only two of their recent syntheses should be mentioned
which were established by prominent scholars, Carol
Kacsó and Valentin Dergačev (Dergačev 2002, 169–171,
Taf. 124; k acSó 2007, 56–59; deRgaciov 2013, 24–25,
Fig. 2). Despite promising results, precise classification
of socketed axes with beaked mouth is still problematic
due to the quality of the published illustrations, which
in most cases lack typo-chronologically significant
features such as the cross-section and exact shape of
both narrow sides. The axe from Gönc however, is an
exception due to its chronologically sensitive curved triple
rib decoration. Axes with a similar design were mainly
distributed in the Northeastern and Eastern part of the
Carpathians. Another exception should be mentioned
from Velem-Szentvid (Vas County) where a mould of
5 Cat. No. 17 object should be discussed in short. Its simple design,
made up of cast concentric ribs and a spike, has appeared in
many different objects between the Br D and Ha B1, e.g. pins,
rivets, asymmetric arm- and leg spirals’ knobs, axes (Рашајски
1975, 88, T. LXXVI.7; Ř íhovský 1979, 55–56, Taf. 11.221;
enăchiuc 1995, 288, Nr. 198, Abb. 8.25; kytlicová 2007, 308,
Taf. 167.17–18; ciuguDean et al. 2010, 20–25, Pl. IX.3). Based
on its size, the fragment from Gönc can be associated with
the first three options. However detailed typo-chronological
analysis is not possible due to its fragmentary state.
14
Tarbay, János Gábor
a socketed axe with beaked mouth and four or three
curved ribs is known since Baron Miske’s work (MiSke
1907, XXIV. tábla 6). The appearance of such axes in the
Western part of the Carpathians is significantly lower
than in the Eastern regions. However, the existence
of this mould suggests that this characteristic Ha
B1 design somehow ended up at the feet of the Alps
due to adoptation, imitation, mobility (e.g. itinerant
smith) or other causes. In the future this should be
investigated in detail, because the appearance of this
mould suggests that local production of an „Eastern”
artefact was existed in Transdanubia, in the Ha B1
period. The Cat. No. 8 socketed axe has fine parallels
among the hoards of the Hajdúböszörmény horizon
(Ha B1): Balmazújváros, Mezőkövesd vidéke, Pácin,
Taktakenéz, Tiszaszentimre (k eMenczei 1984, 188–189,
420, Taf. CCX.10, 13; MozSolicS 2000, 34–35, 56–57,
64, 80–81, Taf. 4.2–3, Taf. 53.5, Taf. 71.12, Taf. 100.3).
Only one rectangular-sectioned specimen was dated
to the Ha A1 from the Napkor II hoard (k eMenczei
1984, 178, 393, Taf. CLXXXIII.9; MozSolicS 1985, 158).
A gracile axe with beaked mouth and three ribs was
bought by the Hungarian National Museum under the
provenance of Botpalád. Being part of an incomplete
hoard, I cannot rely on its reconstructed chronological
positon (MozSolicS 1973, 124; k eMenczei 1984, 124,
Taf. LVIIIe.3). Four very similar axes were also found in
Transylvania, from the Ha B1 period: Corneşti, Josani,
Onca Mureş I, Şpălnaca I (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977,
128–129, 135–136, 142, Pl. 233.22, Pl. 305.3, Pl. 325.4;
ciuguDean et al. 2010, 17–19, Pl. VI.2). A similar design
has also appeared on stray finds from the territory of Lviv
oblast, Ukraine (к лочко –козыменко 2017, Илл. 8)
and Somotor, Slovakia (novotná 1970, 75, Taf. 28.499).
The axe from the Moravian hoard found in Služin was
dated to a local chronological period correlates with
the Ha B1 (Salaš 2005, 452, Tab. 421.2). Based on the
clear chronological position of the fine parallels, the
axe from Gönc can be dated to the Hajdúböszörmény
horizon (Ha B1).6
6 Secondary parallels of the object are somewhat different and
show individual features. These can be found between the
territory of Austria and Transylvania: Bad Deutsch Altenburg,
Unprovenanced find from the collection of the Naturhistorisches
Museum (M ayeR 1977, 185, Taf. 71.979–980), NádudvarHalomzug II, Nyírtura I (MozSolicS 2000, 57–59, 63, Taf.
56.15, Taf. 69.8), Moigrad I, Sâmbăta Nouă II, Sâmbriaş,
Târgu Secuiesc II (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 120–121, 144,
130–131, Pl. 284.7, Pl. 310.8, Pl. 356.5; R ezi 2010, 49, Pl. 3.5),
D’jakovo VI, Mužievo, Obava II, Olešnik I (kobal’ 2000, 80,
88, 90–91, Taf. 42.25, Taf. 64d.1, Taf. 65a.1, Taf. 87.5), Vel’ká
Suchá (novotná 1970, 75, Taf. 28.498), Sambir (Żurowski
Tanged sickle (Cat. No. 6) (Plate 3. 6)
The sickle in question has characteristic central rib
decoration and its exact form can be well-reconstructed
with the aid of macroscopic observations. It was originally
meant to be cast with straight base which was altered
by a defect, making this part incomplete7 (Plate 7. 4).
Tanged sickles with a similar central rib were classified
by Ch. Jahn as his 120th “Gussmarken” variant, which
according to his lists appeared in various tanged sickles.
Among these finds only two can be interpreted as
close parallels of the Gönc find (jaHn 2013, 347–628,
Tab. 9.2, IIIA type, Gusmarken Varianten 120). The
first is part of an uncertain assemblage from SzentesTerehalom, which is possibly a mixture of two hoards
(Ha A1, Ha B1) or even stray finds (MozSolicS 1985,
193–195, Taf. 224.11). The other specimen can be found
in the hoard from Podcrkavlje-Slavonski Brod (Croatia)
and was dated to the Phase II: Ha A1/Br D-Ha A1
(vinski-gasParini 1973, 217, Tab. 68.10; k aravanić
2009, 92). Based on the above, the Cat. No. 6 tanged
sickle from Gönc can be associated with the Ha A1
period, i.e. Kurd horizon.
Knobbed sickles (Cat. Nos. 15–16) (Plate 4. 15–16)
Both knobbed sickles represent the same LBA
type (Cat. Nos. 15–16). Standard knobbed sickle with
one inner rib. On the Cat. No. 16 the inner rib is less
visible, as it has almost been fused with the outer rib
as a results of a casting defect (Plate 7. 3).
Comparable finds were manufactured and deposited
for a long period of time (Br B-Ha B2) in a vast territory
between West and East Europe. To my best knowledge,
three casting moulds can be associated with this certain
type. One has been recently published by Judit Koós
from the Muhi-3 kavicsbánya settlement of the preGáva pottery style (Br D-Ha A1). Another is known
from the region of Aszód (Hungary, Pest County) from
the end of the 19th century (H aMpel 1877, Pl. XIV.12;
H aMpel 1886, V. tábla 4). The third was found in a
Br C2 settlement in Rybňany, Bohemia, in a pit, along
with 14 mould fragments and other metallurgic finds
(blažek–ernée –smejtek 1998, 149–151, Taf. 11.53).
The earliest specimens (Uzd hoard) from the territory
of Hungary were dated to the Koszider horizon (Br B)
1948, 197–198, Tabl. VI.2). In most cases their dating can be
placed between the Br D and Ha B2 periods, however their
main time of deposition is again the Ha B1.
7 For incomplete defects: R ajkolHe –k Han 2014, 378, 382.
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
(MozSolicS 1967, 174–176, Taf. 54.3–6, 8–10, Taf. 55.1–5,
7–11). One sickle from Dévaványa-Révhely mező was
found in a hoard, characteristic to the Br C (MozSolicS
1985, 112, Taf. 226c.1). A handful of specimens have
appeared in hoards associated with the Br D period and
Br D-Ha A1 time interval (MozSolicS 1973, 159–160,
182–183, Taf. 57b.5–6, 10, Taf. 57d.9; kobály 1999, 41,
45, IX. tábla 14; V. Szabó 2016, Abb. 34). Two sickles
were recently published from a settlement dominated
by Hajdúbagos type ceramic style (dani 2017, 156–157,
6. kép 2). Most of the known specimens were deposited
in hoards of the Kurd horizon (Ha A1) in Eastern and
Western Hungary as well (MozSolicS 1985, 86–87, 96–97,
131–137, 150, 154–155, 176, 178–179, 182, 197–198,
199–200, 204, 210–211, Taf. 33.3–9, Taf. 139.9–11, Taf.
172.9, Taf. 176.2, 4, 6–7, Taf. 180.10, 16–17, 19, Taf.
184.2–3, Taf. 188.4–5, Taf. 191.1–5, Taf. 193.3, Taf.
196.4, Taf. 201.2–3, 5–6, Taf. 206.27, Taf. 220.11, Taf.
221.19, Taf. 226a.2–4; k eMenczei 1984, 178, 188–189,
Taf. CCX.1, Taf. CLXXXIV.2; B. HellebRandt 1986, 4.
kép; k eMenczei 1996a, 232–233, Fig. 7.1, 5; kobály 1999,
40, 44–45, V. tábla 5; M akkay 2006, Pl. XV.126–128;
v. Szabó 2016, Abb. 12).8 Some were associated with
the Ha A2. However, typological knowledge of presentday research suggest that their most recent finds refer
to Ha A2-Ha B1 (Napkor, Mátraszőlős-Kerekbükk) or
Ha B1 deposition (Borsodgeszt, Hódmezővásárhely,
Szendrőlád-Kőbánya tető). In both cases, these hoards
have a long time interval starting from at least the
Ha A1 (Sennovitz 1902, I. tábla 7; táRnoki 1987, V.
tábla 5, 7–8, 11, 14; k eMenczei 1996b, 57, Abb. 15.7;
MozSolicS 1985, 128, 157–158, 192, Taf. 255.7, Taf.
257.12, Taf. 263.15; k eMenczei 2003, Taf. 3.15; V.
Szabó 2016, Abb. 5). In the Ha B1, the number of the
knobbed sickles with one inner rib has been decreased
(MozSolicS 2000, 55, 59–60, 63–64, 68–69, 91–92,
Taf. 53.14, Taf. 63.7, Taf. 70.6, Taf. 80.14–15, 19–20,
Taf. 118.3). In Transcarpathia, most sickles with one
inner rib were deposited between the Serie Kriva
and Serie Lazy which roughly correlates with the Br
D-Ha A1. Only two specimens from Suskovo I were
associated with the less certain Ha A2 period (kobal’
2000, 73–76, 84–85, 88–89, 93–97, 99, Taf. 28b.6, Taf.
34b.6, Taf. 36.23–25, Taf. 43.a.6, Taf. 43d.3, 6, Taf. 44.9,
Taf. 46a.5–9, 11, 15, Taf. 49.75, 77–78, 80–81, 85, Taf.
8 A stray find was also published from Kék ( jóSa–k eMenczei
1965, LXX. t. 26). A specimen is known from the uncertain
Nógrádmarcal „hoard”, part of a long-lost private collection
(M áRton 1911, 329–330). Based on the published illustrations
it is not entirely clear that the sickles from Ecseg-Kozárdi hegy
belong to this group (Pintér 1899, II. tábla).
15
52.46–47, 49, 52, 54–55, 57–58, 60, Taf. 49.75, 77–78,
80–81, 85, Taf. 53.61–63, 65, 68–70, 72–74, Taf. 69c.1,
Taf. 78e, Taf. 74.21, 23, Taf. 95b.1–3, Taf. 96.12–13,
16–17). In Eastern Ukraine, they were associated with
Ha A, Period IV (Ha A2-Ha B1) and Period V (Ha
B2-Ha B3) (Żurowski 1948, 159, 163, 198–200, Tabl.
XVII.1, 3–6, XVIII.1–2, 8; k rušel’nyc’ka 1987, Abb.
9). Knobbed sickles with similar decoration are quite
common in the territory of Poland where they have
appeared in various contexts (settlement, grave, wetland
context, stray find). The chronological position of the
Polish specimens were established by hoard chronology,
which shows similar pattern to the Carpathian Basin.
Earliest specimen have appeared in a Periode II (Br
B-Br C) hoard from Załęzie. The rest of them belong
to Periode III (Br D-Ha A1) and Periode IV (Ha A2Ha B1) finds, the youngest dating was given to the
Karmin II hoard (Periode V/Ha B2-Ha B3) (gedl 1995,
25–26, 28–29, 34–36, 39, 41–43, 73, Taf. 2.22, 26, 28a,
29, Taf. 3.40, 42, 47–48, Taf. 4.49, 51–52, 58–59, 61,
Taf. 5.66, 68, 71, Taf. 7.109, Taf. 8.112–113, 121–122,
124, 127–128, Taf. 9.132, 135, 139, Taf. 10.159–161,
163–164, Taf. 11.167–174, 177, 179, Taf. 24.450–452,
455). In Transylvania, these sickles were found as
stray finds or as parts of hoards dated to the Br D-Ha
B1 periods. Most of them were deposited in the Ha
A1 (MozSolicS 1973, 131–132, Taf. 46.16; PetrescuDîmboviţa 1978, 19–20, 98, 105, 113–114, 116–117,
120, 127–131, 132–135, 137, 145–146, Taf. 21.17, 19–21,
Taf. 41b.8–10, Taf. 80b.6, Taf. 86c.8, Taf. 101.16, Taf.
145.187, 189, 202, Taf. 146.214, Taf. 168.177, 180, 184,
Taf. 279.180–184, 186, 192–193, Taf. 216b.5, Taf. 245.33,
Taf. 248a.39, Taf. 249d.1; soroceanu 1981, Abb. 4.9,
12–14; k eMenczei 1991, 5. ábra 1–4; soroceanu 1995,
199, Abb. 3.1–2; ciuguDean et al. 2006, Pl. XI.1–2, 4–7,
9–10; bejinariu 2007, Pl. VII.25; k acSó 2009, Abb.
6.4, Abb. 16.3; R ezi 2009, Pl. 3.5; k acSó 2010, Pl. 5.4;
jovanović et al. 2011, T. X.69; H anSen et al. 2015, Fig.
4.7). According to Václav Furmánek’s chronological
model, the Slovakian finds can be dated between the
Br C-Ha A1, but they are dominant in the Br D-Ha A1
(Furmánek 2006, 21, 24–25, 28–31, Taf. 2.20–22, 26,
28, 37, Taf. 3.38–45, 49, 51, 53–56, Taf. 4.57, 60, 62,
64, 68, 71, Taf. 5.74, 86–87, Taf. 6.90, 93, 95, 97, 100,
106, Taf. 7.108, 112–115, 120). Some specimens were
found in the territory of Serbia mostly in the Stufe II
(Br D-Ha A), only one from Subotice was dated to the
Stufe III (Ha A2) (vasić 1994, 21–22, Taf. 1.4, 6–7,
14, 17, 20, Taf. 2.22, 24, 27). The Croatian finds were
associated with the Phase II (Ha A1, Br D-Ha A1)
(vinski-gasParini 1973, 212, 214, 217, Tab. 29.13–14,
16
Tarbay, János Gábor
Tab. 51.3–4, Tab. 63.12, 16, Tab. 68.3, 5, Tab. 80b.5).
One from Bosnia and Herzegovina dated to the Ha
A1 (könig 2004, 199, Taf. 20b.8).
Towards Western Europe, quite early finds are
known from Moravia (e.g. Přítluky I: Br B1) (Salaš
2005, 280–281, Tab. 33b.2–3.). Here, the majority
of them were dated to the Br C2, Br D1 and Br D2
periods, their deposition in the Ha A1 is rare (e.g. Dolní
Sukolom, Žárovice-Hamry II) (Ř íhovský 1989, 21, 24,
30, Taf. 2.22, Taf. 3.31, Taf. 5.53, 55–57, 59, Taf. 6.72,
75, 80, 82–84, Taf. 7.89–91, 100; Salaš 1997, 81, Taf.
3.60; Salaš 2005, 266, 271–279, 292, 315–332, 342–345,
349–350, 396–399, Tab. 5.16–17, Tab. 17.14–15, Tab.
29.4, 6–8, Tab. 30.9, Tab. 63.4, Tab. 104.12, Taf. 112.44,
49–50, Tab. 113.52, Tab. 173A.2, Tab. 173b.9, Tab.
189.33, Tab. 281.1–2, Tab. 287.7). The chronological
position of the Bohemian finds are similar: Br C-D,
Br D and Br D-Ha A1 (kytlicová 2007, 259, 270,
272–273, 284, 294–296, Taf. 9c.10, Taf. 39.14, Taf. 41b.9,
Taf. 44.23, Taf. 68.71, Taf. 94e). Enourmous amounts
of sickles of the discussed style were published and
evaluated in the same chronological model by Margarita
Primas from the territory of Switzerland, Germany and
Austria. Several of them are stray finds or were found
in settlements, graves, rivers and bogs. Many of the
datable finds can be associated with Br B, Br B-Br C
periods, only a few can be dated to the Br D-Ha A1 and
Ha A1 periods. Latest deposition was proposed to the
Friedberg-Ockstadt hoard (pRiMaS 1986, 55–56, 63–67,
69–70, 74, 78–79, Taf. 4.66–76, Taf. 6.77–78, 81–82,
84, Taf. 7.122–123, Taf. 8.124–129, Taf. 9.138–157, Taf.
10.130–137, 158–170, Taf. 11.171–172, 174, 178–180,
184–185, Taf. 12.186–187, 189, 191, Taf. 14.238, Taf.
15.239, 249, Taf. 16.263–266, Taf. 17.268, Taf. 19.305;
lauermann–r ammer 2013, 156–157, Taf. 68.3). To my
best knowledge, the westernmost appearance of these
sickles can be seen in the Netherlands where two stray
finds (Posterholt, Wijchen) and one specimen from a
Ha B1 hoard (Vilt) were published (a rnolDussenSteegStRa 2016, 76, 82, Fig. 10. DB 509, Fig. 12. DB
2440, Fig. 12b. DB 717, DB 1427–1428).
In sum, knobbed sickles with one inner rib decoration
have appeared in the Br B in Eastern and Western
Europe as well, but earlier specimens seem to densify in
the western part of this territory. Later, they distributed
evenly and their number increased especially in the
Carpathian basin and its adjacent areas, where their
deposition was continued to the Ha B2. In Poland
and Ukraine, these sickles can be dated at least to
the beginning of the Early Iron Age. During this
period they have appeared between the territory of
the Netherlands and Ukraine. As most datable finds
suggest, the highlight of their manufacturing and
deposition was the Br D-Ha A1 periods, especially in
the Northeastern Carpatian basin. Their appearence
in later hoards (e.g. Ha A2, Ha B1) shows a significant
decline. As it is shown in each PBF work specilizing
on certain geo-political areas, during this long period,
the finer typological character of the sickles with one
inner rib has been changed and also varied according
to the finds’ geographical and chronological position.
However, it is not entirely certain that these variations
should be treated as independent types or subtypes.9
As W. A. von Brunn has already pointed out in 1968,
the typological features of knobbed sickles are in close
relation with manufacturing techniques (von brunn
1968, 38). More precisely, most of the fine typological
marks rather reflect intensive use (e.g. narrow and
high arched blade) or they can be associated with
manufacturing techniques (e.g. removal of the sprue)
or even casting defects (e.g. incomplete casting, flash
defect). As the latter was well exemplified in the case of
the Cat. No. 16 specimen from Gönc. As long as these
technological marks have not been precisely analysed
in the published material, any finer characterization of
this artefact group based solely on literature is invalid.
It seems to me that these sickles along with other
bronze finds with similar chronological pattern owe
their „long existence” to different factors, such as their
simple form or metalwork tradition and last but not
least to the phenomenon of deposition itself. Based
on the overall chronological position of the knobbed
sickles with one inner rib, the Gönc finds were most
likely the products of the Br D-Ha A1, their later dating
is less certain.
Perforated knob (Cat. No. 18) (Plate 5. 18)
The convex, perforated metal sheet knobs are
basic European artefact types, which are quite easy to
manufacture and “mass produce” with the aid of an
“Anker” which is well-known in the Eastern European
LBA material (M iSke 1907, LVIII. tábla 12; FRecSkay
1912, 319; a rmbruster 2000, 54–55, Abb. 20–22,
soroceanu 2005, Pl. 6.4). No wonder that these objects
have practically appeared through the entire Bronze
Age up until the Early Iron Age. During the LBA,
these knobs are most characteristic to the Br D-Ha
A1 (jovanović et al. 2010, 58).
9 In case of tanged and knobbed sickles: pav lin 2014;
a rnolDussen –steegstra 2016, Fig. 5–6.
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
Flattened annular ring (Cat. No. 19) (Plate 5. 19)
The flattened annular ring with rhomboid section is a
common Carpathian type which have appeared between
the Ha A1 and Ha B1 (Ha B2) periods (MozSolicS 1985,
64; Szabó 1996, 214–216; taRbay 2015, 319–320, Fig.
9, List 5). Except a handful of specimens (e.g. Velem,
Somogyszob) most of them are undecorated, similarly
to the object from Gönc (M iSke 1907, XXXIV. tábla
7; MozSolicS 1985, 187, Taf. 249.6). They are derived
from hoards, in intact or fragmented state, sometimes
presumably as part of a greater set, as it can be seen in the
Máriakéménd and Nedilys’ka hoards (sulimirksi 1937,
Tabl. V.3–13; MozSolicS 1985, 146). Their functional
interpretation varies, in my point of view they are basic
multi-functional objects which can be used for many
purposes such as pendants, belt loops etc.
“Double annular rings” (Cat. Nos. 24–25) (Plate 5.24–25)
The double annular rings have only a few parallels.
The best one is the casting mould from Mariánské
Radčice (Czech Republic) (blažek et al. 1998, 144, Taf.
5.28). This mould and the overall macroscopic character
of these finds raise the possibility that these objects
might not be finished products. Besides, the removal
of the sprue and some superficial polishing marks, no
additional surface treatment or abrasion trace can be
seen on them. According to this interpretation, these
rings are pre-finished products waiting for further
partitioning and surface treatment. However, similar
finds are known from the Eastern European materials,
in some cases as part of complex objects. One with a
somewhat longer middle part is known from Medvedevcy
2nd hoard (Ha A2, kobal’ 2000, 87, Taf. 79b.5) and
Mîndreşti 1st hoard (Ha A1, Dergačev 2002, 38, 45,
Taf. 37.10). In the western part of the Carpathian
basin one was published from the Tatabánya-Bánhida
hoard as part of a metal sheet belt (Ha A2-Ha B1,
k eMenczei 1983, 61, 4. kép). Similar was deposited
in the Staré Sedlo hoard (Br D), Bohemia (kytlicová
2007, 304–305, Taf. 24.29). Based on their parallel, it
is hard to conclude an exact time of deposition. This is
not surprising, if we take it into account that multiple
casting of rings is a logical technical solution therefore
most likely general phenomenon.
Conclusion
As a result of the typological analysis it can be
concluded that the chronologically sensitive finds can
be dated to different periods and intervals: socketed axe
with beaked mouth (Cat. No. 2) – Ha B1, tanged sickle
(Cat. No. 6) – Ha A1 (based on one datable parallel),
17
knobbed sickles with one inner rib decoration (Cat. Nos.
15–16) – Br D-Ha A1 (long period of manufacturing
and deposition, they are most characteristic to the above
interval), perforated knob (Cat. No. 18) – Br D-Ha A1
(similar chronological character as the knobbed sickles
above), flattened annular ring (Cat. No. 19) – Ha A-Ha
B1. Based on this, the time interval of the finds can be
placed between the Br D-Ha A1 and Ha B1 periods.
Hoard assemblages with similar chronological pattern
are usually interpreted as Ha A2 hoards with transitional
character where older and younger artefacts were selected
to a hoard. However, recent breakages, appearance of
non-prehistoric material, the unknown circumstances of
discovery, and the loss of the most datable find (sword)
strongly suggest otherwise. At best, the finds can be
interpreted as an uncertain hoard with incomplete or
distorted chronological time interval or simply as stray
finds with individual chronological position.
DISCUSSION
As a results of the macroscopic examination of the
finds, it can be concluded that all objects were altered
by recent damages. In some cases it was possible to
reconstruct the original deposition state of the artefacts
or identify some prehistoric manipulations. Regarding
their overall technological character, most of them
can be interpreted as finished products, a significant
part of them were most certainly used. According to
the private collector, at least part of these finds have
originally belonged to the same hoard. Our analyses have
shown that the 30 objects can be associated different
periods of the Late Bronze Age (Br D-Ha A1, Ha
A1, Ha A-Ha B1, Ha B1), and one with ethnographic
material. Overlapping of different periods in a hoard
is not a unique phenomenon, especially in the case of
the Ha A and Ha B. However, current results, a lack
of context and the fact that these artefacts have spent
a significant amount of time in a private collection
suggest that these artefacts should not be treated as
one assemblage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The paper has been supported by the OTKA Research Fund
grant No. 112427 and the National Cultural Fund of Hungary.
I want to express my gratitude to Klára P. Fischl for the
opportunity to publish these finds. I am most grateful for
Anna Mária Tarbay for the fine drawings. I am also indebted
to Tamás Pusztai and Polett Kósa for their kind help.
18
Tarbay, János Gábor
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARNOLDUSSEN, Stijn–STEEGSTRA, Hannie
2016 A bronze harvest: Dutch Bronze Age Sickles in
their European Context. Palaeohistoria 57/58, 63–109.
ARMBRUSTER, Barbara Regine
2000 Goldschmiedekunst und Bronzetechnik. Studien zum
Metallhandwerk der Atlantischen Bronzezeit auf der Iberischen
Halbinsel. Monographies Instrumentum, Band 15. Editions
Monique Mergoil, Montagnac.
BEJINARIU, Ioan
2007 Depozitul de bronzuri de la Brâglez (comuna Surduc,
Judeţul Sălaj) – Der Bronzefund von Brâglez (Kr. Sălaj). Editura
Mega, Cluj-Napoca.
BLAŽEK, Jan–ERNÉE, Michal–SMEJTEK, Lubor
1998 Die Bronzezeitlichen Grußformen in Nordwestböhmen.
Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Nordwestböhmens,
Band 3. Nordwestböhmische Bronzefunde, Band 2.
Ústav archeologické památkové péče severozápadních
Čech, Most.
von BRUNN, Wilhelm Albert
1968 Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit. Text.
Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 29. Berlin.
CIUGUDEAN, Horia–LUCA, Sabin Adrian–GEORGESCU,
Adrian
2006 Depozitul de bronzuri de la Dipşa – The Bronze Hoard
from Dipşa. Bibliotheca Brvkenthal V. Altip, Alba Iulia.
2010 Depozite de bronzuri preistorice din colecţia Brukenthal
II – Prehistoric bronze hoards in the Brukenthal Collection II.
Bibliotheca Brvkenthal XLVII. Altip, Alba Iulia.
DANI János
2017 „Egyszervolt” varázslatos bronzkori tájak...
Bronzkori deponálási zóna Hajdúsámson határában –
„Once upon a time” magical landscapes in the Bronze
Age...Bronze Age „sacrificial zone” in the outskirts of
Hajdúsámson. In V. SZABÓ Gábor–BÁLINT Marianna–
VÁCZI Gábor–LŐRINCZY Gábor (szerk.): A második
hajdúböszörményi szitula és kapcsolatrendszere – The second
situla of Hajdúböszörmény and its relations. Studia Oppidorum
Haidonicalium XIII, Budapest–Hajdúböszörmény.
149–173.
DEGAČEV, Valentin
2002 Die äneolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Metallfunde aus
Moldavien. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX/9. Franz
Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.
DERGACIOV, Valentin
2013 Cu privire la originea şi evoluţia topoarelor-celt
din epoca bronzului. Revista Arheologica IX/2, 22–28.
ENĂCHIUC, Viorica
1995 Der Bronzefund von Dridu, Kr. Ialomiţa. In
SOROCEANU, T. (Hrsg.): Bronzefunde aus Rumänien.
Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 10. Berlin,
279–310.
FURMÁNEK, Václav
2006 Teil 1. Die Knopfsicheln und die Sichelgussformen
in der Slowakei. In FURMÁNEK, Václav–NOVOTNÁ,
Mária (Hrsg.): Die Sicheln in der Slowakei. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde XVIII/6. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart,
1–55.
FRECSKAY János
1912 Mesterségek Szótára. Hornyánszky Viktor Cs. és Kir.
Udvari Könyvnyomdája, Budapest.
GEDL, Marek
1995 Die Sicheln in Polen. Prähistorische Bronzefunde
XVIII/4. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.
HALDENBY, D.–RICHARDS, Julian D.
2010 Charting the effects of plough damage using metaldetected assemblages. Antiquity 84, 1151–1162.
HAMPEL, József
1877 Antiquités Préhistoriques de la Hongrie. Esztergom.
1886 A bronzkor emlékei Mag yarhonban. I. köt. Képes Atlasz.
Országos Régészeti és Embertani Társulat, Budapest.
JAHN, Christoph
2013 Symbolgut Sichel. Studien zur Funktion spätbronzezeitlicher
Gr i f f z u n ge ns i ch el n in De p ot f u nd e n . Te i l 1– 2 .
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie.
Band 236. Verlag. Dr. Rudolf Habel GMBH, Bonn.
JOVANOVIĆ, Dragan B.
2011 Još jednom o ostavi iz Karansebeša – Once again on
hoard from Karansebeš. Rad Muzeja Vojodine 53, 45–77.
JOVANOVIĆ, Dragan B.–SUBOTIĆ, Aleksandra–
RAŠAJSKI, Javor–KALNAK, Ivan
2010 Ostave Vršačkog gorja: Markovac-Grunjac. Gradski
muzej, Vršac.
JÓSA, András–KEMENCZEI, Tibor
1965 Bronzkori halmazleletek – Depotfunde aus der
Bronzezeit. A nyíreg yházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve
VI–VII, 19–45.
HANSEN, Svend–RUSTOIU, Gabriel Tiberiu–DRAGOTĂ,
Aurel
2015 Depozitul de la Noşlac. In CIUGUDEAN, Horia–
BĂLAN, Gabriel (eds.): Artizanii Epocii Bronzului. Descoperiri
recente de depozite de bronzuri în Transilvania. Catalog de
Expoziţie. Alba Iulia. 45–71.
B. HELLEBRANDT, Magdolna
1986 Bronztárg yak Ócsaná los-Várdombról –
Bronzegegenstände vom Ócsanálos-Burghügel. A Herman
Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 25, 343–346.
KACSÓ, Carol
2007 Descoperiri de bronzuri din Nordul Transilvaniei. I.
Colecţia Ferenc Floth. Studii şi Cercetări Maramureşene
2. Baia Mare.
2009 Die Salz- und Ervorkommen und die Verbreitung
der bronzezeitlichen Metalldeponierungen in der
Maramuresch [Skarby wyrobów metalowych z epoki
brązu w regionie Maramureszna tle rozmieszczenia złóż
soli i rud metali kolorowych]. In GANCARSKI, Jan
(ed.): Surowce naturalne w Karpatach oraz ich wykorz ystanie
w pradziejach i średniowieczu: materiały z konferencji, Krośno
25–26 listopada 2008 r. Krośno. 341–372.
2010 Noi date cu privinde la depozitul de bronzuri de
la Bogdan Vodă (I). Crişia XL, 13–45.
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
KARAVANIĆ, Snježana
2009 The Urnfield Culture in Continental Croatia. British
Archaeological Reports International Series 2036. Hadrian
Books Ltd, Oxford.
KEMENCZEI, Tibor
1983 A tatabánya-bánhidai bronzlelet – Der Bronzefund
von Tatabánya-Bánhida. Archaeologiai Értesítő 110, 61–68.
1984 Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns. Archaeologia
Hungarica LI. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
1991 A pécskai/Pecica második bronzlelet – Der zweite
Depotfund der Pecica/Pécska. Folia Archaeologica 42, 27–46.
1996a Unpublished finds in the Prehistoric Collection of
the Hungarian National Museum. In KOVÁCS, Tibor
(Hrsg.): Studien zu Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den
benachbarten Regionen. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85.
Geburtstag. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest. 231–247.
1996b Angaben zur Frage der endbronzezeitlichen
Hortfundstufen im Donau-Theißgebiet. Communicationes
Archaeologicae Hungariae, 53–92.
2003 Der erste Bronzefund von Bodrogkeresztúr.
Archaeologiai Értesítő 128, 17–49.
КЛОЧКО, Виктор Иванович–КОЗЫМЕНКО, Анатолий
Васильевич
2017 Древний металл Украины. Киев.
KOBÁLY József
1999 Magyarországról elszármazott réz-és bronzkori
fémtárgyak a Kárpátaljai Honismereti Múzeum
gyűjteményében – Aus Ungarn stammende kupfer-und
bronzezeitliche Metallgegenstände in der Sammlung des
Heimatkundmuseum der Karpatoukraine. A Nyíreg yházi
Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve XLI, 37–58.
KOBAL’, Josip V.
2000 Bronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Transkarpatien (Ukraine).
Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX/4. Franz Steiner Verlag,
Stuttgart.
KÖNIG, Peter
2004 Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfunde aus Bosnien und der
Herzegowina. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XX/11. Franz
Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.
KOÓS, Judit
2015 A fémművesség emlékei egy késő bronzkori
településen: Muhi-3. kavicsbánya – Traces of Metalworking
in a Late Bronze Age settlement: Muhi-3. Kavicsbánya
(Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County). A Herman Ottó Múzeum
Évkönyve LIV, 131–175.
KYTLICOVÁ, Olga
2007 Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde in Böhmen. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde XX/12. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.
KRUŠEL’NYC’KA, Laryssa
1987 Zu Frage der Entstehung der Vysocko-Kultur. In
PLESL, Evžen–HRALA, Jiří (Hrsg.): Die Urnenfelderkulturen
Mitteleuropas. Symposium Liblice 21. – 25. 10. 1985.
Archäologisches Insitut der der Tschechoslowakischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. Praha. 369–386.
19
LAUERMANN, Ernst–RAMMER, Elisabeth
2013 Die urnenfelderzeitlichen Metallhortfunde Niederösterreichs:
Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der zwei Depotfunde aus Enzersdorf
im Thale. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen
Archäologie, Band 226. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH,
Bonn.
MAKKAY, János
2006 The Late Bronze Age hoard from Nadap – A nadapi
(Fejér megye) késő bronzkori raktárlelet. A Nyíreg yházi
Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 68, 135–184.
MÁRTON Lajos
1911 Magyarország vármegyéi és városai. Nógrád vármegye
[Die Komitate und Städte von Ungarn. Komitat Nógrád].
Budapest.
MAYER, Eugen Friedrich
1977 Die Äxte und Beile in Österreich. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde IX/9. C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
München.
MISKE, Kálmán
1907 A Velem Szet. Vidi Őstelep. I. köt. A harácsolt leletek
leírása. Winiker és Schickardt csász. Kir. udvari könyvnyomda, Wien.
MOZSOLICS, Amália
1967 Bronzefunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte
von Hajdúsámson und Kosziderpadlás. Akadémiai Kiadó,
Budapest.
1973 Bronze- und Goldfunde des Kar patenbeckens.
Depotfundhorizonte von Forró und Ópályi. Akadémiai Kiadó,
Budapest.
1985 Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos,
Kurd und Gyermely. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
2000 Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte
Hajdúböszörmény, Románd und Bükkszentlászló. Prähistorische
Archäologie in Südosteuropa 17. Verlag Oetker Voges,
Kiel.
NOVOTNÁ, Mária
1970 Die Äxte und Beile in der Slowakei. Prähistorische
Bronzefunde IX/3. C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
München.
2006 Die Haken- und Zungensicheln in der Slowakei.
In FURMÁNEK, Václav–NOVOTNÁ, Mária (Hrsg.):
Die Sicheln in der Slowakei. Prähistorische Bronzefunde
XVIII/6. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 59–110.
PAVLIN, Primož
2014 ”Terramare” Sickles. In LOŽNJAK DIZDAR,
Daria–DIZDAR, Marko (eds.): The Beginning of the Late
Bronze Age between the Eastern Alps and the Danube. Proceedings
of the International conference in Osijek, October 20–22, 2011.
Zbornik Instituta za Arheologiju 1. Zagreb. 29–71.
PETRESCU-DÎMBOVIŢA, Mircea
1977 Depozitele de bronzuri din România – Les dépôts de
bronzes de la Roumanie. Academia de ştiinţe sociale şi
politice a Republicii Socialiste România. Institutul de
Istorie şi Arheologie „A.D. Xenopol” Iaşi Biblioteca
de Arheologie XXX, Academiei Republici Socialiste
România. Bucureşti.
20
Tarbay, János Gábor
1978 Die Sicheln in Rumänien mit Corpus de jung- und
spätbronzezeitlichen Horte Rumäniens. Prähistorische
B r o n z e f u n d e X V I I I /1. C . H . B e c k ’s c h e
Verlagsbuchhandlung, München.
PINTÉR, Sándor
1899 Az ecsegi bronzleletről (Nógrád m.). Archaeologiai
Értesítő XIX, 56–60.
PRIMAS, Margarita
1986 Die Sicheln in Mitteleuropa I (Österreich, Schweiz ,
Süddeutschland). Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVIII/2.
C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, München.
RAJKOLHE, Rajesh–KHAN, J. G.
2014 Defects, Causes and their Remedies in Casting
Process: A Review. International Journal of Research in Advent
Technolog y 2/3, 375–383.
РАШАЈСКИ, P.
1975 Oстaвa из Бaнaтcк иx Kapлoвacк иx. In
ГАPAШAНИН, Д. (red): Праисторијске оставе у Србији
и Војводини – Les depots prehistoriques de la Serbie et de la
Voivodine. Belgrade. 86–90.
REZI, Botond
2009 Depozitul de bronzuri de la Cetatea de Baltă [The
Bronze Hoard from Cetatea de Baltă (Alba County)]
Analele Banatului SN. Arheologie – Ištorie XVII, 47–65.
2010 The Bronze Hoard from Sâmbriaş (Mureş County).
Marisia Studii şi Mareriale – Arheologie XXX, 45–67.
ŘÍHOVSKÝ, Jiří
1989 Die Sicheln in Mähren. Prähistorische Bronzefunde
XVIII/3. C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
München.
1979 Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet
(von der mittleren Bronzezeit bis zur älteren Eisenzeit).
Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/5. C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, München.
SALAŠ, Milan
1997 Der urnenfelderzeitliche Hortfund von Polešovice und die
Frage der Stellung des Depotfundhorizonts in Mähren. Moravksé
zemské muzeum, Brno.
2005 Bronzové depoty střední až pozdní doby bronzové na
Moravĕ a ve Slezsku – Hügelgräberbronze-und urnenfelderzeitliche
Metalldepots in Mähren. I. Text, II Tabulky. Moravksé
zemské muzeum, Brno 2005.
SENNOVITZ, Gyula
1902 Geszti leletekről (Borsod m.). Archaeologiai Értesítő
XXII, 281–283.
SOROCEANU, Tudor
1981 Der zweite Depotfund von Vîlcele, Rumänien.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 56, 249–261.
1995 Der Bronzefund von Gîrbău, Kr. Cluj. In
SOROCEANU, Tudor (Hrsg.): Bronzefunde aus Rumänien.
Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 10.
Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess, Berlin. 197–207.
2005 Restitutiones bibliographicae et archaeologicae
ad res preahistoricas pertinentes I. Contribuţia Iui C.
Nicolescu-Otin la cunoaşterea metalurgiei preistorice. In
SOROCEANU, Tudor (Hrsg.): Bronzefunde aus Rumänien.
II. Beiträge zur Veröffentlichung und Deutung bronze-und
älterhallstattzeitlicher Metallfunde in europäischem Zusammenhang
– Descoperiri de bronzuri din Româia. II. Contribuţii la publicarea
şi interpretarea descoperirilor de metal din epoca bronzului şi din
prima vârstă a fierului în context european. Seria Historica 11.
Biblioteca Muzeului Bistriţa, Cluj-Napoca 2005, 15–46.
SULIMIRSKI, Tadeusz
1937 Brązowy skarb z Niedzielisk, pow. Przemyślany –
Ein Bronzedepotfund aus Niedzieliska, Kr. Przemyślany,
Südpolen. Światowit 17, 255–282.
V. SZABÓ, Gábor
2011 Spätbronzezeitliche Bronzehortfunde im
Siedlungskontext – Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus
Ostungarn. In NÉMETH, Rita E.–REZI, Botond
(eds.): Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin.
Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş
8–10 October 2010. Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis Seria
Archaeologica 4. Editura Mega, Târgu Mureş. 335–356.
2016 Hortfunde und Siedlungen. Neue Fakten zum
Kontext der spätbronzezeitlichen Deponierungen in
Ungarn. In HANSEN, Svend–NEUMANN, Daniel–
VACHTA, Tilmann Eike Friedrich (eds.): Raum, Gabe
und Erinnerung. Weihgaben und Heiligtümer in prähistorischen
und antiken Gesellschaften. Berlin Studies of the Ancient
World 38. Berlin, 165–209.
SZABÓ, Géza
1996 The manufacture and usage of Late Bronze Age
rings: two new hoards. In KOVÁCS, Tibor (Hrsg.): Studien
zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten
Regionen. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag.
Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 207–230.
TARBAY, János Gábor
2015 The Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from
Gyermely-Szomor and the Ha A2 Period in the Territory
of Hungary. In NÉMETH, Rita E.–REZI, Botond (eds.):
Bronze Age Chronolog y in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings
of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 2–4 October
2014. Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis. Seria Archaeologica
VIII. Editura Mega, Târgu Mureş. 311–371.
TÁRNOKI Judit
1987 A csitári későbronzkori bronzlelet – Der Csitarer
Bronzefund aus der Spätbronzezeit. A Nógrád Meg yei
Múzeumok Évkönyve XII, 11–38.
VASIĆ, Rastko
1994 Die Sicheln im Zentralbalkan (Vojvodina, Serbien, Kosovo
und Mazedonien). Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVIII/5.
Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart.
VINSKI-GASPARINI, Ksenija
1973 Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj – Die
Urnenfelderkultur in Nordkroatien. Zadar Monografije 1.
Sveučilište u Zagrebu Filozofski Fakultet, Zadar.
ŻUROWSKI, Kazimierz
1948 Zabytki brązowe z młodszej epoki brązu i wczesnego
okresu żelaza z dorzecza górnego Dniestru – Objects
de bronze du récent âge du bronze et du premier âge
du fer du bassin du haut Dniester. Památky archaeologické
a místopisné VIII, 155–247.
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
21
ÚJABB KÉSŐ BRONZKORI FÉMLELETEK GÖNCRŐL
Kulcsszavak: késő bronzkor (Ha A-Ha B1), bizonytalan kincslelet, tipokronológia, használati nyomok, magángyűjtemény
2018-ban a Herman Ottó Múzeum gyűjteménye 30 új bronztárggyal gyarapodott. A hosszú ideig műgyűjteményben lévő
leletek, korábbi tulajdonosuk szerint Gönc környékén fekvő többkorszakos lelőhelyről származtak, egy részük késő bronzkori kincslelethez tartozhatott. A tanulmányban a tárgyak alapvető időrendi és makroszkópos vizsgálata került elvégzésre.
Ennek eredménye röviden összefoglalva a következő. A tárgyak technológiai szempontból megmunkált késztermékek,
számos esetben egyértelmű, esetenként intenzív használati nyomokkal. Rongálásaik egy része recens, elsősorban a szántás
eredménye. Egyértelmű őskori töréseket, rongálást és deponálási manipulációt csak néhány esetben lehet megfigyelni rajtuk.
A kronológiailag érzékeny leletek a Br D és Ha B1 közé keltezhetők. Figyelembe véve a tárgyak ismeretlen kontextusát, a
magángyűjteményben töltött hosszú időt, egyes tárgyak eltűnését (pl.: kard) és nem utolsó sorban a tipokronológia helyzetüket, a leleteket bizonytalanul összetartozó kincsegyüttesként kell értékelnünk, mely csonka vagy torzult időrenddel
bír. Előkerülésük körülményeit és lelőhelyük pontos időrendi összefüggéseit jövőbeli terepi kutatással kell igazolni.
Tarbay, János Gábor
22
Tarbay, János Gábor
Plate 1. 1–2. Bronze finds from Gönc (Cat. Nos. 1–2)
1. tábla. 1–2. Bronzleletek Göncről (Nr. 1–2)
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
Plate 2. 3–4. Bronze finds from Gönc (Cat. Nos. 3–4)
2. tábla. 3–4. Bronzleletek Göncről (Nr. 3–4)
23
24
Tarbay, János Gábor
Plate 3. 5–10. Bronze finds from Gönc (Cat. Nos. 5–10)
3. tábla. 5–10. Bronzleletek Göncről (Nr. 5–10)
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
Plate 4. 11–16. Bronze finds from Gönc (Cat. Nos. 11–16)
4. tábla. 11–16. Bronzleletek Göncről (Nr. 11–16)
25
26
Tarbay, János Gábor
Plate 5. 1–2. Bronze finds from Gönc (Cat. Nos. 1–2)
5. tábla. 17–30. Bronzleletek Göncről (Nr. 17–30)
New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
27
Plate 6. 1–7. Selected macro- and micrographs: 1. Impact marks on sword edge (Cat. No. 1), 2. Abrasion of chased decoration
(Cat. No. 8), 3. Shrinkage porosity (Cat. No. 7), 4. Mould imprint (Cat. No. 16), 5. Blow marks (Cat. No. 5),
6. Blow marks near to breakage point (Cat. No. 12).
6. tábla. 1–7. Válogatott makro- és mikroszkóp felvételek: 1. Becsapódásnyomok kardélen (Nr. 1), 2. Kopott poncolt dísz (Nr. 8),
3. Zsugorodási porozitás (Nr. 7), 4. Öntőforma lenyomat (Nr. 16), 5. Becsapódásnyomok (Nr. 5), 6. Becsapódásnyomok töréspont mentén (Nr. 12).
28
Tarbay, János Gábor
Plate 7. 1–7. Selected macro- and micrographs: 1.1–1.2. Fine hammer marks (Cat. No. 3), 2. Asymmetric cutting edge (Cat. No. 3),
3.a–b Fused ribs (Cat. No. 16), 4. Incomplete casting sickle base with hammer marks (Cat. No. 6).
7. tábla. 1–4. Válogatott makro- és mikroszkóp felvételek: 1. Finom kalapálsnyomok (Nr. 3), Asszimetrikus vágóél (Nr. 3),
3.a–b. Összemosódott bordák (Nr. 16), 4. Hiányosra öntött sarlóbázis kalapálásnyommal (Nr. 6).
János Gábor Tarbay