A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 49. (Nyíregyháza, 2007)

Régészet - Dan Pop: The Copper Axe from Corni

Dan Pop no. 187-250, 98-99: no. 576-580, pl. 12: 187-190,13-20, 53: 576-578, 54: 579-580, HAJDÚ 1990. 88-89, fig. 3, MAKKAY 1996. 45, fig. 5: 3, 6: 1, 7: 1-2, HAJDÚ 1999. 17, fig. 1), Czech Republic (RiHOVSKY 1992. 25-26, 28: no. 8-10, 12, pi. 1: 8, 2: 9-10, 12), Poland (TUNIA-PARCZEWSKI 1977. 151-159, fig. 3, 5, MUZYCZUK-TUNIA 1992. 151-156, fig. 2-4), Slovakia (NOVOTNÁ 1955. 92, pl. 1: 6, NOVOTNÁ 1970. 23: no. 91-94, 96-98, pl. 4: 91-94, 5: 96-98, TOCIK 1970. 278, pl. 74: la-b, PATAY 1984. 99, pl. 54: 580, SCHALK 1998. 31), Transylvania (VULPE 1975. 26-28, pl. 4: 39^13, 5-6, PATAY 1984. 99, pl. 53: 576-579, LÁZÁR 1995. 61, pl. VII: b, IERCO$AN-LAZIN 1996. 17-18, fig. 3, 5, NÉMETI 1999. 88, MARE§ 2002. 103-104, pl. 17: 3-9, 18-19: 1-3, KACSÓ 2003. 37-38, fig. 1) and the Ukraine (KONOPLYA-KOCHKIN 1999. 5: no. 4, fig.l: 5) (Fig. 3, Appendix 1, PI. I-XVI). The number of pieces varies according to the classification, which often differs depending of the author. We have several different attributions for the same pieces: the two axes discovered at "Békés" and Ip were first considered to belong to the Agnita type (PATAY 1984. 60-61: no. 275, VULPE 1975. 28: no. 57), later to the Székely-Nádudvar type, the Apagy variant, in the case of the pieces from "Békés" or the Monostorpályi variant, taken for that of Ip (DANKÓ-PATAY 2000. 16, PATAY 1984. 99: no. 579), the axe from Nitrianske Pravno was initially attributed to the Székely-Nádudvar type (NOVOTNÁ 1970. 23: no. 95), then to the Handlová type (PATAY 1984. 99: no. 583); according to Z. Zeravica, the axe of Mezősas belongs to the Székely-Nádudvar type, whereas according to P. Patay it is Agnita type (ZERAVICA 1993. 8, PATAY 1984. 61: no. 276, pi. 24: 276). A. Vulpe considers that the axe of Tärgusor may belong to the Mezőkeresztes type, whereas according to P. Patay, it is of Székely-Nádudvar type, the Monostorpályi variant (VULPE 1975. 30: no. 70, PATAY 1984. 99: no. 578). The piece of Mohelnice attributed to the Székely-Nádudvar type (SCHALK 1998. 29, pl. 2: 9) is identical with the one published by Rihovsky from Moravicany, being surely of the Mezőkeresztes type (RÍHOVSKY 1992. 28, pi. 2: 11). Also, one of the two axes of unknown site in Austria^) is considered to belong to the Crestur type, the other one to the Mezőkeresztes type (MAYER 1977. 9: no. 6, pi. 1:6- Crestur; 10: no. 14, pi. 2: 14 - Mezőkeresztes). In my opinion, they can be attributed to the Székely-Nádudvar type. The axe from Lelei also belongs to this type and not to the Vidra type (IERCOSAN 2002. no. 31 and note 116). In my opinion, the axe of Skomorochy Male belongs to the Székely-Nádudvar type,

10 and so is the one from Krzemienna (GEDL 2004. 23: no.

13, pi. 2: 13 - piece included in the Mezőkeresztes type by Gedl). We also have to consider the possible confusions having occurred from various reasons, as in the case of the hammer-axe of Baia Mare,

11 or the possibility that some of the axes with 10 The information on this find, as well as the opinion that the piece would belong to this type was suggested to me by Igor Manzura. GEDL 2004, 19-20: no. 4, pi. 1:4 — piece included in the Plocnik type. 1

' We have the following information on this discovery: PATAY 1984. 51: no. 225, pi. 18: 225, published with "unknown site" a Székely-Nádudvar axe, the Apagy variant, which was lost. He presented a drawing made after a photo. The same author mentions a hammer-axe, also lost, found in the "surroundings of Baia Mare", purchased by the Hungarian National Museum (PATAY 1984. 100: no. 584). C. Kacsó considers that these two observations are related to a single find made in Baia Mare. The hypothesis was supported by two facts. One is the existence of an imitation of gypsum made for a hammer-axe, which is identique with the one mentioned by Patay as "unknown site". The copy was acquired by the Museum in Baia Mare, in 1902, from Viktor Molnár, laboratory technician at the Hungarian National Museum. The other fact is that in the old inventory book of the Baia Mare Museum, it is stated that the axe after which the copy had been made was found in a mine on Dealul Crucii in Baia Mare (KACSÓ 2003. 37-38, fig. 1). In my opinion the copy in Baia Mare is the same as the one from "unknown site": they have about the same dimensions, and the drawing of the copy (KACSÓ 2003. fig. 1) resembles well the drawing made after the photo (PATAY 1984. pi. 18: 225). At the same time the axe discovered in "the vicinity of Baia Mare" has a different length than the one mentioned above (13 cm long instead of 33 cm, the other dimensions being close) and in description (PATAY 1984) the mine is not mentioned as the finding spot. In the case, the piece's length is correctly indicated (13 cm) we have to consider the possibility that in Baia Mare two copper axes may have been discovered (KACSÓ 2005. 154, note 7). 52