Arrabona - Múzeumi közlemények 7. (Győr, 1965)

Foltinyi I.: Prehistoric bronzes from Győr-Sopron County in the American Museum of Natural History in New York and their relationships

continent and the third largest in the British Commonwealth. Charles Trick Currelly, the founding Curator and the first director of the museum, had a particular enthusiasm for tracing the development of weapons

39 ad he was alert to acquire the best pieces available for the basic collections of the Royal Ontario Museum. The Urnfield Period bronze weapons include three swords from Hungary, two of which belong to the group discussed here.

40 One of the swords in question (Plate 3, fig. 2 a

—b) was purchased from Fenton Ltd. Its site and circumstances of finding are not known. The inventory refers to „Austria

—Hungary", but the dealer and the museum consider this piece as coming from „Hungary" or from the Carpathian Basin. In all probability, we are not wrong if we look for its origin in the East Alpine area or in Western Hungary. Inventory number: 924.47.1. Length: 49.5 (like that of the sword of Neckenmarkt, now in Budapest, and that of Sered). The diameter of the cup is 5.9 cm. The ornamentation of the handle and of the interior of the cup is similar to that of the weapons of Neckenmarkt (now in New York: Plate 1, fig. 1 b

—c), Sered (Plate 2, fig. 2 b—c) and „Hungary" (Plate 4, fig. 1 d—e). Another sword of the same Canadian collection remains to be dealth with. (Plate 3, fig. 1 a

—d). It has a long history. Before coming to America, it was in the Graffenried Collection and J. Hampel

41 published it 80 years ago. The next stop on its interesting journey was the famous Egger Collection. According to T. A. Heinrich'

12 this weapon next belonged to the Sturge Collection, before it reached its final place in Toronto as a gift of Mrs. H. D. Warren. Our example is of superlative quality. Inventory number 918 5.69. Find spot: „Hungary". We have no other details. Length: 62.2, diameter of the cup 6.6 cm. An analysis of the size, shape and decoration shows that this piece is a prototype of the five swords described above. It is longer, the cup is less developed and a little wider, the ornaments are somewhat more complicated. This weapon seems to represent the transitional phase

43 between the swords of the Liptau type

44 and those with cupped pommel. There is a good counterpart to the swords from Neckenmarkt, Sered, „Hungary", „Austria

—Hungary" at the Landesmuseum, Joanneum in Graz. It was found in Moskanjci.

45 Slovenia, in the region of the southeast Alps. Shape and decoration are comparable to that of our category. A less close parallel derives from the hoard of Hajdúböszörmény.

46 This distribution indicates that our swords spread from their East Alpine-West Hungarian center to Slovakia, North Hungary, and to Slovenia. Unfortunately, the exact distribution area cannot be determined yet. None of the swords published here are from well-dated contexts, but all available evidence suggests that they belonged to the period Hallstatt Bi (in Reinecke's scheme). On the basis of the hoard of Hajdúböszörmény (from which one of our parallels comes,

47 H. Müller

—Karpe dated his „Königsdorf type" (in connection with which he referred to some specimens of our group)

48 in the chronological phase Hallstatt B,. Though some late varieties of this group may persist in Hallstatt B

2

, 39 ibid 4—5. 40 Sincere thanks are due to Miss Alison C. Harle, Curatorial Assistant, Greek and Roman Department, Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto, for valuable information, photographs, and drawings of the interior of the pommel-cups. 41 A bronzkor emlékei Magyarhonban, 1 (Budapest, 1886) plate 23:3. Cf. Holste, Fr., Zur jüngeren Urnenfelderzeit im Ostalpengebiet. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 26, (Berlin 1935) (quoted below as Holste 1935), pp. 57—78; see pp. 72—73. 42 See note 38, 5, left. 43 Cf. Holste, Fr., (1935) 72—73. 44 For an exact definition of this term see Müller

—Karpe (1961) 22—27. 45 ibid. 109 and plate 39, fig. 6. 46 ibid., pl. 40 C:2. Cf. pl. 39, fig. 3. See Foltiny (1964) 24. 47 Müller—

Karpe (1961) 36. 48 ibid., 37. 110