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

13

Manufacturing traces

Almost all of the tools showed characteristic manufacturing traces.4 Fine hammer marks were observed on the edges of many axes and sickles (Cat. Nos. 3-4, 7-10, 12, 15-16) (Plate 7. 1.1-1.2), as well as sharpening (Cat. No. 1, 4,10,13,16). In the case of the sickles, hammer marks have also appeared on cast ribs (Cat. Nos. 7, 9,13—14), spur (Cat. No. 6) and bases (Cat. No. 6). The sprues of the knobbed sickles (Cat. Nos. 15—16) were simply broken and left unworked, in the case of three rings their traces were carefully worked and polished (Cat. Nos. 19, 24—25). It is probable that Cat. Nos. 24—25. “double rings” were made with the same mould or after a same model due to their dimensions and shape show close similarities.

Use-wear traces

As mentioned before most artefacts can be interpreted as finished products. Some of them, especially the tools, showed intensive and characteristic traces of use. One socketed axe had an asymmetric edge (Cat. No. 3) (Plate 7. 2), another had a completely dull edge (Cat. No. 5) (Plate 6. 5). The sickles had narrow blades (Cat. Nos. 8,12,14), some even showed intensive traces of abrasion (Cat. Nos. 8, 12—14). Those with hammer marks on the narrow blade (Cat. No. 8, 12) were most likely used and maintained for a long period of time. Notches were also found with the aid of microscope camera (Cat. Nos. 12,14). Abrasion was also visible on one ring (Cat. No. 20).

Conclusions

Overall macroscopic character of the finds show common Carpathian trends. Despite minor defects, almost all artefacts were finished products with clear traces of manufacturing and in some cases usage. The most intensive usage marks were visible on sickles and socketed axes. Observations suggest that they were deposited both in intact and intentionally broken state. However many of them showed recent damages and alterations, therefore the overall fragmentation character of the finds is not representative since it provides unreliable data for future statistical analysis on LBA fragmentation.

4 Cat. No. 11 sickle was hard to characterize by macroscopic observations. Its interpretation as a finished product is uncertain.

TYPO-CHRONOLOGY

The finds from Gönc can be divided into five overlapping functional groups: 1. weapons (Cat. No. 1. sword tip), 2. multi-functional tools (Cat. Nos. 2-5. socketed axes), 3. agricultural tools (Cat. Nos. 6—16. tanged and knobbed sickles), 4. jewelry/clothing accessories (Cat. No. 17. Pin/ knob, Cat. No. 18. knob), 5. jewelry/multifunctional objects (Cat. Nos. 19—30. annular rings, ring, annular double rings). Most artefacts are common LBA types which were manufactured and deposited during the Br D-На A1 and Ha B1 periods. The dating of some objects is uncertain (Cat. Nos. 27—29) or can be associated with ethnographic material (Cat. Nos. 30). In the following section, I will only discuss chronologically profound objects which are therefore suitable for a somewhat more detailed typo-chronological evaluation.5 Regarding the scope of this study, this analysis will be as brief as the previous one, focusing only on the most important aspects and closest parallels of the finds.

Socketed axe with beaked mouth (Cat. No. 2) (Plate 1. 2)

Socketed axes with beaked mouth (Schnabeltüllenbeil) are one of the most common Eastern European type between the Br D and На В periods. They have been discussed by many during the long years of research. Here, only two of their recent syntheses should be mentioned which were established by prominent scholars, Carol Kacsó and Valentin Dergacev (Dergacev 2002,169—171, Taf. 124; Kacsó 2007, 56-59; Dergaciov 2013, 24-25, Fig. 2). Despite promising results, precise classification of socketed axes with beaked mouth is still problematic due to the quality of the published illustrations, which in most cases lack typo-chronologically significant features such as the cross-section and exact shape of both narrow sides. The axe from Gönc however, is an exception due to its chronologically sensitive curved triple rib decoration. Axes with a similar design were mainly distributed in the Northeastern and Eastern part of the Carpathians. Another exception should be mentioned from Velem-Szentvid (Vas County) where a mould of

5 Cat. No. 17 object should be discussed in short. Its simple design, made up of cast concentric ribs and a spike, has appeared in many different objects between the Br D and Ha Bl, e.g. pins, rivets, asymmetric arm- and leg spirals’ knobs, axes (Pauiajckh 1975, 88, T. LXXVI.7; Ríhovsky 1979, 55-56, Taf. 11.221; EnAchiuc 1995,288, Nr. 198, Abb. 8.25; KytlicovA 2007,308, Taf. 167.17-18; Ciugudkan etat. 2010,20-25, Pl. IX.3). Based on its size, the fragment from Gönc can be associated with the first three options. However detailed typo-chronological analysis is not possible due to its fragmentary state.