KOVÁCS TIBOR: TUMULUS CULTURE CEMETERIES OF TISZAFÜRED / Régészeti Füzetek II/17. (Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Budapest, 1975)

Notes

4

6In detail: BÓNA 1958, 211-243 - with typological table; MOZSOLICS 1967, 13-95. - See the typological table supplemented with the finds of the latest years: T. KOVÁCS, Relics of the Bronze Age in Hungary. - In print. 4

7 For the archaeological investigation of the historical event marking the date of the division of the Hungarian Middle and Late Bronze Age see KOVÁCS 1975. 4

8Cf. MOZSOLICS 1973, 12-89. - appropriate parts of the typological analysis; KEMENCZEI 1965, 110-114; KŐSZEGI 1968, 130-131. 4

9 An axe with a neckring came to light 30 cm deep in the topsoil from the cemetery. Only three little knots decorate it, and dates most probably to the Middle Bronze Age. 5

0Sickle-shaped pins were put together from two parts in the Late Bronze Age. The stem was placed into the holder-type-extension of the disc shaped head. See MOZSOLICS 1967, 84; T. KOVÁCS, Der Bronzehortfund von Mende. Fol. Arch. 26 (1975) - In print. 5

1 The double cone headed early phase of the Tumulus culture: HOLSTE 1938, 99, Pl. 43. no. 8; JILKOVA 1970, PI. 36. no. 15, PI. 88. nos. 3-4; FURMANEK 1973, 84-85, PI. 43. nos. 8. - This pin type appears in the northwestern part of the Carpathian basin during the Koszider period: DUSEK 1969. pi. 10. no. 10, whereas it spread to the east of the Danube only by the Tumulus culture: FOLTINY 1957, 2, 32, Pi. 6. no. 4; HAMPEL 1886-1896, PI. 224. no. 9. - The two examples of Tiszafüred are the first authentic appearances in the northern Plain area (PI. 19. no. 188/2 and Fig. 26). 5

2 We do not know its precise analogy. The sickle-shaped pins with large discs with sligthly bent stem must have been - its predecessor (see HANSEL 1968, 200.). The one from Tiszafüred is somewhat similar to disc headed handled pins of the Piliny culture (see KEMENCZEI 1967, 286-287.). 5

3Their number is uncertain because it is very difficult decide about bronze fragments deformed during cremation, whether they were children's bracelets with spiral discs or the remains of a ring. 5

4TOMPA 1934-35, 86, Pl. 34. nos. 27-29; MOZSOLICS 1967, 93; G. BALASA, Praveké osidlenie Gemera. Rimavska Sobota 1965. PI. 2. - The pieces in the Lovas hoard are the exceptions: VINSKI 1959, PI. 3. nos. 4-5. 5

5 KOVÁCS 1966a, 197; KEMENCZEI 1967, 292-293; KEMENCZEI 1969, 182. 5

6 For the shape and motive elements on tables of the pottery of the Koszider period see KOVÁCS 1975. 5

7

T. KEMENCZEI, Adatok Észak-Magyarország későbronzkori történetéhez. (Angaben zur Geschichte der Spätbronzezeit in Nordungarn.) Arch. Ért. 90 (1963) 178-179. 5

8

In detail: BÁNDI-KOVÁCS 1969-70. 107-111; KOVÁCS 1975. 5

9KALICZ 1958, 53, Pl. 1. no. 8, PI. 2. no. 9; I. BÓNA, Tiszakeszi későbronzkori leletek (Spatbronzezeitliche Funde in Tiszakeszi). HOMÉ 3 (1963) 15-16,Pl. l.no. l;TOCIK 1964,

PI. 30. no. 11;KÖSZEGI 1964,7,Pl. 1. no. 4; KOVÁCS 1966a, 166, PI. 7. no. 4, PI. 9. no. 14, PI. 22. nos. 1, 7; KEMENCZEI 1969, PI. 7. no. 10, PI. 10. no. 13, PI. 12. nos. 12, 16; KOVÁCS 1970, 28, Pl. 3. no. 10; R. SCHREIBER, A későbronzkori halomsíros kultúra emlékei Budapesten (Der Nachlass der spätbronzezeitlichen Hügelgräberkultur in Budapest). Arch. Ért. 98 (1971) 45, 48, Pl. 5. no. 5, Pl. 6. no. 1. 6

0 The scallopped rimmed dish of grave 106 is worth while to mention because it can be considered a predecessor of the similar dishes of the later Gáva culture: cf. T. KEMENCZEI, A gávai kultúra leletei a miskolci múzeumban (Funde der Gáva Gruppe in Miskolcer Museum). HOMÉ 10 (1971) 36, Pl. 1. no. 7. 6

1 Similar clothes decorations (?) are not known from anywhere else. 6

2 BENE? 1959, 53-54, Pl. 1. no. 8, Pl. 11. no. 2, Pl. 18. nos. 1 -2, ,pl. : no. 8; MOUCHA-TRNKA 1959, Fig. 235. no. 6; KOVÁCS 1966a, 193 and notes 113-114. 6

3 MOUCHA-TRNKA 1959, 637, Fig. 237; CUJANOVA-JILKOVA 1970, 13-14; TORBRÜGGE 1959, 88. 6

4

WILLVONSEDER 1937, Fig. 9. no. 10; É. JILKOVÁ 1958, Fig. 9. no. 9; BENES 1959, Pl. 11. no. 5, PI. 20. no. 6; MOUCHA-TRNKA 1959, Fig. 236. no. 1. 6

5CHROPOVSKY-DU&EK-POLLA 1960, 306, Fig. 4, 319, Fig. 8, PI. 19. no. 2; BÓNA 1963, Pl. 1. no. 4. 6

6 BENE? 1959, PI. 26. no. 8; CUJANOVÁ-JILKOVÁ 1970, PI. 24. 6

7Cf. KEMENCZEI 1967, 288 - with detaild notes. 6

8ÜUJANOVÁ—JILKOVÁ 1958, Fig. 5. nos. 2-3, Fig. 9. no. 11; TORBRÜGGE 1959, Pl. 81; MOUCHA-TRNKA 1959, Fig. 236. no. 7; - Cf. KOVÁCS 1966a, 196, note 212. 6

9 MOZSOLICS 1973,60. 7

0 WILLVONSEDER 1937, Fig. 8. nos 7-8; HOLSTE 1938, 100; HOLSTE 1953, 42; TORBRÜGGE 1959, 65; BENE& 1959, Pl. 33. nos. 2-7. 58