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

New Late Bronze Age Metal Finds from Gönc

17

Flattened annular ring (Cat. No. 19) (Flate 5. 19)

The flattened annular ring with rhomboid section is a common Carpathian type which have appeared between the Ha A1 and Ha Bl (Ha B2) periods (Mozsolics 1985, 64; Szabó 1996, 214-216; Tarbay 2015, 319-320, Fig. 9, List 5). Except a handful of specimens (e.g. Velem, Somogyszob) most of them are undecorated, similarly to the object from Gönc (Miske 1907, XXXIV. tábla 7; Mozsolics 1985, 187, Taf. 249.6). They are derived from hoards, in intact or fragmented state, sometimes presumably as part of a greater set, as it can be seen in the Máriakéménd and Nedilys’ka hoards (Sulimirksi 1937, Tabi. V.3-13; Mozsolics 1985,146). Their functional interpretation varies, in my point of view they are basic multi-functional objects which can be used for many purposes such as pendants, belt loops etc.

“Double annular rings” (Cat. Nos. 24—25) (Plate 5.24-25)

The double annular rings have only a few parallels. The best one is the casting mould from Mariánské Radcice (Czech Republic) (Blazek etal. 1998,144, Taf. 5.28). This mould and the overall macroscopic character of these finds raise the possibility that these objects might not be finished products. Besides, the removal of the sprue and some superficial polishing marks, no additional surface treatment or abrasion trace can be seen on them. According to this interpretation, these rings are pre-finished products waiting for further partitioning and surface treatment. However, similar finds are known from the Eastern European materials, in some cases as part of complex objects. One with a somewhat longer middle part is known from Medvedevcy 2nd hoard (Ha A2, Kobal’ 2000, 87, Taf. 79b.5) and Mindreijti T' hoard (Ha Al, Dergacev 2002, 38, 45, Taf. 37.10). In the western part of the Carpathian basin one was published from the Tatabánya-Bánhida hoard as part of a metal sheet belt (Ha A2-Ha Bl, Kemenczei 1983, 61, 4. kép). Similar was deposited in the Staré Sedlo hoard (Br D), Bohemia (Kytlicová 2007, 304—305, Taf. 24.29). Based on their parallel, it is hard to conclude an exact time of deposition. This is not surprising, if we take it into account that multiple casting of rings is a logical technical solution therefore most likely general phenomenon.

Conclusion

As a result of the typological analysis it can be concluded that the chronologically sensitive finds can be dated to different periods and intervals: socketed axe with beaked mouth (Cat. No. 2) — Ha Bl, tanged sickle (Cat. No. 6) — Ha Al (based on one datable parallel),

knobbed sickles with one inner rib decoration (Cat. Nos. 15—16) — Br D-На Al (long period of manufacturing and deposition, they are most characteristic to the above interval), perforated knob (Cat. No. 18) - Br D-На Al (similar chronological character as the knobbed sickles above), flattened annular ring (Cat. No. 19) — Ha A-Ha Bl. Based on this, the time interval of the finds can be placed between the Br D-На Al and Ha Bl periods. Hoard assemblages with similar chronological pattern are usually interpreted as Ha A2 hoards with transitional character where older and younger artefacts were selected to a hoard. However, recent breakages, appearance of non-prehistoric material, the unknown circumstances of discovery, and the loss of the most datable find (sword) strongly suggest otherwise. At best, the finds can be interpreted as an uncertain hoard with incomplete or distorted chronological time interval or simply as stray finds with individual chronological position.

DISCUSSION

As a results of the macroscopic examination of the finds, it can be concluded that all objects were altered by recent damages. In some cases it was possible to reconstruct the original deposition state of the artefacts or identify some prehistoric manipulations. Regarding their overall technological character, most of them can be interpreted as finished products, a significant part of them were most certainly used. According to the private collector, at least part of these finds have originally belonged to the same hoard. Our analyses have shown that the 30 objects can be associated different periods of the Late Bronze Age (Br D-На Al, Ha Al, Ha A-На Bl, Ha Bl), and one with ethnographic material. Overlapping of different periods in a hoard is not a unique phenomenon, especially in the case of the Ha A and Ha B. However, current results, a lack of context and the fact that these artefacts have spent a significant amount of time in a private collection suggest that these artefacts should not be treated as one assemblage.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The paper has been supported by the OTKA Research Fund grant No. 112427 and the National Cultural Fund of Hungary. I want to express my gratitude to Klára P. Fischl for the opportunity to publish these finds. I am most grateful for Anna Mária Tarbay for the fine drawings. I am also indebted to Tamás Pusztai and Polett Kosa for their kind help.