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

Régészet - Dan Pop: The Copper Axe from Corni

The Copper Axe from Corni Sännicolau Roman

34 was found probably in a grave.

35 We have no information regarding the context of find of the pieces from §ona, Transylvania and "unknown spot". The axes of Cetatea de Baltä and "unknown spot" (PI. XVII: 2, 8) have "marks" on the inner part: two circles one under the other, above the shaft-hole. This type of "mark" was already mentioned, as it often used to be on the Székely-Nádudvar type axes. In the case of Agnita axes, the observation, that the smaller pieces have no marks, doesn't prove valid.

36 Functionality Several opinions have been expressed on the functionality of copper axes. On the basis of the usage traces observed on several axes, suggestions were made that these were used as tools for chopping wood and animal bones, mining, etc. In this case we have to take into account the possibility that some of the discoverers may have used the found pieces as tools, and deformed the initial shape of the axes. Those discovered in graves, especially the cross-armed axes, are considered to be weapons, signs of power and prestige, ingots or a monetary form (VULPE 1973. 233, and note 95, VULPE 1975. 16-17, with opinion from earlier literature, MAYER 1977. 15, KUNA 1981. 54, PATAY 1984. 18-20 with earlier literature, ZERAVICA 1993. 8). Lacking more precise data, mainly regarding the find context, it is difficult to make more detailed observations. Conclusions The Székely-Nádudvar axes, products of the Tiszapolgár, and mainly, of the Bodrogkeresztúr communities, characteristic for the Carpathian Basin probably had commercial and cultural relations with the shores of the Adriatic in the south, up to the south of Poland in the north, and from East Austria up to the south-west of Ukraine (MANZURA 2003.). As we could observe above, the absence of essential data, like the character and context of finds, as well as the information on the sizes of the artefacts, or on other characteristics, strongly influences the result of the analysis. However, from my point of view, the most important observation (made by some researchers that searched this issue) refers to the fact that almost all the hammeraxes come from isolated finds (I refer to those we have information on). We could hardly accept this observation as a result of hazard of discovery and - as other colleagues have underlined it - the artefacts may have been discovered actually in the proximity of settlements of Tiszapolgár or Bodrogkeresztúr Culture. Personally I tend to believe that in many cases these objects were intentionally placed on the spot, either in the form of hoards of several pieces, or as single pieces. The relatively reduced presence of the hammer-axes in burials, as from also other contexts, can be an argument for this case. Recently a "new" copper hammer-axe has been published from Palota, Bihor County (LUCA-ILIES 2000. 323, fig. 1: 2a-b); this "seems to be a transition type, in evolution between Székely and Agnita". If the authors had been curious enough to actually take a look at the pieces they quoted as analogies (note 6 mentions VULPE 1975. pi. 7: 54-57), they would have observed that the axe in question had already been published as a one from Sännicolau Roman (VULPE 1975. 28: no. 55, pi. 7: 55 with earlier literature)! Possibly from a Bodrogkeresztúr cemetery. The object was found together with an Agnita type axe and the following pieces hail: a Holic axe, a flat axe of Sälacea type, a Jászladány cross-armed axe, the Bradu version, a copper chisel, a stone axe, a shell bracelet and probably also pottery. The axe of Cetatea de Baltä is 990 gr, and the one from "unknown site" in Hungary is 562 gr. 61