Fitz Jenő (szerk.): The Celts in Central Europe - István Király Múzeum közelményei. A. sorozat 20. A Pannon konferenciák aktái 2. (Székesfehérvár, 1975)
I. Bognár-Kutzián: Some new early La Téne finds in the Northern Danube Basin
the Glasinac type fibula appears in Hungary in Scythian age associantions. These examples are made of bronze(30). Let us consider another characteristic feature of the Curug type looped bow fibulae: the row of loops accompanying the spring. This element recurs at Dürrnberg, on the early brooch with open work foot belonging to the upper burial (No. 1) of grave 42. A discj ibula was found also in the inhumation grave surrounded with stontes(31). The spring decorated with a row of loops appears on cross-bow fibulae of the Certosa type and one with Xavicello bow in South-East Transdanubia, in the Szentlőrinc cemetery. The biritual cemetery, predominantly consisting of skeleton burials, is dated between 425 and 325. The fibulae of the Certosa type occur only in their crossbow variant and we find also early La Tène brooches with bird’s heads here. The former variant is represented in grave 1 of Beremend and among the stray finds but the latter is not. I have already alluded to the Szentlőrinc cemetery in connection with the most frequent knife variant of the Basaharc graves and with burials covered or surrounded by stones(32). I have tried to point out that the early horizon in the Carpathian Basin which displays characteristic finds for the end of the 5th and the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries seems to have become a period requiring more attention in the light of recent research. In the late 5th century and at the beginning of the 4th, a horizon can be reconstructed in the western part of the Carpathian Basin which is represented by a large number of characteristic traits of the La Tène culture in the material. Belonging to this horizon are the Stupa va graves north of the Danube, the pair of brooches from Szebeszló and the helmet from the Carpathian Basin. Finds obtained from recent excavations have enabled us to date this helmet in this earliest horizon on the basis of the chariot burial at Dürrnberg. Again recent finds permit the statement that on the right bank of the Danube some graves of the cemetery at Pilismarót-Basaharc belonged to the Stupava circle. It is probable that the Petőháza and possibly also the Balf graves represent this chronological horizon in the westernmost zone of Transdanubia. This earliest horizon extends to the south-eastern corner of Transdanubia as attested by the Szentlőrinc and Beremend cemeteries by some La Tène type finds. Without touching upon substance of ethnic problems I wish to underline the striking difference which can be observed on the finds from the region situated north of the Danube, the area on the southern side of the river and the western zone of Transdanubia, on the one hand, and on the finds of Southeastern Transdanubia, on the other. The gist of the difference is that the La Tène culture is reflected more intensively in the northern and western regions than in the south-eastern area. One of the reasons is the geographical position of the groups: South Transdanubia was linked with much stronger ties to the Hallstatt culture surviving for a long time on the Nort-western Balkans and was more directly exposed to southern impacts than was Western or Northern Transdanubia. Reverting now to the question raised at the beginning of this paper, namely whether or not the La Tène culture played a significant role in the Carpathian Basin prior to the turn of the first and second thirds of the 4th century, the answer can be formulated in the affirmative. Budapest I. Bognár-Kutzián (30) M. GaraSanin, o. c., pi. 112; E. Jerem, The Late Iron Age cemetery finds of Beremend. JPMË, XVI, 1971, 78, 79, 89, 90, fig. 6; D. Mano-Ztsi and L. Popovic, Der Fund von Novi Pazar. BRGK, L, 1969. 191 — 207. — M. Pár du c z published bronze fibulae of the Glasinac typee from Vekerzug II. AArch- I lung, IV, 1954,36,43, 63, 64, pis. XVII 3, XVIII 3, XXIX 17. (31) E. Penninger, o. e., MB, XVI, 1972, 75, pl. 40 A, 2 and I. (32) E. Jerem, o. c., AArchHung, XX, 1968, 194, 195, fig. 2, pis. XXXVII 3, XXXVIII 1-3; In.. JP.ME, XVI, 1971, fig. 5, pl. III 2,3.
