Szolyák Péter - Csengeri Piroska (szerk.): A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 56. (Miskolc, 2017)
Régészet - Tarbay, János Gábor: New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc
12 Tarbay, János Gábor 27. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.28): Intact circlesectioned ring. Outer diameter: 22.2x.22.61 mm, Thickness: 2.19x2.64 mm, Weight: 2.3 g. (Plate 5. 27) 28. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.30): Intact ring with oval section. Outer diameter: 22.05x22.46 mm, Thickness: 4.03x2.15 mm, Weight: 2.4 g. (Plate 5. 28) 29. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.29): Thin cast ring with semicircular section. Its breakage is recent. Outer diameter: 24.28x22.07 mm, Thickness: 1.16x3.52 mm, Weight: 1.7 g. (Plate 5. 29) 30. annular ring (Inv. No. 2018.1.31): Cast ring with three ribs. Intensive rasping can be seen along the inner part of the artefact. Outer diameter: 21.65x21.94 mm, Thickness: 1.31x4.48 mm, Weight: 1.9 g. (Plate 5. 30) MACROSCOPIC OBSERVATIONS Macroscopic observations were performed with a dnt DigiMicro Mobile camera on unrestored artefacts which allowed me to reconstruct the original condition of some finds, observe manufacturing and usage traces. Observations were carried out on all artefacts and the results are discussed in detail within the catalogue and below (Cat. Nos. 1—30). Due to the scope of the study, I can only present select macro- and micrographs of this analysis (Plates 6—7). Recent damage Among the 30 objects, intact and broken artefacts can equally be found. Unfortunately, the fragmentation of the latter is far from representative. Many have shown clear traces of recent damage (Cat. Nos. 1, 3—4, 8, 20—21, 26) and breakage (e.g. Cat. No. 29). Most of these are the result of ploughing (Haldenby— Richards 2010). Some tools’ cutting edge have shown recent notches (Cat. Nos. 4, 6), a ring was even incomplete due to recent breakage (Cat. No. 26). The Cat. No. 15. knobbed sickle was reassembled from two recent fragments. The original deposition state of one sickle (Cat. No. 6) and the knob (Cat. No. 18) were altered. The sickle was straightened out, based on the cracking marks on the backside of the tool. Similar recent marks were observed on the knob as well. Traces of amateur cleaning were identified in one case on the backside of the Cat. No. 11 sickle. Possible prehistoric manipulations According to the owner, the sword was found in three pieces3 * which is not a unique phenomenon. The breakage of the weapon can be interpreted as symbolic. The morphological character of the remaining fragment’s breakage surface shows no traces of recent damage which supports this idea. Moreover, deep notches caused by a bladed tool were also found on one side of the edge which can also be the result of intentional damage (See Plate 6. 1). I am aware of a similar phenomenon on a sword tip from the Lovasberény hoard (Szent István Király Museum, Székesfehérvár, Inv. No. 9494; Mozsolics 1985, Taf. 246.6). All in all, the morphological character of the remaining fragment suggests a ritual interpretation. However this remains hypothetical as long as the other parts are missing. Edged-tool marks associated with the deliberate breakage of the objects were only observed in two cases, on a socketed axe and a sickle (Cat. Nos. 5, 12) (Plate 6. 6—7). On a few specimens, bending was also visible near to the breakage point (e.g. Cat. Nos. 11,13—14) which is a quite common fragmentation phenomenon among bladed tools during the LBA. The above mentioned folding of the Cat. No. 6 is also a common deposition practice. Fine examples of this can be found in the Zemplin hoard, Slovakia (Novotná 2006, Taf. 49.9, Taf. 50.6). Casting defects Most objects are casts, showing common and clear traces of this widespread LBA manufacturing technique. Different types of casting defects were observed on socketed axes, sickles, pin/knob/rivet, rings, such as gas- and shrinkage porosity (Cat. Nos. 3—4, 7) (Plate 6. 3), core shift (Cat. Nos. 3—4), mismatch (Cat. Nos. 2, 17, 19, 24—25), incomplete casting (Cat. Nos. 6—7) (Plate 7.4), amorphous, blurred or fused ribs (Cat. Nos. 6,10,15—16) (Plate 7.3), minor flash defect (Cat. No. 11). All of them are basic types of defects that are not only common in the LBA Carpathian material but in modern industrial casting as well (Rajkolhe—Khan 2014). In the case of the Gönc finds these defects mostly appeared on artefacts showing clear traces of manufacturing and use. Therefore similar to previous observations, these can be interpreted as minor, aesthetic, and most of all tolerated defects which did not affect the material properties of the cast products. 3 The two other pieces have been given away by the owner long ago.
