Savaria - A Vas Megyei Múzeumok értesítője 24/3. (1997) (Szombathely, 1997)

Kovács Tibor: A kiskőszegi (Battina) bronzkori és korai vaskori ékszerlelet

SAVARIA24/3 (1998-1999) PARS ARCHAEOLOGICA THE FINDS OF THE BRONZE AGE HOARD 1-6. Anchor shaped bronze pendants. Each has a perforation for suspension on its upper part. Traces of subsequent working - filing - can be made out on the inner curve of the lower part. Height 4.34.4 cm, width 8.2 cm (Fig. 1.1,3-4,6-7,9). 7. Anchor shaped bronze pendant. The upper part has a perforation for suspension and is more angular than the other pendants. Height 4.5 cm, width 9.6 cm (Fig. 1. 10). 8. Anchor shaped bronze pendant. The upper part is markedly angular and has a perforation for suspension. It is slightly thinner than the other pendants and more sheet-like. Height 3.1 cm, width 7.5 cm (Fig. 1. 8). 9-10. Small anchor shaped bronze pendants. The upper parts are markedly angular and have a perforation for suspension. The recurved lower parts show slight traces of wear. Height 2.4 cm, width 2.7-2.8 cm (Fig. 1. 2,5). 11-12. Cast ribbed bronze pendants. The obverses are decorated with cruciform ribbing. The upper parts have a perforation for suspension. Diam. 3.6-3.7 cm (Fig. 1. 11,13). 13. Cast ribbed bronze pendant. Its obverse and reverse is decorated with a cruciform rib, framed with concentric ribbing. The upper parts have a perforation for suspension. Diam 3,43.6 cm (Fig. 1. 12). — Inv. no. 92.2.1-5. Two major studies on the Encrusted Pottery culture have been published so far, one by Pál Patay, the other by István Bona (PATAY 1938, 60-68; BONA 1975, 193-230.). The manuscript of the latter study was closed in 1969, and thus Bóna's study reflects the body of knowledge from the later 1960s. In his study, Bona included a critique (1975. 227-230.) of previously published studies on the distribution (DU$EK 1960a, 4554; DUSEK 1960b, 208-214) the emergence (BANDI 1967), and the dating of the hoards linked to this culture (MOZSOLICS 1967, 123-126). In spite of the publication of a fairly corpus of finds, both from older and more recent excavations and various studies devoted to the emergence, the relative chronology and the decline of the culture (cf. DU$EK 1969, 35-49; VELIACIK 1972; BÁNDI 1970; 1971; 1972; TORMA 1972; 1976; CSÁNYI 1978.), no new monograph incorporating and analyzing these new advances has yet been published. Bándi's overview (1984a; 1984b.) could not meet these requirements since, owing to its scope, it was more in the nature of a Forschungsbericht which, however, did outline the possible perspectives of a monographic study. There is no scholarly consensus on the evaluation and interpretation of the metallurgy of the Encrusted Pottery culture, especially as regards its hoards. The major hoards (Kórós, Tolnanémedi, Mosdós-Pusztasárkánytó, Abda, Nagyhangos) were first discussed by Amália Mozsolics who assigned them to a different chronological horizon than the Koszider hoards. She argued that they were contemporaneous with the bronze hoards of the Tisza region (such as Hajdúsámson and Apa) (MOZSOLICS 1957, 135-140, Fig. 5). In his comparison of the bronze artefacts coming from hoards (Abda, Simontornya, Tolnanémedi, Mosdós-Pusztasárkánytó, Kóros, Lengyeltóti, Nagyhangos A, VörösmartZmajevac) with similar artefacts from burials, István Bona, who first attempted to assemble the artefact types of this bronze metallurgy, reached a similar conclusion (BONA 1958, 224-226). In her monograph on the early metallurgy of the Hungarian Bronze Age, Amália Mozsolics discussed these hoards together with the Koszider hoards which she dated to her В III period. She based the contemporaneity of these hoards on the occurrence of anchor shaped and ribbed pendants in Koszider hoards, as well as on the Köles-Nagyhangos hoard. She rejected Bóna's opinion, in spite of the fact that she herself had subscribed to the same view some ten years earlier (MOZSOLICS 1967, 124). Mozsolics dated the Szomód, Tolnanémedi and Mosdós-Pusztasárkánytó hoards to a chronological horizon that preceded the Koszider hoards. There was much controversy over the separation or, conversely, merging of these two hoard horizons. Tibor Kemenczei (1968, 160. 186), myself (KOVÁCS 1969, 209-210) and István Bona (1975, 228-229) argued that the Encrusted Pottery culture hoards should be regarded as a separate horizon, as did Bernhard Hansel in his comprehensive monograph on the Transdanubian hoards in which he suggested that these hoards predated the Koszider hoards (HANSEL 1968, 121. 119165). István Bona assigned Abda, Tolnanémedi, Mosdós-Pusztasárkánytó, Kórós, Lengyeltóti-Tatárvár, Szomód, Esztergom-Ispitahegy, Felsőörs, Bodajk and Ipoly-völgy hoards to his Tolnanémedi type hoards. The hoards from Simontornya, Koroncó and Vörösmart (Zmajevac) were only assigned to this horizon tentatively, and he distinguished the 'archaic' finds of the Kölesd-Nagyhangos hoard from the Koszider type bronze artefacts in the same hoards (A and B) (BONA 1975, 219-220). This brief overview reflects the kaleidoscope of views about which hoards were associated with the Encrusted Pottery culture and how they were dated. We encounter a similar kaleidoscope of views if we survey the various interpretations on why these hoards were buried. These interpretations range from the inexplica24