Folia archeologica 18.
Tibor Kovács: Eastern Connections of North-Eastern Hungary in the Late Bronze Age
28 T. KOVÁCS important observations but also to errors (generalizations) : 1. the life of the Felsőszőcs culture fills the phase between the Füzesabony culture and that of Wietenberg or the Gáva culture, i.e. В IV period according to Mozsolics' chronology ; fi 2. the chiefs of the Felsőszőcs culture were buried under tumuli and 3. the types of metallurgy of the culture are represented by the metal finds of the NyírkarászGyulaháza tumulus. 7 A. Mozsolics made an important statement according to which the finds of Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza are cíosely linked with the material of the areas east of the Carpathian Basin by the tumulus burials and by a few bronze types (e. g. wart-necked pin, the socketed celt of the Transylvanian type) and the parallels of several bronze finds from Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza occur in the hoards coming to light in Eastern Hungary. 8 These results are supported by several proofs in her article evaluating the hoard of Opályi. According to her final conclusions numerous hoards were put into the earth in the second half of the В IV period mainly in Szabolcs-Szatmár County (Hungary), in the Carpathian Ukraine and in the area of Northern Transylvania which included several objects in common and the material from the tumulus of Nyírkarász (Felsőszőcs culture) 9 provide important aid in dating those finds. According to I. Bona the eastern forms appearing in the pottery and metallurgy of the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin in the 12th century was the result of the immigration from the East which affected the whole area of Transylvania and the Great Hungarian Plain. (With the exception of the daggers of eastern type he treats these only in general.) In his opinion, in a „transitory period" — a term he coined for Late Bronze Age 3 — (R BD —HA,) a Thracian population (the ethnic group represented by the cemeteries of Muhi, Berkesz, Demecser) invading from the East culturally superseded the Egyek cultural group. It is important for us that he by collecting parallels determined the age and eastern origin of the dagger found at Berkesz —Csonkásdűlő. 1 0 In brief, from the quoted opinions it is clear that both Mozsolics and Kalicz noted that some of the finds of the Felsőszőcs culture (called by Kalicz the Felsőszőcs group) is younger than the Felsőszőcs pottery with deeply incised decorations, but they still treated as part of one cultural unit the material which in reality was only genetically related. The cause of this seems that Mozsolics did not take into consideration several assemblages of finds from the Nyírség (in particular those typical of Berkesz —Demecser) while Kalicz discussed only those pieces of these assemblages of finds which closely resemble in form the Felsőszőcs types. Thus he neglected those which primarily prove that the inheritace of other ethnic components is traceable in the material of several cemeteries (e. g. Berkesz, Demecser, Nyíregyháza—Bujtos). A. Mozsolics and I. Bona also emphasized the eastern relations or origin of the Felsőszőcs culture (on the basis of the Nyírkarász—Gyulaháza finds) or that of the Thracian ( ?) population indicated by the Muhi—Berkesz —Demecse cemeteries. 6 Ibid. 123. 7 Ibid. 116, 120—122. 8 Ibid. 121—123. 9 Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung. 15 (1963) 80. 1 0 Bóna, /., HOMÉ 3 (1963) 15—35. ; Kemenczei, T., gives a detailed analysis in Arch. Ért. 92 (1965) 4.
