Bronze AGe CHronoLoGY in THe CArPATHiAn BASin Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 2–4 October 2014 BiBLioTHeCA MVSei MAriSienSiS SeriA ArCHAeoLoGiC A VIII ProCeedinGS of THe inTernATionAL CoLLoquiuMS froM TârGu Mureş Editor Sándor BErEcki Bronze AGe CHronoLoGY in THe CArPATHiAn BASin ProcEEdinGS oF THE inTErnATionAL coLLoQUiUM FroM TÂrGU MUrEŞ 2–4 October 2014 Edited by RITa E. NÉMETH BOTONd REZI Editura MEGA Târgu Mureș 2015 © Mureş County Museum, 2015 Executive editor: Zoltán Soós, Director Cover: Gyermely-Szomor spectacle ibula (photo made by Kardos Judit, photographer, Hungarian National Museum, Central Data Warehouse and Informatics Department) Muzeul Judeţean Mureş CP 85, str. Mărăşti nr. 8A, 540328 Târgu Mureş, România Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României INTERNaTIONaL COLLOQUIUM BRONZE aGE CHRONOLOGY IN THE CaRPaTHIaN BaSIN. TÂRGU MUREŞ, 2014. Bronze age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin : proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş : 2-4 October 2014 / edited by Rita E. Németh, Rezi Botond. – Cluj-Napoca : Mega, 2015. – (Bibliotheca Mvsei Marisiensis. Seria Archaeologica ; VIII). Bibliogr. ISBN 978-606-543-684-8. I. NÉMETH, Rita E. (ed.) II. REZI, Botond (ed.) 903(498.4)”637”(063) Editura Mega | www.edituramega.ro e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro Contents Vorwort 7 Ondřej CHVOJka Chronologie und Kulturen der südböhmischen Bronzezeit und ihre Parallelisierung zu den Donaugebieten und Karpatenbecken 9 Viktória kISS–Szilvia FáBIáN–Tamás HaJdU–kitti köHLER–Gabriella kULCSáR– István MaJOR–Géza SZaBó Contributions to the Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in Western Hungary Based on Radiocarbon Dating of Human Bones 23 Marija LJUšTINa–katarina dMITROVIć Core vs. Periphery: Some Stratigraphical and Chronological Remarks on the Vatin Culture in Banat and Western Serbia 37 katarina dMITROVIć–Marija LJUšTINa Metal Finds as Indicators of Relations Between the Middle Bronze Age Cultures on Western and Northern Serbia 47 Florin GOGÂLTaN he Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology on the Eastern Frontier of the Carpathian Basin. Revisited ater 15 Years 53 József PUSkáS Contact Zone: Middle Bronze Age Cultural Connections in the Valley of the Black River (Covasna County, Romania) 97 Neculai BOLOHaN–alexandru GaFINCU–Iulian STOLERIU Middle Bronze Age Chronology East of the Carpathian Area. A Bayesian Model 131 Horia CIUGUdEaN– Colin P. QUINN he End of the Wietenberg Culture in the Light of new 14C Dates and its Chronological Relation Towards the Noua Culture 147 Rita E. NÉMETH he Middle Bronze Age “Mass Grave” from Voivodeni–La Şcoală. A Chronological Approach 179 Tibor-Tamás daRóCZI–adrian URSUţIU Contextualising Decorations. A Study of Placement and Context of Ornaments on Bronze Age Ceramics from the Lower Feneş Valley 201 Gábor ILON Zeitstellung der Urnenfelderkultur (1350/1300–750/700 BC) in West-Transdanubien. Ein Versuch mittels Typochronologie und Radiokarbondaten 223 attila LáSZLó Über die Chronologie des kulturellen Wechsels zwischen der Noua-Coslogeni Kultur und der NachfolgerKulturen mit kannelierter und mit ritz- und stempelverzierter Keramik in den innen- und aussenkarpatischen Gebieten. Einige Lehren der Radiokarbondatierungen 297 János Gábor TaRBaY he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary 311 Tiberius BadER Zur Chronologie Der Lanzenspitzen im Karpaten-Donau-Raum 373 Abbreviations 393 The reanalysis of the eponymous Hoard from GyermelySzomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary János Gábor TaRBaY ELTE Institute of Archaeological Sciences Hungarian National Museum, Archaeological Department Budapest, Hungary tarbayjgabor@gmail.com, tarbay.gabor@hnm.hu J. G. TaRBaY Keywords: Late Bronze Age (HaA–HaB), Carpathian Basin, typo-chronology, use-wear analysis, Gyermely horizon. More than a hundred years have been passed since the irst publication of the hoard from GyermelySzomor (Vásárhelyi 1889). Ater I. Vásárhelyi’s irst report, the hoard in question appeared in several different catalogues and studies, from which the work of A. Mozsolics had the strongest impact on the Central European research by dealing the Gyermely-Szomor hoard as a hallmark of the debated HaA2 period in Hungary (Hampel 1892a, 48, CLIX. tábla; Hampel 1892b, 374; Foltiny 1955, Taf. 14/4; 19/2; 20/4, 8; 50/6; 61/6; 65/3; von Brunn 1968a, 293; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975, 89, 113, Taf. 30/372; 48/462; Bándi–Fekete 1977–1978, 24. kép; Mozsolics 1985, 82–84, 121–122, Taf. 240–242; Kemenczei 1988, 75, Taf. 46/404; Kemenczei 1991, 83, Taf. 68/391; Patay 1990, 32, Taf. 26/38; Hansen 1994b, 539; Novotná 2000, Obr. 2–3; Pabst 2010, 231; Pabst 2011, 204, 220). Later on, although the chronological system of Mozsolics and the dating of the hoard were highly discussed in several studies, no one has ever analyzed explicitly the individual objects which compose the hoard (Hansen 1994a, 397–405; Hansen 1996; Kemenczei 1996; Novotná 2000; Tarbay 2014, 222–227; Váczi 2014, 49–51). he main goal of this study is to re-publish the full content of the hoard, and by re-evaluating its typo-chronological features to provide with new data on the subject of the “Gyermely type hoards”. Our secondary objective is to investigate and interpret the use wears on objects by the aid of macroscopic examination and microscopic analyses.1 1. Topographical situation: Where is “between Gyermely and Szomor”located exactly? On the 10th of August 1888, an urn with at least 89 objects came to light during ploughing in the ield of J. Speidler, between the villages of Gyermely and Szomor (Komárom-Esztergom County) (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62). For the topographical situation of the hoard, the report of I. Vásárhelyi should be cited below: „A Szomor és Gyermel falvakat egymástól elválasztó jókora nagyságú domb nyugoti oldalán, Gyermel felől, a két falut összekötő országúttól balra mintegy tíz ölnyire és nem messze egy régi római út még látható maradványaitól,…” (“On the western side of a sizable hill which separates the villages of Szomor and Gyermely, from the direction of Gyermely, approximately 10 fathoms [approx. 19 meters] let from the main road connecting the two villages, and not far from the ruins of an old Roman road still visible today,...”) (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62). Vásárhelyi’s description contains several important topographical points; some of them are still visible today. For instance, the “sizeable hill” one can easily identify on the map of the Second Ordnance Survey of Austria–Hungary (Fig. 1/1) as well as the present-day Google Earth satellite image (Fig. 1/2). Considering the position of the western side of the hill, the 19th century road between the two villages, and 1 he macro-and microscopic examination were made by high resolution pictures and a dnt Digi-Micro Mobile microscope camera. For the identiication of casting defects we rely on the recent study of R. Rajkolhe and J. G. Khan (Rajkolhe–Khan 2014). Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin, 2015, p. 311–371 312 | J. G. Tarbay the distance of the ind spot of the hoard (approx. 19 meters), my colleague F. Paár was able to model the possible area of the ind spot. In October 2015, a preliminary ield survey was carried out to investigate this area. he hill is still a cultivated land is located east from Gyermely.2 As a result of the ield survey ceramic fragments dated to the Middle Age and some atypical Bronze Age ceramic sherds have been collected. Although, our results are quite preliminary, the possibility should not be rolled out that the hoard was unearthed from an Urnield settlement which can be also supported by I. Vásárhelyi’s report who stated that the fragments of another vessel was also unearthed together with the hoard (Vásárhelyi 1889, 66). In any case, we intended to carry out in the future further ield surveys and metal detector reconnaissance to verify the presumption above. Fig. 1. he possible ind-spot of the hoard. 2. Lost and unpublished objects of the hoard he irst publication of the hoard was selective, presenting only the most spectacular artefacts (Vásárhelyi 1889, 1. tábla). Later, A. Mozsolics published almost the whole content of the hoard, leaving out only one spectacle ibula (Cat. nr. 71) and a few ceramic fragments: Cat. Nr. 89.1–2, 89.7 (Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 240–242). Today, 87 artefacts are preserved in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum (Inv. Nr. 140/1888/1– 35). However, the original assemblage probably might have been made up of a higher number of objects, at least of 89 pieces. Despite Vásárhelyi’s statement that all of the inds were collected from the inder (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62), a socketed axe and a sickle fragment (Inv. Nr. 55/1892/1–2) were presented by J. Vida four years ater the discovery of the assemblage (Hampel 1892b, 374; Mozsolics 1985, 121). Unfortunately, these unpublished inds have been completely lost – most probable during the World Wars – but at least the socketed axe can be well-reconstructed by the description of the Hungarian National Museum’s inventory book. 1. Socketed axe: „1.) Őskori tokosvéső töredéke bronzból. A tok részlet az él mintájú domború nélkül egyik oldalán füllel mindkét széles lapján ily dísszel. Hossza: 5.5 cm, szélessége: 3.9 cm.” (Prehistoric bronze socketed 2 Fig. 2. he reconstruction of the lost socketed axe. Due to current illicit metal detector activities, we do not intend to publish here the exact GPS coordinates of the site. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 313 relief chisel. Part of the socket without the blade, with loop on one side, on both wider faces with such ornament. Length: 5.5 cm, Width: 3.9 cm); 2. Sickle: „2.) Hasonkorú bronz sarló töredék. Részlet a penge közepéből egy a hát alatt futó domború vonallal ékítve. Hossza: 4.5 cm, Szélessége: 2.4 cm.” (Fragment of a sickle from the same period. Part from the middle of the blade decorated with a convex rib running under its back. Length: 4.5 cm, Width: 2.4 cm). Leaving from the description above, the socketed axe in question can be assigned to a common axe group: the socketed axes with straight body and thickened collar. Its decoration is composed of two vertical, three V-shaped ribs and three dots similarly to the socketed axe from Beša (Hampel 1886, XI. Table/2) (Fig. 2). 3. Evaluation At the present time the hoard consists of 89 metal artefacts (3322,8 g) and one ceramic urn. hese objects can be divided into seven typological groups: 1. Weapons: swords fragments and spearheads (Cat. Nr. 1–7); 2. Tools: knives, socketed axes, modiied socketed axe, sickles, saws (Cat. Nr. 8–15); 3. Clothing parts: pendants, rings, ibulae, pin, diadem, belt hook (Cat. Nr. 18–67, 69–75); 4. Metal vessel: handle of a cauldron; 5. Ingots and metalworking by-products: miniature oval-shaped ingot, bronze lumps, sprues (Cat. Nr. 79–87); 6. Unclassiiable objects (Cat. Nr. 68, 76, 88); 7. Fragments of an urn (Cat. Nr. 89.1–89.7). 3.1. Weapons Swords (Cat. Nr. 1–4) he four sword fragments are not suitable for detailed typo-chronological evaluation due to their fragmentary state and uncharacteristic forms (Kemenczei 1988, 75, Taf. 46/404; Kemenczei 1991, 83, Taf. 68/391). Based on their cross-section, it is most likely that they were originally part of two or more weapons. Swords with similar hilt and rivet holes to the Cat. Nr. 4 fragment can be found among the langehandled Reutlingen type (e.g. Konjuša and Orašac) and Hemigkofen type swords (e.g. Velké Žernoseky) (Novák 1975, Taf. 17/112; Harding 1995, Taf. 14/100; 15/101). he appearance of similar sword fragments in hoards is a typical HaA deposition pattern which was documented in several cases in the territory of Transdanubia (Mozsolics 1985, 17; Novák-Váczi 2012, 103). Due to their fragmentary state these artefacts are not suitable for determining their exact manufacturing method either (Siedlaczek 2011; Mödlinger 2011, 24–35). However, the traces of manufacturing and usage still visible on their surface indicate that these objects were originally parts of inished, probably functional products. he external surface of the fragments are smooth and well-polished, moreover ine sharpening traces (Pl. 9/3, 5) and a notch (Pl. 9/3) were visible along their edges (for similar see: Mödlinger 2011, Abb. 9). he impact marks on the middle of the blades can also be associated with usage. However, in the case of the Cat. Nr. 2 blade, its shape and color indicate the recent origin of them (Pl. 9/4). In the case of the Cat. Nr. 1 blade fragment another interpretation possibility comes into discussion. he impact marks concentrate on a relatively small area on both sides of the object (Pl. 9/1–2). In my estimation, this phenomenon could have been a result of an uninished partitioning. It is vital to emphasize that the structure of the breakage surfaces – except for the Cat. Nr. 3 fragment – were unporous, indicating that the casting of the weapon was successful. In connection with their fragmentation, the breakage type of Cat. Nr. 1 and Cat. Nr. 3 blades can be associated with bending (Pl. 1/1, 3) (Novák–Váczi 2012, 95; Bietti Sestieri Et Al. 2013, 167–169). Spearheads (Cat. Nr. 5–7) Two spearheads with middle strengthening ribs (Cat. Nr. 5–6) can be assigned to one of the most characteristic spear type in East-Central Europe. According to the results of the typo-chronological research, these weapons were mainly distributed in the northeastern and eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, but some of them were found sporadically also outside of this region. he westernmost point of their distribution is Switzerland, and the easternmost is the Caucasus but further specimens are known from Denmark and Greece as well (Avila 1983, Taf. 48/999; Hansen 1994a, 67–70, Abb. 37; Říhovský 1996, 67; Soroceanu 1997, 393–394; Gedl 2009, 71; Pabst 2013, 161, Abb. 2; Bader in press). he earliest specimens which can be associated with the type in question have appeared during the MBA, although most of these spears can be dated between the BrD and HaA1 periods. It should be noted that they are also present in the HaB period in a considerable number as well (Mozsolics 1973, 34; Furmánek 1977, 270–271; Kemenczei 1984, 22; 314 | J. G. Tarbay Mozsolics 1985, 20–22; Hansen 1994a, 67–70; Říhovský 1996, 65–67; Soroceanu 1997, 394; Kobal’ 2000, 34–35; Pabst 2013, 162; Bader in press). From a typological point of view, the analyzed spearheads can be associated with T. Bader’s C Group (D and E Variants) (Bader in press). Both have slightly leaf-shaped blades, middle strengthening ribs and an additional vertical rib. he only diference between them is that the middle strengthening ribs of the Cat. Nr. 6 spearhead run sharply under the blade. Based on the results and parallel lists of T. Bader and other notable researchers, we attempted to catalogue3 those spearheads which are most similar to the ones from Gyermely-Szomor (Říhovský 1996, 65–67; Soroceanu 1997, Liste 4a; Pabst 2013; Bader in press). he main distribution area of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 5 spearhead is the territory of northeastern Hungary and Romania. However, similar objects have come to light in the territory of the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and the southern and western Carpathian Basin. he northernmost point of their appearance is Germany and the southernmost Bulgaria (List 1; Fig. 3). Some of them can be dated to the BrC and BrD periods, but they were mostly deposited in the HaA1 period. hey are also known in greater number from HaB1 hoards (List 1; Fig. 15; 16). he Cat. Nr. 6 spearhead has similar dating but without “extreme” spatial distribution. he main distribution area of its parallels is again the territory of northeastern Carpathian Basin and Romania, but similar objects can be found in the territory of West Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia, too (List 2; Fig. 4).4 As the parallels indicate this type seems to dominate the time sequence between BrD and HaA1, but it has been deposited even later in period HaB1, and also in HaB2 (e.g. Oleshnyk 1) (Kobal’ 2000, 91) (List 2; Fig. 15; 16). he third spearhead (Cat. Nr. 7) has a narrow leaf-shaped blade without any ribs or additional decoration. From typo-chronological point of view, this objects is less characteristic, comparable spearheads can be found between the BrD and HaB3 periods (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, Tab. 22/12; 108/19; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, Taf. 152/412, 427; 215/14; Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 32/14; 134A; 267/10; Mozsolics 2000, Taf. 44/6; 100/16; Jiráň 2002, Taf. 40/6; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 129/384; Kytlicová 2007, Taf. 128B/1; 154/19; 160/3; 191a/27). Fig. 3. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 5 spearhead with middle strengthening ribs (List 1). 3 4 he list does not include the unpublished Romanian specimens, and the less classiiable fragments (Bader in press). It should be noted that a similar spearhead with larger dimensions is known from Delphi (Avila 1983, 142, Taf. 48/999). he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 315 It is most likely that the spears of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard were manufactured by sand molded casting or using bivalve moulds as it is supported by the characteristic traces of these processes (Trommer– Bader 2013, 315–316). Despite of the polished surface of the objects, the remains of the casting seams were still identiiable along the narrow sides of the sockets (Pl. 10/1, 4, 7). Moreover, minor casting defects such as a vertical and a horizontal mould shits were also documented in two cases (Pl. 1/5–6; 9/7; 10/6). A misrun defect was visible along the socket and the middle rib of the Cat. Nr. 5 spearhead (Pl. 9/7) and similar defect was observed on the lower blade section of the Cat. Nr. 6 specimen (Pl. 10/2). Despite these defects, the shape of the blades as well as their sharpened edges indicate that the three spearheads were inished products (Pl. 9/8; 10/1, 4–7). Even small notches were visible on the blades of two spearheads (Cat. Nr. 6–7) which could also support their prehistoric usage (Pl. 10/5, 7). In connection with the issues disscussed above, it is important to note that the tips of these spearheads were slightly bended, most likely as a results of an impact (Pl. 1/6–7). Determining the breakage method of the Cat. Nr. 5 spearhead was not entirely possible, although the breakage could have been associated with a misrun defect. Horizontal cracks were visible on both sides of the Cat. Nr. 7 spearhead’s middle rib. Along the cracks, the surface of the object is lattened. In this case, one should also take into consideration the possibility that these are the remains of an impact damage which aimed to brake the tip of the spearhead (Pl. 1/7; 10/6). Fig. 4. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 6 spearhead with middle strengthening ribs (List 2). 3.2. Tools Knives (Cat. Nr. 8–9) In the absence of hilt, the classiication of the blade fragment (Cat. Nr. 8) is not possible. From a typological point of view, the unique shape of another knife (Cat. Nr. 9) is also problematic. Similar but slightly diferent knives are known from Bavaria, Haunwang and Karlstein (Hohlbein 2008, 225–227). he possibility should not be excluded that just like the ind with unknown ind spot from Germany, this knife was also a re-worked blade fragment (Hohlbein 2008, 226). Due to the state of the objects, the identiication of usage was not convincingly possible. However, the shape of their blades, their still sharp cutting edges, and even the smaller notches indicate that these knives were most likely practical tools (Pl. 1/9; 11/1). Socketed axes (Cat. Nr. 10–12) and a modiied socketed axe (Cat. Nr. 13) he Gyermely-Szomor hoard contains four socketed axes (Cat. Nr. 10–12) and one modiied socketed axe fragment (Cat. Nr. 13). he socketed axe with crescent-shaped rim (Cat. Nr. 10) is not a typical Transdanubian form. Its main distribution area is the northeastern Carpathian Basin where it made its appearance at the beginning of the BrD period, although their number increased later (HaA) when similar pieces have appeared in the territory of Germany, southern Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, and the 316 | J. G. Tarbay Balkan. In the HaB period, their number has been decreased and they concentrated again in the northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin and Transylvania (Foltiny 1955, 90; Rusu 1963, 192; Mozsolics 1973, 38–39; Kibbert 1984, 123–124; Mozsolics 1985, 34; Hansen 1994a, 180; Kobal’ 2000, 39–40; Kytlicová 2007, 137–138; Rezi 2010, 53–54). When searching for the closest parallels, I took into account three iner typological features of the analysed socketed axe: the asymmetrical rim, the multiple rib decoration and the false wings along the narrow sides. he combination of the irst two features can be documented irst in the HaA period (e.g. socketed axe from Tállya, a casting mould from Velem), but several examples from HaB1 period can also be mentioned: Corneşti, Hajdúsámson, Nádudvar–Bojárhollós, Nádudvar–Halomzug, Pácin 3, Şpălnaca, Taktakenéz (Miske 1907, Taf. 24/6; Petrescu-Dîmbovița 1977, pl. 305/3; 325/4; Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 1592; Mozsolics 2000, Taf. 38/5; 55/5; 56/15; 71/12; 100/3). he closest parallels which comprise all the three typological features are known mainly in the northeastern Carpathian Basin, but they were found sporadically also in Poland, Romania, Austria and Montenegro (List 3; Fig. 5). According to Mozsolics’s chronological system, one parallel was dated to the HaA2 (Szendrőlád, Mozsolics 1985, 192), while the rest of the inds from Hungary were dated to the HaB1. Only two axes were deposited in HaB2 hoards (Sâmbriaş and Tállya), although both scholars emphasized the HaB1 character of the axes (Rezi 2010, 58; V. Szabó 2011, 338). Fig. 5. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 10 socketed axe with crescent-shaped rim (List 3). Due to the fragmentary state of the other socketed axe (Cat.Nr. 11), no close parallel could be identiied for it. However, similar axes with false wings and strongly widened blade are well-known in the Carpathian Basin. Examples can be mentioned from “HaA2–HaB1” hoards: Csabdi (Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 247/1), Ecseg (Pintér 1902, I. tábla/7), Gáborján (Kemenczei 1996, 57, Abb. 15/2), Nógrádmarcal (Kemenczei 1984, Taf. CXVIId/23) Velem (Miske 1907, Taf. XIX/15), Várvölgy (Müller 2011, 214, 4. Ábra/20). Although, these axes are also appeared in HaB1 hoards: Cluj-Napoca 2 (Petrescu-Dîmbovița 1978, 141, Taf. 228/7), Kapelna/Viljevo (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 215, Tab. 110/9), Kostelec u Holešová (Salaš 2005a, 433; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 375/1), Spălnaca 1 (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 145–146, Taf. 245/27– 28). It should be noted that similar objects are also known as stray inds in Austria (Mayer 1977, 200, Taf. 82/1137), Bregana river (Šinkovec 1995, 66, pl. 17/97), Cluj-Napoca 4 (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 156, Taf. 272C/4), Spodnje Maldetiče near Mokronog (Šinkovec 1995, 66, pl. 17/96). he exact parallels of the lost socketed axe (Cat. Nr. 90; Fig. 2) are hard to determine. We are only aware of three objects with comparable shape and more or less similar decoration: Beša (Hampel 1886, he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 317 XI. Table/2; Hampel 1892a, 10–11; Novotná 1970b, Taf. 36/629), Brodski Varoš (Vinski-Gasparini 1973, Tab. 62/17) and Poljanci (Clausing 2004, Abb. 67/40). According to the inds from the territory of Croatia, the object can be dated to the HaA1 period. he modiied socketed axe (Cat. Nr. 13) is a good example for the secondary use of socketed axe fragments, namely as hammers. Similar phenomenon was well documented in the Carpathian Basin and several ine examples can be cited here: e.g. Balsa (Jósa–Kemenczei 1965, VIII. table/98), Bátaszék (Mozsolics 1985, 95, Taf. 269/12), Dipşa (Gogâltan 2005, 352, Taf. IV/21), Drajna de Jos (PetrescuDîmbovița 1978, 111, Taf. 66/9), stray inds from Transylvania (Gogâltan 2005, 359, Taf. IX/52–53), Koroml’a (Pančiková 2008, Obr. 10/6), Hungary (Hampel 1886, X. table/2), Muć (Žeravica 1993, 108, Taf. 41/601), Mužievo 2 (Kobal’ 2000, 89, Taf. 84b/8), Nadap (Makkay 2006, XXX. Table/168–170), Uioara de Sus (Gogâltan 2005, 362, Taf. XI/61–62), Peterd (Mozsolics 1985, 171–175, Taf. 60/11), Sióagárd 2 (Mozsolics 1985, 186, Taf. 43/1/3), Štramberk 4 (Říhovský 1992, 289, Taf. 81/1375), Şpălnaca 2 (Gogâltan 2005, 359, Taf. VIII/44, 48). he original form of the axe is hard to reconstruct due to the missing blade, but it could have looked like similar to the one from Simonfa (Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 249/2). he socketed axes showed very similarly technological patterns to the spearheads. Minor casting defects such as vertical and horizontal mould shits were identiiable along the narrow sides of the Cat. Nr. 10 and 13 specimens (Pl. 2/1, 13). Minor porosity and a slight core shit defect were visible along the breakage surface of the Cat. Nr. 11 specimen (Pl. 2/11). he combination of these casting defects can make the objects fragile and unit for use. However, the hammering- and sharpening traces on this axe support another interpretation (Pl. 11/5–6, 11). he surface and casting seam of the other axes were wellpolished (Pl. 1/12; 2/10–11, 13; 11/3), and similarly to the Cat. Nr. 11 axe, hammering traces were also visible on the longitudinal side of their blade. Moreover, traces of sharpening and even smaller notches5 were identiied along their edges (Pl. 11/4; 11/5–6). he only exception is the modiied socketed axe (Cat. Nr. 13). Its surface was polished supericially, and the scar of the knocked of sprue was not polished at all (Pl. 2/13). However, its function as a hammer is without any question as its intensively burred face may indicate it (Fregni 2014, 118–119, ig. 5/12; Pl. 12/1). Flanged sickles (Cat. Nr 14–15) he sickles of the Gyermely hoard can be assigned to the Uioara 8 group6 of the langed sickles (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 39–57; Vasić 1994, 37–38, 40–42; Gedl 1995, 78–80; Novotná 2000, 368– 370; Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 93–95). he main distribution area of this sickle group is the Carpathian Basin, however they have also a strong interregional character as they appear in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, northern Balkan and eastern Ukraine as well (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 57, Taf. 293; Říhovský 1989, 63–64; Vasić 1994, 42; Дергачев–Бочкарев 2002, Карм. 35; Furmánek–Novotná 2006, Taf. 40) (Fig. 6–7). When searching for the closest parallels, I took into account the iner typological features of the sickles: the lack of decorations, the swallowtail-like handle base, the prominent dorsal rib, the straight inner rib of the handle (List 4.1). I also found important to catalogue those decorated specimens whose patterns were most likely applied ater the casting of the objects as a result of individual decision, decorative- or even for functional purposes (Primas 1986, 6; Szabó 1993, 196) (List 4.2). he undecorated variants such as the ones from Gyermely-Szomor were deined as hallmarks of the HaA2 period (Gyermely horizon) on the grounds of their frequent combination with the Y-ribbed socketed axes (Mozsolics 1985, 45, Taf. 278). Later, it has been proven that these axes were also deposited in the HaB1 period just like the sickles in question7 (Boroffka–Ridiche 2005, 154–156). In terms of the chronological position of the undecorated parallels, it seems that they were deposited, in notable number, both in the HaA1 and the HaB1 periods, consequently their hallmark role is rather problematic (List. 4.1; Fig. 15; 16). he dating of the decorated variants are similar to the latter, although they concentrate mainly in HaA1 hoards (List. 4.2). he above mentioned issues can be well-compared with the results of the previously 5 6 7 It should be noted that ine impact marks (Pl. 11/7–8) can be seen on the middle of the false-winged axe blade fragment (Cat. Nr. 11). he interpretation of these traces are uncertain, they can be traces related to usage or remains of uninished partitioning, eventaully recent damage. hese langed sickles are known also under several diferent names and have been classiied in various types such as “3rd Group of the langed sickles” (Říhovský 1989, 52–64), “Wildon type and Přestavlky type” (Primas 1986, 104–105, 109–110) or even “Gyermely type” (Дергачев–Бочкарев 2002, 288–289). T. Kemenczei attempted to solve this problem and determine the HaA2 by using the ine typology of this sickle type (Kemenczei 1996, 79). 318 | J. G. Tarbay cited typological syntheses. herefore, it can be concluded that these langed sickles are not suitable for chronological determination of the HaA2 period due to the fact that they also appear frequently in other periods, too (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 54; Říhovský 1989, 59–63; Hansen 1994a, 404; Furmánek– Novotná 2006, 93–95). Fig. 6. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14–15 undecorated Uioara 8 type lange sickles. 1. parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14 sickle; 2. parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14 sickle with loop; 3. parallels of the Cat. Nr. 15 sickle; 4. he casting mould from Lengyel (List 4.1). he surface of the sickles are well-polished and hammered. he remains of the casting seams were visible only in one case (Cat. Nr. 14), on the handle of the object. he sprues on the middle of the backside of the sickle blades were simply knocked of without any further surface treatment (Pl. 2/14–15). he edges of these objects seem to be hammered, sharpened and they show diferent stages of abrasion (Pl. 12/2–4). In my estimation, the form of the Cat. Nr. 15 sickle blade can be the result of repeated re-sharpening actions (Pl. 12/4). Fig. 7. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14 – 15 decorated Uioara 8 type lange sickles. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 319 Saws (Cat. Nr. 16–17) Two diferent saw fragments can be found in the Gyermely-Szomor hoard. he blade of one of the saws is unreined (Cat. Nr. 17), the other was most likely intensively in use as it is shown by intensive degree of abrasion on its teeth (Pl. 11/2) (Nessel 2010, 43–52). Although saws are important components of the Carpathian hoards, and several studies tried to analyze or classify them, their ine typology is still incomplete due to the large quantity of unpublished inds (Hampel 1896, 60–61; Miske 1907, 56; Mozsolics 1985, 47; Hansen 1994a, 150; Kobal’ 2000, 49; Dergačev 2002, 179; Teržan 2003, 197; König 2004, 54–55; Pančíková 2008, 150; Nessel 2009, 241–253, Abb. 6–7; Rezi 2011, 311–312). heir main distribution area can be located in the Tisza region, Transylvania and southeastern Transdanubia, but they are known in smaller numbers also in West-Central Europe (Hansen 1994a, 150, Abb. 82; Nessel 2009, 251–253, Abb. 5). From typo-chronological point of view, the saws of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard are not suitable for establishing ine chronology since similar objects were deposited equally between the HaA and HaB periods (Mozsolics 1985, 47; Nessel 2009, 246–249). 3.3. Rings and clothing accessories It is worth to mention that the annular rings (Cat. Nr. 18–20), the ring pendants with loops (Cat. Nr. 21–24) and the wheelshaped rings (Cat. Nr 25–26) together with a presently unidentiiable ring with tapering terminal were part of a “looped-and chained object” (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62, 1. table/33; Tarbay 2014, 208) (Fig. 8). Fig. 8. he reconstruction of the “looped-and chained object” (Vásárhelyi 1889, 1. Tábla/33). Annular rings with rhomboidal cross-section (Cat. Nr. 18–20) In terms of dimensions, diferent types of annular rings with rhomboidal cross-section are known from the Carpathian Basin between the HaA and HaB periods. heir possible function is still subject of a debate, they can be interpreted as ingots, part of composite tools or “looped-and chained objects” but also as pendants (Mozsolics 1985, 65; Szabó 1996, 214–216; Tarbay 2015a, 97). In the present study, the ones with lattened cross-section were catalogued as the closest parallels for the three specimens from Fig. 9. he distribution of parallels of the Cat. Nr. 18–20 rings with rhomboidal cross-section (List 5). 320 | J. G. Tarbay Gyermely-Szomor. heir main distribution area comprises the territory of Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia, but further specimens are known from Poland, Romania, Austria, and from the territory of the Northern Balkans (List 5; Fig. 9). Similarly to the langed sickles, these objects were determined again as hallmarks of the HaA2, although they are also known from the HaA1 and HaB periods (Mozsolics 1985, 63–64; Tarbay 2014, 207–208; Tarbay 2015a, 95) (List 5; Fig. 15; 16). Based on the mould shit defect of the Cat. Nr. 19 object (Pl. 3/19), these type of rings were manufactured by casting. heir surface is well-polished which can be the result of longer period of use or intensive polishing. Ring pendants with loop (Cat. Nr. 21–24) Based on their distribution, the ring pendants with loop are clearly not Carpathian jewelleries (List. 6; Fig. 10). Similar objects are principally known in the Northern Balkans as parts of HaA1 and HaA2 hoards from the territory of Serbia as well as from EIA burials in Macedonia8 (Ваcић 1988, 5–8, Cл. 4; KilianDirlmeier 1979, 6–15; Pabst 2010, Liste 54a, Karte 41). he only data concerning their usage as pendants or belt parts is deliveredby the example from Vergina (Ф inhumation burial of the LXV mound) where the objects in question lay near the pelvis of the deceased (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 9). Two of the ring pendants with loops were produced by casting (Cat. Nr. 21–24). he traces of the irst process can be demonstrated not just by the cross-section of the objects but their mould shits (Pl. 12/5) and misrun defect (Pl. 12/6) as well. Fig. 10. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 21–24 ring pendants with loop and the Cat. Nr. 25–26 wheel-shaped pendants (Lists 6–7). Wheel-shaped pendants (Cat. Nr. 25–26) he most detailed study so far on the wheel-shaped pendants has been given by G. Kossack. He did not just catalogued the wheel-shaped pendants from all around Europe but established also the irst typological system of this artifact type (Kossack 1954, 20–23, 85–91, Taf. 16/1–20; 20). His work became a standard reference for later studies which enlarged his system with new results data concerning the typo-chronology of these objects (Sprockhoff 1956a, 235–236; Sprockhoff 1956b, Taf. 57; KilianDirlmeier 1979, 16–27; Furmánek 1980, 12–14; Mozsolics 1985, 63; Lochner 1991, 194–195; WelsWeyrauch 1991, 52–63; Oehler 1993, 117–121; Hansen 1994a, 247, Abb. 157; Hansen 1994b, 607; 8 Similar but slightly diferent objects are also known from the HaB2/3 L’Epigne (France) hoard (Chardenoux–Courtois 1979, pl. 88/13–14). he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 321 König 2004, 119; Salaš 2014). he distribution area of this pendant type is very vast; several variants of the wheel-shaped pendants can be found dispersed in an enormous territory between Eastern France and the Carpathian Basin (Kossack 1954, Taf. 20; Hansen 1994a, 247). he ones from Gyermely-Szomor have no loops and their parallels are quite rare. According to G. Kossack’s typology, they can be sorted to the 18th combination group (Kossack 1954, Taf. 16/18) which consists of two objects from the Carpathian Basin (Hódmezővásárhely–Fehér tó, Banner 1944–1945, 33–35, XIV. Tábla/5–6; Velem, Bándi–Fekete 1977–1978, 118–123, 20–22. kép), one Czech-(Krumsín, Červinka 1902, 222, Obr. 140/8) and one French specimen (Carcassonne, Guilaine 1969, pl. 13) (List 7; Fig. 10). It should be noted that pin heads from the Sághegy hoard 1 integrate also into these larger group (Mozsolics 2000, Taf. 7/10, 12). Besides their symbolic function, these pendants appeared oten as parts of possible “clothing sets” in hoards. Examples can be cited here from Drahany (Salaš 2014, Obr. 3) and hunau am Kamp (Lochner 1998–1999, 186, Abb. 4) or from Saint-Dénis, one of the westernmost distribution point of this type (Oehler 1993, 120– 121, Taf. 38). In connection with the Gyermely-Szomor hoard, the most interesting example is the Kamin hoard (Poland) where the wheel-shaped pendants appear in the same lot with the annular rings with rhomboidal cross-section (Kuśnierz 1998, Taf. 54a/3, 5, 8–10, 15, 19). heir interpretation as part of clothing sets relies on evidence provided by inhumation burials from Germany where these pendants were found near to the pelvis, breast or the neck of the deceased (Wels-Weyrauch 1978, Taf. 115/A; 116/B–D; Wels-Weyrauch 1991, Taf. 60/D–F; 61/A–E). However, it should be emphasized that similar sets are unknown from Transdanubian burials. he pendant type itself can be dated between the MBA and LBA, but the closest parallels for the similar items from Gyermely-Szomor belong to the latter period. he Carpathian specimens can be dated to the “HaA2”, in contrast to the one from the Carcassonne hoard dated to the Bronze Final IIIb (HaB2/3) (Kossack 1954, 22–23; Wels-Weyrauch 1978, 67–77; WelsWeyrauch 1991, 52–63; Chardenoux-Courtois 1979, 140; Furmánek 1980, 13–14; Mozsolics 1985, 63; Höglinger 1996, 64–65). Based on their cross-section and mould shit defects, the two wheel-shaped pendants were manufactured by casting. It is most likely that they were cast in the same moulds or ater a same model since their dimensions and weight are completely identical (see Cat. Nr. 25–26). Rings with tapering terminals (Cat. Nr. 27–67) Most of the rings of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard can be assigned to the group of rings with tapering terminals. his group includes several diferent variants; some of them are decorated with bundles of lines or geometric patterns similarly to the analyzed ones (Cat. Nr. 43–55).heir distribution maps Fig. 11. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 27–67 rings with tapering terminals (List 8). 322 | J. G. Tarbay shows a concentration in Transdanubia and North-Eastern Hungary, but they also appear in the Czech Republic, Romania, and the Northern Balkan (Tarbay 2014, ig. 26) (List 8; Fig. 11). According to the typological system of A. Mozsolics and T. Kemenczei, these objects were deposited mainly in the HaA2 period in groups of 10, 20 or even 40 or more pieces. hey are also known from HaA1 and HaB1 hoards (Mozsolics 1985, 65–66; Kemenczei 1996, 75–76; Kemenczei 1997, 118–121) (List. 8; Fig. 15; 16). he rings with tapering terminals represent a common manufacturing technique which was described in detail in G. Szabó’s technological study (Szabó 1996, 214–216). Most of these rings were in fragmentary state (Cat. Nr. 41–67), but some of them were intact (Cat. Nr. 27–40). Due to the objects resorted state, exact distinction between the recent and prehistoric breakages cannot be made, and only in one case did we manage to identiiy a recent one (Pl. 5/55). Most of the patterns were placed on highly abrasive surfaces which makes it impossible to determine their exact manufacturing method. In my estimation, the pattern of the Cat. Nr. 43 ring could have been realized by chasing (Pl. 8/1), the other ine bundles of lines on the four rings (Cat. Nr. 44–51) were made with the help of the lost-wax casting method (Born 1992, 290–294; Szabó 1996, 215; pl. 8/2–5). Chained rings (Cat. Nr. 78) he exact function of the two chained rings (Pl. 6/78) cannot be determined. hey could have been parts of a ibula chain or a “looped-and chained object” (Tarbay 2014, 208). Passementerie ibulae (Cat. Nr. 69–70) he research of the passementerie ibulae have been started at the end of 19th and beginning of the th 20 century.9 However, their modern typology has been established by J. Filip whose classiication was the basis for newer, more detailed typo-chronologies (Filip 1936–1937, 120; Filip 1939, 1072–1073; Paulík 1959, 328–362; Patay 1964, 7–21; Novotná 1970a, 57–60; Bader 1983, 41–56; Kemenczei 1984; Mozsolics 1985, 68–70; Říhovský 1993, 56–62; Vasić 1999, 22–27; Kobal’ 2000, 68–69; Teržan 2000, 37–38; Novotná 2001, 36–51; Dergačev 2002, 44; Gedl 2004, 79–80; Kytlicová 2007, 38, 292–293, 306; Kašuba 2008, 214–217; Tarbay 2012, 7. kép; Tarbay 2014, 193–196). he two passementerie ibulae from the Gyermely-Szomor hoard can be assigned to A3a type. his type concentrates mainly in Transdanubia, but similar objects can be also found in the Upper Tisza region, the North Hungarian Mountains, the territory of Slovakia, Romania, Croatia and even in Poland (List. 9; Fig. 12). his subtype can be dated between the HaA1 and HaB1 periods (List 9; Fig. 15; 16).he manufacturing of this subtype includes several diferent techniques, for instance casting, hammering, and even simpler metal sheet techniques (Eőry 2009; Tarbay 2012, 121–122). However, the most interesting technical aspect related to the objects from Gyermely-Szomor is the repairing trace visible on the Cat. Nr. 70 object. In this case, the broken lateral spiral of the ibula was replaced by a new spiral with hammered terminal (Vásárhelyi 1889, 64) (Pl. 12/7). Spectacle ibulae (Cat. Nr. 71–72.2) Several prominent studies10 discussed the distribution, classiication and chronological position of the spectacle ibulae (e.g. Alexander 1965; Betzler 1974, 91–133; Kilian 1975, 141–150; Bader 1983, 56–70; Říhovský 1993, 65–69; Vasić 1999, 28–40; Novotná 2001, 51–59; Glogović 2003, 23–33; Gedl 2004, 61–74). he present study follows the results of the newest synthesis established by S. Pabst (Pabst 2010; 2011; 2012). Regarding the traditional typological system of the spectacle ibulae, the ones from Gyermely-Szomor can be assigned to the Haslau-Regelsbrunn type (Betzler 1974, 124; Bader 1983, 65). However, based on the typology of S. Pabst, the analyzed objects can be sorted into the Gyermely type of the B form (Pabst 2010, 29–32). he Gyermely type spectacle ibulae have three main distribution area: in Transdanubia, Northern Balkan and Southern Italy (Pabst 2010, 29; Pabst 2011, Abb. 3, Liste 3A) (List. 10; Fig. 12). According to Pabst, they are characteristic for period “HaA2–B1”, but this type has already appeared in the BrD–HaA1. It is vital to emphasize that the parallels from the outer Carpathian region date to later periods (Pabst 2010, 30–32) (List. 10; Fig. 15; 16). 9 10 For further literature see: Tarbay 2012, 116. For further literature see: Pabst 2010, 9–16. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 323 Fig. 12. he distribution of A3a type passementerie ibulas (Cat. Nr. 69–70) and the Gyermely type spectacle ibulas (Cat. Nr. 71–72) (List 9–10). he manufacturing techniques of the spectacle ibulae itself is less complex than the passementerie ibulae, except for the chain which consists of cast rings, hammered rings, and metal sheet chain links (Pietzsch 1967; Lo Schiavo 2003, 26–26). Similarly to the passementerie ibulae, it was possible to document use-wear traces on the Cat. Nr. 72 object. On the ring guarding the chain of the ibula, intensive use wear mark is to be observed which could be the result of the chain elements’ rubbing (Pl. 12/8). 324 | J. G. Tarbay Fig. 13. he distribution of decorated pins with club-shaped head (Cat. Nr. 73). Pin with club-shaped head (Cat. Nr. 73) he fragment of the pin with club-shaped head has a slightly widened head and its shat is decorated with bundles of lines and diagonal patterns11 (Pl. 8/6–7). It can be stated that this pin type is a part of an interregional clothing fashion (Carancini 1975, 213; Vasić 2003, 86; Gavranović 2011a, 161). heir westernmost distribution area comprises the territory of Bavaria, Czech Republic and Austria (Ríhovsky 1979, 152–153), however they can be also found in large number in Transdanubian hoards and cemeteries (Ríhovsky 1983, 32–36; Jankovits–Váczi 2013, 57–58) and in the Northern Balkan, between the Danube and Save (Vasić 2003, 86, Taf. 63a). he pins with club-shaped head are also known in smaller numbers in Italy among the Vidolasco type pins (Carancini 1975, 212–213), Bosnia and Herzegovina (König 2004, 67–72; Gavranović 2011a, 161) and even in Transylvania (Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, Taf. 26/7; 33A/3; 117/335–336; 206/1337–1342, 1347–1349) (List 11; Fig. 13). In the territory of the Carpathian Basin and the Balkan, they were assigned to the BrD–HaA1 periods (Ríhovsky 1979, 151–152; Gavranović 2011a, 161). he closest parallels of the pin from Gyermely-Szomor can be dated between the BrD and HaB1 periods, although they occur mostly in the BrD and HaA1 periods, especially in the latter if we take into account the parallels from Serbia (List 11; Fig. 15; 16).12 Diadem (Cat. Nr. 74) he repoussé decorated (Pl. 8/8) diadem fragment of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard can be attributed to a well-studied artefact group which has been evaluated together with the metal sheet belts (Hampel 1896, 139–141; von Brunn 1968a, 40–41; Hänsel 1968, 109–112, 218, Liste 155; Mozsolics 1973, 48–49; Mozsolics 1985, 58–60; Schumacher-Mätthäus 1985, 110–114; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975, 112–115; Karavanić 2007, 59–67; Karavanić 2009, 123–130; Tarbay 2015a, 85–91). he main distribution area of this diadem type is the Northeastern Carpathian Basin, but other examples are also known from the southeastern part of the Czech Republic and the territory of Austria, Transdanubia, Romania and Croatia 11 12 Due to the intensively abrasive surface of the object, its exact manufacturing technique cannot be determined. However, it is most likely that the diagonal pattern was made by chasing. It is important to note that most of the pins with club-shaped head are stray inds which make the precise dating of this object uncertain. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 325 (Tarbay 2015a, ig. 6) (List 12; Fig. 14). Stylistically similar objects concentrate mainly within the main distribution area of this type, but they are also known in the Czech Republic and Romania. hese diadems made of metal sheet are characteristic for the HaA1 period, but their later (HaB1) deposition is also known from Romania, Austria and the Czech Republic (List 12; Fig. 15; 16). Fig. 14. he distribution of diadems with repoussé decoration (Cat. Nr. 74). he diadem fragment displays diagonal impression marks (Pl. 6/74), suggesting that the object had been folded. Similar impressions are common among the diadems and belts. In the case if these marks were not provoked by the inders, they are interpreted as signs of prehistoric manipulations (Tarbay 2015a, 91). he three roughly realized perforation along the edge of the object might have had the result of secondary manipulation since the fastening type of these diadems is more sophisticated (Tarbay 2015a, 88) (Pl. 6/74). Belt hook (Cat. Nr.75) Despite the fact that many new belt hooks have been unearthed since the prominent monograph of I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, the repoussé decorated metal sheet belt hook from Gyermely (Pl. 8/9–10, 75) remains as a unique form in the Carpathian Basin (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975, 89). M. Novotná stated that this object could be associated with the later objects of the hoard (Novotná 2000, 374). However, the lack of close parallels does not allow us to give an exact dating. It should be noted that the decoration of the belt hook shows similarities with the diadem from Linz and several other inds which were sold in auction houses (Tarbay 2015a, ig. 7/1–2, 4). Cauldron handle (Cat. Nr. 77) he fragment of a cauldron handle is clearly unsuitable for typological evaluation (Patay 1990, 32–33). As for its manufacturing technique, it is very similar to the rings with tapering terminals, even traces of hammering were detected on its terminals (Pl. 6/77). A small impact mark was observed near to its breakage surface which indicates that the object was broken with an edged tool, most likely a chisel. 3.4. Ingots, metalworking by-products (Cat. Nr. 79–87) A miniature oval-shaped ingot (Cat. Nr. 85) can be found in the Gyermely-Szomor hoard. his type of object was irst studied by J. Hampel who described them as “loaf-shaped forms” (Hampel 1896, 183– 185). An identical German term13 was given to them by A. Mozsolics, who stated for the irst time their main distribution in Transdanubia (Mozsolics 1984, 33). Based on the composition analysis of one simi13 In the present study we intended to use the terminology of M. Primas and E. Pernicka (Primas–Pernicka 1998, 52–54). 326 | J. G. Tarbay lar object from Biatorbágy (26.4–45% Pb), it was suspected that they could be related to alloying process (Liversage–Pernicka 2002, 428, Tab. 2; Czajlik 2012, 76–77). he oval-shaped ingots are basically distributed in Transdanubia and the Eastern Carpathian Basin, between periods BrD, HaA1 and “HaA2”. Similar miniature specimens can be found in BrD and HaA1 hoards in the territory of Hungary and Czech Republic (Blučina 4, Öreglak, Mušov 2), moreover similar moulds are also known from Velem (Mozsolics 1985, 163, Taf. 84/22; Salaš 2005a, 289–292, 357–371; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 60/77; 223/390; Fekete 2013, II. Tábla/1). he Gyermely-Szomor hoard contains two sprues (Cat. Nr. 86–87). hese objects are practically byproducts, metal residues of the casting process, which could be re-melted later for manufacturing further objects (Hampel 1896, 190, 199; Miske 1907, 59–60; Mozsolics 1984, 27–28; Jantzen 2008, 215; Kuijpers 2008, 92). Probably that is the reason why they are so less in number in Central Europe (Hansen 1994a, 134–135, Abb. 74; Nessel 2012, 151–154, Abb. 10–15). Concerning their typology, the studies of D. Jantzen and B. Nessel should be mentioned whose typological schemes delimits the sprues according to the object they belonged to (Jantzen 2008, 215–218, Abb. 77; Nessel 2012, 145–151). One of them (Cat. Nr. 86) can be assigned to Nessel’s type I.2 and the other (Cat. Nr. 87) to the type II.3 (Nessel 2012, 147, 150–151, 158). Based on their dimensions and shape, the irst one most likely could have belonged to a socketed axe, while the other to a smaller, bivalve-casted object, perhaps a ring or a knife. It should be noted that small impact marks (Pl. 7/87) can be seen on the shat of the Cat. Nr. 87 sprue, indicating the fact that it was broken by the aid of an edged tool. Beside the above discussed object the hoard also contains an amorphous, smaller ingot (Cat. Nr. 79–81, 83) and ive smaller bronze lumps or droplets (Cat. Nr. 80–84) (Kuijpers 2008, 93). 3.5. Unclassiiable objects (Cat. Nr. 68, Cat. Nr. 76, Cat. Nr. 88) he wire fragment with quadrangular section, the small metal sheet and the molten wire fragment do not display any characteristic feature which could help in classiication. he irst object (Cat. Nr. 68) can be interpreted as a raw material, the metal sheet (Cat. Nr. 76) as part of a ibula chain or bracelet, and the third one (Cat. Nr. 88) as ibula fragment. 3.6. Ceramic urn14 (Cat. Nr. 89.1–89.7) he metal objects were buried in an urn which was shattered into pieces by the plow. Only a few of the fragments and the remains of another vessel were acquired by I. Vásárhelyi (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62, 66). Today only nine fragments are preserved in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Based on their shape, color andtempering they can be determined as parts of one urn. However, the exact reconstruction of this vessel is not possible. One can presume that the original object has had a slightly everted faceted rim, cylindrical neck and its shoulders were decorated with vertical lutes (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62, 66; Mozsolics 1985, 121) (Pl. 7/89.1–89.7). Similar urns are frequent indswithin the area of the Transdanubian Urnield culture. he parallels for it can be found without any chronological densiication between the HaA and HaB periods (Patek 1968, 94–95, Taf. IV/5–6; Kalicz-Schreiber 2010, Typentafel 3/3, 7). 3.7. he results of the typo-chronological analysis he present study attempted to analyze the hoard from Gyermely-Szomor as if it has been found recently. First of all, it is very important to emphasize the limits of our current typological analysis. Leaving from the artefacts that were acquired later, one can assume that I. Vásárhelyi did not collect all the objects which have belonged to the hoard (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62). herefore, chronologically signiicant artefacts could have been lost forever. One should also mention that the typological analysis was also constrained by the fragmentary state of the objects, thus the results are less representative. Despite being a Transdanubian hoard, the assemblage contains certain objects (e.g. spearheads with middle strengthening ribs, the socketed axe with crescent-shaped rim and the repoussé decorated diadem) which are rather characteristic for the metallurgical tradition of the Eastern Carpathian Basin. he ring pendants with loop are also less known type in Transdanubia. Apart from one specimen, their main distribution area is in the territory of the Balkan. A distinctive group of the analyzed objects have interregional 14 It is interesting to note that the urn fragments of the Gyermely hoard were also published by P. Patay in 1964, as the ceramic inds of the Bokod hoard despite the fact that the inventory number of the Gyermely hoard strikingly visible on reverse side of the 11th potsherd (Patay 1964, 2. ábra/6–11). he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 327 distribution (e.g. the Uioara 8 type lange sickles, the rings with tapering terminals, the annular rings with rhomboidal cross-section, the wheel-shaped pendants, the A3a type passementerie ibulae, the Gyermely type spectacle ibulae, the pins with club-shaped head). In spite of their strong Transdanubian appearance, these objects are also typical in the western and southern territory of the Urnield culture. Moreover, they are also known in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin, and in the case of the Gyermely type spectacle ibulae even in Italy. On the basis of the typo-chronological analysis, it has been demonstrated that the artefacts making up the hoard are not representative merely for the HaA2 horizon, not even according to the Hungarian chronological systems (Mozsolics 1985, 82–84; Kemenczei 1996, 75–78) (Fig. 15; 16). From a chronological point of view, the objects can be divided into diferent groups. he spearheads with middle strengthening ribs, the pin with club-shaped head and the metal sheet diadem were deposited mainly in the BrD and HaA1 periods, but they also appeared in smaller quantity in HaB hoards. However, it should be emphasized that these specimens were mostly unearthed outside of Transdanubia. he second group, comprising the Uioara 8 type lange sickles, annular rings with rhomboidal cross-section and the A3a type passementerie ibulae, can be dated between the HaA1 and HaB1 periods. It should be noted that these objects were deined by A. Mozsolics earlier as hallmarks of the Gyermely horizon (Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 278). he dating of the rings with loop and the wheel-shaped pendants are not fully certain. hese specimens have only a few close parallels among artifacts deposited in the HaA. However, they may have been deposited for a longer period of time according to the dating of their wider parallel group. he Gyermely type spectacle ibulae are problematic since they are generally dated between BrD–HaA1 to the “HaA2–HaB1”. Only the socketed axe with crescent-shaped rim has a well-deined dating. Except for one HaA2 specimen they were generally dated to the period of the Hajdúböszörmény horizon (HaB1). According to these chronological issues, the deposition of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard can be dated to the HaB, most likely to the HaB1 period. Fig. 15. he chronological position of the hoard, according to A. Mozsolics and T. Kemenczei’s chronological systems (Mozsolics 1985; Kemenczei 1996). 328 | J. G. Tarbay Fig. 16. he chronological position of the hoard, according to S. Hansen chronological model. 3.8 he results of the macroscopic examination he original state of the objects is unknown due to the undocumented ind context of the hoard. Moreover, the current macroscopic examination was carried out on restored artefacts which severely limits the efectiveness of this analytical method. Including the lost artefacts too,15 31 objects are intact (Cat. Nr. 6–7, 14–15, 18–33, 34–40, 69–70, 71, 75), four are fragmentary (Cat. Nr. 9–10, 13, 72) and 43 are fragments (Cat. Nr. 1–5, 8, 12, 11, 16–17, 41–68, 73–74, 76, 77). Actually, all typological groups were subjected to various forms of fragmentation, some artefacts were broken by bending (e.g. Cat. Nr. 1, 3, 9, 17, 40, 73) or their breakages occurred along porous parts (Cat. Nr. 5, 11). At irst sight, it may seem that they subscribe to the general fragmentation trends (Rezi 2011; Novák–Váczi 2012). However, the fragmentation features of the hoard should be treated with caution since some recent breakages were also documented (Cat. Nr. 17, 55, 77.2, 81, 88), indicating that the objects which compose the hoard might have been more intact in their original condition. his assumption is also supported by the fact that the hoard was found during ploughing and unearthed by locals who oten cause serious damages on the artefacts (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62, 66). Regardless of their chronological position and spatial distribution, the manufacturing techniques of the analyzed objects do not difer from the general HaA and HaB trends in Transdanubia (Mozsolics 1984, 42; Szabó 2013, 49–61, 96). Despite several casting defects, such as misrun defects (e.g. Pl. 9/7; 10/2) or mould shits (e.g. Pl. 10/3), these features does not necessary indicate the inferior quality of the objects. Examining these defects, it should be taken into account the fact that most of them are rather minor, aesthetic defects which can be corrected by further manufacturing processes (e.g. polishing), or they were just simply tolerated by the metallurgist or the owner. It is also vital to emphasize that the degree of porosity, which can really weaken the structure of the object, is low. Certain manufacturing traces, for instance the sharpening and hammering (Pl. 9/3; 10/1, 6, 7; 11/4, 5–6) can be also explained by the assumption discussed above. In addition to the aforementioned issues, use-wear traces such as small notches (Pl. 9/3; 10/7), abrasion traces (Pl. 11/2; 12/4) and a burred hammer face (Pl. 12/1) were also documented. Two 15 Except for the ingots and metalworking by-products. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 329 ibulae also provided interesting data regarding their possible wear. On the chain attached to the spectacle ibulae the surface is intensively abrasive (Pl. 12/8), while the passementerie ibula was repaired (Pl. 12/7). On the basis of the macroscopic examination it can be concluded that the Gyermely-Szomor hoard might have been composed, most likely of less fragmented objects. Principally, inished products with possible use-wear traces were selected for deposition. he group of unreined (Cat. Nr. 17, 68) and semiinished objects, as well as the metallurgical by-products (Cat. Nr. 17, 68) were less characteristic components of the hoard. 4. Instead of interpretation In case of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard, a complete interpretation cannot be given without the complex analysis of the topographical situation of the hoard and its ind context (Vásárhelyi 1889, 66; Soroceanu 1995; Hansen 2008; Ballmer 2010; Neumann 2012). While the irst is still in progress, the latter has been lost forever. herefore, our analysis attempted only to outline the typological and technological features of the hoard. On the basis of the typo-chronological analysis, it has been concluded that the artefacts composing the hoard can be dated between the BrD–HaB, while the deposition of the assemblage can be set in HaB1 period. he hoard has a classic mixed composition. It is composed of weapons, tools, clothing parts, fragment of a metal vessel, ingots and metallurgical by-products. In the light of these informations, it seems appealing to interpret them as sets of certain individuals or relate them to genders (Pabst 2010, 231). However, one should not forget that the LBA objects could have had more diverse symbolic function than it had been stated earlier. For instance, the sickles which were traditionally interpreted as objects related to the female sphere can be found in various contexts, even in ostantenous warrior graves (Jahn 2013, 245–249). Moreover, there are a few Transdanubian, anthropologically analyzed graves with metal inds which were suitable for linking certain jewelleries or tools to a particular gender (Tarbay 2012, 123–124). Compelling are the results of the macroscopic examination which allowed us to characterize the usage-related features of the hoard. In my view, the original conditions of the objects were less fragmented. Mostly inished products accompanied by some unreined objects, semi-inished and metalworking by-products were deposited in the hoard. One could also observe that mainly functional and intensively used objects were selected for deposition. In the future, it would be essential to compare the results of this analysis with the use-wear character of other HaA and HaB hoards and to investigate their regional and chronological patterns. 5. Chronological issues Diferent opinions have been put forward regarding the chronological position of the GyermelySzomor hoard and the so-called “Gyermely type hoards”. W. A. von Brunn dated the hoard in question to the Rohod-Szentes phase which corresponds with H. Müller-Karpe’s HaB1 period (von Brunn 1968a, 50–55, 293). Leaving from his work, similar dating has been generally given by German archaeologists (e.g. Kilian-Dirlmier 1975, 89). In contrast to these, A. Mozsolics deined the Gyermely-Szomor hoard as the eponymous ind of the HaA2 period in Hungary (Mozsolics 1985, 82–84, Taf. 278). S. Hansen, similarly to von Brunn, but based on diferent typological arguments, dated the hoard in question and the whole Gyermely horizon to the HaB1 period (Hansen 1994a, 397–405). In his prominent study, T. Kemenczei stated that the HaA2 period (Hortfundstufe III) can be determined by typological ground sand the hoard from Gyermely-Szomor also belong to this period (Kemenczei 1996, 75–78, Abb. 37). M. Novotná has pointed out that the Gyermely type hoards are in close relation with the HaB1 hoards, and the eponymous hoard can also be dated to this period (Novotná 2000). he recent analyses seem to verify the chronological model of S. Hansen, dating the “Gyermely type hoards” to the HaB1 or “HaA2–B1” periods (Pabst 2010, 231; Tarbay 2014, 224; Váczi 2014, 49–51). he contradictory dating of the analyzed assemblage and “Gyermely type hoards” are parts of a way more complex typo-chronological and methodological problem than one irst might think of. he current typo-chronology of the metal artefacts of the Carpathian Basin and its adjacent areas comprises several diferent local chronological schemes which were established in diferent stages of the research (e.g. Rusu 1963; von Brunn 1968a; Novotná 1970a; Vinski-Gasparini 1973; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977; 1978; Vasić 1982; 1994, 3–5, Abb. 1; Vasić 2003, 7, Abb. 2; Mozsolics 1985; Hansen 1994a; Turk 1995; Kemenczei 1996; Kobal’ 2000; Lochner 1991; Pare 1998, 359–368; Mozsolics 2000; Novotná 2000; Dergačev 2002; König 2004, 16–27, Tab. 2–3; Salaš 2005a, 132–154; Kytlicová 2007, 170–192, Tab. 330 | J. G. Tarbay 2–3; Karavanić 2009, 105–106). he problem of HaA2 itself can be traced back to 1959 when H. MüllerKarpe established his inluential chronological system. By seriating the metal inds of Urnield cemeteries from South Germany and cross-dating them with the archaeological material of the Mediterranean and Middle East, it seemed that the chronological framework of P. Reinecke could be further developed and on the basis of typological arguments the HaA can be divided into HaA1 and HaA2 periods (Reinecke 1899; 1900; 1902; Müller-Karpe 1959a, 153–160). It should be noted that H. Müller-Karpe himself emphasized the limits of his chronological system and the fact that the HaA2 period can only be evinced in certain territories of Europe. Moreover, the characteristic objects of this period (e.g. Fuchsstadt type cups) can be linked also to the HaB1 (Müller-Karpe 1959a, 161, 198, 200–204). he chronological system of W. A. von Brunn had the second greatest inluence on the Carpathian chronology (von Brunn 1968). he principle of his work was that the quantity of metal objects in the Carpathian hoards can make a suitable basis for establishing reliable chronological system. he four periods of this “hoard chronology” have been delimited by the combination of characteristic artefacts, general hoarding characters, cross dating and last but not least the appearance of new types and stylistic variants (von Brunn 1968a, 28–55). In the case of the Jászkarjenő-Uzsavölgy phase (Stufe 3), he has also pointed out the inaccuracies of his new model, and stressed that it should be tested by future analyses. Similarly to Müller-Karpe system, his 3rd (Jászkarajenő-Uzsavölgy Stufe) and 4th phases (Rohod-Szentes Stufe) were also overlapped from a chronological point of view (von Brunn 1968a, 46, 54, Tab. 1). He stated that the hoards which are composed of chronologically “older” (Jászkarajenő-Uzsavölgy Stufe) and “younger” (Rohod-Szentes Stufe) objects have a transitional character, and they are suitable for determining an independent transitional phase (Jászkarjenő-Uzsavölgy Zwischenstufe) (von Brunn 1968a, 46). he chronological system of A. Mozsolics practically followed the same concept when she deined the Gyermely horizon (HaA2) with the help of the characteristic objects, and developed further typological features which could be also linked to the following Hajdúböszörmény horizon (HaB1) (Mozsolics 1985, 11–84, Taf. 278; Mozsolics 2000, 21). However, she also emphasized the inaccuracies of her periodization. While the Kurd horizon has been cross-dated well by the Italian chronological system, the Gyermely horizon was only determined by typological analysis (Mozsolics 1972a; 1985, 80–82, 83; Turk 1995, 93–94). he chronological system of Mozsolics was part of that grand East-Central European attempt which tended to establish the LBA chronology of the Carpathian Basin, on the grounds of metal artifacts, “closed within state frontiers” but also in a way in which these elements are in a permanent dialogue with each other. Between these systems, contrary to all its well-known uncertainties, the system of H. Müller-Karpe became the main reference used by scholars, even if the determining inds of diferent chronological phases from the Carphatian Basin hardly correspond to the inds from the phases in South Germany. In fact, the East-Central European local chronological schemes, especially in their structure, became the imitations of the Müller-Karpe’s chronological model. Among them, perhaps only A. Mozsolics was able to develop an individual system (Turk 1995, 93–95). he determination of the HaA2 period in the Carpathian Basin is one of most typical example for the imitation of the South German chronological system. As a general tendency the number of hoards dated to this period is low; their distribution is similar to the hoards of the previous HaA1 period, and as it has been stressed by many scholars, most of them show strong chronological connections with the following HaB1 period (Rusu 1963, 190; Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 205–206; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 121–125; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 92, 137–139; Vasić 1982, 268, 276–282; Abb. 1; Mozsolics 1985; 2000; Kemenczei 1984; 1996, Abb. 36; Novotná 2000; Kobal’ 2000, 23–25; König 2004, 22–23, 27, 91, Tab. 1–2; Salaš 2005a, 147–149, Obr. 27; Karavanić 2009, 94–105; Váczi 2014, 50). By the discussion of the aforementioned chronological problems, S. Hansen rejected the “transitional concept”, and he stated that these hoards were deposited in the HaB1 period (Hansen 1994a, 397–405; Hansen 1996, 439; Hansen 2005, 224, Abb. 8; Hansen 2006, 60). According to his works, the “Gyermely type hoards” can be deined as a Transdanubian hoard group rather than an independent chronological period (Hansen 1994a, 397; Hansen 1996, 433). Besides these issues, his chronological model suggests a diferent narrative. While according to older theories deposition custom radically decrease in HaB1 in Transdanubia and it remains characteristic in this period only for the eastern regions of the Carpathian Basin, by anulling period HaA2 a permanent, but not so intensive deposition tendency can be observed in HaB1 which appears also in the western part of the Carpathian Basin (Hansen 1996, 436–438, Abb. 3–4; Vachta 2007, 104–105, Abb. 84). he irst relection to his concept has been given by T. Kemenczei who virtually reevaluated A. Mozsolics’s chronological system by using the similar typological method and dating concept. According to him, the densiication of artefacts in certain periods, the appearance of new types, the he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 331 spatial distribution of the hoards and the degree of fragmentation are important to determine such transitional periods like the Hortfundstufe III (HaA2) in the Carpathian Basin (Kemenczei 1996, 53, 75–77). By re-evaluating her previous chronological schemes, M. Novotná formulated a diferent idea. Based on the model of S. Hansen as well as on new typological arguments she has pointed out that the “Gyermely type hoards” can be interpreted as a group of regional combination in southwestern Slovakia and Transdanubia, and their dating can be associated with HaB1 (Novotná 1970a, 44–78; Novotná 2000). It is vital to emphasize the chronological model of P. Turk. Altough, he did not questioned the existence of the Gyermely horizon itself, yet, in his own ield of research he counted with larger-scaled chronological units. He associated the Slovenian hoards previously dated to the HaA2, and some of the “Gyermely type hoards” from southern Transdanubia with horizon III which roughly corresponds to the HaB period (Turk 1995, 112–117, 123–124). Recently, G. Váczi also commented the chronological problem of the “Gyermely type hoards”, pointing out the uncertainties of the HaA2 horizon in the Czech, Moravian, western and southern Carpathian chronological systems (Váczi 2014, 49–50). One of his main arguments was that the chronological period under discussion cannot be evinced by the Transdanubian ceramic typochronology (Patek 1968, 116–117; Kőszegi 1988, 69–77; Váczi 2014, 49–50). On the basis of S. Hansen’s arguments, he considered the Gyermely and Hajdúböszörmény horizons as a single chronological period with eastern and western deposition customs (Váczi 2014, 49–51). In conclusion, two diferent narratives have been emerged. One of them assumed the existence of the HaA2, interpreting it as a short transitional period with less number of hoards. Some may argue that this period can be interpreted as a crisis horizon due to general impurity patterns of hoards or the “poor quality” of the metal objects16 (Turk 1995, 111; Liversage–Pernicka 2002; Váczi 2014, 49). According to the other narrative, the HaA1 (HaA) period is followed by the HaB1 which can be characterized by an eastern and western Carpathian deposition custom. Despite the fact that we generally agree with the latter (Tarbay 2014, 224), is worth pointing out some facts of source criticism character which could reine in a much irmly way both concepts. In this way they enable us to draw more balanced conclusions. he critique of P. König should be also taken into account. He has clearly pointed out the uncertainties of the Carpathian relative chronological schemes (König 2004, 17–18). It is highly thought-provoking that in dating a certain hoard from the Carpathian Basin we need to rely on these chronological schemes that lack any critical supervision, since the absolute chronology of the region is still not elaborated. It is also very problematic that these chronological schemes actually do not correspond to each other. For instance, diferent objects were assigned to the HaA2 period in Transcarpathia (Kobal 2000, 23–25) and in Hungary (Mozsolics 1985, 11–84, Taf. 278; Mozsolics 2000, 21). Moreover, in the case of Hungary, the objects making up the hoard were published in a selective way,17 therefore they are unsuitable for statistically relevant analyses (Hansen 1996, Abb. 1–2). In addition to this, the inding circumstances of the hoards are highly uncertain, most of them being acquired in an incomplete and damaged state (Mozsolics 1943, 48; Mozsolics 1985, 9; V. Szabó 2013; Tarbay 2015a, 101–104). From chronological point of view, it might happen that datable objects were missing, furthermore we cannot have a complete view about the period of use of objects deposited within the hoard. It is also diicult to outline a reliable technological characterization of these hoards due to the fact that their objects have been subjected to various forms of recent damages made by the inders or caused by outdated restoration techniques (e.g. Mozsolics 1972b, 190; Tarbay 2015b). hese damages are almost identical to the prehistoric ones and one can easily confuse them if we interpret these objects based solely on publications, without source criticism. hey can easily outline inexistent trends concerning fragmentation, object manipulation and use-wears. It is also very problematic to speak about “Gyermely type hoards”. his obligate term has been transformed nowadays into an umbrella term which encompasses deposit types characteristic not merely for this 16 17 I share the opinion of Z. Czajlik that the quantity of the analyzed “HaA2” metal artefacts so far is statistically not relevant to outline a crisis horizon (Czajlik 2012, 94–95). he impurity of the elemental composition is only one of the many reasons which could result the “poor quality” of the objects or casting defects (Rajkolhe–Khan 2014). Moreover, the deposition of defective products is not limited to the Gyermely horizon; examples are known from the Kurd and the Hajdúböszörmény horizons as well (Mozsolics 1984, 27–29). It is most likely that these assemblages can be interpreted as a special hoarding type not as indicators of a crisis horizon. During the re-documentation of the “Gyermely type hoards” within the framework of our PhD research, we had to face the fact that signiicant numbers of objects have not been published. hese are mostly rings, plano-convex ingots, but an amber object and a spearhead with the remains of the wooden shat can be also mentioned. Perhaps the most striking example is the hoard from Tatabánya–Bánhida, from which only ten specimens have been published out of the 73 rings (Kemenczei 1983, 3. Kép/4–13). 332 | J. G. Tarbay period or regional group. According to this we can count with weapon hoards (e.g. Szihalom, Kemenczei 1966, 57, XXI. tábla; Kemenczei 1996, 77), jewelry hoards (Zalaszentmihály–Pötréte, Müller 1972; Kemenczei 1996, 77), hoards with mixed-composition (Biatorbágy–Herceghalom, Mozsolics 1985, 127–128), hoards containing ingots and metalworking by-products (Beremend, Mozsolics 1985, 95–96), but also of golden hoards (Várvölgy–Felsőzsid, Mozsolics 1950, 14–15, Taf. VII/2–10; Mozsolics 1985, 211). It is also compelling that analyses focusing on hoards from HaA2 are dealing with periods HaA1 and HaB1, even if in an untold way, as if these were homogenous and stable chronological units. However, it is quite well-known that a part of these hoards cannot be considered chronologically delimited, not even a bit, and the spectrum of the artifacts from these hoards comprises also multiple chronological periods.18 Related to the aforementioned problems, one may wonder which are those results of a process that are suitable for chronological interpretation. As it has been demonstrated within the current analysis, the life span of the objects composing the hoards usually do not represent one homogenous period, even if we take into account their quantitative distribution. Perhaps, this is one of the main reasons why the hoards represent longer periods and also the greatest arguments against their roles of indicating chronology (Ziegert 1964, 22–24; Kemenczei 1996, 75–84; Mozsolics 1985, 11–84; Turk 1995, 96). One can partially relate to this feature the fact that metal chronology is used for such artifacts analysed in an assemblage whose “life circle”, period of use and role in Bronze Age societies could have functioned in the virtue of totally diferent principles and dynamics (Kopytoff 1986, 65–67; Fontijn 2002, 247–258, ig. 13/1; Tarbay 2014, 224). For instance, a highly symbolic object like a sword has been probable use for long period of time and had special life-circle which is hard to compare to other artefacts. he third problem is that typological studies describe hoards as an assemblage deposited in a certain period of time, or eventually as an assemblage composed of artifact with diferent periods of use charactarestic for more chronological units. From a chronological perspective nobody counts with the possibility that their deposition might have happened even in a cyclical manner, in many consecutive periods, or that the Bronze Age communities might have manipulated these objects ater deposition or have re-used parts of them aterwards. Taking into consideration the several aforementioned problems yet unsolved, we do not dare to make any commitment concerning the existence of period “HaA2” without the re-documentation of all the afected hoards, even though if we assign the Gyermely-Szomor hoard in the present study to period HaB1. It may seem that the issues discussed above contoured a rather negative perspective concerning the interpretation possibilities of hoards from Hungary. he situation, however, is not so hopeless. Already since the 2000’s several new hoards, were recorded in the collection of diferent museums, some of them still under scientiic investigation (e.g. Szilas 2003; Gallina–Somogyi 2004; Ilon 2004, 52–57, XXVIII–L tábla; Tóth Farkas 2009; Müller 2007, 13–16; Müller 2013; Bíró–V. Szabó 2009; V. Szabó 2011; 2013; Váczi 2013b, ig. 5; Novák-Váczi 2012; Tarbay 2014; Tóth Farkas 2009; Szathmári 2015). Hungary excels anyway from the East-Central European region, since in a unique manner, in this country we can deal with a large quantity of well excavated and documented hoards. For this reason, the research from Hungary will have the possibility in the future to establish a more reined relative chronology. Meanwhile, I think we should abandon the ine chronological segmentation, and instead we should follow the dating criteria of the Slovenian chronology and count with larger but more precise time sequences (Turk 1995). A very useful next step would be without a doubt the thorough investigation of the chronology and technological patterns of regions from the Carpathian Basin which are connected to each other by the common geographical situation, or of the certain deposition areas delimited ater S. Hansen’s model (Hansen 1994a, 323–346). his way the one can reconstruct the relative chronology by regional criteria and not by current state frontiers, and the delimitation of certain segments or spatial groups could be argued not only by typological aspects but also by technological patterns (e.g. manufacturing techniques, fragmentation, manipulation, use of object). Acknowledgements I am grateful to T. Bader for his permission to use his manuscript (“Lanzen-, Speer und Pfeilspitzen in Rumänein”) for the typology of the Gyermely-Szomor hoard’s spearheads. Grateful thanks are due to L. Vass for the linguistic revision and translation of the text. 18 We can consider as an excellent example the occurrence of “Nackenscheiben” axes, dated mainly to the BrD, in Kurd and Hajdúböszörmény type hoards (e.g. Mozsolics 1985, 19; Mozsolics 2000, Taf. 80/11). he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 333 appendix List 1 – Spearheads with middle strengthening ribs (Cat. Nr. 5) (the list based on: Říhovský 1996, 65–67; Soroceanu 1997, Liste 4a; Pabst 2013; Bader in press) 1. aluniş/Săplac (Romania, Sălaj) – hoard: Mozsolics 1973, 179, Taf. 74/4; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 113, Taf. 79/15. 2. ampoiţa 1/Zlatna 2 (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Popa 2013, ig. 5/11. 3. Baja (Hungary, Bács-Kiskun) – stray ind: Soroceanu 2011, pl. IV/32. 4. Balmazújváros (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 34–35, Taf. 4/17. 5. Borodivka (Ukraine, Mukacheve) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 75, Taf. 56a/19. 6. Borzhava (Ukraine, Berehove) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 76, Taf. 54b/9. 7. Bozveliysko (Bulgaria, Varna) – stray ind: Leshtakov 2011, ig. 3/9. 8. Brâglez (Romania, Sălaj) – hoard: Bejinariu 2007, pl. XV/77. 9. Budapest–Nagytétény (Hungary, Pest) – stray ind: Soroceanu 2011, 59, pl. V/29. 10. Caransebeş (Romania, Caraş-Severin) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1977, 87, Taf. 125/16. 11. Csabrendek (Hungary, Veszprém) – grave (Nr. 1): Dorner 1884, 231, Taf. E/12. 12. Čermožiše (Slovenia, Žetale) – hoard: Čerče–Šinkovec 1995, 149–159, pl. 44/20. 13. Cincu (Romania, Braşov) – hoard: Soroceanu 1996, Abb. 12/1. 14. Coruna (Romania, Mureş) – stray ind: Rezi 2015, 379–380, ig. 2/1–2. 15. Đakovo 4 (Ukraine, Vinogradovo) – uncertain hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 80, Taf. 65a/2. 16. debeli Vrh near Pregrad (Slovenia, Kočevje) – hoard: Čerče-Šinkovec 1995, 159–169, Taf. 62/28. 17. dresden–Laubegast 2 (Germany, Saxony) – hoard: von Brunn 1968a, 315–316, 1968b, Taf. 44/4. 18. dunaújváros/dunapentele (Hungary, Fejér) – stray ind: Soroceanu 2011, 59, pl. IV/38. 19. Egyek (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 43, Taf. 27/1. 20. Felsőzsolca 1 (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 1973, 136, Taf. 57a/8. 21. Gemer 5 (Slovakia, Revúca) – hoard: Paulík 1965, 34, Taf. V/7, 10. 22. Gyöngyössolymos 1 (Hungary, Heves) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 122–123, Taf. 144/18. 23. Horná štubňa (Slovakia, Żilina) – hoard: Veliačik 1983, 44, Taf. 35/5. 24. Ilişeni (Romania, Botoşani) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 136, Taf. 213/33. 25. kelemér (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – uncertain hoard: Paulík 1965, 70, Taf. XVIII/3. 26. keresztéte (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 135, Taf. 150/3–4. 27. kolchyno (Ukraine, Mukacheve) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 82–83, Taf. 38b/5. 28. kurd (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Hampel 1895, II. Table/37. 29. kvasovo 1 (Ukraine, Beregovo) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 84, Taf. 34b/11. 30. Mali Žam (Serbia, Vojvodina) – hoard: Holste 1951, 12, Taf. 21/28. 31. Nagykálló (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – stray ind: Kobal’ 2004, 189, Nr. 493. 32. Nowy Sącz–Biegonice (Poland, Nowy Sącz) – stray ind: Gedl 2004, 69, Taf. 25/281. 33. Nyírtura 1 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Kemenczei 1984, 179–180, 429, Taf. CCXIXa/1, 3. 34. ópályi (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1973, 164–165, Taf. 15/7. 35. Petroşani 1 (Romania, Hunedoara) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 105, Taf. 43/4. 36. šišma (Czech Republic, Přerov) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1996, 65, Taf. 11/99. 37. Sobótka (Poland, Wroclaw) – grave (Nr. 11/33): Gedl 2009, 70, Taf. 25/284. 38. Şpălnaca 2 (Romania, Hopîrţa) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 127, Taf. 152/424. 39. Suciu de Jos 2 (Romania, Maramureş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 107, Taf. 48a/4. 40. švábenice (Czech Republic, Výškov) – stray ind: Říhovský 1996, 96, Taf. 21/234. 41. Tibolddaróc (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 202–203, Taf. 148/7–8. 42. Tiszanagyfalu 3 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 204, Taf. 196/2. 43. Tiszaszentmárton (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1973, 184–185, Taf. 62/3. 44. Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Slovakia, Trenčiansky) – hoard: Novotná 2000, Obr. 1/72. 45. Variaş (Romania, Timiş) – hoard: Petrescu- Dîmboviţa 1977, pl. 293/10; Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 138. 46. Velem 1 (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 211–213, Taf. 231A. 47. Wielkopolska (Poland) – stray ind: Gedl 2009, 70, Taf. 26/291. 48. Zerbst–Deetz 1 (Germany, Saxony) – hoard: von Brunn 1968a, 313–314, 1968b Taf. 31/11. 49. Unprovenanced – Axel Guttmann Collection: Born–Hansen 2001, Abb. 105. 334 | J. G. Tarbay List 2 – Spearheads with middle strengthening ribs (Cat. Nr. 6) (the list based on: Říhovský 1996, 65–67; Soroceanu 1997, Liste 4a; Pabst 2013; Bader in press) 1. Berkesz (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 96–97, Taf. 177/7. 2. Besenyőd (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – uncertain hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 97, Taf. 18/4. 3. Bogdan Vodă (Romania, Maramureş) – hoard: Motzoi-Chicideanu–Iuga 1995, 142, Abb. 1/43. 4. Borzhavs’ke (Ukraine, Vinogradovo) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 22, Taf. 51/20. 5. Budinščina (Croatia, Krapina-Zagorje) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 212, Tab. 77/24. 6. Bükkaranyos 1 (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard (BrD): Mozsolics 1985, 104–105, Taf. 1/7. 7. Čermožišče (Slovenia, Žetale) – hoard: Čerče–Šinkovec 1995, 149–159, pl. 44/18–19. 8. Cincu (Romania, Braşov) – hoard: Soroceanu 1996, Abb. 11/1. 9. dunaújváros/dunapentele (Hungary, Fejér) – stray ind: Soroceanu 2011, 59, pl. IV/38. 10. duplys’ka (Ukraine, Ternopil) – hoard: Żurowski 1948–1949, 159, Tabl. XXXIV/5. 11. dridu (Romania, Ialomiţa) – hoard: Enăchiuc 1995, 287, Abb. 2/11. 12. Ecseg (Hungary, Nógrád) – hoard: Pintér 1902, III. Table/2; Mozsolics 1985, 115. 13. Gelej (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – grave (Nr. 182): Kemenczei 1989, 91, Abb. 9/18. 14. Gerla (Hungary, Békés) – stray ind: Jankovitch et al. 1998, 455, 23. Table/14. 15. Gorišnica near Ptuj (Slovenia, Styria) – stray ind: Šinkovec 1995, 87, pl. 25/162. 16. Handerovytsya/Podmonastyr’ye 2 (Ukraine, Mukacheve) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 93–94, Taf. 36/28. 17. Hrushka (Ukraine, Tlumach) – hoard: Żurowski 1948–1949, 159–162, Tab. XXXIV/2.4. 18. kék–Sátoroshegy (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 131–132, Taf. 192/3–4. 19. kemecse 1 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 132, Taf. 188/14. 20. kemecse 3 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Hampel 1896, CCXXXIII. Table/19; Mozsolics 1985, 132–134, Taf. 186/1. 21. Lazy 1 (Ukraine, Volovec) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 84–85, Taf. 48/52. 22. Mala dobron’ 1 (Ukraine, Uzhhorod) – hoard: Kobal 2000’, 86, Taf. 39/2. 23. Mezőnyárád (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: B. Hellebrandt 1999, 4. kép/3; 5. kép/4, 6. kép/5. 24. Mukacheve 5 (Ukraine, Mukacheve) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 88–89, Taf. 96/32. 25. Napkor (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Kemenczei 1967, 13, Taf. 3/2. 26. Nagyhalász (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Kemenczei 1984, 177, Taf. CLXXIV/29; Mozsolics 1985, 153. 27. Nižná (Slovakia, Tvrdošín) – hoard: Veliačik 1983, 44, Taf. XXXVII/8. 28. Obava 1 (Ukraine, Muchaceve) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 90, Taf. 63/23, 25. 29. Olcsvaapáti 2 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1973, 164, Taf. 34/7. 30. Oleshnyk 1 (Ukraine, Vinogradovo) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 91, Taf. 87c/3. 31. Pap 2 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 65, Taf. 73/2. 32. Pavlovice (Slovakia, Vranov nad Topl’ou) – stray ind: Jenčová 1992, 67, Obr. 28. 33. Piricse (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 176, Taf. 200/17. 34. Polešovice (Czech Republic, Uherské Hradištĕ) – hoard: Salaš 1997, 9, Taf. 21/519. 35. Sfâraş (Romania, Sălaj) – hoard: Mozsolics 1973, 132–133, Taf. 31/9. 36. Siča/Lučica (Croatia, Kordun) – hoard: Perkić–Ložnjak Dizdar 2005, 59, T. 2/7. 37. Şieu (Romania, Maramureş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 107, Taf. 48b/4. 38. “Szolnok-doboka County” (Romania) – stray ind (Floth Collection): Kacsó 2007, 9, Abb. 3/1. 39. Spišská Belá 1 (Slovakia, Poprad) – hoard: Novotná 1991, 22, Taf. 19/9. 40. Suseni and region of Suseni (Romania, Mureş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 127, Taf. 137/37; Soroceanu 1997, 390, Abb. 2/1. 41. Taktakenéz (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 80–81, Taf. 100/18. 42. Tállya (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Kemenczei 1984, 185–186, 397, Taf. CLXXXVIII/2. 43. Tatabánya–Bánhida 1 (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 201, Taf. 122/8. 44. Tiszadob (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 203, Taf. 202/1. 45. Ukraine – stray ind: Żurowski 1948–1949, Tabl. XXXIV/1. 46. Uriu 1 (Romania, Bistriţa-Năsăud) – hoard: Kacsó 2009, 11, pl. 5/2. 47. Vâlcele 2 (Romania, Cluj) – hoard: Soroceanu 1981, 252, Abb. 2/15. 48. Vărşand (Romania, Banat) – settlement: Soroceanu 2012, 119, Taf. 46/6a-b. 49. Velikiye Luchki (Ukraine, Muchaceve) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 99, Taf. 28b/3. 50. Záhony (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 91, Taf. 117/13, 15. 51. Žárovice–Hamry 2 (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 397–399; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 288/18. 52. Zsujta (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Csóma 1885, 13, II. Table/6–7. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 335 List 3 – socketed axes with crescent-shaped rim (Cat. Nr. 10) 1. Bad deutsch altenburg (Austria, Upper Austria) – stray ind: Mayer 1977, 185, Taf. 71/980. 2. Balmazújváros (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 34–35, Taf. 4/2. 3. Czerteż (Poland, Krosno) – stray ind: Kuśnierz 1998, 10, Taf. 1/1. 4. Germany – stray ind: Kibbert 1984, 124, Taf. 43/562. 5. Mezőkövesd region (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 56–57, Taf. 53/5. 6. Polgár–Folyás-Szilmeg (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 66, Taf. 75/1. 7. Risan (Montenegro, Kotor) – hoard: Žeravica 1993, 74, Taf. 20/251. 8. Sâmbriaş (Romania, Mureş) – hoard: Rezi 2010, 53–54, 58, pl. 3/5. 9. Somotor (Slovakia, Trebišov) – stray ind: Novotná 1970b, 75, Taf. 28/499. 10. Szendrőlád (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 192, Taf. 263/5. 11. Tállya (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: V. Szabó 2011, 338, Taf. 4/1. 12. Tiszaszentimre (Hungary, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok) – hoard: Kemenczei 1984, 188, 420, Taf. CCX/9–11, 13. 13. Zemplínske kopčany (Slovakia, Michalovce) – hoard: Demeterová-Polláková 1973, Tab. III/7; Novotná 2014, 76. 14. Velká Suchá (Slovakia, Hrnčiarska) – stray ind: Novotná 1970b, 75, Taf. 28/498. List 4 – Flanged sickles (Cat. Nr. 14–15) List 4.1 – Flanged sickles with undecorated handle 1. Badacsonytomaj (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 87–88, Taf. 233/19. 2. Balmazújváros (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 34–35, Taf. 4/15. 3. Bátaszék (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 95, Taf. 269/25. 4. Belmbrach (Germany, Bavaria) – uncertain hoard: Primas 1986, 104, Taf. 40/682. 5. Beograd region (Serbia) – uncertain hoard: Vasić 1994, 37, Taf. 19/253–254. 6. Beravci (Croatia, Slavonski Brod) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 211, Tab. 109/1. 7. Birján (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 98–99, Taf. 66/6. 8. Bogata de Mureş (Romania, Mureş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 115, Taf. 85/15. 9. Bokavić (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lukavac) – hoard: König 2004, 184–191, Taf. 41/78; 42/79, 81. 10. Bonyhád region 1 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 102–104, Taf. 38/3. 11. Bonyhád regon 2 (Hungary, Tolna) – looted hoard: V. Szabó 2013, 803–804, ig. 9. 12. Brvniště (Slovakia, Považka Bystrica) – hoard: Novotná 2000, Obr. 6. 13. Bükkaranyos B (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – uncertain hoard: Kemenczei 1966, 145, Taf. IV/6; Mozsolics 1985, 106. 14. Cenad/Cenadu Mare (Romania, Timiş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 137, Taf. 216/11. 15. dévaványa 2 (Hungary, Békés) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 41–42, Taf. 25/8. 16. Ecseg (Hungary, Nógrád) – hoard: Pintér 1902, II. Table/10; Mozsolics 1985, 115. 17. Estavayer-le-Lac (Switzerland, Fribourg) – settlement: Primas 1986, 105, Taf. 41/702. 18. Galoşpetrău (Romania, Bihor) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 120, Taf. 101/26. 19. Gornja Vrba (Croatia, Brod-Posavina) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 214, Tab. 51/2. 20. Grünbach 1 (Austria, Lower Austria) – hoard: Lauermann-Rammer 2013, 114, Taf. 35/1. 21. Grünbach am Schneeberg 2a (Austria, Lower Austria) – hoard: Lauermann-Rammer 2013, 119, Taf. 41/1, 6. 22. Guşteriţa 2 (Romania, Sibiu) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 120–122, Taf. 109/148. 23. Hungary – stray ind: Foltiny 1969, 53, pl. 13/16. 24. Jevíčko (Czech Repblic, Svitavy) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 346–348; Salaš 2005b, Taf. 180/32. 25. kalnik (Croatia, Koprivnica-Križevci) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 215, Tab. 93/13. 26. kenderes (Hungary, Heves) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 53, Taf. 48/1, 3. 27. keszthely (Hungary, Zala) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 137–138, Taf. 132/2. 28. koroml’a (Slovakia, Sobrance) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 91, 97, Taf. 23/396; 26/428. 29. kućišta (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosanski Brod) – hoard: König 2004, 203–206, Taf. 2/35. 30. Lechovice (Czech Republic, Znojmo) – settlement: Říhovský 1989, 57, Taf. 16/250. 31. Lengyel (Hungary, Tolna) – settlement (casting mould): Wosinsky 1896, LV. Table/6. 32. Mérk (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 55, Taf. 50/9–10. 33. Mesić-šupaja (Serbia, Banat) – hoard: Vasić 1994, 38, Taf. 21/273. 34. Meszlen (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 149, Taf. 232a/4. 35. Mezőkövesd region (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 55, Taf. 53/8. 36. Michelstetten 3 (Austria, Lower Austria) – hoard: Lauermann–Rammer 2013, 217, Taf. 100/1–2. 336 | J. G. Tarbay 37. Mintraching (Germany, Bavaria) – hoard: Primas 1986, 105, Taf. 41/696. 38. Nádudvar–Halomzug 2 (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 57–59, Taf. 57/25. 39. Nagydém (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Hampel 1896, CXCV. Table/21; Mozsolics 1985, 152. 40. Nagyrábé (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 60–61, Taf. 66/13, 15. 41. Nasiedle (Poland, Opole) – uncertain hoard: Gedl 1995, 78, Taf. 25/510. 42. Novosedly (Czech Republic, Břeclav) – settlement: Říhovský 1989, 57, Taf. 16/251. 43. Peterd (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 171–175, Taf. 53/9. 44. Poljanci 1 (Croatia, Brod-Posavina) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 218, Tab. 49/21. 45. Pomáz (Hungary, Pest) – stray ind: Patek 1968, 75, Taf. CXXIX/12. 46. Pusztadobos (Hungary, Szabol-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Jósa–Kemenczei 1965, Taf. XLIX/7; Mozsolics 1985, 180. 47. Rohod 2 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Jósa–Kemenczei 1965, 24, Taf. LI/1. 48. Rosina (Slovakia, Žilina) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 91, Taf. 24/400–401. 49. Sâmbăta Nouă (Romania, Tulcea) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 147–148, Taf. 253/27–28. 50. Siča/Lučica(Croatia, Kordun) – hoard: Perkić–Ložnjak Dizdar 2005, 52, T. 3/50. 51. Sicheviţa 3 (Romania, Caraş-Severin) – hoard: Soroceanu 1995, Abb. 2/15. 52. Sióagárd 2 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Váczi 2014, 44, 2. Kép/1. 53. Služin (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 452; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 422/8–9. 54. štramberk (Czech Republic, Nový Jičín) – settlement: Říhovský 1989, 54, Taf. 12/199. 55. Sümeg (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 187, Taf. 270b. 56. Szikszó 1 (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 80, Taf. 99/3. 57. Szombathely–Jáky street (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Ilon 2004, XLI. Table /1, 3, 6; XLII. Table/2, 4; XLIII. Table/9. 58. Tiszaszőlős (Hungary, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok) – hoard: Kemenczei 1984, 189, 419, Taf. CCIXb/6. 59. Uioara de Sus (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 132–135, Taf. 180/448, 450. 60. Velem 1 (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 211–212, Taf. 230A. 61. Velká Roudka (Czech Republic, Blansko) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 397; 2005b, Tab. 286/3. 62. Velký Blh (Slovakia, Rimavská Sobota) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 105, Taf. 30/468. 63. Vojvodina (Serbia) – stray ind: Vasić 1994, 38, Taf. 21/280. 64. Wallis (Switzerland) – stray ind: Primas 1986, 105, Taf. 41/705. 65. Zagon 1 (Romania, Covasna) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 146, Taf. 250/8. 66. Zemplín (Slovakia, Trebišov) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 91, Taf. 24/405. 67. Zsáka 1 (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: V. Szabó 2011, 340–341, Taf. 8. List 4.2 – Flanged sickles with decorated handle 1. apagy (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 86–87, Taf. 182/2. 2. augsdorf 1 (Austria, Carinthia) – hoard: Primas 1986, 109, Taf. 46/762–763. 3. Badacsonytomaj (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 87–88, Taf. 234/16. 4. Berehove 4 (Ukraine, Berehove) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 74, Taf. 46b/4, 9. 5. Bogata de Mureş (Romania, Mureş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 115, Taf. 85/16. 6. Bokavić (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lukavac) – hoard: König 2004, 184–191, Taf. 42/80, 82–83. 7. Bonyhád region 1 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 102–104, Taf. 38/7. 8. Bratislava region (Slovakia) – uncertain hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 92, Taf. 25/412. 9. Brodski Varoš (Croatia, Slavonski Brod) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 212, Tab. 64/11. 10. Bükkaranyos B (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – uncertain hoard: Kemenczei 1966, 145, Taf. III/7; IV/4; Mozsolics 1985, 106. 11. Čachtice (Slovakia, Nové Mesto nad Váhom) – stray ind: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 92–93, Taf. 25/413. 12. Caransebeş (Romania, Caraş-Severin) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 116–117, Taf. 87/14. 13. Cenadu Mare (Romania, Timiş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 137, Taf. 216/7, 9–10, 13–14. 14. Corneşti (Romania, Mureş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 141, Taf. 230/27. 15. Czech Republic – stray ind: Salaš 2005a, 400–401; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 292/3–4. 16. deszczno (Poland, Gorzów Wielkopolski) – hoard: Gedl 1995, 78, Taf. 24/499a. 17. dobrochov (Czech Republic, Prostĕjov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 313–314; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 102/8. 18. dolina (Croatia, Nova Gradiška) – hoard: Schauer 1974, 104, Abb. 5/5. 19. dolný Lopašov (Slovakia, Piešt’any) – uncertain hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 92, Taf. 25/419. 20. domaniža (Slovakia, Považská Bystrica) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 98, Taf. 27/438. 21. dombóvár (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Mészáros 1977–1978, 5, IV. table/2. 22. dipşa (Romania, Bistriţa-Năsăud) – hoard: Ciugudean et al. 2006, 15, pl. IX/4. 23. dridu (Romania, Ialomiţa) – hoard: Enăchiuc 1995, 280, Abb. 2/2, 5. 24. Fövenyes (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard from private collection: Tarbay 2015a, 107, ig. 15/58. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 337 25. Guşteriţa 2 (Romania, Sibiu) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 120–122, Taf. 109/150. 26. Hódmezővásárhely (Hungary, Csongrád) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 128, Taf. 255/6. 27. Holašovice (Czech Republic, České Budĕjovice) – hoard: Kytlicová 2007, 261–262, Taf. 21/30. 28. Horgauergreut (Germany, Bavaria) – hoard: Primas 1986, 104, Taf. 41/693. 29. Hrabová (Czech Republic, Šumperk) – hoard: Halama 2012, 104, Obr. 9–10. 30. Javornik (Croatia, Sisak) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparni 1973, 215, Tab. 98/11, 15. 31. kántorjánosi (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 51, Taf. 42/8. 32. koroml’a (Slovakia, Sobrance) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 98, Taf. 27/433. 33. krekhiv (Ukraine, Lviv) – hoard: Żurowski 1948–1949, 201, Tab. XXI/2. 34. Lengyeltóti 2 (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 142–143, Taf. 107/16. 35. Lešany 2 (Czech Republic, Prostĕjov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 401–403; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 294/6. 36. Lesenceistvánd 2 (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 144, Taf. 270a. 37. Linz (Austria, Upper Austria) – hoard: Primas 1986, 109, Taf. 46/769–770; Hansen 1994b, 519. 38. Mačkovac (Bosnia Herzegovina, Bosanska Gradiška) – hoard: König 2004, 207–208, Taf. 50/9.11. 39. Michelstetten 3 (Austria, Lower Austria) – hoard: Lauermann–Rammer 2013, 217, Taf. 100/3. 40. Mušov 2 (Czech Republic, Břeclav) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 357–371; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 204/39. 41. öreglak (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 163, Taf. 79/11. 42. Pfeingen (Germany, Baden-Württemberg) – hoard: Primas 1986, 105, Taf. 41/697. 43. Podcrkavlje–Slavonski Brod (Croatia, Slavonski Brod) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 217, Tab. 68/16. 44. Prakšice (Czech Republic, Uherské Hradištĕ) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 378; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 249/2. 45. Přestavlky (Czech Republic, Přerov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 380–387; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 255/28. 46. Pusztadobos (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Jósa–Kemenczei 1965, Taf. XLIX/6. 47. Radinac (Serbia, Podunavlje) – stray ind: Vasić 1994, 38, Taf. 21/275. 48. Regöly–Vervár (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Kőszegi 1993, 225–232; Szabó 1993, 3. tábla/7. 49. Rýdeč (Czech Republic, Ústí nad Labem) – hoard from collection: Kytlicová 2007, 302–303, Taf. 91/186–187. 50. Sâmbăta Nouă (Romania, Tulcea) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 147–148, Taf. 253/26, 29–30. 51. Sarkad (Hungary, Békés) – hoard: Kacsó 1998, 33, Abb. 1/9. 52. Sárbogárd (Hungary, Fejér) – hoard: Kemenczei 1996, 55, Abb. 8/4–5. 53. Sibiu (Romania, Sibiu) – stray ind: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 40, Taf. 281/1045. 54. šimanovci (Serbia, Vojvodina) – hoard: Vasić 1994, 38, Taf. 21/279. 55. Služin (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 452; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 422/10–11. 56. Şpălnaca 1 (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 145–146, Taf. 245/41. 57. šumatac 1 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Velika Kladuša) – hoard: König 2004, 119–222, Taf. 10/30–31. 58. Szombathely–Jáky street (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Ilon 2004, XXXII. Tábla/3; XLII. Tábla/8. 59. Torvaj (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 206, Taf. 271B/4. 60. Železné (Czech Republic, Brno-venkov) – hoard: Říhovský 1989, 54, Taf. 12/204. 61. Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Slovakia, Nové Mesto nad Váhom) – hoard: Furmánek–Novotná 2006, 98, Taf. 27/435, 437. 62. Uioara de Sus (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 132–135, Taf. 181/457–459. 63. Velká Roudka (Czech Republic, Blansko) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 397; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 285/1–2. List 5 – Rings with rhomboidal cross-section (Cat. Nr. 18–20) (the list based on: Tarbay 2014, List. 14) 1. Banka (Slovakia, Trnava) – hoard: Novotná 1970a, 89, Taf. XLIX. 2. Bátaszék (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 95, Taf. 269/8–9. 3. Beremend (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 95–96, Taf. 254/2–3. 4. Biatorbágy–Herceghalom (Hungary, Pest) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 127–128, Taf. 238/6–7. 5. Bodrog (Slovakia, Trebišov) – hoard: Novotná1970a, 91, Taf. XVIII. 6. Brodski Varoš (Croatia, Slavonski Brod) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 212, Tab. 57/42. 7. Budapest–Békásmegyer (Hungary, Pest) – grave (Nr. 124): Kalicz-Schreiber 2010, 85–86, Taf. 60/11. 8. dévaványa 2 (Hungary, Békés) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 41–42, Taf. 25/24. 9. Egyek (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 43, Taf. 27/8–9. 10. Enzersdorf im hale 2b (Austria, Upper Austria) – hoard: Lauermann–Rammer 2013, 8, Taf. 6/2, 4. 11. Fövenyes (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard from private collection:Tarbay 2015a, 107, ig. 13/52–53. 12. Lešany 2 (Czech Republic, Prostĕjov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 401–403; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 296/31. 13. Lovasberény (Hungary, Fejér) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 144–145, Taf. 246/21. 14. Lugoj (Romania, Timiş) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 122, Taf. 120/1–2. 15. kesztölc (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Tarbay 2014, 246, ig. 64/67. 338 | J. G. Tarbay 16. kloštar Ivanić (Croatia, Zagreb) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 215, Tab. 96/20. 17. Máriakéménd (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 64, 146. 18. Mixnitz (Austria, Upper Styria) – hoard: Müller-Karpe 1959a, 276; Müller-Karpe 1959b, Taf. 124d/14. 19. Mušov 2 (Czech Republic, Břeclav) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 357–371; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 200/8; 217/236. 20. Nagydobsza (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Tarbay 2016 in press. 21. Nádudvar–Halomzug 2 (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 57–59, Taf. 58/13. 22. Niedzieliska (Ukraine, Peremyszlany) – hoard: Gedl 2001, 63, Taf. 80c/47–56. 23. Palotabozsok (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 166–168, Taf. 75/28. 24. Plešivec (Slovakia, Rožňava) – hoard: Paulík 1965, 62–63, Tab. VIII/5. 25. Rájec–Jestřebí (Czech Republic, Blansko) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 450–452; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 419/30. 26. Regöly–Vervár (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Szabó 1993, 18. tábla/7; Kőszegi 1993, 225–232. 27. Rohod 3 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 68–69, Taf. 81/6. 28. Sečanj (Serbia, Banat) – hoard: Радишић 1958, 116, Таб I/6. 29. Siča/Lučica (Croatia, Kordun) – hoard: Perkić–Ložnjak Dizdar 2005, 77, T. 8/127–133. 30. Sióagárd 2 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Váczi 2014, 45, 2. kép/10–12. 31. Sobĕsuky 2 (Czech Republic, Prostĕjov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 453; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 426B/1–4; 427A/5. 32. Somogyszob (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 187, Taf. 249/6. 33. Somotor 1 (Slovakia, Trebišov) – hoard: Novotná 1970a, 118–119, Taf. XLVI. 34. štramberk 1(Czech Republic, Novy Jičin) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 454–455; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 430/5. 35. Szakály–Fütyülős (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Szabó 1996, 210–212, ig. 5. 36. Szentes–Nagyhegy 1 (Hungary, Csongrád) – hoard: Kemenczei 1996, 59, 61, Abb. 33/4. 37. Tatabánya–Bánhida (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Kemenczei 1983, 61, 1. kép/17. 38. Tállya (Hungary, Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen) – hoard: Kemenczei 1969, 28–31, VII/9–12. 39. Transylvania (Romania) – stray ind: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1988, 193, Taf. 170/2453. 40. Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Slovakia, Trenčiansky) – hoard: Novotná 1970a, 120–121, Taf. XVI. 41. Várvölgy–Nagy-Lázhegy (Hungary, Zala) – hoard: Müller 2011, 4. ábra/13. 42. Velem 1 (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 211, Taf. 228/10. List 6 – Ring pendants with loop (Cat. Nr. 21–24) (the list based on: Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 9; Pabst 2010, Liste 64a, Karte 41) 1. Beranci (Macedonia, Mogillës) – grave (Nr. 16): Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 9, Taf. 2/27. 2. Gaj/kovin (Serbia, Vojovdina) – hoard: Веселиновић 1952, 44, Tab. IV/1–9; Vasić 1982, 268. 3. Medvedevtsy 2 (Ukraine, Mukachevo) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 87, Taf. 79b/10. 4. Sečanj (Serbia, Banat) – hoard: Радишић 1958, 116, Таб. I/8; Vasić 1982, 268. 5. Shtip (Macedonia, Shtip) – grave: Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 10, Taf. 2/29. 6. Vergina (Macedonia, Hematia) – grave Ф: Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 9, Taf. 2/28. 7. Vojilovo (Serbia, Golubac) – hoard: Тодоровић 1956–1957, Сл. 3/12; Vasić 1982, 268. Similar 8. L’Epine/areste-Longue (France, Haut-Alpes) – hoard: Chardenoux-Courtois 1979, 140, pl. 88/13–14. List 7– Wheel-shaped pendants (Cat. Nr. 25–26) (the list based on: Kossack 1954, 20–23) 9. Carcassonne (France, Languedoc-Roussilon) – hoard: Guilaine 1969, pl. 13/113. 10. Hódmezővásárhely (Hungary, Csongrád) – hoard: Banner 1944–1945, 33–35, XIV. tábla/5–6. 11. krumsín (Czech Republic, Olomouc) – grave: Červinka 1902, 222, Obr. 140/8 12. Velem (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Bándi–Fekete 1977–1978, 118–123, 20–22. kép. List 8 – Rings with tapering terminals (Cat. Nr. 27–67) 1. antonovka (Ukraine, Uzhhorod) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 73, Taf. 43b/1–5. 2. arad 2 (Romania, Arad) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 139, Taf. 224/35–43; 225/44–47, 49–50. 3. Berkesz (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 96–97, Taf. 177/15–18. 4. Biatorbágy–Herceghalom (Hungary, Pest) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 127–128, Taf. 238/8–23. 5. Bokavić (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lukavac) – hoard: König 2004, 184–191, Taf. 44/143–145; 45/175–185; 46/186–207; 47/219–228. 6. Bokod (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Patay 1964, 1, 2. ábra/2, 4–5; 3. ábra/1–12. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 339 7. Budapest–Békásmegyer (Hungary, Pest) – grave (Nr. 286): Kalicz-Schreiber 2010, 165, Taf. 118/10. 8. Budapest–Buda castle (Hungary, Pest) – settlement: Patek 1968, 122–123, Taf. LXVIII/7–9. 9. Budapest–Csepel (Hungary, Pest) – hoard: Szilas 2003, 73, 4. kép/4–7. 10. Chopivtsi (Ukraine, Berehovo) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 78–79, Taf. 71/5, 8–18. 11. dévaványa 2 (Hungary, Békés) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 41–42, Taf. 25/25. 12. Fövenyes (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard from private collection: Tarbay 2015a, ig. 13/43–50. 13. Gyöngyössolymos–Kishegy 2 (Hungary, Heves) – hoard: Kemenczei 1972, 135, II. tábla/16–19. 14. Gyöngyössolymos–Kishegy 4 (Hungary, Heves) – hoard: Kemenczei 1980, 139, VI. tábla/1–18. 15. Hódmezővásárhely (Hungary, Csongrád) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 128, Taf. 256/1–3. 16. kamenný Most (Slovakia, Nové Zámky) – hoard: Novotná 2000, 375, Obr. 8/3–4, 6–8. 17. kaposvár (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Gallina–Somogyi 2004, 179, 3–4. kép. 18. kemecse 3 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 132–134, Taf. 186/26–27. 19. Lengyeltóti 3 (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 142–143, Taf. 109. 20. Lesenceistvánd 2 (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 144, Taf. 270b. 21. Lesenceistvánd 3 (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Kemenczei 1996, 55, Abb. 6/3–13. 22. Lovasberény (Hungary, Fejér) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 144–145, Taf. 246/18–20. 23. Medeno Polje (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Banja Luka) – hoard: König 2004, 208–209, Taf. 31b/2–5. 24. Mérk (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 55, Taf. 50/11–15. 25. Moigrad 1 (Romania, Sălaj) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 143, Taf. 235/23–35; 236a/36–50. 26. Nadap (Hungary, Fejér) – hoard: Makkay 2006, XXV. tábla/233–234. 27. Nagydobsza (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Tarbay 2016 in press. 28. Obava 1 (Ukraine, Munkachevo) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 90, Taf. 63/13–21. 29. Ořechov (Czech Republic, Brno-venkov) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 373–376; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 242/55–58. 30. öreglak (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 163–165, Taf. 84/5–8, 10. 31. Pustakovec (Croatia, Čakovec) – hoard: Hänsel 1999, 79, Abb. 5/11–12. 32. Regöly 1 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Kemenczei 1997, 1. ábra/1–8; 2. ábra/1–4. 33. Regöly 4 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Szabó 1993, 6. tábla/11, 13, 15–17, 20, 22; Kőszegi 1993, 225–232. 34. Rétközberencs (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 182, Taf. 193/12. 35. Sălard (Romania, Bihor) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 144, Taf. 240/31–56. 36. Sióagárd 2 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Váczi 2014, 45, 3. kép/1–61. 37. Somlyó (Hungary, Veszprém) – grave: Patek 1968, 38, Taf. LXXII. 38. Somogyszob (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 187, Taf. 249/7–27. 39. Srpska Varoš 1 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Tešanj) – hoard: König 2004, 219, Taf. 50b/3–4. 40. Strekov (Slovakia, Nové Zámky) – hoard: Novotná 2000, Obr. 7. 41. Suskovo 1 (Ukraine, Svaljava) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 95–96, Taf. 73b/8–9. 42. Szakály–Fütyülős dűlő (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Szabó 1996, 210–212, ig. 5. 43. Szentes–Nagyhegy 3 (Hungary, Csongrád) – hoard: Mozsolics 2000, 77–78, Taf. 94/4–5, 8–9. 44. Székesfehérvár (Hungary, Fejér) – hoard: F. Petres 1960, 36, 10. tábla/2–6. 45. Szombathely–Jáky street (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Ilon 2004, XXIV. tábla/1, 4, 6, 9–13; XXV. tábla/1–3, 6, 9. 46. Tatabánya–Bánhida (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Kemenczei 1983, 61, 3. kép/4–13. 47. Tatabánya–Ótelep (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Jungbert 1986, 17–18, Abb. 2/3–6; 3/1–5. 48. Tešanj/Stanari 2 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Teslić) – hoard: König 2004, 223–224, Taf. 32/6–13; 33/14–25; 34/26–37; 35/38–49; 36/50–65. 49. Tisiv/Medvež’e (Ukrajna, Volovec) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 87–88, Taf. 57/3–20; 58/21–35; 59/ 38–47. 50. Tiszanagyfalu 3 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 204, Taf. 196/8–18. 51. Tiszavasvári (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 205, Taf. 262/5–10. 52. Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Slovakia, Trenčiansky) – hoard: Novotná 2000, Obr. 1/8–28, 32–37, 41, 58–59. 53. Uzhhorod 4 (Ukraine, Uzhhorod) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 97, Taf. 70/8, 11–19, 23–24. 54. Uzhhorod region 6 (Ukraine, Uzhhorod) – uncertain hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 97, Taf. 78a/1–3. 55. Velem 1 (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 211–213, Taf. 229/20–30. 56. Zemplínske kopčany (Slovakia, Michalovce) – hoard: Demeterová-Polláková 1973, Tab. I/1–6, 8; II/ 9–12. 57. Zvolen (Slovakia, Zvolen) – hoard: Novotná 1970a, 124, Taf. XI. List 9 – passementerie ibulae, type a3a (Cat. Nr. 69–70) (the list based on: Patay 1964; Bader 1983; Tarbay 2012) 1. Bokod (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Patay 1964, 2. ábra/1. 2. Bölcske (Hungary, Tolna) – stray ind: Gaál 2001, 41–50, Abb. 2/1–3. 3. Brodski Varoš (Croatia, Slavonski Brod) – hoard: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 212, Taf. 52/9–22. 340 | J. G. Tarbay 4. Celldömölk–Sághegy (Hungary, Vas) – grave: Kőszegi 1988, 130, 47. tábla. 5. “Central Europe” – auction house (Ward&Company) – stray ind: Tarbay 2014, List. 8. 6. Corneşti (Romania, Cluj) – hoard: Bader 1983, 43–44, Taf. 5/26. 7. dunaújváros (Hungary, Fejér) – stray ind: Tarbay 2012, 116, 4. kép. 8. Érsekvadkert (Hungary, Nógrád) – hoard: Kemenczei 1984, 147. 9. kammený Most (Slovakia, Nové Zámky) – hoard: Novotná 2001, 39, Taf. 6/62. 10. kenderes 2 (Hungary, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok) – hoard: Hampel 1892a, 63, CLVIII. tábla/21. 11. kesztölc (Hungary, Komárom-Esztergom) – hoard: Tarbay 2012, 115–116, 1. kép. 12. Orci (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard or grave: Mozsolics 1985, 165–166, Taf. 120/13. 13. Pawłowice Namysłowskie (Poland, Namsłów) – hoard: Gedl 2004, 79, Taf. 52/129. 14. Porta-Bohemica-Labe (Czech Republic, Litoměřice) – hoard: Kylticová 2007, 292–293, Taf. 119/4. 15. Rimavská Sobota (Slovakia, Banská Bystrica) – hoard: Novotná 2001, 39, Taf. 6/60, Taf. 6/63. 16. Sânpetru German (Romania, Arad) – hoard: Bader 1983, 44, Taf. 6/27–29. 17. Simonfa (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 185. 18. Siófok-Balatonkiliti (Hungary, Somogy) – hoard: Kuzsinszky 1920, 4–8, 6. ábra/7; Mozsolics 1985, 91–92. 19. Świerczów (Poland, Niechlów) – stray ind: Gedl 2004, 79, Taf. 52/219. 20. Trenčín (Slovakia, Trenčín) – stray ind: Novotná 2001, 39, Taf. 6/62. 21. Velem 1 (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Hampel 1896, CCXLI. tábla/2.3. 22. Unprovenanced: Tarbay 2014, List. 8. List 10 – Gyermely type spectacle ibulae (Cat. Nr. 71–72.2) (the list based on: Pabst 2010, 29–33, Liste 7, Karte 6; Pabst 2011, 220–221, Liste 3A) 23. Batina (Croatia, Osijek-Baranja) – stray ind from cemetery: Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, 601, 612, Taf. 8/2; 20/12. 24. Borzavár–Alsótündér major (Hungary, Veszprém) – grave: Jankovits 1992, 10–11, Abb. 5/3. 25. Budapest–Békásmegyer (Hungary, Pest) – graves (Nr. 117, 191): Kalicz-Schreiber 2010, 81–82, 116–117, Taf. 55/1; 85/4. 26. Cairano (Italy, Avellino) – grave: Colucci Pescatori 1971, 517, Abb. 31, T.7. 27. Celldömölk–Sághegy (Hungary, Vas) – settlement: Patek 1968, 36, 146, Taf. 28/2. 28. Chiaromonte–Sotto la Croce (Italy, Basilikata) – grave: Pabst 2011, 375, List. 7. 29. dalj (Croatia, Osijek-Baranja) – stray ind from cemetery: Metzner-Nebelsick 2002, 659, Taf. 51/2. 30. deutsch–Altenburg (Austria, Upper Austria) – stray ind: Betzler 1974, 97, Taf. 36/305. 31. dovoba near Brežice (Slovenia, Doljenska) – grave: Starè 1975, 30–31, 54, 63, Taf. 18/3; 27/9. 32. karmin 3 (Poland, Wrocław) – hoard: Gedl 2004, 63–64, Taf. 42/168. 33. Lesenceistvánd 3 (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard: Kemenczei 1996, 55, 58, Abb. 6/2. 34. Metaponto (Italy, Basilikata) – grave: Chiartano 1994, 142, Taf. 98, T. 404a. 35. Monte Saraceno (Italy, Foggia) – grave: Nava–Pretie 2003, 155, Tav. 8/20–21. 36. Pobrežje (Slovenia, Štajerska) – grave: Pahič 1972, 41–42, 46, pl. 11/7; 12/10. 37. Sala Consilina (Italy, Salerno) – grave: Kilian 1964, 35, Beilage 17b, 7e. 38. Sečanj 2 (Serbia, Vojvodina) – hoard: Vasić 1999, 38, Taf. 16/208–209. 39. škocjan–Brežec (Slovenia) – grave (Nr. 91): Ruaro Loseri et al. 1977, 76–77, 89–90, T. 8; 91/3; 155/15–16. 40. Velem 1 (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 211–213, 469, Taf. 231b/1. 41. Velika Gorica (Croatia, Zagreb) – grave: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 221, Taf. 102/11, 12; 104/4, 9, 10. 42. Zirc–Tündérmajor (Hungary, Veszprém) – grave: Jankovits 1992, 44, 56, Abb. 33/12. List 11 – decorated pins with club-shaped head (Cat. Nr. 73) (the list based on: Říhovksý 1979; Novotná 1980; Vasić 2003, 82–88, Taf. 63a; Gavranović 2011a, 161; Váczi 2013a; Jankovits–Váczi 2013; Ložnjak Dizdar 2015, 50–51) 1. Banatska Palanka (Serbia, Bela Crkva) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 82, Taf. 31/537–539. 2. Bandino Brdo (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Glasinac) – grave: Čović 1983, 418, Sl. 29. 3. Barice (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Gračanica) – grave (Nr. 12): Gavranović 2011b, 37, Abb. 40/3. 4. Batajnica (Serbia, Zemun) – stray inds: Vasić 2003, 82, Taf. 31/540–548. 5. Batajnički Vinogradi (Serbia, Zemun) – stray inds: Vasić 2003, 82–83, Taf. 31/549–550. 6. Batković (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Bijeljina) – grave (Nr. 3): Kosorić 1967, 29–30, Tab. I/2. 7. Belegiš (Serbia, Inđija) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 31/551. 8. Beli Manastir (Croatia, Osijek-Baranja) – grave: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 211, Tab. 22/5–6. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 341 9. Beograd (Serbia, Beograd) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 31/552. 10. Bešenová (Slovakia, Žilina) – uncertain hoard: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/917. 11. Blažovice (Czech Republic, Brno-venkov) – stray inds: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1092–1093. 12. Brestovik (Serbia, Beograd) – stray inds: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 31/556–557. 13. Brno–Obřany (Czech Republic, Brno) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1095. 14. Burgenland (Austria) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1152. 15. Burgschleinitz (Austria, Lower Austria) – stary ind: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1132. 16. Čachtice (Slovakia, Trenčín) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/928. 17. Casale Cremasco, Vidolasco (Italy, Lombardy) – settlement: Carancini 1975, 212, Tav. 48/1507. 18. Celldömölk–Sághegy (Hungary, Vas) – settlement: Patek 1968, 146, Taf. XXIX. 19. Červeník (Slovakia, Trnava) – settlement: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/915. 20. Cornuţel (Romania, Caraş-Severin) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 100, Taf. 26/7. 21. Csabrendek 1 (Hungary, Veszprém) – grave: Kőszegi 1988, 130, 4. tábla/19. 22. Csákberény 2 (Hungary, Fejér) – hoard: Váczi 2007, 134–135, 6. kép/3. 23. devín (Slovakia, Bratislava-vidiek) – settlement: Novotná 1980, 141, Taf. 42/932. 24. diviaky nad Nitricou (Slovakia, Prievidza) – graves Nr. 4, 6: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/910, 913. 25. dobanovci (Serbia, Zemun) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 31/558. 26. doboz (Hungary, Csongárd) – hoard: Szathmári 1991, 6. ábra/1–6. 27. dobrinci (Serbia, Pećinci) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 31/559. 28. dolný kubín (Slovakia, Žilina) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/931. 29. domamyslice (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – graves: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1096–1099. 30. donji Petrovci (Serbia, Pećinci) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/560. 31. doroslovo (Serbia, Sombor) – graves (Nr. 96, 99): Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/561. 32. doştat (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 101, Taf. 33A/3. 33. dubany (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1100. 34. dubovac (Serbia, Kovin) – stray inds from a cemetery: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/563–567. 35. dubrovica (Serbia, Požarevac) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/568. 36. dubrovica (Serbia, Požarevac) – uncertain grave: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/569. 37. dvorovi (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republica Srpska, Bijeljina) – grave (Nr. 4): Kosorić 1965, 84, Sl. 4. 38. Feudvar (Serbia, Titel) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/570–571. 39. Gelej–Kanális-dűlő (Hungary, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) – grave: Kemenczei 1984, 100, 228, Taf. XVIII/6. 40. Gemer (Slovakia, Rimavská Sobota) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 141, Taf. 115/15, 19. 41. Gomolava (Serbia, Ruma) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/572–582. 42. Gornja koviljača (Serbia, Loznica) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/583. 43. Großmugl (Austria, Lower Austria) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1133–1134. 44. Guşteriţa 2 (Romania, Sibiu) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 120–122, Taf. 117/335–336. 45. Holubice (Czech Republic, Vyškov) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, Taf. 46/1101. 46. Ilava (Slovakia Považská Bystrica) – grave (Nr. 196): Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/ 926. 47. Irbach (Germany, Bavaria) – grave: Keim–Neubauer 1956, Abb. 28/8. 48. Italy – stray ind: Carancini 1975, 212, Tav. 49/1508. 49. Jagodina (Serbia, Jagodina) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 83, Taf. 32/584–585. 50. Jakovo (Serbia, Syrmium) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 23, Taf. 32/587–588. 51. Jaruge (Croatia, Županja) – stray ind: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 215, Tab. 26/16. 52. kalnik–Igrišće (Croatia, Koprivnica-Križevci) – settlement: Majnarić-Pandžić 1992, 54–60, T. I/2; IIa/4. 53. keszthely–Apátdomb (Hungary, Veszprém) – settlement: Říhovksý 1983, 33, Taf. 13/282–283. 54. klentnice (Czech Republic, Břeclav) – grave (Nr. 86): Říhovksý 1965, 22–24, Taf. XXIII/ch. 55. kličevac–Pomrlovo 2 (Serbia, Požarevac) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 32/590. 56. kobeřice (Czech Republic, Vyškov) – cemetery: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1102. 57. kotzendorf (Austria, Horn) – stray ind: Lochner 1991, 91, 173, 178, type 19/b. 58. kovačica (Serbia, Kovačica) – grave: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/591. 59. křepice (Czech Republic, Břeclav) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1104–1105. 60. krepoljin (Serbia, Žagubin) – hoard from private collection: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/592–593. 61. križevci–Ciglana (Croatia, Koprivnica-Križevci) – settlement: Homen 1982, 21, T. II/2. 62. Lengyel (Hungary, Tolna) – settlement: Wosinsky 1896, LXXIII. tábla/1, 11–15. 63. Limberg (Austria, Lower Austria) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1139–1140. 64. Lovas (Croatia, Vinkovci) – stay ind: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 216, Tab. 26/15. 65. L’uborča (Slovakia, Trenčín) – stray inds: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/919, 922. 66. Luleč (Czech Republic, Vyškov) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1107–1109. 67. Markovac–Grunjac (Serbia, Banat) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/594. 342 | J. G. Tarbay 68. Maiersch (Czech Republic, Lower Austria) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1141 69. Mala Brusnica (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Brod) – grave (Nr. 3): Dular et al. 2002, Sl. 45.Gr.3.6. 70. Mainz (Germany, Rhineland-Palatine state) – stray ind: Kubach 1977, 312, Taf. 54/733. 71. Malá Bĕlá (Czech Republic, Mlada Bolesláv) – grave (Nr. 48 and 102): Hralová 1962, 19–20, 33, XXXV/11; XXXVI/1. 72. Male Livadice 1 (Serbia, Majdanpek) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/595. 73. Male Livadice (Serbia, Majdanpek) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/596. 74. Malé Hradisko (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1110–1111. 75. Marefy (Czech Republic, Vyškov) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 148, Taf. 46/1112. 76. Martijanec–Žgališče (Croatia, Varaždin) – grave: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 73, pl. 25/7. 77. Moravičany (Czech Republic, Šumperk) – grave (Nr. 165): Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1114. 78. Neštin (Serbia, Bačka Palanka) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/597. 79. Novi Banovci (Serbia, Indjija) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/601. 80. Nova Bingula (Serbia, Šid) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/600. 81. Očkov (Slovakia, Trenčín) – grave: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/914. 82. Oravský Podzámok (Slovakia, Dolný Kubín) – cemetery: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/929. 83. Osijek–Retfala (Croatia, Osijek-Baranya) – settlement: Šimić 1993, 140, Abb. 13/1. 84. Pančevo region (Serbia, Banat) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/608. 85. Pećinci (Serbia, Pećinci) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/603. 86. Perkovci–Dobrevo (Croatia, Slavonski Brod-Posavina) – graves (Nr. 2, 5, 8): Minichreiter 1982–1983, 58–60, T. 21/2.2; T. 21/5.2. 87. Peterd (Hungary, Baranya) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 171–175, Taf. 61/16. 88. Plavecké Podhradie (Slovakia, Senice) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/908. 89. Pobedim (Slovakia, Trenčín) – settlement: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/924. 90. Popinci 1 (Serbia, Pećinci) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/604. 91. Požarevac region (Serbia) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/605–606. 92. Privina Glava (Serbia, Šid) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/607. 93. Provitín (Czech Republic, Písek District) – stray ind: Bouzek 1963, 93, Obr. 16/8. 94. Radzovce (Slovakia, Lučenec) – grave: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/916, 923. 95. Ram (Serbia, Golubac) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/608. 96. Rhein bei Mainz (Germany, Rhineland-Palatine state) – stray ind: Kubach 1977, 312, Taf. 54/732. 97. Ritopek (Serbia, Beograd) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 84, Taf. 33/609. 98. Rousínov (Czech Republic, Vyškov) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1118. 99. Salaš Noćajski (Serbia, Sremska Mitrovica) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/610. 100. Sárbogárd (Hungary, Fejér) – grave (Nr. 3): Jankovits–Váczi 2013, 34, Abb. 3/3. 101. Sarvaš (Croatia, Osijek) – stray ind: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 218, Tab. 26/13. 102. Senička (Czech Republic, Olomouc) – cemetery: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1119. 103. Silica (Slovakia, Rožňava) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 140, 141, Taf. 41/927. 104. šimanovci (Serbia, Pećinci) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/611. 105. Sióagárd 2 (Hungary, Tolna) – hoard: Váczi 2014, 45, 2. kép/31. 106. Sisak (Croatia) – river ind (HaA1): Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 219, Tab. 26/10. 107. Sistrans (Austria, Tyrol) – grave: Wagner 1943, 34, 104–106, Taf. 1/11. 108. Sládečkovce (Slovakia, Nitra) – settlement: Novotná 1980, 141, Taf. 42/939. 109. Slavkov (Czech Republic, Vyškov) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1121. 110. Slavonski Brod (Croatia) – hoard: Clausing 2004, 112, Abb. 29/38. 111. Stapari (Serbia, Užice) – grave: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/613. 112. Staré Město (Czech Republic, Nový Jičín) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1122. 113. Staro Petrovo selo (Croatia, Nova Gradiška) – stray ind: Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 219, Tab. 26/14. 114. štramberk (Czech Republic, Nový Jičín) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1123. 115. štramberk 4 (Czech Republic, Nový Jičín) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 457–461; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 449/72. 116. Stremska Mitrovica (Serbia, Stremska Mitrovica) – hoard: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/612. 117. štúrovo (Slovakia, Nové Zámký) – settlement: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/918. 118. Szombathely–Zanat (Hungary, Vas) – grave (Nr. 32): Ilon et al. 2011, 33–34, 35. ábra/9. 119. Szombathely–Reiszig erdő alatti dűlő (Hungary, Vas) – settlement: Ilon 2004, 68, LVII. tábla/4. 120. hunau am kamp (Austria, Lower Austria) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1146. 121. Traismauer 2 (Austria, Lower Austria) – hoard: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1147. 122. Trenčianske Teplice (Slovakia, Trenčín) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/930. 123. Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Slovakia, Trenčín) – hoard: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/911. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 343 124. Turija (Serbia, Srbodran) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/614. 125. Uioara de Sus (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 133, Taf. 206/1337–1342, 1347–1349. 126. Unterradl (Austria, Lower Austria) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1148. 127. Vatin (Serbia, Vršac) – settlement: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/615. 128. Velem (Hungary, Vas) – settlement: Říhovksý 1983, 33–35, Taf. 13/284–304; 14/305–316, 327–330, 332–333, 336–338; 15/339–342, 344–346. 129. Velem (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Říhovksý 1983, 39, Taf. 13/385. 130. Velesnica (Serbia, Kladovo) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/616. 131. Vienna–district 21 (Austria, Leopoldau) – stary ind: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1149. 132. Vienna–district 22 (Austria, Aspern) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1150. 133. Vinča or Brestovik (Serbia, Beograd) – hoard (HaA1): Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 33/617–622. 134. Vinkovci (Croatia, Vukovar-Sirmien) – settlement: Dizdar 1999, 34. 135. Vojlovica (Serbia, Pančevo) – graves (Nr. 13, 94): Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 34/624–625. 136. Vrchoslavice (Czech Republic, Prostějov) – cemetery: Říhovksý 1979, Taf. 47/1129. 137. Vršac–Kozluk (Serbia, Vršac) – uncertain hoard: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 34/626. 138. Vučedol (Croatia, Vukovar-Sirmium) – settlement: Forenbaher 1989, 60–61, T. 3b/4. 137. Výrovice (Czech Republic, Znojmo) – settlement: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1130. 140. Wietersdorf (Austria, Carinthia) – stray ind: Říhovksý 1979, 150, Taf. 47/1151. 141. Žarkovo (Serbia, Beograd) – stray ind: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 34/627. 142. Žarošice (Czech Republic, Hodonín) – grave: Říhovksý 1979, 149, Taf. 47/1131. 143. Zemianske Podhradie (Slovakia, Trenčín) – stray ind: Novotná 1980, 140, Taf. 41/925. 144. Zemun (Serbia, Beograd) – stray inds: Vasić 2003, 85, Taf. 34/628–630. 145. Županja šlajs (Croatia, Vukovar-Sirmium) – settlement: Plemić 1981, 99–100, T. III/6. 146. Zvornimirovo (Croatia, Virovitica-Pdravina) – settlement: Sekelj Ivančan–Belaj 1998, 113. List 12 – Repoussé-decorated bronze sheets (“diadems”) (Cat. Nr. 74) (the list based on: Tarbay 2015a, List I) 1. antonovka (Ukraine, Uzhhorod) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 73, Taf. 64/2–3. 2. dolina nad Savi (Croatia, Nova Gradiška) – hoard: Schauer 1974, 11, Abb. 10/4. 3. dridu (Romania, Ialomiţa) – hoard: Enăchiuc 1995, 283, Abb. 3/4–5. 4. drslavice 1 (Czech Republic, Uherské Hradišté) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 317–332; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 137/599. 5. Fövenyes (Hungary, Veszprém) – hoard from private collection: Tarbay 2015a, 105, ig. 3–5; 21/1m–p. 6. kemecse 1 (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 132, Taf. 190/4a–b. 7. kék (Hungary, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg) – hoard: Mozsolics 1985, 131–132, Taf. 192/1. 8. Linz (Austria, Freiberg) – hoard: Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975, 113, Taf. 47/461. 9. Mačkovac–Crišnjevi (Croatia, Nova Gradiška) – hoard: Karavanić 2007, 59–67, Sl. 1. 10. “Middle-Europe” – auction house (Hermann Historica), stray ind: Tarbay 2015a, 108, List I/10, ig. 7/1. 11. Sarkad (Hungary, Hajdú-Bihar) – hoard: Kacsó 1998, 38, Abb. 2/15. 12. štramberk 4 (Czech Republic, Nový Jičín) – hoard: Salaš 2005a, 457–461; Salaš 2005b, Tab. 439/14. 13. Szombathely (Hungary, Vas) – hoard: Ilon 2002, 161–166, Abb. 3. 14. Tisiv/Medvež’e (Ukraine, Volovec) – hoard: Kobal’ 2000, 87–88, Taf. 56b/2. 15. Uioara de Sus (Romania, Alba) – hoard: Petrescu-Dîmboviţa 1978, 132–135, Taf. 201/1056. 16. Unprovenanced – online auction (Ebay), stray ind: Tarbay 2015a, 108, List I/17, ig. 7/4. 344 | J. G. Tarbay Catalogue19 1. Sword (140.1888.10): Rhomboid-sectioned blade fragment of a sword. Grooves are visible on its surface. Small groups of nicks in horizontal position can be observed on both side of the blade. he surface of the object is wellpolished. A small notch and sharpening traces are visible along its edge. Based on its form, the original object could have been broken by bending. l.: 10.6 cm, w.1.: 3.5 cm–3.4 cm, th.: 0.6 cm, w.2.: 108 g. 2. Sword (140.1888.10): Rhomboid-sectioned blade fragment of a sword, grooves are visible on its surface. Small nicks can be observed along its central rib. l.: 9.9 cm, th.: 3.2 cm–3.1 cm, th.: 0.9 cm, w.2.: 119 g. 3. Sword (140.1888.11): Bent blade tip fragment. Grooves are visible on its surface. Porosity can be observed along the breakage surface of the object. A small notch is visible along its edge. l.: 6.7 cm, w.1.: 2.2 cm, th.: 0.5 cm, w.2.: 18 g. 4. Sword (140.1888.-): Flange fragment of a sword with two quadratic-shaped rivet holes. he eared terminals splay out from the end of the hilt-tang. l.: 4 cm, w.1.: 3.9 cm–2 cm, th.: 0.8 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 5. Spearhead (140.1888.5): Smaller, fragmented spearhead with leaf-shaped blade and middle strengthening ribs. he interface of the socket and the blade is smooth. As a result of a misrun defect, a long hole is visible along the upper part of the central rib. Horizontal and vertical mould shit can be observed along the narrow sides of the object. he surface of the objects is well-polished. Sharpening traces are visible on the tip. l.: 17.3 cm, w.1. (socket): 2.7 cm–2.6 m, w.1. (blade): 4.7 cm–1.9 cm, w.2.: 11 g. 6. Spear (140.1888.6): Spearhead with leaf-shaped blade and middle strengthening ribs. Rivet holes are visible along its socket. Slight horizontal shit and misrun defect can be seen along the interface of the blade and the socket. he blade of the object is worked. he tip of the object is slightly bent. he casting seams along the socket are wellpolished. l.: 9.2 cm, w.1.: (socket): 2.4 cm, w.1. (blade): 4 cm–1.3 cm, w.2.: 77 g. 7. Spear (140.1888.4): Smaller spearhead with leaf-shaped blade. Rivet holes are visible along its socket. he blade of the object is slightly bent which can be associated with horizontal cracs. he blade of the object is worked. Small notch is visible on its blade. he casting seams along the socket are well-polished. A recent damage can be observed on the tip. l.: 12.1 cm, w.1. (socket): 2.4 cm × 2.3 cm, w.1. (blade): 3.5 cm × 0.9 cm, w.2.: 75 g. 8. knife (140.1888.16): Blade fragment of a knife. Judgeing on its shape, it could have been sharpened. Small notches are visible along its blade. l.: 7.4 cm, w.1.: 2 cm, th.: 0.3 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 9. knife (140.1888.17): Tanged knife with straight blade and back. he tang of the object is lattened, and perforated with a quadratic hole. l.: 7.1 cm, w.1.: 1.2–0.8 cm, w.2.: 13 g. 10. Socketed axe (140.1888.2): Socketed axe with crescent-shaped rim and loop. Two slightly curved ribs are visible below its rim. False wings can be seen along its narrow sides. he cross-section of the object is ovoid. he edge is straight and fragmentary. Slight horizontal mould shit can be seen near to its loop, but on other parts of the object, this casting defect was polished. he remains of the sprue were hammered. Slight hammering traces are visible on the blade section of the axe. l.: 11 cm, w.1.: 5.5 cm–3.4 cm, w.2.: 195 g. 11. Socketed axe (140.1888.3): Fragmented socketed with strongly widened blade. he cross-section of its body is hexagonal and false wings are visible along its narrow body parts. he breakage surface of the object is solid, only a small gashole visible on it. he casting seams of the object are well-polished. Hammering traces are visible on the surface of the blade, and sharpening was observed on the edge. A group of small nicks can be seen on the center of the blade. l.: 7.5 cm, w.1. (socket): 2.7 cm–1.6 cm, w.1. (blade): 9 cm, w.2.: 191 g. 12. Socketed axe (140.1888.34): Blade fragment of a socketed axe. Hammering traces or a partitioning impact mark is visible on its surface. l.: 2.9 cm, w.1.: 1.6 cm–0.5 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 13. Modiied socketed axe (140.1888.1): Hexagonal sectioned socketed axe with thickened rim and facetted socket. A horizontal rib is visible below its rim. he loop of the object is broken and the remains of the broken casting jet is visible on the top of its loop. Slight vertical shit can be observed along its narrow side. he object was reshaped into a socketed hammer. he face of the object is rounded and burred. l.: 6.2 cm, w.1.: 3.1 cm–2.6 cm, Face: 2.5 cm–1.3 cm, w.2.: 84 g. 14. Sickle (140.1888.12): Flange-handled sickle with concave handle base and spur. Rivet holes are visible in the center of its handle. he handle is decorated with two parallel ribs. A remain of the broken sprue can be observed on the back of the blade. Hammering traces are visible along the blade of the object. 15.5 cm–10.4 cm, w.1. (blade): 0.6 cm–0.2 cm, th. (handle): 0.4 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 128 g. 15. Sickle (140.1888.13): Flange-handled sickle with concave handle base and spur. he handle is decorated with two parallel ribs. A remain of the broken sprue can be observed on the back of the blade. he blade of the object is hammered and intensive abrasion traces can be observed along its edge. he tip of the blade is bent. 15.4 cm–8.9 cm, w.1. (blade): 2.6 cm–0.5 cm, th. (handle): 0.2–0.1 cm, w.2.: 78 g. 16. Saw (140.1888.15): Semi-oval sectioned saw fragment. Abrasion traces are visible on its teeth. l.: 5.5 cm, w.1.: 1.9 cm, th.: 0.2 m, w.2.: 8 g. 19 Abbrevations: l.: length, d.: diameter, w.1.: width, th.: thickness, w.2.: weight, o.l.: outstretched length. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 345 17. Saw (140.1888.14): Unreined saw fragments. he surface of the object is hammered, but teeth are not visible along its blade. he object was broken by bending. l.: 11.2 cm, w.1.: 2.4 cm, th.: 0.1 cm, w.2.: 20 g. 18. Ring (140.1888.21): Oval-sectioned closed ring. It was originally part of a chained object. 8.1 cm–8.2 cm, th.: 0.9 cm–0.3 cm, w.2.: 34 g. 19. Ring (140.1888.23): Oval-sectioned closed ring. It was originally part of a chained object. 8.4 cm–8.4 cm, th.: 1.1 cm–0.3 cm, w.2: 37 g. 20. Ring (140.1888.22): Oval-sectioned closed ring. It was originally part of a chained object. 7.9 cm–7.9 cm, th.: 0.9 cm–0.3 cm, w.2: 26 g. 21. Ring pendant with loop (140.1888.26): Semi-rhomboid sectioned, cast closed ring with loop. It was originally part of a chained object. 7.3 cm–6.5 cm, th.: 0.8 cm–0.3 cm, w.2.: 20 g. 22. Ring pendant with loop (140.1888.24): Semi-rhomboid sectioned, cast closed ring with loop. It was originally part of a chained object. 5.7 cm–6.7 cm, th.: 0.7 cm–0.3 cm, w.2: 16 g. 23. Ring pendant with loop (140.1888.24): Rhomboid sectioned, cast closed ring with loop. It was originally part of a chained object. Slight mould shit can be seen near to its loop. 6.4 cm–7.1 cm, th.: 0.8 cm–0.3 cm, w.2.: 18 g. 24. Ring pendant with loop (140.1888.24): Rhomboid sectioned, cast closed ring with loop. It was originally part of a chained object. Slight mould shit and a misrun defect can be seen near to its loop. 6.3 cm–7 cm, th.: 0.9 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 17 g. 25. Ring (140.1888.25): Rhomboid-sectioned wheel-shaped ring. Slight mould shit is visible on the object. It was originally part of a chained object. 6 cm–6cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.7 cm, w.2.: 41 g. 26. Ring (140.1888.25): Rhomboid-sectioned wheel-shaped ring. Slight mould shit is visible on the object. It was originally part of a chained object. 6 cm–6 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.7 cm, w.2.: 41 g. 27. Ring (140.1888.26): Oval-sectioned, opened ring with pointed terminals. he object could have been a part of a chained object (Vásárhely 1889, 1. tábla/33). 9.3 cm–8.6 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, d.: 8.4 cm, o.l: 31.7 cm, w.2.: 25 g. 28. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, circular-sectioned, opened ring with blunt terminals. 8.4 cm–8.2 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.4 cm, d.: 7.1 cm, o.l.: 28 cm, w.2.: 32 g. 29. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, triangular- and quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 8.5 cm–8.5 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.2 cm, d.: 7.3 cm, o.l.: 33.4 cm, w.2.: 33 g. 30. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, triangular- and quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 8.7 cm–8.5 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.4 cm, d.: 7.9 cm, o.l.: 31.6 cm, w.2.: 33 g. 31. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic- and semi-circle-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 9.4 cm–9.3 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.5 cm, d.: 8.5 cm, o.l.: 36.7 cm, w.2.: 44 g. 32. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, cirular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 9.8 cm–9.5 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, d.: 9 cm, o.l.: 31.2 cm, w.2.: 35 g. 33. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 9.7 cm–8.4 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.3 cm, d.: 8.8 cm, o.l.: 29.8 cm, w.2.: 30 g. 34. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 10.9 cm–9.6 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, d.: 10.2 cm, o.l.: 34.1 cm, w.2.: 38 g. 35. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 9.1 cm–9.1 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.5 cm, d.: 8.4 cm, o.l.: 30.7 cm, W.2.: 38 g. 36. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 10 cm–9.5 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.5 cm, d.: 8.7 cm, o.l.: 35.7 cm, w.2.: 38 g. 37. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with blunt terminals. 9.9 cm–8.5 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, d.: 8.8 cm, o.l.: 30.7 cm, w.2.: 42 g. 38. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 8.2 cm–6.7 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.3 cm, d.: 7.5 cm, o.l.: 31.4 cm, w.2.: 29 g. 39. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 8 cm–7.4 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.2 cm, d.: 7.2 cm, o.l.: 27 cm, w.2.: 13 g. 40. Ring (140.1888.26): Undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. he middle of the object is broken. 7.5 cm–6.5 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.3 cm, d.: 6.5 cm, o.l.: 27.5 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 41. Ring (140.1888.-): Undecorated, circular-sectioned, thick opened ring with pointed terminals. One of its terminals is missing. 6 cm–6.1 cm, th.: 0.7 cm–0.8 cm, d.: 4.6 cm, o.l.: 19.5 cm, w.2.: 68 g. 42. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 8 cm–3.2 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 11 cm, w.2.: 19 g. 43. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. he object is decorated with slant chased lines. 8.5 cm–6.3 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 17.5 cm, w.2.: 29 g. 44. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring. he object is decorated with bundles of lines. 7 cm–5.5 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 12.7 cm, w.2.: 17 g. 346 | J. G. Tarbay 45. Ring (140.1888.29): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 7.7 cm–7.3 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 18.7 cm, w.2.: 16 g. 46. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. 8.8 cm–2.6 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 10.3 cm, w.2.: 12 g. 47. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. One of its terminals is missing. 7.4 cm–6 cm, th.: 0.3 cm–0.3 cm, o.l.: 18.9 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 48. Ring (140.1888.27): Bent fragment of an undecorated, quadratic-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. One of its terminals is missing. 9.7 cm–2.5 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 11 cm, w.2.: 12 g. 49. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned opened ring with pointed terminals. One of its terminals is missing. 5.3 cm–4.9 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 13.4 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 50. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of a decorated, circular-sectioned opened ring. Bundles of line decoration are visible on its surface. 8 cm–3.4 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 11 cm, w.2.: 19 g. 51. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of a decorated, circular-sectioned opened ring. Bundles of line decoration are visible on its surface. 6.7 cm–3.5 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 10.2 cm, w.2.: 14 g. 52. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring with pointed terminals. 6 cm– 2.6 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 8.2 cm, w.2.: 11 g. 53. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring with pointed terminals. 5.5 cm–1 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 5.7 cm, w.2.: 7 g. 54. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring with blunt terminals. 6.1 cm–1.3 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.6 cm, o.l.: 6.6 cm, w.2.: 16 g. 55. Ring (140.1888.27, 140.1888.27): Fragments of a circular-sectioned ring with pointed terminals and bundles of lines decoration. 8 cm–3.2 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 10.2 cm, w.2.: 20 g. 56. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring. 4 cm–1 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.6 cm, o.l.: 4.3 cm, w.2.: 10 g. 57. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, quadratic- and triangular-sectioned ring 6.6 cm–4.6 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 15 cm, w.2.: 13 g. 58. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring. 4.4 cm–1.1 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 4.8 cm, w.2.: 7 g. 59. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring with pointed-terminals. 5.8 cm–1.8 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 6.7 cm, w.2.: 8 g. 60. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring. 6 cm–3.9 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 10.1 cm, w.2.: 8 g. 61. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, quadratic-sectioned ring. 5 cm–1.1 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, o.l.: 5.5 cm, w.2.: 7 g. 62. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring with pointed terminals. 5 cm–2.2 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 7 cm, w.2.: 6 g. 63. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring. 4.6 cm–1.1 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 5 cm, w.2.: 5 g. 64. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, quadratic-sectioned ring with pointed-terminals. 5.3 cm–2.3 cm, th.: 0.3 cm–0.2 cm, o.l.: 6.9 cm, w.2.: 4 g. 65. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, triangular-sectioned ring with pointed-terminals. 5.1 cm–1 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 5.2 cm, w.2.: 4 g. 66. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring. l.: 4.9 cm, th.: 0.3 cm, w.2.: 3 g. 67. Ring (140.1888.27): Fragment of an undecorated, circular-sectioned ring with pointed terminal. 2.7 cm–2.6 cm, th.: 0.4 cm–0.4 cm, o.l.: 9 cm, w.2.: 6 g. 68. Wire (140.1888.27): Quadratic-sectioned wire fragment. l.: 4.5 cm, th.: 0.5 cm–0.5 cm, w.2.: 8 g. 69. Fibula (140.1888.-): Intact A3a type passementerie ibula with one main spiral and eight lateral spirals. he body of the object is composed of circle-sectioned wires of circular section which are fastened by three, cast hinges. Hammering traces are visible on the three hinges. he central wire is eight-shaped before the spring. l.: 21.2 cm, w.1. (main spiral): 8.3 cm, w.1. (lateral spirals): 3 cm, th. of the wires: 0.4 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 215 g. 70. Fibula (140.1888.-): Intact A3a type passementerie ibula with one main spiral and eight lateral spirals. he body of the object is composed of wires of circular section which are fastened by three, cast hinges. Hammering traces are visible on the three hinges. he central wire is eight-shaped before the spring. One of its lateral spirals can be interpreted as a later replacement. l.: 21.8 cm, w.1. (main spiral): 8.3cm, w.1. (lateral spirals): 6.5 cm, th. of the wires: 0.5 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 263 g. 71. Fibula (140.1888.-): Intact spectacle ibula, the middle of the object is eight-shaped. l.: 7.9 cm, w.1. (spirals): 3.6–3.7 cm, w.1. (eight-shaped part): 1.7 cm, th. of the wires: 0.3 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 31 g. 72. Fibula (140.1888.-): Intact spectacle ibula, the middle of the object is eight-shaped. A quadripartite chain is attached to the spiral of the ibula by a cast ring and a bent metal sheet. hree from the four chains are intact, he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 347 displaying small rings in their ends. he chains consist of metal sheet rings and cast rings. On the ring guarding the chain of the ibula, intensive use wear mark is to be observed which could be the result of the chain elements’ rubbing. Total l.: 22.3 cm, l. of the ibulae: 7.2 cm, w.1. (spirals): 3.3 cm–3.4 cm, w.1. (eight-shaped part): 1.2 cm, th. of the wires: 0.2 – 0.2 cm, w.2.: 55 g. 73. Pin (140.1888.-): Upper fragment of a blunt-headed pin with chased decoration. l.: 4 cm, w.1.: 0.5 cm– 0.3cm, w.2.: 3 g. 74. diademe (140.1888.19): Fragment of a bronze metal sheet with repoussé decoration. hree perforated holes are visible in vertical position near to the edge of the object. l.: 10.6 cm, w.1.: 5.4 cm, th.: 0.1 cm, w.2.: 21 g. 75. Bronze sheet belt hook (140.1888.20): Bronze sheet belt hook with repoussé decoration. l.: 8.6 cm, w.1.: 4.9 cm–2.4 cm–1.4 cm, th.: 0.1 cm, w.2.: 23 g. 76. Bronze sheet (140.1888.32): hick, bent bronze metal sheet of semi-oval section. 2 cm–1.4 cm, o.l.: 4.9 cm, w.1.: 0.8 cm, w.2.: 3 g. 77. Cauldron handle (140.1888.29): Octagonal sectioned handle fragment of a cauldron. Traces of hammering are visible on its terminal. 13.1 cm–9 cm, th.: 0.7 cm–0.7 cm, w.2.: 73 g. 78. Chained rings (without inventory number): he object is composed of two small rings which were chained together by hammering. l.: 2.9 cm, w.1.: 1.9 cm, th.: 0.2 cm–0.2 cm, w.2.: 3 g. 79. Ingot (140.1888.34): Smaller, amorphous ingot fragment in quadratic shape. 6.3 cm–3.2 cm, th.: 2.2 cm, w.2.: 235 g. 80. Bronze lump (140.1888.3): Small, oval-shaped bronze lump. 5.5 cm–4.1 cm, th.: 1.2 cm, w.2.: 67 g. 81. Bronze lump (140.1888.3-): Small, oval-shaped bronze lump. One of its parts is broken of due to recent impact damage. 5 cm–3 cm, th.: 1 cm, w.2.: 49 g. 82. Bronze lump (without inventory number): Small, amorphous bronze lump. 2.9 cm–1 cm, th.: 0.4 cm, w.2.: 6 g. 83. Bronze lump (without inventory number): Small, rounded bronze lump. 2.1 cm–1.5 cm, th.: 0.8 cm, w.2.: 9 g. 84. Bronze lump (without inventory number): Small, amorphous bronze lump. 2 cm–0.9 cm, th.: 1.1 cm, w.2.: 3 g. 85. Oval-shaped ingot (140.1888.27): Small, oval-shaped ingot of triangular section. 3.8 cm–0.4 cm, th.: 0.4 cm, w.2.: 0.2 g. 86. Sprue (140.1888.34): Greater sprue with broken canal and semi-circular cross-section. 3.5 cm–4.4 cm, w.2.: 4.6 g. 87. Sprue (140.1888.-): Small conical-shaped sprue with two impact marks on its body. 1.9 cm–2.4 cm, th.: 1.1 cm – 0.4 cm, w.2.: 12 g. 88. Wire (without inventory number): Amorphous wire broken into two fragments. 88.1.) 3.1 cm–1.4 cm, th.: 0.6 cm–0.4 cm, w.2.: 4 g; 88.2) 2.2 cm–1.7 cm, th.: 0.3 cm–0.3 cm, w.2.: 2 g. 89. Urn (140.1888.35): Urn with slightly bent, facetted rim and cylindrical neck. he shoulders are decorated with vertical lutes. he outer surface of the object is light brown, the inner is black just as the breakage surfaces. he object is tempered with sand and small gravel grits. he breakage surfaces of the ceramic inds are recent which could have been caused by plow (Vásárhelyi 1889, 62). 89.1) 4.6 cm–5.7 cm, th.: 0.6 cm, w.2.: 20 g; 89.2.1) 5.6 cm–5.6 cm, th.: 0.7 cm, w.2.: 22 g; 89.2.2) 5.8 cm–5.2 cm, th.: 0.6 cm, w.2.: 18 g; 89.3) 5.3 cm–5.4 cm, th.: 0.6 cm, w.2.: 18 g; 89.4) 4.1 cm–2.6 cm, th.: 0.1 cm, w.2.: 8 g; 89.5) 4.2 cm–3.2 cm, th.: 0.7 cm, w.2.: 9 g; 89.6.1.) 2.4 cm–1.8 cm, th.: 0.6 cm, w.2.: 3 g; 89.6.2) 2 cm–1.6 cm, th.: 0.7 cm, w.2.: 2 g; 89.7) 2 cm–1.7 cm, th.: 0.5 cm, w.2.: 2 g. Lost and later aquisited objects 90. Socketed axe (55.1892.1): Socketed axe with thickened rim and loop. he wider sides of the object are decorated with identical rib patterns which are composed of two horizontal lines, three dots and three V-shaped ribs. he blade section of the object is missing. l.: 5.5 cm, w.1.: 3.9 cm. (he description is based on the Inventory book of the Hungarian National Museum). 91. Sickle (55.1892.2): Blade fragment of a sickle with inner rib decoration. l.: 4.5 cm, w.1.: 2.4 cm. (he description is based on the Inventory book of the Hungarian National Museum). References Alexander 1965 Avila 1983 B. Hellebrandt 1999 Bader 1983 Bader in press Alexander, J., he Spectacle Fibulae of Southern Europe, AJA, 69, 1, 7–23. Avila, R. A., Bronzene Lanzen- und Pfeilspitzen der griechischen Spätbronzezeit, PBF, V, 1, München. B. Hellebrandt, M., A mezőnyárádi bronzkincs. Der Bronzefund von Mezőnyárád, HOMÉ, 37, 139–166. Bader, T., Die Fibeln in Rumänien, PBF, XVI, 6, Stuttgart. Bader, T., Lanzen-, Speer und Pfeilspitzen in Rumänien, PBF, V, Stuttgart, in press. 348 | J. G. Tarbay Ballmer 2010 Ballmer, A., Zur Topologie des bronzezeitlichen Deponierens. Von der Handlungstheorie zur Raumanalyse, PZ, 85, 120–131. Bándi–Fekete 1977–1978 Bándi, G.–Fekete, M., Újabb bronzkincs Velem-Szentviden. Ein neues Bronzedepot in Velem–St.-Veit, Savaria, 11–12, 101–133. Banner 1944–1954 Banner, J., Bronzleletek Hódmezővásárhely határában [Trouvailles de bronze des environs de Hódmezővásárhely], ArchÉrt, 3, 5–6, 29–42. Bejinariu 2007 Bejinariu, I., Depozitul de Bronzuri de la Brâglez (comuna Surduc, Judeţul Sălaj), Cluj-Napoca. Betzler 1974 Betzler, P., Die Fibeln in Süddeutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz I, PBF, XIV, 3, München. Bietti Sestieri et al. 2013 Bietti Sestieri, A. M.–Salzani, L., Giardano, C.–Verly, G., Ritual treatment of weapons as a correlate of structural change in the Italian LBA communities: the bronze hoard of Pila del Brancon (Nogara, Verona), RSP, 63, 155–169. Bíró–V. Szabó 2009 Bíró, P.–V. Szabó, G., Őskori magaslati erődített település Bükkzsérc-Hódos-tetőn. Előzetes jelentés a lelőhelyen végzett kutatásokról. Urzeitliche befestigte Höhensiedlung in Bükkzsérc-Hódos-tető. Vorläuiger Bericht über die Forschungen am Fundort, Ősrégészeti levelek, 11, 72–84. Born 1992 Born, H., Zu den Herstellungen der Armringe aus dem Bronzefund von Lengyeltóti/ Ungarn, ActaPraehistArch, 24, 289–294. Born–Hansen 2001 Born, H.–Hansen, S., Helme und Wafen Alteuropas. Sammlung Axel Guttmann, IX, Mainz. Boroffka–Ridiche 2005 Boroka, N.–Ridiche, F., Der Gußformenfund von Pleniţa, Kreis Dolj, Rumänien. Descoperirea de tipare pentru turnarea bronzului de la Pleniţa, judeţul Dolj, IN: Soroceanu, T. (Hrsg.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien. Beiträge zur Veröfentlichung und Deutung bronze-und älterhallstattzeitlicher Metallfunde in europäischen Zusammenhang II. Descoperiri de bronzuri din România. Contribuţii la publicarea şi interpretarea descoperirilor de metal din epoca bronzului şi din prima vârstă a ierului în context European, Cluj-Napoca, 133–208. Bouzek 1963 Bouzek, J., Problémy Knovízské a Milavečské kultury. Problems of the Knovíz and Milaveč cultures, SNMP, XVII, 57–118. Carancini 1975 Carancini, G. L., Die Nadeln in Italien. Gli spilloni nell’Italia continentale, PBF, XIII, 2, München. Čerče–Šinkovec 1995 Čerče, P.–Šinkovec, I., Katalog depojec pozne bronaste dobe. Catalogue of Hoards of the Urnield Culture, IN: Teržan, B., (Ed.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem I. Hoards and Individual Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Age in Slovenia I, Ljubljana, 129–232. Červinka 1902 Červinka, L., Morava za Pravĕku, Brnĕ. Chardenoux– Chardenoux, M.-B.–Courtois, J.-C., Les haches dans la France Méridionale, PBF, IX, Courtois 1979 11, München. Chiartano 1977 Chiartano, B., La necropolis dell’ Età del Ferro dell’Incoronat e di S. Teodoro (Scavi 1978–1985) I–II, Galatina. Chiartano 1994 Chiartano, B., La necropolis dell’Età del Ferro dell’Incoronata e di S. Teodoro (Scavi 1978–1985), I–II, Galatina. Ciugudean et al. 2006 Ciugudean, H.–Luca, S. A.–Georgescu, A., Depozitul de bronzuri de la Dipşa. he Bronze Hoard from Dipşa, BB, V, Sibiu. Clausing 2004 Clausing, Ch., Ein urnenfelderzeitlicher Hortfund von Slavonski Brod, Kroatien, Jahrbuch RGZM, 50, 47–205. Colucci Pescatori 1971 Colucci Pescatori, G., Cairano (Avellino). Tombe dell’Età dell’Incoronata e di S. Teodoro, NotizieS, 8, 25, 471–537. Čović 1983 Čović, B., Glasinačka kulturna grupa, IN: Basler, Đ.–Benac, A.– Gabrovec, S.–Garašanin, M.–Tasić, N.–Čović, B.–Vinski-Gasparini, S. (eds.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja IV: bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 413–432. Csóma 1885 Csóma, J., Zsujtai Bronzlelet, ArchÉrt, V, 9–16. Czajlik 2012 Czajlik, Z., A Kárpát-medence fémnyersanyag-forgalma a későbronzkorban és a vaskorban, Budapest. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 349 DemeterováPolláková 1973 Dergačev 2002 Demeterová-Polláková, S., Hrodmany nalez bronzovych predmetov v Kopčanoch. Der Massenfund von Bronzegegenstanden in Kopčan, Historica Carpatica, 4, 109–129. Dergačev, V., Die äneolithischen und bronzezeitlichen Metallfunde aus Moldavien, PBF, XX, 9, Stuttgart. Dizdar 1999 Dizdar, M., Brončano doba u: Vinkovci u svijetu arheologije, katalog izlož be, Vinkovci, 31–38. Dorner 1884 Dorner, K., Csab-Rendeki ásatás, ArchÉrt, 4, 227–232. Dular Et Al. 2002 Dular, J.–Šavel, I.–Hvala, S. T., Bronastodobno naselje Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakošu. Bronzezeitlichen Siedlung Oloris bei Dolnji Lakoš, Ljubljana. Enăchiuc 1995 Enăchiuc, V., Der Bronzefund von Dridu, Kr. Ialomiţa, IN: Soroceanu, T. (Hrsg.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien, PAS, 10, Berlin. Eőry 2009 Eőry, B., Késő bronzkori ibula rekonstrukciója. Rekonstruktion einer spätbronzezeitlichen Fibel (Posamenterieibel), Ősrégészeti levelek, 11, 135–138. F. Petres 1960 F. Petres, É., A székesfehérvári kora vaskori kincslelet. Der früheisenzeitliche Schatzfund von Székesfehérvár, FolArch, 12, 35–43. Fekete 2002 Fekete, Z., Ein spätbronzezeitlicher Depotfund aus Kisvárda-Sziget. Késő bronzkori halmazlelet Kisvárda-Szigetről, JAMÉ, XLIV, 47–55. Fekete 2013 Fekete, M., A dunántúli késő bronzkori fémművesség néhány társadalom-és gazdaságtörténeti tanulsága, Specimina, XXI–XXII, 85–108. Filip 1936–1937 Filip, J., Popelnicová pole a počátky zelezné doby v Čechach, Praha. Filip 1939 Filip, J., Lužická kultura v Československu, PamArch, 41, 14–51. Foltiny 1955 Foltiny, S., Zur Chronologie der Bronzezeit des Karpatenbeckens, Antiquitas, 2, Bonn. Foltiny 1969 Foltiny, S., he Hungarian Archaeological Collection of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, IUPUAS, 77, Bloomington. Fontijn 2002 Fontijn, D., Sacriicial Landscapes. Cultural Biographies of Persons, Objects and ‘Natural’ places in the Bronze Age of Southern Netherlands, c. 2300–600 BC, Leiden. Forenbaher 1989 Forenbaher, S., Nalazišta grupe «Belegiš II» u istočnoj Slavoniji, OpArch, 15, 47–69. Fregni 2014 Fregni, E. G., he Compleat Metalsmith: Crat and Technology in the British Bronze Age, University of Sheield (PhD thesis). Furmánek 1977 Furmánek, V., Pilinyer Kultur, SlovArch, XXV, 2, 251–370. Furmánek 1980 Furmánek, V., Die Anhänger in der Slowakei, PBF, XI, 3, München. Furmánek–Novotná 2006 Furmánek, V.–Novotná, M., Die Sicheln in der Slowakei, PBF, XVIII, 6, Stuttgart. Gaál 2001 Gaál, A., Posamenterieibel mit Fusspirale, Bronzebecken und Bronzehelm aus dem Donauabschnitt im Komitat Tolna, ComArchHung, 41–50. Gallina–Somogyi 2004 Gallina, Zs.–Somogyi, K., Előzetes jelentés a Kaposvár–61-es elkerülő út 36. Számú lelőhelyén 2002-ben végzett megelőző feltárásról, SMK, 16, 179–184. Gavranović 2011a Gavranović, M., Die Spätbronze-und Früheiseinzeit in Bosnien. Teil 1, UPA, 195, Bonn. Gavranović 2011b Gavranović, M., Die Spätbronze-und Früheiseinzeit in Bosnien. Teil 2, UPA, 195, Bonn. Gedl 1995 Gedl, M., Die Sicheln in Polen, PBF, XVIII, 4, Stuttgart. Gedl 2001 Gedl, M., Die Bronzegefäße in Polen, PBF, II, 15, Stuttgart. Gedl 2004 Gedl, M., Die Fibeln in Polen, PBF, XIV, 10, Stuttgart. Gedl 2009 Gedl, M., Die Lanzenspitzen in Polen, PBF, V, 3, Mainz. Glogović 2003 Glogović, D., Fibeln im kroatischen Küstengebiet (Istrien, Dalmatien), PBF, VII, 13, Stuttgart. Gogâltan 2005 Gogâltan, F., Zur Bronzeverarbeitung im Karpatenbecken. Die Tüllenhämmer und Tüllenambosse aus Rumänien, IN: Soroceanu, T. (Hrsg.), Bronzefunde aus Rumanien II. Beitrage zur Veröfentlichung und Deutung bronze- und alterhallstattzeitlicher Metallfunde in europäischem Zusammenhang. Descoperiri de Bronzuri din Romania II. Contribuţii la publicarea şi interpretarea descoperirilor de metal din epocabronzului şi din prima vârstă a ierului în context European, Cluj-Napoca, 343–386. Guilaine 1969 Guilanie, J., Le dépôt de bronzes de Carcassonne, RevueAN, 2, 1–28. Halama 2012 Halama, J., Nálezy bronzů z lesa u Malá Polanky (k.ú. Hralová, okr. Šumperk). Doklady dvu různých (?) aktivit LKPP mimo sídlištní a pohřební areály. Bronze inds from the forest near Maá Polanka (cad. Hrabová, Šumperk district). Proofs of two diferent Lusatian Culture activities; except settlement and burial-ground areas, Archeologický sborník, 102–119. 350 | J. G. Tarbay Hampel 1886 Hampel 1892a Hampel 1892b Hampel 1895 Hampel 1896 Hänsel 1968 Hänsel 1999 Hansen 1994a Hansen 1994b Hansen 1996 Hansen 2005 Hansen 2006 Hansen 2008 Harding 1995 Höglinger 1996 Hohlbein 2008 Holste 1951 Homen 1982 Hralová 1962 Ilon 2002 Ilon 2004 Ilon et al. 2011 Jahn 2013 Jankovich et al. 1998 Jankovits 1992 Jankovits–Váczi 2013 Hampel, J., A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban I: Képes Atlasz, Budapest. Hampel, J., A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban II. Rész: A leletek statisztikája, Budapest. Hampel, J., A N. Muzeumi Régiségtár gyarapodása 1892. áprilisától szeptember végéig, ArchÉrt, 12, 372–380. Hampel, J., Három dunántúli bronzlelet, ArchÉrt, XV, 97–115. Hampel, J., A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban. III: Áttekintő ismertetés, Budapest. Hänsel, B., Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpatenbecken, Beiträge MK, 7/8, Bonn. Hänsel, A., Ein älterurnenfelderzeitliches Depot aus Pustakovec, Kot. Čakovec, Kroatien, ActaPraehistArch, 31, 76–92. Hansen, S., Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhônetal und Karpatenbecken, I, Bonn. Hansen, S., Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhônetal und Karpatenbecken, II, Bonn. Hansen, S., Bemerkungen zur zeitlichen Stellung der Hortfunde des Typus Gyermely, ArchKorr, 26, 433–441. Hansen, S., Elemente einer Geschichte der Hortung, IN: Kobal, J. V. (Hrsg.), Bronzezeitlichen Depotfunde – Probleme der Interpretation. Materialien der Festkonferenz für Tovodor Lehoczky zum 175. Geburtstag. Ushhorod, 5–6. Oktober 2005. Скарби доби бронзи – проблема iнтерпретацiї -Матеріали Kонференції присвяченоії 175-річчю від дня народження Тиводара Легоцького. Ужгород, 5–6 жовтня 2005 року, Užgorod/Ужгород, 55–75. Hansen, S., Über bronzezeitliche Horte in Ungarn – Horte als soziale Praxis, IN: Horejs, B–Jung, R.–Kaiser, E.–Teržan, B. (Hrsg.), Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit, UPA, 121, Bonn, 211–230. Hansen, S., Bronzezeitliche Horte als Indikatoren für „andere Orte“, Altertum, 53, 291–314. Harding, A., Die Schwerter in ehemaligen Jugoslawien, PBF, IV, 14, Stuttgart. Höglinger, Der spätbronzezeitliche Depotfund von Sipbachzell/OÖ, LAF, Sonderhet, XVI, Linz. Hohlbein, M., Die spätbronze- und urnenfelderzeitlichen Bronzemesser im mittleren und südlichen Westdeutschland I (Vollgrifmesser, Rahmengrifmesser, Grifplattenmesser, Grifzungenmesser, Tüllengrifmesser, Sichelmesser), Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster (PhD thesis). Holste, F., Hortfunde Südosteuropas, Marburg/Lalhn. Homen, Z., Novi kasnobrončanodobni lokalitet u Križevcima, Muzejski vjesnik, 5, 18–24. Hralová, J., Das Lausitzer Gräberfeld in Malá Bĕlá, FAP, 5, Prague. Ilon, G., Ein spätbronzezeitlicher Hortfund aus Szombathely (Steinamanger), Kom. Vas. (Ungarn), Altertum, 47, 149–169. Ilon, G., Szombathely őskori településtörténetének vázlata. Avagy a római kor előtt is volt élet, Őskorunk, 2, Szombathely. Ilon, G.–Sümegi, P.–Tóth, G.–Náfrádi, K.–Persaits, G.–Páll, D. G.–Törőcsik, T.– Nyerges, É.–Mihály, J.–Sándor-Kovács, J.–Radics, A.–Udvardi, B., Szombathely-Zanat késő urnamezős koru temetője és a lelőhely más ős-és középkori emlékei. he Late Urnield period cemetery from Szombathely-Zanat supplemented by an assessment of prehistoric and Medieval settlement features, VIA – Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Kismonográiák, 2, Budapest. Jahn, Ch., Symbolgut Sichel. Studien zur Funtion spätbronzezeitlicher Grifzungensicheln in Depotfunden, UPA, 236, Bonn. Jankovich, D. B.–Megyesi, E.–Nikolin, E.–Szatmári, I.–Torma, I. (szerk.), Békés megye régészeti topográiája IV/B. Békés és Békéscsaba környéke, Budapest. Jankovits, K., Spätbronzezeitliche Hügelgräber in der Bakony-gegend, ActaArchHung, 44, 1, 3–81. Jankovits, K.–Váczi, G., Spätbronzezeitliches Gräberfeld von Sárbogárd-Tringer-tanya (Komitat Fejér) in Ost-Transdanubien, ActaArchHung, 64, 33–74. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 351 Jantzen 2008 Jenčová 1993 Jiráň 2002 Jósa–Kemenczei 1965 Jungbert 1986 Kacsó 1998 Kacsó 2007 Kacsó 2009 Kalicz-Schreiber 2010 Karavanić 2007 Karavanić 2009 Kašuba 2008 Keim–Neubauer 1956 Kemenczei 1966 Kemenczei 1967 Kemenczei 1969 Kemenczei 1972 Kemenczei 1980 Kemenczei 1983 Kemenczei 1984 Kemenczei 1988 Kemenczei 1989 Kemenczei 1991 Kemenczei 1996 Kemenczei 1997 Kibbert 1984 Kilian 1961 Kilian 1975 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1964 Kilian-Dirlmeier 1975 Jantzen, D., Quellen zur Metallverarbeitung im Nordischen Kreis der Bronzezeit, PBF, XIX, 2, Stuttgart. Jenčová, M., Nález bronzovej kopije v Pavloviach. Fund einer Bronzelanzenspitze in Pavlovce, Archeologická Výskumy a nálezy na Slovensku v Roku, 67. Jiráň, L., Die Messer in Böhmen, PBF, VII, 5, Stuttgart. Jósa, A.–Kemenczei, T., Bronzkori halmazleletek. Hortfunde aus der Bronzezeit, JAMÉ, 6–7, 19–45. Jungbert, B., Spätbronzezeitlicher Depotfund von Tatabánya-Ótelep, ComArchHung, 17–25. Kacsó, C., Der Depotfund von Sarkad, ComArchHung, 33–40. Kacsó, C., Descoperiri de bronzuri din Nordul Transilvaniei (I). Colecţia Ferenc Floth, StC Maramureşene, 2, Baia Mare. Kacsó, C., Depozitul de bronzuri de la Uriu (I), RevBis, XXIII, 9–30. Kalicz-Schreiber, R., Ein Gräberfelder der Spätbronzezeit von Budapest-Békásmegyer, Budapest. Karavanić, S., Slučajni nalaz brončanog pojasa iz naselja Mačkovac-Crišnjevi (Nova Gradiška). Zufallsfund eines Bronzegürtels aus der Siedlung Mačkovac-Crišnjevi (Nova Gradiška), Prilozi IAZ, 24, 59–67. Karavanić, S., he Urnield Culture in Continental Croatia, BAR, 2036, Oxford. Kašuba, M., Die ältesten Fibeln in Nordpontus. Versuch einer Typologie der einfachen Violinbogenibeln in südlichen Mittel-, Süd-und Südosteuropa, EA, 14, 193–231. Keim, J.–Neubauer, H., Irlbach (Ldkr. Straubing), BayerVorgeschichtsbl, 21, 205–206. Kemenczei, T., Koravaskori bronz raktárleletek a Miskolci Múzeumban [Früheisenzeitliche Bronze-Depotfunde im Museum von Miskolc], HOMÉ, VI, 49–107. Kemenczei, T., A Napkor-piripucpusztai bronzlelet. Der Bronzefund aus NapkorPiripucpuszta, JAMÉ, 8–9, 13–24. Kemenczei, T., Újabb bronzleletek Borsod megyéből [Neue Bronzefunde im Komitat Borsod], HOMÉ, 8, 27–69. Kemenczei, T., A Gyöngyössolymos-Kishegyi bronzleletek. Die Bronzefunde in Gyöngyössolymos-Kishegy, Agria, 8–9, 133–144. Kemenczei, T., A Gyöngyössolymos-Kishegyi negyedik bronzlelet. Der vierte Bronzefund von Gyöngyössolymos-Kishegy, Agria, 16–17, 137–155. Kemenczei, T., A Tatabánya-bánhidai bronzlelet. Der Bronzefund von TatabányaBánhida, ArchÉrt, 110, 61–68. Kemenczei, T., Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns, ArchHung, 51, Budapest. Kemenczei, T., Die Schwerter in Ungarn I (Grifplatten-, Grifangel-und Grifzungenschwerter), PBF, IV, 6, München. Kemenczei, T., Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der spätbronzezeitlichen Grabfunde im Donau-heiß zwischenstromgebiet, ComArchHung, 73–96. Kemenczei, T., Die Schwerter in Ungarn II (Vollgrifschwerter), PBF, IV, 9, Stuttgart. Kemenczei, T., Angaben zur Frage der Endbronzezeitlichen Hortfundstufen im Donau-heißgebiet, ComArchHung, 53–92. Kemenczei, T., Késő bronzkori bronztárgyak Regölyről az őskori gyűjteményben. Spätbronzezeitliche Bronzegenstände von Regöly in der prähistorischen Sammlung, FolArch, XLVI, 113–124. Kibbert, K., Die Äxte und Beile in mittleren Westdeutschland II, PBF, IX, 13, Frankfurt. Kilian, K., Untersuchungen zu früheisenzeitlichen Gräbern aus dem Vallo di Diano, Heidelberg. Kilian, K., Fibeln in hessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit, PBF, XIV, 2, München. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., Untersuchungen zu früheisenzeitlichen Gräbern aus dem Vallo di Diano, Archäologische Forschungen in Lukanien, I, Heidelberg. Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., Gürtelhaken, Gürtelbleche und Blechgürtel der Bronzezeit in Mitteleurop (Ostfrankreich, Schweiz, Süddeutschland, Österreich, Tsechoslowakei, Ungarn, Nordwest-Jugoslawien), PBF, XII, 2, Frankfurt. 352 | J. G. Tarbay Kilian-Dirlmeier, I., Anhänger in Griechenland von der mykenischen bis zur spätgeometrischen Zeit, PBF, XI, 2, München. Kobal’ 2000 Kobal’, J. V., Bronzezeitliche Hortfunde aus Transkarpatien (Ukraine), PBF, IX, 13, Stuttgart. Kobal’ 2004 Kobal’, J. V., Magyarországi régészeti emlékek ukrajnai közgyűjteményekben, Ungvár. König 2004 König, P., Spätbronzezeitliche Hortfund aus Bosnien und Herzegowina, PBF, XX, 11, Stuttgart. Koptyoff 1996 Kopytof, I., he cultural biography of things: commodization as process, IN: Appadurai, A. (Ed.), he Social Life of hings, Cambridge, 64–91. Kosorić 1965 Kosorić, M., Praistorijska nekropola u selu Dvorovima kod Bijeljine, Članci i Građa, 6, 83–90. Kosorić 1967 Kosorić, M., Praistorijska nekropola kod Bijeljine, Članci i Građa, 7, 29–33. Kossack 1954 Kossack, G., Studien zum Symbolgut der Urnenfelder-und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas, Berlin. Kőszegi 1988 Kőszegi, F., A Dunántúl története a későbronzkorban. he History of Transdanubia during the Late Bronze Age, BTMM, 1, Budapest. Kőszegi 1993 Kőszegi, F., A Regöly-Veravár késő bronzkori leletegyüttes tipológiai és időrendi kérdései, WMMÉ, XVIII, 225–235. Kubach 1977 Kubach, W., Die Nadeln in Hessen und Rheinhessen, PBF, XIII, 3, München. Kuijpers 2008 Kuijpers, M. H. G., Bronze Age Metalworking in the Netherlands (c. 2000–800 BC). A research into the preservation of metallurgy related artefacts and the social position of the smith, Leiden. Kuśnierz 1998 Kuśnierz, J., Die Beile in Polen III, PBF, IX, 21, Stuttgart. Kuzsinszky 1920 Kuzsinszky, B., A Balaton környékének archaeologiája. Lelőhelyek és leletek, Budapest. Kytlicová 2007 Kytlicová, O., Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde in Böhmen, PBF, XX, 12, Stuttgart. Lauermann–Rammer 2013 Lauermann, E.–Rammer, E., Die urnenfelderzeitliche Metallhortfunde Niederösterreich. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der zwei Depotfunde aus Enzersdorf im hale, Bonn. Leshtakov 2011 Leshtakov, L., Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Bronze Spear-and Javelinheads in Bulgaria in the Context of Southeastern Europe, ArchBulg, XV, 25–52. Liversage–Pernicka 2002 Liversage, D.–Pernicka, E., An industry in crisis? Copper alloy impurity patterns near the end of the Hungarian Bronze Age, IN: Jerem, E.–T. Bíró, K.–Rudner, E. (eds.), Archaeometry 98. Proceedings of the 31st Symposium Budapest, April 26–May 3 1998 II, BAR, 1043, Budapest, 417–431. Lo Schiavo 2003 Lo Schiavo, F., Le ibule di bronzo dell’Italia meridionale e Sicilia dale origini al VI sec. a. C. Materiali e tecnica, IN: Formigli, E. (Ed.), Fibulae. Dall’età del bronzo all’alto Medioevo tecnica e tipologia, Firenze, 19–39. Lochner 1991 Lochner, M., Studien zur Urnenfelderkultur im Waldviertel (Niederösterreich), MPK, 25, Wien. Lochner 1998–1999 Lochner, M., Ein Scmuckdepot der Urnenfelderzeit aus hunau am Kamp, Niederösterreich, ArchAustr, 82–83, 181–186. Ložnjak Dizdar 2015 Ložnjak Dizdar, D., Naseljenost Podravine u starijoj fazi culture polja sa žarama. Die Besiedlung der Podravina in der älteren Phase der Urnenfelderkultur, Prilozi IAZ, 22, 25–58. Majnarić-Pandžić 1992 Majnarić-Pandžić, N., Ljevaonica brončanih predmeta u kasnobrončanodobnom naselju na Kalniku kod Križevaca, OpArch, 16, 57–73. Makkay 2006 Makkay, J., he Late Bronze Age Hoard of Nadap. A nadapi (Fejér megye) késő bronzkori raktárlelete, JAMÉ, 68, 135–184. Mayer 1977 Mayer, E. F., Die Äxte und Beile in Österreich, PBF, IX, 9, München. Mészáros 1977–1978 Mészáros, Gy., Későbronzkori kincslelet Dombóvár-Szarvasd pusztán. Spätbronzezeitlicher Depotfund aus Dombóvár-Szarvasd puszta, BBÁMÉ, 8–9, 3–22. Metzner-Nebelsick 2002 Metzner-Nebelsick, C., Der „hrako-Kimmerische“ Formenkreis aus der Sicht der Urnenfelder-und Hallstattzeit im südöstlichen Pannonien. Teil 2, VF, 23, Rahden/ Westf. Minichreiter 1982–1983 Minichreiter, K., Pregled istraživanja nekropola grupe «Gređani» u Slavoniji, Anali, 2, 7–122. Miske 1907 Miske, K., A Velem Szt. Vidi őstelep. Die prähistorische Ansiedlung Velem St. Vid, Wien. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979 he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 353 Mödlinger 2011 Motzoi-Chicideanu– Iuga 1995 Mozsolics 1943 Mozsolics 1950 Mozsolics 1972a Mozsolics 1972b Mozsolics 1973 Mozsolics 1984 Mozsolics 1985 Mozsolics 2000 Müller 1972 Müller 2007 Müller 2011 Müller 2013 Müller-Karpe 1959a Müller-Karpe 1959b Nava–Pretie 2003 Nessel 2009 Nessel 2010 Nessel 2012 Neumann 2012 Mödlinger, M., Herstellung und Verwendung bronzezeitlicher Schwerter Mitteleuropas. Eine vertiefende Studie zur mittelbronze- und urnenfelderzeitliche Bewafnung und Sozialstruktur, UPA, 193, Bonn. Motzoi-Chicideanu, I.–Iuga, G., Der Bronzefund von Bogdan Vodă, Kr. Maramureş, IN: Soroceanu, T. (Hrsg.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien, PAS, 10, Berlin, 141–168. Mozsolics, A., A magyarországi bronzkor kronológiájáról, Erdélyi TudFüz, 169, Kolozsvár. Mozsolics, A., Der Goldfund von Velem Szentvid, Ein Beitrag zur Metallkunst der älteren Hallstattzeit, Praehistorica, 1, Basel. Mozsolics, A., Beziehungen zwischen Italien und Ungarn während «Bronzo recente» und «Bronzo inale», RSP, 27, 373–398. Mozsolics, A., Újabb kardleletek a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban II. Bronzezeitliche Schwertfunde in Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Ungarisches Nationalmuseum) II, ArchÉrt, 99, 188–205. Mozsolics, A., Bronze- und Goldfunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Forró und Ópályi, Budapest. Mozsolics, A., Ein Beitrag zum Metallhandwerk der ungarischen Bronzezeit, BRGK, 65, 19–72. Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely, Budapest. Mozsolics, A., Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte Hajdúböszörmény, Románd und Bükkszentlászló, PAS, 17, Kiel. Müller, R., A pötrétei későbronzkori kincslelet. Der spätbronzezeitliche Schatzfund von Pötréte, VMMK, 11, 59–74. Müller, R., Késő bronzkori magaslati település kutatás Várvölgy, Nagyláz-hegyen (2003–2006). Investigation of hill settlement from the Late Bronze Age at Várvölgy, Nagyláz-hegy (2003–2006), AIH 2006, 5–26. Müller, R., Keménységvizsgálatok a Várvölgy-Nagy-Lázhegy-i késő bronzkori eszközökön, IN: Kővári, K.–Miklós, Zs. (szerk.), „Fél évszázad terepen.” Tanulmánykötet Torma István tiszteletére 70. Születésnapja alkalmából, Budapest, 211–224. Müller, R., A második késő bronzkori aranykincs Várvölgyről. Der zweite spätbronzezeitliche Goldschatz von Várvölgy (Kom. Zala), ArchÉrt, 138, 81–103. Müller-Karpe, H., Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Text, RGF, 22, Berlin. Müller-Karpe, H., Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Tafeln, RGF, 22, Berlin. Nava, M. L.–Pretie, A., Note per lo studio delle ibule in Daunia: le ibule in bronzo dell necropolis di Monte Saraceno (Mattinata, Foggia) e le ibule delle stele, IN: Formigli, E. (Ed.), Fibulae. Dall’ età del bronzo all’alto Medioevo tecnica e tipologia, Firenze, 140–159. Nessel, B., Funktionelle Aspekte der bronzenen Sägeblätter in der späten Bronzeund Urnenfelderzeit im Karpatenbecken, IN: Dietrich, L.–Dietrich, O.–Heeb, B.– Szentmiklósi, A. (Hrsg.), Festschrit Soroceanu, Analele Banatului, XVII, Timişoara, 239–259. Nessel, B., Bronzene Sägeblätter – Handhabung und Konzeption im Lichte Experimentalarchäologischer Versuche. Lamele der ierărstrău din bronz – folosire şi concept în lumina unor experimente, Apulum, XLVII, 41–56. Nessel, B., Alltägliches Abfallprodukt oder Marker bevorzugter Gusstechnik? Zu bronzenen Gusszapfen zwischen Karpaten und Ostee, IN: Heske, I.–Horejs, B. (Hrsg), Bronzezeitliche Identitäten und Objekte. Beiträge aus den Sitzungen der AG Bronzezeit auf der 80. Tagung des West-und Süddeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung in Nürnberg 2010 und dem 7. Deutschen Archäologiekongress in Bremen 2010, UPA, 221, Bonn, 145–159. Neumann, D., Hort und Raum. Grundlagen und Perspektiven der Interpretation, IN: Hansen, S.–Neumann, D.–Vachta, T. (Hrsg.): Hort und Raum. Aktuelle Forschungen zu bronzezeitlichen Depoierungen in Mitteleuropa, Topoi Berliner Studies of the Ancient World, Berlin, 5–21. 354 | J. G. Tarbay Novák, P., Die Schwerter in der Tschechoslowakei I, PBF, IV, 4, München. Novák, M.–Váczi, G., Késő bronzkori fegyverlelet a Bakonyból – Megjegyzések az urnamezős művelődés fegyverdeponálási szokásaihoz. A Late Bronze Age weapon ind from the Bakony region, Hungary – Notes on the weapon deposition practices of the Urnield culture, Ősrégészeti levelek, 12, 94–114. Novotná 1970a Novotná, M., Die Bronzehortfunde in der Slowakei. Spätbronzezeit, Archaeologica Slovaca Fontes, IX, Bratislava. Novotná 1970b Novotná, M., Die Äxte und Beile in der Slowakei, PBF, IX, 3, München. Novotná 1980 Novotná, M., Die Nadeln in der Slowakei, PBF, XIII, 6, München. Novotná 1991 Novotná, M., Die Bronzegefäße in der Slowakei, PBF, II, 11, Stuttgart. Novotná 2000 Novotná, M., K depotom horizontu Gyermely v Karpatskej kotline. Zu den Bronzehortfunden des Horizontes Gyermely im Karpatenbecken, Pravĕk Nř, 10, 365–377. Novotná 2001 Novotná, M., Die Fibeln in der Slowakei, PBF, XIV, 10, Stuttgart. Novotná 2014 Novotná, M., Die Vollgrifschwerter in der Slowakei, PBF, IV, 8, Stuttgart. Oehler 1993 Oehler, F., Zierteile und Anhänger, IN: Gerlof, S.–Hansen, S.–Oehler, F. (Hrsg.), Die Funde der Bronzezeit aus Frankreich. Museum für Vor-und Frühgeschichte Bestandkatalog 1, Berlin, 117–121. Pabst 2010 Pabst, S., Die Brillenibeln. Untersuchungen zu spätbronze- und ältereisenzeitlichen Frauentrachten, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Universitatea “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi (PhD thesis). Pabst 2011 Pabst, S., Die grossräumige Ausbreitung der Brillenibeln am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit – Kommunikationswege und soziale Hintergründe, IN: Dietz, U. L.–Jockenhövel, A. (Hrsg.), Bronzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen praktischer Nutzung und symbolischer Bedeutung, Beiträge zum internationalen Kolloquium am 9. Und 10. Oktober 2008 in Münster, PBF, XX, 13, Stuttgart, 199–322. Pabst 2012 Pabst, S., Die Brilleniblen. Untersuchungen zu spätbronze-und ältereisenzeitlichen Frauentrachten zwischen Ostsee und Mittelmeer, MSVF, 25, Rahden/Westfalen. Pabst 2013 Pabst, S., Tracht und Bewafnung in spätbronzezeitlichen Grabfunden Westmakedoniens. Untersuchungen zu auswärtigen Beziehungen, IN: KaramitrouMentessidi, G. (Ed.), he Archaeological Work in Upper Macedonia Aiani-Heidelberg, AEAM, 2, Aiani, 155–171. Pahič 1972 Pahič, St., Pobrežje, Katalogi in monograije, 6, Ljubljana. Pančíková 2008 Pančíková, Z., Metalurgia v období popolnicových polí na Slovensku. Urnenfelderzeitliche Metallurgie in der Slowakei, PamArch, 99, 93–160. Pare 1998 Pare, Ch. F. E., Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa. Teil I: Grundzüge der Chronologie im Östlichen Mitteleuropa (11.–8. Jahrhundert V. Chr.), Jahruch RGZM, 45, 293–433. Patay 1964 Patay, P., A bokodi bronzlelet. Der Bronzefund von Bokod, FolArch, 16, 7–21. Patay 1990 Patay, P., Die Bronzegefäße in Ungarn, PBF, II, 10, München. Patek 1968 Patek, E., Die Urnenfelderkultur in Transdanubien, Budapest. Paulík 1959 Paulík, J., Ružicové spony zo Slovenska. Posamenterieibeln in der Slowakei, SlovArch, 7, 328–362. Paulík 1965 Paulík, J., Súpis medených a bronzových predmetov v Okresnom vlastivedom múzeu v Rimavskej Sobote. Verzeichnis der Kupfer- und Bronzegegenstände um Heimatkundlichen Museum zu Rimavská Sobota, Študijné zvesti, 15, 33–106. Perkić–Ložnjak Perkić, D.–Ložnjak Dizdar, D., Kasnobrončanodobna ostava Siča/Lučica. he Siča/ Dizdar 2005 Lučica Late Bronze Age Hoard, OpArch, 29, 41–119. Petrescu-Dîmbovița 1977 Petrescu-Dîmbovița, M., Depozitele de Bronzuri din România, Bucureşti. Petrescu-Dîmbovița 1978 Petrescu-Dîmbovița, M., Die Sicheln in Rumänien mit Corpus der jung-und spätbronzezeitliche Horte in Rumäniens, PBF, XVIII, 1, München. Petrescu-Dîmbovița 1998 Petrescu-Dîmbovița, M., Der Arm- und Beinschmuck in Rumänien, PBF, X, 4, Stuttgart. Pietzsch 1967 Pietzsch, A., Technische Bemerkungen zu den Spiralplattenibeln aus Sachsen. Zur originalgetreuen Rekonstruktion der Göttwitzer Fibel und einer alten Nachbildung der Fibel von Obergurig, AFSB, 16/17, 105–127. Pintér 1902 Pintér, S., Az ecsegi bronzleletről (Nógrád m.), ArchÉrt, XXII, 56–60. Novák 1975 Novák–Váczi 2012 he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 355 Plemić 1981 Popa 2013 Primas 1986 Primas–Pernicka 1998 Rajkolhe–Khan 2014 Reinecke 1899 Reinecke 1900 Reinecke 1902 Rezi 2010 Rezi 2011 Rezi 2015 Říhovksý 1965 Říhovksý 1979 Říhovksý 1983 Říhovský 1989 Říhovský 1992 Říhovský 1993 Říhovský 1996 Ruaro Loseri Et Al. 1977 Rusu 1963 Salaš 1997 Salaš 2005a Salaš 2005b Salaš 2014 Schauer 1974 SchumacherMatthäus 1985 Plemić, V., Prethistorijski metalni predmeti s područja Županja u muzeju u Županji, Županjski Zbornik, 7, 97–103. Popa, C. I., A Bronze-Age Hoard Discovered in Ampoiţa (Alba County), Ziridava, 27, 81–88. Primas, M., Die Sicheln in Mitteleuropa I. (Österreich, Schweiz, Süddeutschland), PBF, XVIII, 2, München. Primas, M.–Pernicka, E., Der Hortfund von Oberwilingen. Neue Ergebnisse zur Zirkulation von Metallbarren, Germania, 76, 25–65. Rajkolhe, R.–Khan, J. G., Defects, Causes and their Remedies in Casting Process, IJRAT, 2, 3, 375–383. Reinecke, P., Tanulmányok a magyarországi bronzkor chronológiájáról (Első közlemény). Studien zur Chronologie des ungarländischen Bronzealters (1. Teil), ArchÉrt, XIX, 225–251, 316–340. Reinecke, P., Brandgräber vom Beginn der Hallstattzeit aus den östlichen Alpenländern und die Chronologie des Grabfeldes von Hallstatt, MAGW, 30, 44–52. Reinecke, P., Zur Chronologie der 2. Hälte des Bronzealters in Süd-und Norddeutschland, Korrespondenzblatt AEU, 33, 3, 17–32. Rezi, B., he Bronze Hoard from Sâmbriaş (Mureş County), Marisia, XXX, 45–67. Rezi B., Voluntary destruction and fragmentation in Late Bronze Age hoards from Central Transylvania, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, R. E.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 8–10 October 2010, Cluj-Napoca, 303–334. Rezi, B., he spearhead from Coruna (Mureş county, Romania), IN: Szathmári, I. (Hrsg.), An der Grenze der Bronze-und Eisenzeit. Festschrit für Tibor Kemenczei zum 75. Geburtstag, Budapest. Říhovský, J., Das Urnengräberfeld von Klentnice. Popelnicové pohřebištĕ v Klentnici, FAP, 8, Pragae. Říhovský, J., Die Nadeln in Mähren und im Ostalpengebiet von der mittleren Bronzezeit bis zur älteren Eiseinzeit, PBF, XIII, 5, München. Říhovský, J., Die Nadeln in Westungarn I, PBF, XIII, 10, München. Říhovský, J., Die Sicheln in Mähren, PBF, XVIII, 3, München. Říhovský, J., Die Äxte, Beile, Meißel und Hämmer in Mähren, PBF, IX, 17, Stuttgart. Říhovský, J., Die Fibeln in Mähren, PBF, XIV, 9, München. Říhovský, J., Die Lanzen-, Speer- und Pfeilspitzen in Mähren, PBF, V, 2, Stuttgart. Ruaro Loseri, L.–Stefe de Pietro, G.–Vitri, S.–Righi, G., La necropolis di Brežec presso S. Canziano del Carso, Scavi Marchesetti 1896–1900, Trieste. Rusu, M., Die Verbreitung der Bronzehorten Transsilvanien vom Ende der Bronzezeit in die mittlere Hallstattzeit, Dacia N.S.,VII, 177–210. Salaš, M., Der urnenfelderzeitliche Hortfund von Polešovice und die Frage der Stellung des Depotfundhorizonts Drslavice in Mähren, Brno. Salaš, M., Bronzové depoty střední až pozdní doby bronzové na Moravĕ a ve Slezsku I. Hügelgräberbronze-und urnenfelderzeitliche Metalldepots in Mähren. I. Text, Brno. Salaš, M., Bronzové depoty střední až pozdní doby bronzové na Moravĕ a ve Slezsku I. Hügelgräberbronze-und urnenfelderzeitliche Metalldepots in Mähren. I. Tabulky, Brno. Salaš, M., Depot bronzový kolečkovitých závĕků doby popelnicových polí ze Starého Plumlova u Drahan (okr. Prostĕjov). Der Urnenfelderzeitliche Hortfund von Bronzeringanhängern von Der Anlage Starý Plumlov bei Drahany (Bez. Prostĕjov), IN: Čižmářová, J.–Venclová, N.–Březinová, G. (eds.), Moravské Křižovatky, Brno, 89–98. Schauer, P., Der urnenfelderzeitliche Depotfund von Dolina, Gde. und Kr. Nova Gradiška, Kroatien, Jahrbuch RGZM, 21, 93–124. Schumacher-Matthäus, G., Studien zu bronzezeitlichen Schmucktrachten im Karpatenbecken. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung der Hortfunde im Karpatenbecken, MSVF, 6, Mainz am Rhein. 356 | J. G. Tarbay Sekelj Ivančan– Belaj 1998 Siedlaczek 2011 Šimić 1993 Šinkovec 1995 Soroceanu 1981 Soroceanu 1995 Soroceanu 1996 Soroceanu 1997 Soroceanu 2011 Soroceanu 2012 Sprockhoff 1956a Sprockhoff 1956b Starè 1960 Szabó 1993 Szabó 1996 Szabó 2013 Szathmári 1991 Szathmári 2015 Szilas 2003 Tarbay 2012 Tarbay 2014 Tarbay 2015a Tarbay 2015b Sekelj Ivančan, T.–Belaj, J., Probno sondažno iskopavanje u selu Zvonimirovu godine 1998, Obavijesti HAD, 3, XXX, 112–117. Siedlaczek, M., Der experimentelle Nachguss von bronzezeitlichen Schwertern, EAE, 10, 109–119. Šimić, J., Kontinuitet nastanjivanja tijekom brončanoga doba u sjeveroistočnoj Slavoniji, IHAD, 16, 127–148. Šinkovec, I., Katalog posameznih kovinskih najdb bakrene in bronaste dobe. Catalogue of Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Age, IN: Teržan, B. (Hrsg.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem. Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia, Ljubljana, 29–125. Soroceanu, T., Der zweite Depotfund von Vîlcele, Rumänien, PZ, 55, 249–261. Soroceanu, T., Die Fundumstände bronzezeitlicher Deponierungen – Ein Beitrag zur Hortdeutung beiderseits der Karpaten, IN: Soroceanu, T. (Hrsg.), Bronzefunde aus Rumänien, PAS, 10, Berlin, 15–80. Soroceanu, T., Der Bronzedepotfund von Cincu/Groß-Schenk, Siebenbürgen, EA, 2, 241–286. Soroceanu, T., Zum Depotfund von Suseni, Siebenbürgen, IN: Becker, C.–Dunkelmann, M.-L.–Metzner-Nebelsick, C.–Peter-Röcher, H.–Roeder, M.–Teržan, B. (Hrsg.), Χρόυος Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa Festschrit für Bernhard Hänsel, Espelkamp. Soroceanu, T., Restitutiones bibliographicae et archaeologicae ad res praehistoricas pertinentes. II. Coleţia dr. Samuel Egger din Viena, Marmatia, 10, 1, 53–208. Soroceanu, T., Die Kupfer- und Bronzedepots der frühen und mittleren Bronzezeit in Rumänien. Depozitele de obiecte din cupru şi bronz din România. Epoca timpure şi mijlocie a bronzului, Cluj-Napoca. Sprockhof, E., Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde der Südzone des Nordischen Kreises (Periode IV) I, Mainz. Sprockhof, E., Jungbronzezeitliche Hortfunde der Südzone des Nordischen Kreises (Periode IV) II, Mainz. Starè, F., Dobova, Brežice. Szabó, G., Fémmegmunkálási nyomok a Regöly-Veravár késő bronzkori leletegyüttes tárgyain, WMMÉ, 18, 169–224. Szabó, G., he manufacture and usage of Late Bronze Age rings: two new hoards, IN: Kovács, T. (Hrsg.), Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den beneachbarten Regionen. Festschrit für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag, Budapest, 207–230. Szabó, G., Dunántúli Urnamezős Kultúra Fémművessége az Archaeometallurgiai Vizsgálatok Tükrében. he Metallurgy of the Transdanubian Urnield Culture in Light of Archaeometallurgical Investigations, Specimina EA, 1, Pécs. Szathmári, I., A dobozi későbronzori bronzlelet. Der spätbronzezeitliche Depotfund von Doboz, FolArch, LXII, 49–68. Szathmári, I., Ein spätbronzezeitlicher Bronzedepotfund im Bükkgebirge, BódvaszilasNagy Bene bérc (Ungarn), IN: Szathmári, I. (Hrsg.), An der Grenze der Bronze-und Eisenzeit. Festschrit für Tibor Kemenczei zum 75. Geburtstag, Budapest, 411–430. Szilas, G., Késő bronzkori karikalelet a Dunából. Spätbronzezeitliche Ringfund aus der Donau, ComArchHung, 67–75. Tarbay, J. G., Újabb paszományos ibulák a Dunántúlról: Kesztölc és Dunaújváros. New passementerie ibulae from Kesztölc and Dunaújváros in Transdanubia, Ősrégészeti levelek, 12, 115–136. Tarbay, J. G., Late Bronze Age depot from the foothills of the Pilis Mountains, DissArch Budapest, 3/2, 179–297. Tarbay, J. G., A Late Bronze Age hoard and sickle-shaped pins from Fövenyes (Hungary, Veszprém County). Késő bronzkori depó és sarló alakú tűk Fövenyesről (Magyarország, Veszprém m.), Ősrégészeti levelek, 14, 84–118. Tarbay, J. G., A New Late Bronze Age Warrior Equipment from East Central Europe. Új késő bronzkori, kelet-közép-európai harcosfelszerelés, ArchÉrt, 140, 29–70. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 357 Tarbay 2016 in press Teržan 2000 Teržan 2003 Tóth Farkas 2009 Trommer–bader 2013 Turk 1995 Undset 1880 V. Szabó 2011 V. Szabó 2013 Vachta 2007 Váczi 2007 Váczi 2013a Váczi 2013b Váczi 2014 Vásárhelyi 1889 Vasić 1982 Vasić 1994 Vasić 1999 Vasić 2003 Veliačik 1983 Vinski-Gasparini 1973 von Brunn 1968a Tarbay, J. G., he Late Bronze Age “Scrap Hoard” from Nagydobsza. Part I. Késő bronzkori “fémhulladék depó” Nagydobszáról. I. Rész, CommArchHung, 2015–2016 (2016) Submitted Manuscript. Teržan, B., Bronzezeit und älteren Eisenzeit im östlichen Mitteleuropa zum Mittelmeergebiet, IN: Beck, H. (Hrsg.), Fibel und Fibeltracht, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, 8, Berlin, 34–46. Teržan, B., Bronasta Žaga. Prispevek k prazgodovini rokodelskega orodja – Bronzesäge. Zur Frühgeschichte eines Werkzeuges, OpArch, 27, 187–197. Tóth Farkas, M., Késő bronzkori bronzdepó Nyékládaháza-Gólem-tó lelőhelyről. Spätbronzezeitliches Bronzedepot aus Nyékládaháza-Gólem-tó, Ősrégészeti levelek, 11, 62–71. Trommer, F.–Bader, T., Landspitzenherstellung, IN: Rezi, B.–Németh, E. R.–Berecki, S. (eds.), Bronze Age Crat and Cratsmen in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş 5–7 October 2012, Târgu Mureş, 313–340. Turk, P., he Dating of Late Bronze Age Hoards. Datacija poznobronastodobnih depojev, IN: Teržan, B (Ed.), Depojske in posamezne kovinske najdbe bakrene in bronaste dobe na Slovenskem. Hoards and Individual Metal Finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia, Ljubljana, 89–124. Undset, I., Études sur l’Age de bronze de la Hongrie, Christiania. V. Szabó, G., Spätbronzezeitliche Bronzehortfunde im Siedlungskontext. Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus Ostungarn, IN: Berecki, S.–Németh, R. E.–Rezi, B. (eds.), Bronze Age Rites and Rituals in the Carpathian Basin. Proceedings of the International Colloquium from Târgu Mureş, 8–10 October 2010, Târgu Mureş, 335–356. V. Szabó, G., Late Bronze Age Stolen. New Data on Illegal Acquisition and Trade of Bronze Age Artefacts in the Carpathain Basin, IN: Anders, A.–Kulcsár, G.–Kalla, G.– Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G. (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60 th Birthday, Budapest, 793–815. Vachta, T., Studien zu den bronzezeitliche Hortfunden des oberen heissgebietes, UPA, 159, Bonn. Váczi, G., Adatok az urnamezős kultúra fémművességéhez és deponálási szokásaihoz. A note on the metallurgy and hoards of the Urnield culture, Ősrégészeti levelek, 8–9, 130–140. Váczi, G., Burial of the Late Tumulus-Early Urnield Period from the Vicinity of Nadap, Hungary, IN: Anders, A.–Kulcsár, G.–Kalla, G.–Kiss, V.–V. Szabó, G. (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th Birthday, Budapest, 817–830. Váczi, G., Cultural connections and interactions of Eastern Transdanubian during the Urnield period, DissArch Budapest, 3/1, Budapest, 205–230. Váczi, G., A Sióagárd-leányvári kincslelet. Megjegyzések a Gyermelyi horizont időrendjéhez, IN: Anders, A.–Balogh, Cs.–Türk, A. (szerk.), Avarok Pusztái. Régészeti tanulmányok Lőrinczy Gábor 60. Születésnapjára. Avarum Solitudines. Archaeological studies presented to Gábor Lőrinczy on his sixtieth birthday, Budapest, 43–57. Vásárhelyi, I., A gyermeli bronzleletről, ArchÉrt, 9, 62–66. Vasić, R., Spätbronzezeitliche und älterhallstattzeitliche Hortfunde im östlichen Jugoslawien, IN: Hänsel, B. (Hrsg.), Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr, Berlin, 267–285. Vasić, R., Die Sicheln im Zentralbalkan (Vojvodina, Serbien, Kosovo und Mazedonien), PBF, XVIII, 5, Stuttgart. Vasić, R., Die Fibeln im Zentralbalkan (Vojvodina, Serbien, Kosovo und Makedonien), PBF, XIV, 12, Stuttgart. Vasić, R., Die Nadeln in Zentralbalkan (Vojvodina, Serbien, Kosovo und Makedonien), PBF, XIII, 11, Stuttgart. Veliačik, L., Die Lausitzer Kultur in der Slowakei, Nitra. Vinski-Gasparini, K., Kultura polja sa žarama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. Die Urnenfelderkultur in Nordkroatien, Zadar. von Brunn, W. A., Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit, Text, RGF, 29, Berlin. 358 | J. G. Tarbay von Brunn 1968b Wagner 1943 Wels-Weyrauch 1978 Wels-Weyrauch 1991 Wosinsky 1896 Žeravica 1993 Ziegert 1964 Ziegert 1966 Żurowski 1948–1949 Дергачев–Бочкарев 2002 Радишић 1958 Тодоровић 1956–1957 Ваcић 1988 Веселиновић 1952 von Brunn, W. A., Mitteldeutsche Hortfunde der jüngeren Bronzezeit, Tafeln, RGF, 29, Berlin. Wagner, K. H., Nordtiroler Urnenfelder, RGF, 15, Berlin. Wels-Weyrauch, U., Die Anhänger und Halsringe in Südwestdeutschland und Nordbayern, PBF, XI, 1, München. Wels-Weyrauch, U., Die Anhänger in Südbayern, PBF, XI, 5, Stuttgart. Wosinsky, M., Tolnavármegye az őskortól a honfoglalásig, Budapest. Žeravica, Z., Äxte und Beile aus Dalmatien und anderen Teilen Kroatiens, Montenegro, Bosnien und Herzegowina, PBF, IX, 18, Stuttgart. Ziegert, H., Archäologie und Ethnologie. Zur Zusammenarbeit zweier Wissenschaten, BJV, 4, 102–149. Ziegert, H., Archäologie und Ethnologie. Zur Zusammenarbeit zweier Wissenschaten, Berliner Jahrbuch, 4, 102–149. Żurowski, K., Zabytki brązowe z młodszej epoki brązu I wczesnego okresu żelaza z dorzecza górnego Dniestru. Objects de bronze du recent âge du bronze et du premier âge du fer du basin du haut Dniester, PrzArch, 8, 155–247. Дергачев, B. A.–Бочкарев, B. C.,Металлические серпы поздней Восточной Европы, Кишинев. Радишић, P., Бронзани налаз из Сечња, Rad VM, 7, 115–122. Тодоровић, J., Бронзана остава из Војилова. Le depot de bronze de Vojilovo, Starinar N.S., VII–VIII, 275–278. Ваcић, Р., Нoвe бeлeшке o cтaриeм гвозденом добу у Србиjи. Nouvelles notes sur l’Âge du Fer Ancien en Serbie, Starinar N.S., XXXIX, 1–13. Веселиновић, Р., Бронзана остава из Гаја. Roman store from Gay, Rad VM, 1, 38–47. List of igures Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. he possible ind-spot of the hoard. he reconstruction of the lost socketed axe. he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 5 spearhead with middle strengthening ribs (List 1). he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 6 spearhead with middle strengthening ribs (List 2). he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 10 socketed axe with crescent-shaped rim (List 3). he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14–15 undecorated Uioara 8 type lange sickles. 1. parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14 sickle; 2. parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14 sickle with loop; 3. parallels of the Cat. Nr. 15 sickle; 4. he casting mould from Lengyel (List 4.1). he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 14–15 decorated Uioara 8 type lange sickles (List 4.2). he reconstruction of the “looped-and chained object” (Vásárhelyi 1889, 1. Tábla/33). he distribution of parallels of the Cat. Nr. 18–20 rings with rhomboidal cross-section (List 5). he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 21–24 ring pendants with loop and the Cat. Nr. 25–26 wheelshaped pendants (Lists 6–7). he distribution of the parallels of the Cat. Nr. 27–67 rings with tapering terminals (List 8). he distribution of A3a type passementerie ibulas (Cat. Nr. 69–70) and the Gyermely type spectacle ibulas (Cat. Nr. 71–72) (List 9–10). he distribution of decorated pins with club-shaped head (Cat. Nr. 73). he distribution of diadems with repoussé decoration (Cat. Nr. 74). he chronological position of the hoard, according to A. Mozsolics and T. Kemenczei’s chronological systems (Mozsolics 1985; Kemenczei 1996). he chronological position of the hoard, according to S. Hansen chronological model (Hansen 1996). List of plates Pl. 1. Pl. 2. 1–4. Sword fragments; 5–7. Spearheads; 8–9. Knives; 12. Fragment of a socketed axe. 10–11. Socketed axes; 13. Modiied socketed axe; 14–15. Flange sickles; 16–17. Saw fragments. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 359 Pl. 3. 18–20. Rhomboidal-sectioned rings; 21–24. Ring pendants with loops; 25–26. Wheel-shaped pendants, 27–33. Rings with tapering terminals. Pl. 4. 34–52. Rings with tapering terminals. Pl. 5. 69–70. Passementerie ibulas; 53–67. Rings with tapering terminals; 68. Quadrangular-sectioned wire fragment. Pl. 6. 71–72. Spectacle ibulas; 73. Fragment of a pin with blunt-shaped head; 74. Diadem fragment; 75. Belt hook, 76. Metal sheet fragment; 77. Handle fragment of a cauldron; 78. Chained rings; 79. Amorphous ingot; 80. Bronze lump. Pl. 7. 81–84. Bronze lump; 85. Miniature oval-shaped ingot; 86. Sprue; 87. Sprue with impact marks; 88. Amorphous wire fragment; 89. Fragments of the ceramic urn. Pl. 8. 43–44, 50, 51, 55. he patterns of the rings; 73. he patterns of the pin; 75. he repoussé patterns of the belt hook; 76. he repoussé patterns of the diadem; 1–10. Macroscopic and microscopic images of the decorated cloth accessories. Pl. 9. 1–2. Impact marks on sword blade; 3. Sharpening traces of the sword edge; 4. Recent damage on sword blade; 5. Worn sword edge; 6. A notch along the edge of a sword tip; 7. Misrun defects along the middle rib and the socket of a spearhead; 8. Worn and sharpened surface of spearhead tip. Pl. 10. 1. Worked spearhead; 2. Misrun defect along the edge of a spearhead; 3. Vertical mould shit along the socket of a spearhead; 4. Polished and worked surface of the a spear; 5. Notches along the blade of a spearhead; 6. Spearhead with worked surface and horizontal cracks along the central rib of a spearhead; 7. Notches along the blade of the a spearhead; 8. Worked spearhead with recent damage. Pl. 11. 1. Knife blade with notches; 2. Worn teeth of a saw; 3. Polished remains of the broken sprue and traces of the polished casting seams; 4. Worked cutting edge of a socketed axe; 5. Sharpening traces; 6. Sharpening-and Abrasion traces; 7. Impact marks; 8. Worked blade of a socketed axe and impact marks. Pl. 12. 1. Burred face of the socketed hammer; 2. Hammering and slight abrasion traces along the blade of a lange sickle; 3. Sickle edge with abrasion traces; 4. Tapered sickle blade due to repeated resharpening; 5. Horizontal mould shit; 6. Misrun defect; 7. Replaced side-spiral of a passementerie ibulae; 8. Abrasion traces on the ring of the spectacle ibulae. 360 | J. G. Tarbay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 8 0 10 cm Plate 1. 1–4. Sword fragments; 5–7. Spearheads; 8–9. Knives; 12. Fragment of a socketed axe. 9 he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 361 10 11 13 14 17 16 0 10 cm 15 Plate 2. 10–11. Socketed axes; 13. Modiied socketed axe; 14–15. Flange sickles; 16–17. Saw fragments. 362 | J. G. Tarbay 18 19 23 22 21 25 20 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 0 10 cm Plate 3. 18–20. Rhomboidal-sectioned rings; 21–24. Ring pendants with loops; 25–26. Wheel-shaped pendants, 27–33. Rings with tapering terminals. 33 he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 363 34 36 35 39 38 37 40 44 45 46 47 51 50 49 0 43 42 41 10 cm Plate 4. 34–52. Rings with tapering terminals. 48 52 364 | J. G. Tarbay 53 54 56 55 69 58 57 59 70 61 62 63 0 64 65 66 10 cm Plate 5. 69–70. Passementerie ibulas; 53–67. Rings with tapering terminals; 68. Quadrangular-sectioned wire fragment. 60 67 68 he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 365 72.1 71 72.2 73 75 74 76 78 77 79 80 0 10 cm Plate 6. 71–72. Spectacle ibulas; 73. Fragment of a pin with blunt-shaped head; 74. Diadem fragment; 75. Belt hook, 76. Metal sheet fragment; 77. Handle fragment of a cauldron; 78. Chained rings; 79. Amorphous ingot; 80. Bronze lump. 366 | J. G. Tarbay 81 86 88 82 83 84 85 87 89.1 89.2.1 89.5 89.4 89.3 89.6.1 0 89.2.2 89.6.2 89.7 10 cm Plate 7. 81–84. Bronze lump; 85. Miniature oval-shaped ingot; 86. Sprue; 87. Sprue with impact marks; 88. Amorphous wire fragment; 89. Fragments of the ceramic urn. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 367 43 1.) 1.) Cat. Nr. 43 44 6.) Cat. Nr. 73 2.) 2.) Cat. Nr. 44 50 7.) Cat. Nr. 73 3.) 3.) Cat. Nr. 50 8.) Cat. Nr. 75 51 4.) 55 4.) Cat. Nr. 51 5.) 9.) Cat. Nr. 74 6.) 7.) 73 5.) Cat. Nr. 55 10.) Cat. Nr. 74 9.), 10.) 8.) 74 75 0 10 cm Plate 8. 43–44, 50, 51, 55. he patterns of the rings; 73. he patterns of the pin; 75. he repoussé patterns of the belt hook; 76. he repoussé patterns of the diadem; 1–10. Macroscopic and microscopic images of the decorated cloth accessories. 368 | J. G. Tarbay 1 mm 1 mm 1.) Cat. Nr. 1 2.) Cat. Nr. 1 1 mm 3.) Cat. Nr. 1 1 mm 4.) Cat. Nr. 2 1 mm 7.) Cat. Nr. 5 1 mm 6.) Cat. Nr. 3 5.) Cat. Nr. 2 1 cm 8.) Cat. Nr. 5 1 mm Plate 9. 1–2. Impact marks on sword blade; 3. Sharpening traces of the sword edge; 4. Recent damage on sword blade; 5. Worn sword edge; 6. A notch along the edge of a sword tip; 7. Misrun defects along the middle rib and the socket of a spearhead; 8. Worn and sharpened surface of spearhead tip. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 369 1 mm 1.) Cat. Nr. 5 3.) Cat. Nr. 6 5.) Cat. Nr. 6 7.) Cat. Nr. 7 2.) Cat. Nr. 6 1 cm 1 mm 1 mm 1 cm 1 mm 4.) Cat. Nr. 6 6.) Cat. Nr. 7 8.) Cat. Nr. 7 1 cm 1 cm Plate 10. 1. Worked spearhead; 2. Misrun defect along the edge of a spearhead; 3. Vertical mould shit along the socket of a spearhead; 4. Polished and worked surface of the a spear; 5. Notches along the blade of a spearhead; 6. Spearhead with worked surface and horizontal cracks along the central rib of a spearhead; 7. Notches along the blade of the a spearhead; 8. Worked spearhead with recent damage. 370 | J. G. Tarbay 1.) Cat. Nr. 8 1 mm 2.) Cat. Nr. 6 1 mm 1 mm 3.) Cat. Nr. 6 1 cm 4.) Cat. Nr. 6 1 mm 6.) Cat. Nr. 11 5.) Cat. Nr. 11 7.) Cat. Nr. 11 1 mm 8.) Cat. Nr. 11 1 mm 1 cm Plate 11. 1. Knife blade with notches; 2. Worn teeth of a saw; 3. Polished remains of the broken sprue and traces of the polished casting seams; 4. Worked cutting edge of a socketed axe; 5. Sharpening traces; 6. Sharpening-and abrasion traces; 7. Impact marks; 8. Worked blade of a socketed axe and impact marks. he Reanalysis of the Eponymous Hoard from Gyermely-Szomor and the HaA2 Period in the Territory of Hungary | 371 1 cm 1.) Cat. Nr. 13 1 mm 3.) Cat. Nr. 15 5.) Cat. Nr. 23 7.) Cat. Nr. 70 1 cm 2.) Cat. Nr. 14 1 mm 4.) Cat. Nr. 15 6.) Cat. Nr. 24 1 cm 1 cm 1 cm 1 cm 8.) Cat. Nr. 72 Plate 12. 1. Burred face of the socketed hammer; 2. Hammering and slight abrasion traces along the blade of a lange sickle; 3. Sickle edge with abrasion traces; 4. Tapered sickle blade due to repeated resharpening; 5. Horizontal mould shit; 6. Misrun defect; 7. Replaced side-spiral of a passementerie ibulae; 8. Abrasion traces on the ring of the spectacle ibulae. Abbreviations ABSA Acta ULFA ActaArch Carpathica ActaArchHung ActaMB ActaMN ActaMP ActaMPa ActaPraehistArch ActaTS AEA Eurasia AEAM Aegaeum AFN AFSB Agria AIH AJPhA Alba Regia Altertum Aluta AMND Analele Banatului Anali Angustia AnnalesUA AnnalesUVT ANODOS Antaeus AnthrAnz AnthropKözl Antiquaries Journal Antiquitas Antiquity AÖS Apulum Archaeolingua SM ArchAustr ArchBohemia ArchBulg ArchD he Annual of the British School at Athens, Cambridge University press Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica, Łódź Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, Academia Scientiarum Polona Collegium Cracoviense, Kraków Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest Acta Musei Brukenthal, Sibiu Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca Acta Musei Porolissensis, Zalău Acta Musei Papensis, Pápa Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, Berlin Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, Sibiu Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk Το Αρχαιολογικό έργο στην Άνω Μακεδονία, he Archaeological Work in Upper Macedonia, Archaeological Museum of Aiani Aegaeum, Le service d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de la Grèce antique, Université de Liège Archäologische Forschungen in Niederösterreich, St.Pölten Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalplege, Dresden Agria, Annales Musei Agriensis. Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve (1982), Eger Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon. Archaeological Investigation in Hungary, Budapest American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Hoboken–Oxford Alba Regia, Annales Musei Stephani Regis, Székesfehérvár Das Altertum, Berlin Aluta, Revista Muzeului Naţional Secuiesc, Sfântu Gheorghe Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Analele Banatului (S.N.), Timişoara Anali Zavoda z znanstveni nad JAZU u Osijeku Angustia, Sfântu Gheorghe Annales Universitatis Apulensis, Series Historica, Alba Iulia Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Târgovişte Studies of the Ancient World, Trnavska univerzita Antaeus, Budapest Anthropologischer Anzeiger, Journal of Biological and Clinical Anthropology Anthropológiai Közlemények, A Magyar Biológiai Társaság Embertani Szakosztályának folyóirata, Budapest he Antiquaries Journal, Society of Antiquaries of London Antiquitas, Bonn Antiquity, London Archäologie Österreichs Sonderausgabe, Wien Apulum, Acta Musei Apulensis, Alba Iulia Archaeolingua Seria Minor, Budapest Archaeologia Austriaca, Wien Archaeology in Bohemia Archaeologia Bulgarica, Soia Archäologie in Deutschland, Darmstadt Bronze Age Chronology in the Carpathian Basin, 2015, p. 393–397 394 | Abbreviations ArchE Archeologický Sborník Archeometriai Műhely ArchÉrt ArchHung ArchKorr ArchNeuchâteloise ArchPol ArchRoz ArchS Arheo ArhMold ArhVest ASGE ASMCommunicationes AUSBp AVJC BAR BayerVorgeschbl BB BBÁMÉ Beiträge MK Beiträge UFM Berliner Jahrbuch BerRGK BHAB BIP BLDAM BM BMA BMM BMS BT BTMM BuletinMJT Carpica Castellum PP Catalogi et Monographie CCA CCDJ Članci i Građa CMM ComArchHung CSPS CsSzMÉ Dacia (N.S.) Danubius Der Schlern Archäologie in Eurasien, Mainz am Rhein Archeologický Sborník, K šedesátým narozeninám Vratislava Janáka, Opava Archeometriai Műhely elektronikus folyóirat, Budapest Archaeologiai Értesítő, Budapest Archaeologia Hungarica, Budapest Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in Mainz Archéologie neuchâteloise, Neuchâtel Archaeologia Polona, Warszawa Archeologické Rozhledy, Prague Archäologie in Salzburg Slovensko Archeološko Društvo Arheologia Moldovei, Iaşi Arheološki vestnik (Acta Archaeologica), Lubljana Arheologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža, Leningrad Archaeologica Slovaca Monographiae, Communicationes, Nitra Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae, Sectio Historica, Budapest Archeologické výzkumy v jižních Čechách, Historická budova Jihočeského muzea v Českých Budějovicích British Archaeological Reports, International Series/British Series, Oxford Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter, München Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve, Szekszárd Beiträge zu ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes, Bonn Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas, Weissbach Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Berlin Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Frankfurt Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, Timişoara Biblioteca Istro-Pontica, Seria Arheologie, Tulcea Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalplege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum, Wünsdorf Bibliotheca Marmatia, Baia Mare Bibliotheca Mvsei Apvlensis, Alba Iulia Bibliotheca Musei Marisiensis, Târgu Mureş Bibliotheca Mvsei Sabesiensis, Sebeş Bibliotheca hracologica, Bucureşti Budapest Történeti Múzeum, Műhely Buletinul Muzeului Județean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie, Alexandria Carpica, Bacău Castellum Pannonicum Pelsonense, Budapest Catalogi et Monographie, Ljubljana Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România Centrul Cultural Dunărea de Jos, Galaţi Članci i Građa Tuzla, Muzej Istočne Bosne, Tuzla Časopis Moravského Muzea. Vědy společenské, Brno Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, Budapest Časopis Společnosti přátel starožitností, Prague Csíki Székely Múzeum Évkönyve, Miercurea Ciuc Dacia, Recherches et décuvertes archéologiques en Roumanie, I–XII (1924–1948), Bucureşti; Nouvelle Série (N.S.), Dacia. Revue d’archéologie et d’histoire anciene, Bucureşti Revista Muzeului de Istorie Galaţi Der Schlern, Monatszeitschrit für Südtiroler Landeskunde, Konstanz Abbreviations | 395 DissArch DissArchBudapest DissPann Dobrudža Documents préhistoriques Dunántúli Szemle EA EAE EJA EphemNap EPRO ERAUL Erdélyi TudFüz FAP FB FBBW FDS FÖ FolArch FolPraehPos ForschStillfried GAS Germania Gyulai Katalógusok Historica Carpatica HOMÉ HungArch IA IANSA IHAD IJRAT Instrumentum IntArchA-STK ISPRS Istros IUPUAS Jahrbuch DAI Jahrbuch RGZM JahrIVUF JAS JEA JPMÉ JWP Korrespondenzblatt AEU LAF LDMK MAGW Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque, Brno Dissertationes Archaeologicae ex Instituto Archaeologico Universitatis de Rolando Eötvös nominatae, Budapest Dissertationes Pannonicae, ex Instituto Numismatico et Archaeologico Universitatis de Petro Pázmány nominatae Budapestinensis provenientes, Budapest Istoričeski Muzej v Dobrič i v Silistra, Varna Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon Dunántúli (Vasi) Szemle (1933–1944), Szombathely Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitschrit für Archäologie Eurasiens, Berlin Experimentelle Archäeology in Europa, Uhldingen-Mühlhofen European Journal of Archaeology Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain Etudes et recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek, Az Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület kiadása, Kolozsvár Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses, Prague Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg Forschungen zur Denkmalplege in Südtirol, Trento Fundberichte aus Österreich, Wien Folia Archeologica, Budapest Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia, Poznań Forschungen in Stillfried, Veröfentlichungen der Österreichischen Gesellschat für Ur- u. Frühgeschichte, Wien Gothenburg Archaeological Studies, Göteborg Germania, Frankfurt am Main Gyulai Katalógusok, Gyula Historica Carpatica, Kosice A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc Hungarian Archaeology e-journal Internationale Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach, Espelkamp, Rahden/Westf. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica. Natural Sciences in Archaeology. Archaeological Centre Olomouc Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, online journal Instrumentum, Bulletin du Groupe de travail européen sur l’artisanat et les productions manufacturées dans l’Antiquité Internationale Archäologie Arbeitsgemeinschat, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress, Leidorf International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing – International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences Istros, Buletinul Muzeului Brăilei, Brăila Indiana University Publications Uralic and Altaic Series, Bloomington Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Jahresbericht des Institut für Vorgeschichte des Universität Frankfurt a. M. Journal of Archaeological Science, London Journal of European Archaeology, Durham A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, Pécs Journal of World Prehistory Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen Gesellschat für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, München Linzer Archäologische Forschungen, Linz A Laczkó Dezső Múzeum Közleménye, Veszprém Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschat Wien 396 | Abbreviations Marisia Marmatia MAS MBVF MCA (S. N.) MemAnt Memorie Memorii MFMÉ Moravské Křižovatky Mousaios MPK MSVF Musaica Muzejski vjesnik MΩMOΣ MИA NotizieS Obavijesti HAD Ofa OpArch Opera IAS Ősrégészeti levelek PamArch Pannonkör Füzetek PAS PAT PBF PJZ PLoS ONE Praehistorica Praehistorica Basel Pravěk Nř Prilozi IAZ PrzArch PZ Ráckevei Múzeumi füzetek Radiocarbon RadMV RadVM RégFüz RevArh RevBis RevMuz RGF RGZM RJA RKM RSP SAA Marisia (V–), Studii şi Materiale, Târgu Mureş Marmatia, Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean Maramureş, Baia Mare Materialia Archaeologica Slovaca, Nitra Münchener Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, München Materiale şi Cercetări Arheologice, Bucureşti Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis, Bucureşti Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo, Verona Memoriile Academiei Române, Bucureşti A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, Szeged Moravské Křižovatky, Střední Podunají mezi pravěkem a historií, Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno Mousaios, Buzău–Brăila Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommision der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaten, Wien Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Marburg Musaica, Bratislava Muzejski vjesnik, Varazdin MΩMOΣ, Őskoros Kutatók Összejövetelének konferenciakötete MИA, Moscova Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, Roma Obavijesti Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, Zagreb Ofa, Berichte und Mitteilungen zur Urgeschichte, Frühgeschichte und Mittelalterarchäologie, Neumünster Opuscula Archaeologica, Arheološki zavod, Filozofski fakultet u Zagreb Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae, Ljubljana Ősrégészeti levelek. Prehistoric newsletter, Budapest Památky Archeologické, Praha Pannon Kulturális Örökség Füzetek, Kőszeg Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Berlin, Kiel, München Patrimonium Archaeologicum Transylvanicum, Cluj-Napoca Prähistorische Bronzefunde, München, Stuttgart Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja, Sarajevo PLoS ONE. Open Access journal, San Francisco, Cambridge Praehistorica, Praha Praehistorica, Basel Pravěk Nová řada, Ústav archeologické památkové péče, Brno Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, Zagreb Przegląd Archeologiczny, Wrocław Praehistorische Zeitschrit, Berlin Ráckevei Múzeumi füzetek, Ráckeve Radiocarbon, International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research, Tucson Rad Muzeja Vojvodine Rad Vojvođanskih muzeja, Novi Sad Régészeti Füzetek, Budapest Revista Arhivelor (S.N.), Bucureşti Revista Bistriţei, Bistrița Revista Muzeelor, Bucureşti Römisch-Germanische Forschungen, Mainz–Berlin Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Monographien, Bonn–Mainz Romanian Journal of Archaeology, online Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon, Budapest Rivista di scienze preistoriche, Florence Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, Iaşi Abbreviations | 397 Savaria SAX SBA SCIV(A) Sibrium SlovArch SMA SMA SMK SNMP SovArh Specimina EA Specimina Nova SPM SprArch SSMA Starinar N. S. StC Maramureşene StCom Satu Mare StCom Sibiu StudArch Brunensia StudArch Slovaca StudArchMed Studia Troica Studie AUCAB Studii de Preistorie Studii Semitici Študijné zvesti Symphrac Terra Sebus hraco-Dacica Tisicum TransRev TVMK Tyragetia UPA VAH VAMZ VF VIA KÖK VMK VMMK VMUFP Vrancea WMMÉ Zalai Múzeum Zbornik IA Zborník SNM Ziridava Županjski Zbornik Savaria Pars Archaeologica, Szombathely Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, Budapest Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Bonn Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche (şi Arheologie 1974–), Bucureşti Sibrium, Center of Prehistoric and Archaeological Studies of Varese Slovenská Archeológia, Nitra Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Göteborg Seria Monograii Arheologice, Sfântu Gheorghe Somogy Megyei Múzeumok, Kaposvár Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, řada A – Historie. Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series A – Historia, Praha Sovjetska Arheologija Specimina Electronica Antiquitatis, Pécs Specimina Nova Dissertationum ex Institutom Historico Universitatis Quinqueecclesiensis de Jano Pannonio nominatae, Pécs Die Schweiz vom Paläolithikum zum frühen Mittelalter. La Suisse du Paléolithique à l’aube du Moyen-Âge Basel Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, Kraków Saarbrücker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde, Saarbrücken Starinar, Arheološki institute, Beograd Studii şi Cercetări Maramureşene, Baia Mare Studii şi Comunicări Satu Mare Studii şi Comunicări, Sibiu Studia archaeologica Brunensia, Brno Studia Archaeologica Slovaca Instituti Archaeologici Acadaemiae Scientiarum, Nitra Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia, Bratislava Studia Troica, Universität Tübingen Studie Archeologického Ústavu Československé Akademie vĕd v Brnĕ, Praha Asociaţia Română de Arheologie, Bucureşti Studii Semitici, Roma Študijné zvesti, Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, Nitra Symposia hracologica, Bucureşti Terra Sebus, Acta Musei Sabesiensis, Sebeş hraco-Dacica, Bucureşti Tisicum, A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve, Szolnok Transylvanian Review, Cluj-Napoca Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei, Tapolca Tyragetia (S.N.), Anuarul Muzeului Naţional de Istorie al Moldovei, Chişinău Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonn Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, Berlin VIA, Kulturális és Örökségvédelmi Kismonográiák. Monographia Minor in Cultural Heritage, Budapest Veröfentlichungen der Mykenischen Kommission, Wien A Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, Veszprém Veröfentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam Vrancea Studii şi Comunicări, Vrancea Wosinsky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve, Szekszárd Zalai Múzeum, Közlemények Zala megye múzeumaiból, Zalaegerszeg Zbornik Instituta za Arheologiju, Zagreb Zborník Slovenského Národného Múzea, Bratislava Ziridava, Studia Archaeologica, Arad Županjski Zbornik, Zavičajni muzeja Županja