Szabó Miklós, Petres F. Éva: Decorated weapons on the La Tene Iron Age in the Carpathian Basin. (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 5; Budapest, 1992)
Notes
143 See Chapter I, p. 20 and p. 25 for the problems of the Waldalgesheim and postWaldalgesheim ornament. See note 134, as well as Chapter III, p. 40 for the analysis of the design of the Tapolca-Szentkút scabbard. 144 A. BULARD in DUVAL-KRUTA (1982) 157, ad Fig. 2 and 152. 145 Cp. ZIRRA (1971) 190, Fig. 8. 20-22. Cp. p. 25. 146 PETRES (1982) 164, 171, Fig. 14 (KoSice, Cat. no. 95). 147 Cp. the studies quoted in notes 131-133. 148 For a more detailed discussion, see Chapter III, p. 37. . 149 See the analysis Chapter III, p. 44. 150 STEAD (1984) 273, Fig. 3. 151 DE NAVARRO (1972) 216 ff; cp. STEAD (1984) 271-272. 152 D E NAVARRO (1972) 217-218; cp. STEAD (1984) 271. 163 Ibid. 154 DE NAVARRO (1972) 230; cp. ECA, 45. 166 KKM, 32; SZABÓ (1973) 762-766. 166 Münsingen, grave 138: HODSON (1964) 138, PI. 99. 157 Cp. DE NAVARRO (1972) 71 ff. 158 STEAD (1984) 273 ff and Fig. 3. 159 See notes 131-133. 160 A. BULARD, in DUVAL-KRUTA (1982) 149 ff. 161 STEAD (1984) 275. 162 MEGAW-MEGAW (1989a) 98; Dubnik (Nové Zàmky), from graves 15/82 and 31/84. See now BUJNA (1989) 282, Fig. 41. 1-2. 163 Ameglia, grave 11: DURANTE (1987) 423 ff, and Figs. 9. 10 and 12. 2. For the problems of dating import pottery, see notes 139-140. 164 A. BULARD, in DUVAL-KRUTA, (1982) 154, Fig. 6.2. 165 See the problems concerning the dating of grave 138 of the Münsingen cemetery (note 156). 166 MOOSLEITNER (1987) 93 (the suggested absolute chronology of around 350 B. C. is unacceptable); for the Münsingen type bronze fibula, see 94, no. 46. Cp. also HODSON (1968) Table 123, type 22 (Ornate F) and 29, Fig. 5. 167 Cp. notes 160-162; see also the Bonyhádvarasd scabbard (Cat. no. 4, and note 186). 168 Cp. Kosd, graves 15 (Cat. no. 30) and 16 (Cat. 31); Radostyán, grave 14 (Cat. no. 51); KoáiceBarka, grave 1 (Cat. no. 95) and Osijek/Eszék, grave 29. (Cat. 133.) We do not know the grave goods from grave 400 of PottenbrunnRatzerdorf (Cat. no. 80); typologically the sword is comparable to the sword from Kosd (Cat. no. 36; inv. no. HNM 22.928.1-2). Grave 4 of the Rezi-Rezicseri cemetery (Cat. no. 55) was disturbed; cp. also note 183. For chronological problems, see DE NAVARRO (1972) 82 ff; cp. SZABO (1974b). 169 See the sword scabbards from Halimba (Cat. no. 15) and Jutas (no. 3, Cat. no. 23), as well as Chapter III. p. 43 and 47. 170 See chapter III, p. 40, and the distribution map. The possibility of a local workshop is contradicted by the fact that the wholesome Celtisation of the territory only occurred in the La Tène B2 period; cp. SZABÓ (1988) 23 ff. 171 See note 134. 172 VITALI (1987) 348 ff, Figs 31a and 38a. 173 Quoted in note 134. 174 Cp. note 157. 176 See the studies quoted in notes 134 and 157. 176 See KRUTA (1985) 27-51, for the Gallic consequences of the withdrawal following the fiasco of the Balkanic invasion. 177 For a new drawing, see ZACHAR (1987) 14, Fig. 6. Cp. the scabbard from Münsingen, grave 138 (quoted in note 156). 178 See note 146. 179 Compared to the "canonic" type represented by the Münsingen scabbard (see note 156) which compares well with the dragon-pair swords from Radostyán, Koäice and Osijek (see note 168), this can be seen as a distinct variant. 180 This palmette is not organically linked to the basic schema of the ornament, even though the palmette motif does occur above the antithetic animal pair in the La Tène A period (e.g. SCHWAPPACH [1974] 106 ff and Fig. 3).
