Folia archeologica 13.

L. Huszár: Merchant's seals of the 16th and 17th centuries

Merchant's seals of the 16th and 17th centuries 191 Békés was ultimately destroyed by the Tartars in 1596, hence the medal n° 9 might have got there before that date although, of course, this could have happened at a later date, too. The pieces dug up in the fortress of Eger (n

os 2 and 11) were found in the debris of the ammunition-magazine situated under the hall of the chapter

1

3 and blown up in the year 1552. Accordingly should have to get there before the said date, but this reasoning is not fully convincing, as it is not absolutely certain that these pieces came really from the ammunition-magazine. Apart from the two latter questionable data the above mentioned, assign them all to the end or to the last quarter of the 16th century. This fits in with the well-known historical fact that the Hungarian fortresses in question (Eger, Győr and Nagykanizsa) passed into the hands of the Turks in the years between 1595 and 1600, and it may be realized as very probable that these medals had got to these fortresses during the imperial rule. Finally we quote Thompson's opinion who on the basis of the analogies known to him attributes the production of these pieces approximately to this period. As the result of his critical analysis of style he considers the examples on which the crown is very wide and in consequence of that bearing strong resemblance in shape to that used by James I (1603—1625), as being 17th century productions (n

o

s 7—10). Those medals, which bear an open crown above a long and narrow shield, he believes, belong the late Tudor period (1590—1600). In his opinion, namely, the narrow shield and the open crown suggest an adaptation of the reverse type of the ducats issued c. 1575—1590 by the Dutch town of Campen. The lettering of this latter medals has much in common with the Hans Han piece already mentioned (n

o

s 1—6). All these considerations as well as the other data and analogies available justify the conclusion that the medals discussed were to all probability in the decades around the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, but not later than in 1603. As to the origin of the type, obviously one has to think of the current coins. The English royal arms is represented on the English coins up to 1603 in a similar style and the rose—in the opinion of Thompson — suggests the English sovereign first issued in 1489 under the reign of Henry VII. the type of which was well known during the whole 16th century. The examination of the whole series reveals that some of them are pierced (n

o

s 11, 12, 13), and others again bear traces of lugs by means of which they could be attached. There are also double specimens, that is consisting of separate obverse and reverse halves joined together on the top by a pliable band (n

o

s 1, 9, 10). Hence it follows that the pieces were attached to something else and partly this accounts for the presumption, that they had been medals or rather seals used for trading purposes, namely for marking certain kinds of merchandise or securing their packing by sealing. The question arises how far such a presumption may be supported by credible data. As these medals came to light almost exclusively from the area of ancient fortresses, first of all we have to examine, of the equipment usually stored in the fortresses which goods could have been such import articles as had some kind of connection with England. 1

3 Pataki V. private communication.