Vándor Andrea szerk.: Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 50-52/2 (2005-2007) (Pécs, 2008)

Magyar Zsolt: Trilobitenperlen from Dunaszekcső (Hungary)

(the faces of the bulloteria). One example from the groop of nonfigurative Trilobitenperlen is the identical outlook of the glatt-gerript type glass bead found in Hungary in Dunaújváros (Intercisa) (Figure 2) and our first bead (Figure 1). Another example for the usage of the same or identical matricae is identical look of the two channelled glass cameo in the Janus Pannonius Museum of Pécs, Inv. Nr. 612 (Kovács 2001, Cat. Nr. 159) and the two channelled glass cameo in the Hungarian National Museum, Inv. Nr. 1955.24.122 (Haevernick 1974, Abb. 1:15). It has been suggested that Trilobitenperlen were produced in commercial centres (Gesztelyi 1998, 76). In the identification of that centres the difficulty is however, that it is nearly impossible to differentiate between the production and the circulation centres. Gesztelyi (1998, 75) suggest Aquileia as one of the main production centres of the two-channelled glass cameos, which from the Italian city had been distributed throughout Pannónia. On the other hand he does not rule out the existence of other production and distribution centres within the province of Pannónia, like Sopianae; Siscia. Other centres in Pannónia probably also played a role in the distribution and production of these artefacts. Among them Intercisa is outstanding with 30 artefacts found, so far (Havernick 1974, 116-117; Gesztelyi 1997, 63). In Haevernick's paper (1974, 124-125) there are 56 two-channelled glass beads from Salona and more as yet unpublished. Salona was not just a distribution centre, but also a production centre for gems (Gesztelyi and Rácz 2006, 41) and it also a likely candidate for having been a production centre for the two-channelled glass cameos. Nevertheless, the non figurative Trilobitenperlen outnumber the glass cameos, and it seems that they remained in use for a longer time and spread to a wider area (Tamás Gesztelyi pers. comm.). Because of that, we cannot tell much about the production place of our beads. However there is a chance that they could have been produced in one of the above mentioned centres. The presence of the numerous parallels found in Dunaújváros (Intercisa) suggests a connection with our finds from Dunaszekcső (where there was also a Roman fortress along the Danube limes as in Intercisa, called Lugio). If our beads were contemporary with the possible production or distribution centre in Intercisa, they could have been produced there or were distributed from Intercisa to Lugio. Because the circumstances of the findings leave the exact context unclear and we cannot rule out the possibility that the beads may have come from a later, Migration Period context. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 1 102